Lim Cheng Lock
Singapore
“Mr Speaker Sir, under subhead 003, a sum of $100 million will be provided to the Housing and Development Board. I believe this sum will be provided at an interest rate of 7¾ per cent. The Housing and Development Board, in assisting persons who wish to own Housing and Development Board homes, gives loans to persons purchasing H.D.B.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 92 be reduced by $10 in respect of item 001 of subhead 201. Mr Speaker, Sir, a token vote of $10 has been entered in this item for the development of an underground car park at the Padang.”
“Mr Speaker. Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 31 be reduced by $10 in respect of item 001 of subhead 101. Sir, the provision of over $1.7 million is for the construction of a luxury hotel adjacent to the Hotel and Catering Training Centre.”
“Sir, very briefly, what I wanted to find out from the Minister is whether he is aware that the sum of $100 million is being provided to the Housing and Development Board at an interest rate of 7¾ per cent, whereas the Board is giving loans to purchasers of flats at an interest rate of 6¼ per cent, which means that the Government is subsid…”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 51 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 911*. (* The same amendment also stood in the name of Mr Hwang Soo Jin) Sir, in moving this amendment, I wish to seek information from the Minister for Communications as to whether he proposes to introduce a television informat…”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to find out from the Minister whether there is a policy on the marking out of parking lots in the city area. As you are aware, Sir, recently the marking out of parking lots has been extended to places away from the central area.”
The complete record
Every one of 205 lines we hold for Lim Cheng Lock, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 4 of 5.
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head 0301 be reduced by $100. Mr Speaker, Sir, in moving this amendment, I wish to criticise the Government for its lack of courage and initiative in not having a clear policy on the operation and development of the public road passenger transport system. An hon. Member: Nationalise it.”
“Mr Speaker, on the point of the imposition of duty on sugar, the Minister has not given the House an answer.”
“But one point which I feel he may have overlooked is that for our export industry to be successful we will also have to depend on transportation. I believe that our Government has no control over freight rates and ships which call at Singapore, and that freight rates can be controlled by foreign shipping companies by increasing the rates for the carriage of goods from Singapore to export places, thus serving as a deterrent to our manufacturing industry. The Government has quite rightly been encouraging the development of the building industry in the private sector. According to the Minister's Budget Speech, the encouragement is mostly centred on those urban areas where sites have already been cleared for development, and this will not therefore create a problem. But I believe there are other sites in the urban areas where private enterprise would like to redevelop but are being hindered by the provisions in the Rent Control Ordinance, on which, I believe, the Member for Choa Chu Kang has spoken. I would suggest that the Minister look into this Ordinance to see whether he can repeal any provisions which hinder the development of the building industry and to bring the Ordinance up to date. Mr Speaker, Sir, I am disappointed to note that the Minister for Finance has not made certain provisions in this year's budget for Government's participation in the public road transport system. I will not dwell in detail on this subject at the moment, but I will raise it again in the Committee of Supply during the debate on the Deputy Prime Minister's Ministry. I feel that the road transport industry is the only public utility still in the hands of private enterprise with no Government participation at all.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Minister in his presentation of this budget, but I would not, like other Members, congratulate him on so doing. He has admitted that it has been his good fortune for the last two successive years not to have raised revenue by increases in the rates of taxation. For 1967 it has been not only his good fortune but I would say the good fortune of the people of Singapore that increased revenue is forthcoming because of the rising revenue in the major taxes. The only new tax which has been imposed is the change of the principle of the motor vehicle tax and also the increased rate in driving licence fees. Sir, when we were in Malaysia, there were two very controversial taxes. I refer to the sugar and diesel taxes. When these taxes were imposed in the Malaysian Parliament, I believe that our Government leaders very vigorously opposed these two forms of taxation. I would like the Minister for Finance to explain to this House why it is necessary to continue imposing customs duty on sugar which is a basic essential food of the people. I am not aware that we have started a sugar refinery. Perhaps the Minister can enlighten us on this. The other controversial tax which was imposed on the people of Singapore during the Malaysia period was the diesel oil tax. This affected the cost of living of our people with increased costs in electricity, the manufacturing industries and our transport industry. I would also like the Minister to explain why the imposition of this duty should continue. Mr Speaker, Sir, I will now touch on one point with regard to export incentives which was not covered by the Minister for Finance in his Budget Speech. I would say that the incentives proposed are very attractive to the manufacturing industry.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, it is acknowledged that the continuance of the common currency and banking arrangements is of mutual interest to both countries. Will the Minister kindly indicate whether there is any likelihood of a fresh approach being made to resolve this arrangement? Mr Lim Kim San: We are still leaving the door open, Mr Speaker, Sir. As I said, the matter is not finalised until 12th June, 1967. I have in my letter requested for alternative proposals if they have alternative proposals. We are always, within reason, ready to talk as long as the basic assumptions are agreed on. I have spelt out what the basic assumptions are and we are at any time ready to come and talk. Mr Teong Eng Siong rose -”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, could the Minister for Finance reveal to this House the contents of the draft agreement which the International Monetary Fund helped to draft, and what were the differences which were unacceptable to the Singapore Government?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the decision to issue separate currencies as from 12th June, 1967, was announced separately both in Kuala Lumpur and Singapore on the afternoon of 17th August, 1966. In view of the vital importance of this matter, could the Minister say whether there is any reason why a Ministerial statement explaining the differences and the circumstances which led to the breakdown of negotiations was not issued when Parliament met on the afternoon of 17th August? Mr Lim Kim San: Mr Speaker, Sir, correspondence and memoranda, as I said, will be published in a White Paper and tabled here later on. If the hon. Member has a chance later on to look at them, he will notice that in my letter to the Minister of Finance, Malaysia, I did ask whether he had any alternative arrangements to ensure that we would have, all the time, indisputable ownership and control of our assets other than the suggestions that I put forward to him. Therefore, at that time, I was still hoping that the door would be open for negotiations, and I thought it might prejudice whatever chances we might have had of coming to an agreement if a statement were to be made then.”
“For the time being, yes. INSTALLATION OF STREET LIGHTS IN ZION ROAD AND LOWER DELTA ROAD 10. Madam Chan Choy Siong asked the Minister for Law and National Development whether and when street lights will be installed in Zion Road and Lower Delta Road. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development (Mr Ho Cheng Choon) (for the Minister for Law and National Development): Mr Speaker, Sir: (a) The portion of Zion Road from River Valley Road to Zion Close was provided with street lights after it was declared a public street. However, the remaining portion of Zion Road from Zion Close to Kim Seng Road is still a private road. Street lights will be installed when this portion of the road is made up under section 90 of the Local Government integration Ordinance. (b) The portion of Lower Delta Road from Delta Circus to just before Bukit Ho Swee Junction has already been provided with street lights. Street lighting for the remaining portion of Lower Delta Road near Tiong Bahru will be installed in the next three months. MAKING UP OF HUANG LONG ROAD 11. Mr Teong Eng Siong asked the Minister for Law and National Development when will Huang Long Road in Sembawang be made up.”
“We have not heard one good, valid reason why the workers or the N.T.U.C. oppose section 24A (4) of the amendment. I think our national trade union leaders have failed to understand the present approach and thinking. I think they have failed to understand that they are no longer dealing with a colonial Government, but a free and independent Government who has got the interest of the people at heart. Why do they oppose the proposed amendment? I personally feel that there is nothing wrong in this legislation. If a union wishes to take industrial action and if it has legitimate reason to do so, by all means go on strike. By all means have a strike ballot. If their reasons are valid and if they have the support of the workers, why should they fear this amendment? It is this very amendment that is necessary to regulate irresponsible employers and also irresponsible trade union leaders who take advantage of the slightest reason to go on strike, with the result that the public suffers. We have seen many cases of this. I am also pleased to note that this Bill gives adequate power to the Registrar to deal with irresponsible trade union leaders who do not abide by the rules of their union. I believe we have seen a recent case in the High Court of workers against workers to seek redress, at painful expense of legal fees to the legal profession. I am sure that if this Bill had been introduced then, such action would have been unnecessary and the workers would have been spared the expense of having to take High Court action.”
“I rise to support this Bill. I think it is a good Bill and one which not only protects the workers but also the public in general. The trade union leaders on this side of the House have bitterly criticised the Government on the proposed amendments. A lot of slogan-shouting has been made, but -”
“I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $1,450,630 for Head 0901 ordered to stand part of the Second Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for 1966. Question, "That the sum of $1,450,630 shall be supplied to the Government under the head of expenditure for the public services shown in the Second Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for 1966 contained in Paper Cmd. 16 of 1966", put, and agreed to. Resolution to be reported. Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House.”
“One more point I would like to raise is that when the third phase of re-registration commences, which is meant to re-register the general public, here again I feel that the Citizens' Consultative Committees of the constituencies together with the Member of Parliament of the constituency, should be consulted and their assistance sought in providing suitable places in each area where the general public have least inconvenience in having their cards re-registered. Likewise, the Ministry should also look into the different language speaking groups and send the language speaking group concerned to attend to the people. This will save a lot of trouble in the language problem.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Ministry of Labour is seeking a supplementary vote of $1,450,630 and I feel this House is entitled to a more detailed explanation from the Minister as to how this supplementary sum is required, which is about 140 per cent more than the original estimate of $1 million when the Budget was approved in December last year. The next point I would like to raise is that the first and second phases of re-registration are now in progress and I have come to understand that in certain cases during the re-registration of school children, forms had been filled in by the parents and submitted to the registration teams, and when the pupil received the new identity card back, the information contained therein was different from that provided by the parents. When this was drawn to the attention of the registration team, the school teacher was told that they could not do anything about it and that the pupil would have to go to Empress Place. This may be an isolated case, but I feel that if the people working in the registration teams are not careful in writing out the new identity cards, the public may be put to unnecessary inconvenience, not through their fault, of having to go back again to Empress Place for correcting the new identity card. Here I hope that the Minister will tell the registration team to be absolutely careful when writing out these cards for issue. Another point which I would like to raise is that since our new identity cards are important documents, some care should be taken in writing the information on them clearly. There are some cards which have been written on and scratched and rewritten again, and I think this is not desirable.”
“I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $28,312,040 for Head D 08 ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.”
“Yes, Mr Speaker. Apparently the Member for Changi beat me to it yesterday evening. 7.15 p.m. Mr Speaker, Sir, I think a lot of praise has been sung for the Housing and Development Board. In fact, it has been over-emphasized, but there is one sector in the P.W.D., I think, which has been going on quietly developing, widening and generally improving the roads for the people of Singapore. So far it has not been acknowledged except by the Member for Changi yesterday. I think it is only proper that the good work done by the engineers and staff of the P.W.D. for the people of Singapore should go down on record. I think we should be grateful to them for the fine stretches of roads that they have laid and are laying, otherwise the movement of traffic will be impeded and we will not be able to get to our destination on time. I think this is another achieve ment we should be proud of, besides housing.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head D 08 be reduced by $100. Mr Speaker, Sir, when I filed in this amendment, I had in mind congratulating the Public Works Department on the ---”
“Mr Speaker, I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The following amendment stood in the name of Mr R. A. Gonzales --- That the sum to be allocated for Head D 08 be reduced by $10 in respect of item 009 of subhead 015.*”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head D 08 be reduced by $10 in respect of item 005 of subhead 015. This scheme to convert Orchard Road into a one-way system (including New Road and Intersections) will affect my constituency and that of the Minister for Finance, and I would like to know if the Minister could give us some details of this scheme as to how they are going to convert Orchard Road into a one-wav system and where they propose to site the new road and intersections.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I did not say withdraw the contributors' provident fund. I said to come to an arrangement whereby their contributions can be used as a surety. That does not mean a withdrawal.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, can I make a point of clarification?”
“If this plan is possible, there would be over 14,000 contributors who would be able to buy homes without a down-payment, by using their contributions in the Central Provident Fund as a surety. I hope the Minister for Law and National Development could look into this possibility.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the policy of the Housing Board for the previous five years was to build sufficient units of houses to meet the demands of the people of Singapore. I believe when the First Five-Year Plan was completed, it did satisfy the needs of our people. Now we are embarking on the Second Five-Year Plan, and in this item there is a sum of $45 million for loan to the Housing and Development Board to carry out this Second Five-Year Plan. I propose to the Minister that our policy for this Plan should be for more of our people to own their own homes. I believe with the improved standard of living and the economic position of our country today, this is a possibility. In the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's Address on the policy debate, I mentioned that one of the difficulties the people who wish to own their own homes would face is the down-payment which a person would have to pay before he could own a home. I asked the Minister in charge if he could look into the possibility of whether contributors to the Central Provident Fund, who have sufficient funds standing to their credit, could use their funds as surety to buy one of these Housing Board homes. This means that if that person's money can be used as a surety, he would have to pay slightly more instalments over a period of, say, 10 to 15 years. And if this is possible, I am sure there will be more people who would be able to own their own homes and thus assist the Government financially, in that they do not have to seek more money to build homes and then rent them out to people who can afford to buy these homes on instalments. According to the latest report of the Central Provident Fund Board which has just been released, No. S 13 of 1965, there are over 14,000 contributors who have over $900 in their savings.”
“I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“What I am trying to ask the Minister is that if a place has to be earmarked for a parking place, then due consideration should be given to the occupiers of houses or shops in that area first.”
“Mr Speaker, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head D 07 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 009. Mr Speaker, Sir, subhead 009 is in respect of the installation of Parking Places including Kiosks and Signs. I would like to ask the Minister whether there is a Committee in existence which meet and approve new parking places to be installed; if so, whether due consideration can be given to the business premises in the area, because where the space in front of such premises is taken up for parking, this in a way jeopardises the business. In many constituencies, I believe that the owners or occupiers of houses find it very difficult either to carry on with their business or their private affairs, because the area in front of their houses is being used for parking places. I would like to ask the Minister to consider whether some consideration could be given to occupiers of such premises or business concerns by providing certain parking lots free for common use; that is to say, without all the parking lots being taken up. Another suggestion is that if the parking lot in front of a house is taken up, the resident can get priority to use another parking lot by paying a monthly fee, so that there is no restriction on the resident's use of the place.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head D 04 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 031. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask the Minister for Health how many markets he proposes to build with the $900,000, where are they to be sited; and in view of the implementation of the new Hawkers' Code, can he let us know whether most of the hawkers will be accommodated in these new markets and what about those hawkers who are now in unauthorised places and on the roadside?”
“I am not moving. The sum of $16,253,000 for Head D 02 ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head D 03 -”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, on this item of the Extension of Ticketing Offices on which a vote of $82,500 is being sought for, I would like to draw the attention of the House and also of the Deputy Prime Minister to the Federal Development Estimates of 1965 in which a sum of $82,500 has been approved in respect of the conversion of the V.I.P. car-park into office space. And then earlier on in this Session, in Cmd. Paper 24 of 1965 a vote of $42,500 has been approved for the conversion of the V.I.P. car-park into office space. And here again in the Development Estimates, a further sum of $82,500 has been requested for the extension of Ticketing Offices. I just want to seek clarification as to whether all these are in respect of one and the same item.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to add a few words to this item. I think consideration should be given as to whether there is justification in spending $100,000 now, and possibly at a later stage the House would be asked to approve another $100,000 for the plan cost. I understand that at the present moment the hangar is being occupied by certain airlines as a cargo complex. Even if a conversion is made, it is not going to satisfy present and future needs as a cargo complex. With the present trend in air cargo, as I understand it, larger planes with palletised loading are due in Singapore Airport early next year. And definitely with this trend in cargo movement, there is no justification in spending this money because it will be totally inadequate for the needs of the airline operators. Therefore, I think, in the interest of long-term planning, a new cargo terminal would best be considered.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the Minister has misunderstood me. I only asked him to impose a registration fee for a citizenship certificate, and not for a birth certificate where the applicant would have to pay $2 to obtain registration of his child.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for head 0901 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1001. Mr Speaker, Sir, earlier in this Session the Minister for Labour introduced the National Registration Bill which was passed by this House. That Bill empowers the Minister to take steps to re-register the people of Singapore into two categories - one for citizens and the other for non-citizens. I will give him credit for imposing a fee of 50 cents on citizens, and I would say that imposing a fee of $1 on non-citizens is very generous when we consider the amount of money we need to provide social services for our people. Mr Speaker, Sir, identity cards, birth certificates, and citizenship certificates are all now very important documents. The birth certificates at present issued are very flimsy and can be destroyed easily, and so are our citizenship certificates. I would ask the Minister to consider whether he would also take steps to provide better quality material for our birth certificates and citizenship certificates, possibly like those plastic laminated cards which he proposes to introduce for the identity cards. At the present moment, I believe that a person does not pay a fee for the registration of citizenship. A payment of $2 is being imposed as a stamp fee to legalise the document. This may possibly be so when citizenship was introduced years back and when all Parties were trying to vote-catch the public and, therefore, a fee was not imposed. But as citizenship is now an important document for the many good things that the Government will provide. I feel it is time that we should also impose a nominal fee for registration of citizenship, and I would ask the Minister to consider this.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 0401 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 3004. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Ministry of the Interior and Defence is asking this House for a block vote of $30 million for special expenditure for the Armed Forces. According to the information in the Federal Budget Statement, it is stated that details are yet to be finalised. What I want to seek is an assurance from the Minister for Finance and also the Minister of Defence that the money is properly spent.”
“I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $1,369,410 for Head 0305 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.”
“Ex-colonial masters. I refer to the current arrangement whereby Singapore-destined passengers are required to clear immigration formalities at the first port of entry in Malaysia and, vice versa, Kuala Lumpur-destined passengers in transit from Singapore are required to clear immigration formalities in Singapore. This, I understand, is not satisfactory, more so now that Singapore is an independent country. Will the Deputy Prime Minister please consider taking steps to revise the procedure? Mr Speaker, another item concerning immigration is that Singapore is still depending on Malaysian and British embassies to grant visas or entry permits to people wishing to enter Singapore. This procedure should be remedied as soon as we open up our own overseas missions. Complaints are being received that applications for approval for visas and entry permits by intending tourists and businessmen to Singapore are unduly and unnecessarily delayed at Bangkok and Hongkong. In view of the volume of passenger traffic between these two places and Singapore, would the Deputy Prime Minister consider the posting of passport officers at these places?”
“I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head 0305 he reduced by $100. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would ask the Deputy Prime Minister to inform the House when it is likely that a new Singapore passport will be issued. As Singapore is now an independent country, it is most undesirable to continue using the Malaysian passport longer than is necessary. It is a risky business. As you are aware, the Alliance Council has recently announced their intention to withdraw facilities to Singapore students overseas. There is no guarantee that the same intention may not apply in this case. If that happens, very many more of our citizens will be affected. I would ask the Deputy Prime Minister to hasten the issue of our own national passports. Mr Speaker, Sir, another item which I would like to bring up in regard to the Immigration Department is that they are still operating on outdated procedures and regulations inherited from our colonial masters.”
“I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 0305 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 2013. Mr Speaker, Sir, a sum of $72,000 is being provided for passports. Will the Deputy Prime Minister please inform the House whether this item of expenditure is in respect of new issues of Singapore passports? Dr Toh Chin Chye: That is true, Mr Speaker. The sum provided for is for the cost of printing new passports which are now being ordered from a firm in London.”
“Mr Speaker, with due respect to the Deputy Prime Minister, when the passengers have been in the plane and have been flying for a few hours, most of them are more or less deaf. I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $5,453,310 for Head 0304 ordered to stand part of the Estimates. Head 0305 -”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 0304 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 2006. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government is spending about half a million dollars in expenditure to attract tourists. Yet the Airport Administration has badly neglected to provide proper identity facilities either at the land-side or the air-side to identify our country, Singapore. Mr Speaker, Sir, if you visit the Airport, you will notice on the porch of the new terminal building in bold lettering "International Passenger Terminal" without reference at all to Singapore. In an important place like this, I consider an identity most desirable, especially so now that Singapore is an independent country.”
“Mr Speaker. Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 0304 be reduced by $10 in respect of item 3 of subhead 2001. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to seek information from the Deputy Prime Minister as to what type of laundry service is being incurred in respect of the $5,000.”
“In view of the assurance by the Deputy Prime Minister, I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“The various shops at the Airport are let out on concession, and the prices charged in these shops are generally higher than those charged in the city. In particular, transit passengers shopping in the Transit Lounge frequently complain about price levels, particularly those passengers who, on previous occasions, have actually stopped over in Singapore. Passengers who regularly transit at Singapore frequently ask their friends to do their purchasing in the City and bring the goods to the Airport, as they know that the prices charged in the Airport shops are excessive. Mr Speaker, Sir, in view of what I have said and in the interest of the public and the country, I urge the Deputy Prime Minister seriously to consider conducting an inquiry into the activities of the Director of Civil Aviation, Mr Tan Beng San, and the commercial aspects of the Department of Civil Aviation, and to take appropriate action against the person or persons responsible for the maladministration. It surely must be the objective of the Government to ensure that the Singapore Airport is a showpiece and an attractive gateway for tourist traffic visiting the State of Singapore. Before I close, Mr Speaker, Sir, the irons of all this is that the Airport restaurant concession is run by a Mr Neo Tai Kim. The duty-free liquor and cigarette shop licensee is also a Mr Neo Tai Kim. I believe this Mr Neo Tai Kim also operates the Shamrock Hotel which is in my constituency. It is a bit fishy when I find that officials of the Department of Civil Aviation have parties at the Shamrock Hotel. 4.30 p.m.”
“Surely it is unthinkable for the D.C.A. to give protection to the concessionaire to fleece the public. When evening comes and the restaurant is turned into a night club, prices are increased further and the premises are crowded with large numbers of youngsters who are aware that the premises remain open until the early hours of the morning. During this period it is very difficult for passengers and persons having essential business at the Airport to obtain service. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to say here that I am not against the operation of a night club, but I feel that with the restricted facilities at the Airport where the place is meant as a restaurant for passengers who use the Airport, the night club, if it has got to be a night club, can be operated elsewhere. In this respect, I would also like to quote the Prime Minister's recommendation that night clubs should be for foreigners so that we can earn their money but our youngsters should go to bed early and have physical jerks in the morning so that they can keep fit. I believe the granting of concessions is decided by a Committee under the chairmanship of Mr Tan Beng San. Surely in an area as important as this, a high-powered committee should be established and advice sought from airlines and other commercial concerns prior to a concession being granted. Surely also some provision should be made for persons tendering for concessions to guarantee that the price levels at the Airport will not exceed general prices in the State. I urge the Deputy Prime Minister to review the composition of the Airport Commercial Committee and have it reconstituted, so that there can be proper control over all the various aspects of commercial activities at Singapore Airport.”
“Acceptance of these favours, Mr Speaker, Sir, will no doubt weaken their negotiating power in protecting the interest of the people of Singapore. In May 1964 the new Passenger Terminal Building was opened. Before it was opened, various airlines operating through Singapore protested to the Director of Civil Aviation, Mr Tan Beng San, about the manner in which the restaurant had been run in the old terminal building. These airlines made strong representations that the concession for the restaurant in the new terminal building should not be given to the same person by the name of Mr Neo Tai Kim, who exercised the right in the old terminal building, on the grounds of very inferior service and malpractices. However, these representations were ignored by the Director of Civil Aviation, Mr Tan Beng San, and the airline operators were most disappointed at this. And to crown it all, the D.C.A. saw fit to grant a further concession to operate the duty-free liquor and cigarette shop at the new terminal building. This new company called Sharikat Malaysia, which was formed to conduct this business, had no previous experience in the handling of liquor and cigarettes. Now I would like to touch on the Airport restaurant. This is let out on the basis of a concession, but after 10 p.m, each evening it functions as a night club, remaining open until the small hours of the morning, long after other such establishments in Singapore are closed. During the day the prices charged in this restaurant are excessive, particularly for refreshments. For example, the price of a cup of coffee or a bottle of coca-cola is 60 cents. For a public place like Singapore Airport, where the concession is virtually a monopoly, the charge of 60 cents is, to say the least, extortionate.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to he allocated for Head 0304 he reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1001. Mr Speaker, Sir, prior to Malaysia when the Department of Civil Aviation in Singapore was under the charge of the Deputy Prime Minister, it functioned well without much criticism. There was expansion of facilities both from an operational and commercial point of view. The standard of service was high and the integrity of the Department of Civil Aviation staff was unquestioned. After Singapore became part of Malaysia in September 1963, when the control of the Department of Civil Aviation was vested with the Kuala Lumpur Government, the amenities provided for passengers and members of the public meeting passengers at Singapore Airport leave a very great deal to be desired. A number of serious criticisms have been levelled at the Airport Administration, and I feel it my bounden duty to voice it here, with the hope that the Deputy Prime Minister will inquire and take the necessary action to put things right. During the last two years a number of senior officials of the Department of Civil Aviation have accepted complimentary air trips offered by foreign airlines for their personal pleasure. These officials include the Director of Civil Aviation, Mr Tan Beng San, the Airport Manager, Mr Devan, and the Airport officer-in-charge of the Police, Ungku Adam. In an independent Singapore, the same officials will be responsible for negotiating traffic rights granted to foreign operators, very possibly those same foreign operators who have extended hospitality to the officials concerned in the Department of Civil Aviation.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the provision contained in clause 12 is going to affect many thousands of bona fide Singapore citizens who have birth certificates, but without names. Although the Minister has given the House an assurance that sub-clause (3) shall not necessarily be sufficient evidence for the purposes of sub-clause (1) and the officers in charge will be given discretion, I am afraid this will definitely open the door to corruption. I would like to seek the Minister's assurance that he will consider making special regulations, which I believe he is empowered to do in this Bill, for those citizens who were born here but who have no names on their birth certificates, and for special centres and special offices to deal with this category of persons. The Chairman: Are there any other Members who wish to speak on this clause?”
“Yes. That is what I am going to do. Question proposed, "That clause 12 stand part of the Bill."”
“In view of the explanation, I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $201,320 for Head D 13 ordered to stand part of the First Supplementary Development Estimates of Expenditure for 1965.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head D 13 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 002. Mr Speaker, all I wish is to obtain information from the Minister as to where these four post offices are to be sited.”
“I am drawing the attention of the Backbenchers on this side of the House who are trade union leaders and active leaders in the N.T.U.C. I quote here again the same Hansard, col. 13, third paragraph, on the same subject: `Our workers must understand that the creation of industries and job opportunities will in a large measure depend upon their capacity for hard work and disciplined performance in factories,...'; and I go on to the last paragraph: `This means that people with industrial capital, managerial talent and the manufacturing know how must be assured of sane and stable labour conditions and trade unions do not indulge in obstructionist policies or stoppages of production for reasons of political manoeuvre.' Mr Speaker, Sir, I have quoted all these passages in support of Government's policy and I believe that workers must sacrifice in order that other workers should get employment. It would be reassuring for trade union members on this side of the House to support Government in that policy. Mr Speaker, Sir, in conclusion, I wish to associate myself with the sentiments that have been expressed in thanking the Yang di-Pertuan Negara for delivering his policy speech. 5.47 p.m.”