Ng Kah Ting
Singapore
“Mr Speaker, Sir, before I ask my supplementary question, may I declare, on behalf of the Member for Kebun Baru and myself, that we are both involved in the building of Montfort Secondary School and Montfort Junior School both of which are Government-aided schools. My question now, Sir, is: when will this take effect?”
“But, Sir, at the end of this debate on the Second Reading and the Bill committed to a Select Committee, I sincerely hope that all those who have the interest of Singapore at heart should come forward and make their contributions, be they critical or ways and means on how better we can improve upon this Bill.”
“But the basic foundation, I submit, and that is, the political stability-honest, efficient and an incorruptible political leadership-is paramount to the future well-being of Singapore, and that is, if we are to continue to enjoy our good standard of living, our good government and of course as an independent, sovereign entity or nation.”
“Sir, I knew that the NCMP would come out and say that-don't mix up the ISA with PPSO because basically it is the same. I say, no. Because in 1958, PAP was not in power. It was the Lim Yew Hock government. That is the difference I am trying to make. So let us not go around in this wild political rhetoric. I understand that.”
“Sir, before I make my observations, I just want to make a couple of points in reply to the Non-Constituency MP, Dr Lee. He said that in 1958 when he was asked to stand as a PAP candidate in Kallang he was afraid of the ISA. I do not think that is quite correct because in 1958, Sir, there was no ISA.”
“We should take advantage of the present political stability to provide for the future. In conclusion, Sir, let me draw an analogy. With Singapore being the No. 1 port in the world, this analogy is not inappropriate.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,870 lines we hold for Ng Kah Ting, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 23 of 38.
“Minister to consider their opposing views rather than jumping the gun by forestalling their criticisms and saying that the opponents of this Bill would again come out with religious beliefs, religious dogmas and, may I say, "ethics", etc. - good, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education is here. In the schools today we teach ethics, we teach them what is right and what is wrong. In this august Chamber if a Member stands up and argues on the basis of ethics or ethical considerations, he would be shot down even before he is allowed to stand up to speak. Is this argument not considered as ethics? What sort of educational system do we want to evolve? If in the schools we teach ethics and, for ethical consideration in this august Chamber, what is the application? By the same measure. Therefore, this has given rise to a very curious situation, and as a result people sometimes ask me what we mean when we say "we are a pragmatic Government". They seem to think it means that we have no principles. In view of the refusal on the part of the Minister concerned even to discuss the ethical considerations of this Bill, can he blame the people for thinking in this way? Just now the Minister quoted you, Sir, when you were a Backbencher. With due respect to you, Sir, he tried to hand you a bouquet. But on the other hand, you told him then in no uncertain terms - if the impression I gather from the Hansard is correct - you would rather call it the Abortion (Restrictive) Act. In other words, why not call it "white" and "white" only, rather than call it a shade of grey or black. Come out with it! Sir, you told him that a few years ago, and today he says, Sir, that when you were the Member for Joo Chiat you supported the Bill. In fact, I do not think you supported the Bill.”
“There are laws with heavy penalties and fines for those who indulge in drug-taking, drug peddling or drug pushing. He can therefore be likened to a pair of Siamese twins trying to outbox each other. We have a situation where one Ministry fights against drug trafficking, permissiveness, drug-taking and against increases in the incidence of V.D, and gonorrhoea. Campaigns have been mounted. And the other Ministry says, "Yes, by all means, have abortions." Where is the logic? I do not follow. I do not know whether the argument that I put forward today will stand the test of time. If not, he will come out and say, "it has not stood and will be swept into the dustbins of history." If one looks up the 1969 debate on the Second Reading of the Abortion Bill, the Hon. Minister consistently fought back and declined a discussion of the points on what he called "religious or ethical dogmas". Any fundamental objection to the Bill was, he said, attributed to concealed religious premises, even though at least one of the Backbenchers, my good Friend the Member for Bras Basah, had said when he opposed the Bill in 1969 that he was a freethinker. I think he is still a freethinker, and he has just opposed this present Bill. If anyone wants to challenge the validity of my statement, Sir, I have got all the proof here. Sir, it is not yet five years since the last debate in December, 1969. My good Friend is sitting down and is enjoying a rest. Now, Sir, if any of the speakers on the Backbenches who had opposed the Bill had based their arguments on religious beliefs - for myself I have made it very clear and it is all in the Hansard - many of them did certainly base their objections on ethical considerations. I would expect the Hon.”
“If he wants a higher quality type of population in Singapore, then does he not realise that if he has a house - I am sure he has - he has got to employ servants or gardeners. Now what sort of quality of people does he want? He has a car. But who drives the car? Does anybody sit by his side in the car? Is the amount of remuneration the same? Why do they have a Government comprising the Cabinet? Why do they have Members elected to Parliament? Why do we have the white collar workers and blue collar workers? What sort of quality of the populace do you want to have? I do not understand that yardstick, and neither do many of my Friends on this side of the House. Therefore, the question is whether the Government is more concerned with human values of the society as a whole or whether Government is concerned with the efficiency of population control. The Minister has vigorously denied this, and he has given us some facts and figures. But from the facts and figures one can see that abortion is on the increase, whatever the age group. As I have said, this Bill actually means abortion on demand. If it is so, then I oppose it, because even though the Minister has vigorously tried to forestall the criticisms, the opponents to the Bill would say, "All right, if you have abortion on demand, then you are going to breed permissiveness." That is exactly so. Or can the Minister ascertain that this will not be so? I would like to point out to Members of this House that it is my belief that a permissive society inevitably breeds permissiveness and promiscuity, a word which the Minister has been trying hard to pronounce. And promiscuity further breeds diseases like gonorrhoea and V.D. Incidentally he is also the Minister for Home Affairs.”
“' Sir, I cannot follow or understand the explanation of the Minister concerned when he said that this new Bill before the House would further liberalise abortion. Towards the end of his speech on the Second Reading of this Bill, he said that he did not want to use the term "abortion on demand". The Minister can correct me if I am wrong. To my mind, this Bill is in fact a way out for women who are pregnant and who do not wish to have the child. In such cases the Bill says that abortion can be allowed. The Minister tried to whiz himself out of the debate by trying to forestall any argument and saying that - and I am not putting words into his mouth -all the criticisms of the opponents of the Bill spring from religious dogmas, etc. I am not going to be concerned with this particular aspect of the Bill, but I am going to talk on the ethical aspect of this Bill. In one of the deliberations about ethical considerations of the Abortion Bill, as recorded in Hansard, Volume 28, col. 878, the Minister himself referred to - and I quote: `Ethical, moral and social reasons form the second category. Based on religious premises, moral reasons arc advocated against abortions and these reasons are further extended to social issues.' There were ethical considerations. But that was a criterion. Here he has quoted the Prime Minister; Hansard, Volume 29, col. 348: `As has been stated by the Prime Minister, one of the social yardsticks by which we shall have to judge the results of the new abortion law, together with the companion sterilization law, will be whether it tends to raise or lower the total quality of our population.' Sir, I myself do not follow how the Minister could come to that conclusion.”
“Would have found itself in the dustbins of history. This is a very clever and shrewd way of trying to fettle down any criticism or comment for or against the Bill - more so in the case against the Bill. As for myself, I will be more tolerant. I would listen and say, "All right, what have you got to say?" Sir, if I may be permitted to start off by quoting the Minister for Health and Home Affairs when he summed up the debate on the Second Reading on the 10th April, 1969, before this Bill was committed to Select Committee. This is found in Hansard, Vol. 28, col. 1043. This is what the Minister said. I did not say it, but the Minister said it, and I quote: `We are not in favour of abortions on demand because, as I have stated in my opening speech, this may lead to recurrent demands for abortion and we know, as a medical fact, that repeated abortions result in a higher rate of mortality and morbidity.' Further down the column, Sir, I quote again: `Where is the abortion on demand? It is a fantasy that was flourished again and again by the opponents of this Bill.' Sir, I crave your indulgence to give me a little bit of time to get my notes right. The Explanatory Statement to the Bill says: `This Bill seeks to consolidate and amend the law relating to abortion by further liberalising that law in certain major respects and to repeal the Abortion Act.' And the last paragraph of the Explanatory Statement accompanying this Bill states: `Finally, it should be mentioned that it is intended that the legislation will no longer be of a temporary nature as is the existing Act. The Bill when passed will, therefore, become a permanent feature of our laws.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, that being the case, even then the stand that was taken would be cast into the dustbins of history.”
“There has been no misinterpretation, Sir. Anyway, I will give way.”
“No, Sir. He has got plenty of time to answer. He has got an hour to wind up the debate, but as I have only one hour to speak I have to make full use of my time, Sir.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Hon. Minister for Health and Home Affairs has made a very good analysis of this Bill in moving its Second Reading. But it is sad to note the way in which he has tried to forestall criticisms against the Bill by urging this House to give passage to the Second Reading and ultimately the Third Reading of this Bill. He has said something like casting all criticisms and the opponents of this Bill into the dustbins of history. Sir, one would expect a responsible Minister to be more tolerant of opposing views. I speak, Sir, for myself on this side of the Chamber. I do not use terminology such as "cast away into the dustbins of history". Sir, that being the case, any criticism against this new Bill before the House is deemed to be rubbish and, therefore, ought to be cast away. Mr Chua Sian Chin rose -”
“Sir, in order to save the Minister's time, I shall proceed straightaway with the other two questions. It just came to my mind the question of conservancy charges and rentals. In this respect, will the Minister indicate to the House as to whether conservancy charges and rentals are likely to be increased also? My next question is: in view of the oil crisis, there is a move to cut down wasteful use of electricity, may the House be informed as to what the Housing and Development Board is going to do about it?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister has just pointed out that building costs have gone up. Is it possible for him to elaborate on these increases? He mentioned increases in the cost of building materials as well as labour. If he elaborates on this, I shall follow up with another two questions.”
“ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD (AMENDMENT) BILL "to amend the Economic Development Board Act (Chapter 189 of the Revised Edition)", presented by Mr Hon Sui Sen; read the First time, to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. LAND TITLES (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 3.24 p.m.”
“CENSUS BILL "to revise the law relating to the taking of a census in Singapore from time to time and to repeal the Census Act (Chapter 297 of the Revised Edition)", presented by Mr Hon Sui Sen; read the First time, to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. RUBBER INDUSTRY BILL "to provide for the regulation and control of the manufacture of technically specified rubber and the packing and shipping of rubber for export and for matters connected therewith; and to amend the Rubber Association of Singapore (Incorporation) Act (Chapter 200 of the Revised Edition) and for the repeal of the Rubber Shipping and Packing Control Act (Chapter 201 of the Revised Edition)", presented by Mr Hon Sui Sen; read the First time, to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. INCOME TAX (AMENDMENT) BILL "to amend the Income Tax Act (Chapter 141 of the Revised Edition)", recommendation of President signified; presented by Mr Hon Sui Sen; read the First time, to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. SINGAPORE INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH BILL "to establish the Singapore Institute of Standards and Industrial Research; and to provide for the publication by the Institute of standards in relation to articles and processes: for the granting of licences for the use of the Certification Mark of the Institute; for the quality control of specified export commodities; for the promotion of industrial research; and for matters connected therewith", recommendation of President signified; presented by Mr Hon Sui Sen; read the First time, to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.”
“2) BILL "to amend certain Statutes of the Republic of Singapore", presented by the Minister for Finance (Mr Hon Sui Sen); read the First time, to he read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. STATUTES OF THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE (MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS) (NO. 4) BILL "to amend certain Statutes of the Republic of Singapore", presented by Mr Hon Sui Sen; read the First time, to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. PROPERTY TAX (AMENDMENT) BILL "to amend the Property Tax Act (Chapter 144 of the Revised Edition)", recommendation of President signified; presented by Mr Hon Sui Sen; read the First time, to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to he printed. JUDGES' REMUNERATION (AMENDMENT) BILL "to amend the Judges' Remuneration Act (Chapter 7 of the Revised Edition)", presented by Mr Hon Sui Sen; read the First time, to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. BUSINESS REGISTRATION BILL "to provide for the registration of persons carrying on business in Singapore and for matters incidental thereto; and to repeal the Business Names Act (Chapter 183 of the Revised Edition)", recommendation of President signified; presented by Mr Hon Sui Sen; read the First time, to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. STATISTICS BILL "to amend and consolidate the law relating to statistics and to repeal the Statistics Act (Chapter 299 of the Revised Edition)", presented by Mr Hon Sui Sen; read the First time, to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.”
“SERVICES' LANDS BOARD (REPEAL) BILL "to transfer the assets and liabilities of the Services' Lands Board to the Government of Singapore; and to repeal the Services' Lands Board Act (Chapter 284 of the Revised Edition)", presented by Mr E. W. Barker; read the First time, to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. URBAN REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BILL "to establish the Urban Redevelopment Authority and for purposes connected therewith", recommendation of President signified; presented by Mr E. W. Barker; read the First time, to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. BOUNDARIES AND SURVEY MAPS (AMENDMENT) BILL "to amend the Boundaries and Survey Maps Act (Chapter 265 of the Revised Edition)", presented by Mr E. W. Barker; read the First time, to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. MENTAL DISORDERS AND TREATMENT (AMENDMENT) BILL "to amend the Mental Disorders and Treatment Act (Chapter 162 of the Revised Edition)", presented by the Minister for Health and Home Affairs (Mr Chua Sian Chin); read the First time, to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. PRIVATE INVESTIGATION AND SECURITY AGENCIES BILL "to provide for the licensing and control of those persons who carry on the business of or act as a private investigator or carry on the business of a security guard agency; and for purposes connected therewith", recommendation of President signified; presented by Mr Chua Sian Chin; read the First time, to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to he printed. STATUTES OF THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE (MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS) (NO.”
“CIVIL LIABILITY (OIL POLLUTION) BILL "to make provisions with respect to civil liability for oil pollution by merchant ships, offshore facilities or onshore facilities, and for matters connected therewith; and to amend the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea Act, 1971 (No. 3 of 1971)", presented by Dr Ang Kok Peng; read the First time, to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. DESTRUCTION OF DISEASE-BEARING INSECTS (AMENDMENT) BILL "to amend the Destruction of Disease-Bearing Insects Act (Chapter 152 of the Revised Edition)", presented by the Minister for the Environment (Mr Lim Kim San); read the First time, to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. SINGAPORE SPORTS COUNCIL BILL "to establish the Singapore Sports Council and for matters connected therewith and to repeal the National Sports Promotion Board Act (Chapter 312 of the Revised Edition) and the National Stadium Corporation Act, 1971 (No. 14 of 1971)", recommendation of President signified; presented by the Minister for Social Affairs (Encik Othman Bin Wok); read the First time, to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. STATUTES OF THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE (MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS) (NO. 3) BILL "to amend certain Statutes of the Republic of Singapore", presented by the Minister for Law and National Development (Mr E. W. Barker); read the First time, to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. FISHERIES (AMENDMENT) BILL "to amend the Fisheries Act (Chapter 294 of the Revised Edition)", presented by Mr E. W. Barker; read the First time, to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to he printed.”
“I wonder if the Minister is aware that though it may not be for Punggol in particular, it is also meant for other beaches like Changi and Bedok as well. BILLS INTRODUCED 3.10 p.m. NATIONAL PRODUCTIVITY BOARD (AMENDMENT) BILL "to amend the National Productivity Board Act, 1972 (No. 11 of 1972)", presented by the Minister for Labour (Mr Ong Pang Boon); read the First time, to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. EMPLOYMENT (AMENDMENT) BILL "to amend the Employment Act (Chapter 122 of the Revised Edition)", presented by Mr Ong Pang Boon; read the First time, to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND (AMENDMENT) BILL "to amend the Central Provident Fund Act (Chapter 121 of the Revised Edition)", presented by Mr Ong Pang Boon; read the First time, to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. BUS SERVICES LICENSING AUTHORITY (AMENDMENT) BILL "to amend the Bus Services Licensing Authority Act, 1971 (No. 5 of 1971)", presented by the Minister of State for Communications (Dr Ang Kok Peng); read the First time, to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. TELECOMMUNICATION AUTHORITY OF SINGAPORE (AMENDMENT) BILL "to amend the Telecommunication Authority of Singapore Act, 1972 (No. 2 of 1972)", presented by Dr Ang Kok Peng; read the First time, to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.”
“Does not the Minister for Social Affairs remember that in the Estimates, a sum of not less than $50,000 has been allocated for this particular purpose?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, to put the record straight, does not the Member for Bras Basah, my good Friend, know that although Punggol may have a beach the Ministry of Social Affairs has plans in hand to develop that stretch of Punggol beach into a seaside resort? But, sad to say, I do not know whether he is aware of the fact that up till today nothing has been done.”
“No, Sir,I am given to understand by the Minister for Social Affairs that we would have to look for a site for a swimming pool. Now that the site has been found, we are told, "Look, such and such an agency is now taking charge of it, why not go to that agency." I do not know where to turn to in the end.”
“If that is the case, I would be grateful if the Minister for Finance would convey our request to the NSPB to look into the question of providing a swimming poo1 for the people in the Punggol/Upper Serangoon area.”
“Sir, what I wanted to know is whether or not the Minister is aware of the fact that the rural people are not well off, whereas the Government has been responsible for building swimming pools like those in River Valley, Yan Kit, except in new Housing Board estates. And as these pools were built by Government, why does the Government now stop building swimming pools and pass on the responsibility to the NSPB?”
“Sir, just now the Minister mentioned that Queenstown is getting its swimming poo1 through its own effort. May I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that the people in the rural areas are not that well off. We have had many campaigns to raise funds for certain projects, and more often than not we found that we had to rely on the people in the urban areas.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, would the Minister for Finance not agree with me that it is the Government's declared policy to provide more recreational facilities for the people, especially those living in the rural and suburban areas? If so, would he not consider that the construction of a public swimming poo1 in the Upper Serangoon/Punggol area a development project and therefore, notwithstanding its cost, provision should be included in the Development estimates?”
“(2) That the sum to be allocated for Head 1404 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 3003. Head 1406 -”
“(7) That the sum to be allocated for Head 1401 be reduced by $10 subhead 47.”
“(5) That the sum to be allocated for Head 1401 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 14. (6) That the sum to be allocated for Head 1401 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 17.”
“(3) That the sum to be allocated for head 1202 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 11.”
“sir, if overhead bridges are used, I see the justification in expendign public funds. But I would like to clarify the disagreement of the Minister when I say that maybe his PWD engineers looked for the easy way out. The easy way out simply means this. If there is a request for an overhead pedestrain crossing, then some period of time must be given to evaluate as to the need to put up the overhead crossing. That is to say, when such a crossing is put up, pedestrains will definitely make use of them. But if pedestrians do not make use of them, there is nothing more anyone can do about it. However, I quite agree with what else the hon. Minister has said just now, and I do not wish to prolong the argument. On that note, Sir, may I beg leave to withdraw my amendment? Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. In the absence of Tuan Haji Mohd. Ariff bin Suradi, the following amendments, standing in his name, were not proceeded with- (9) That the sum to be allocated for Head 1108 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (02) of subhead 38. (10) That the sum to be allocated for Head 1108 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (06) of subhead 38.”
“I have been to countries overseas where they have shops along subways and underpasses. I see that a lot of pedestrains when they wlak along these subways and underpasses, do look around. It will not be a dull moment. In the case of Singaproe, whilst it may be ture that some PWD engineers may say: "look, in Singapore the ground is a it soft and water-logged", I think Members will agree that there is a problem to be looked into. If we are to build unerpasses, it is up to the engineers and planners to think of ways and means to overcome such problems and ot merely taking the easy way out by saying, "All right, we build an overhead bridge. Whether or not the public makes use of it is not our concern. If they still want to run across the road instead of using the overhead crossing ro underpass, that is their fault." No, Sir, far from it. Because a lot of money has been spent on it, this matter has been brought up several times in this House. Moreover, Sir, there has been talk about introducing legislation against jaywalking. Id do nto think that that is a wise move, because I personally believe in relentless persuaion, especially in our schools, because our adult population may not pick up that habit easily, as can be seen at bus stops where instead of lining up they would clamber to get into the bus. This habit has got to be inculcated in the young. I hope the Minister concerned will give it every consideraton.”
“Mr Sepaker, Sir , I beg to move, That the sum be allocated for Head 1108 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 34. Sir, I remember that som hon. Memebers of the House have pointed out that in some places where pedestrain overhad bridges and underpasses. Sir, I would like to point out to Members of this House that whilst Government apportions public funds for the construction of overhaead pedestrain bridges. This could mean that pedestrians, instead of making use of such bridges, simply dash across the roads. I think I can best illustrate my point by citing the example of the overhead pedestrian bridge built near the unction of Tampines Road and Upper Serangoon Road, where there is a traffic light. There are several schools in the area, and I notice that, in the evenings oand sometimes in the mornings, very few students only seem to want to make use of the overhead crossing. The others will simply dash across to the middle of the road, stop short at the divider, and continue with their hazardous way of crossing the road. Sir, in spite of the safety-first campaigns having been mounted on a number of occasions, and for which our Minister of State for Education had the privilege to open, it still does not drive home the importanat point that Government constructs these overhead bridges and underpasses for the pedestrains to corss roads safely. Perhaps primary and secondary schools should be told to encourage their students to make use of such pedestrain crossings, because during peak hours traffic is very heavy and it is a danger to their safety if they do not make use of such crossing. Sir, I wonder whether the Minister will look into the possiblility fo condstructiong some shops along these underpasses so that it will attarct pedestrains to make use of them.”
“(6) That the sum to be allocated for Head 1107 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 51. Mr Ho Kah Leong: (7) That the sum to be allocated for Head 1107 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 52.”
“(5) That the sum to be allocated for Head 1107 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 43.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I should not take more than two minutes. In fact, most of what I intend to say have already been well covered by my two good hon. Friends, the Members for Sembawang and Jurong. I merely wish to suggest, for the consideration of the Minister concerned, that the sum of $3.25 million appropriated for the seven items be re-grouped as one block vote and allocate it to meet the more urgent requests, such as the making up of roads. I notice that there are revotes for items 03, 04 and 06. According to my calculation, the revotes amount to $1.2 million. If these revotes are absorbed, it will amount to more than $3.25 million. Therefore, I urge that consideration be given to re-group the various allocations for the seven items into one block vote for this subhead 32. Mr Hwang Soo Jin rose -”
“Sir, there is an amendment in the name of the Member for Jurong on the subject of hydroponics. I think it is out of order for the Member for Sembawang to raise it now.”
“Sir, the Minister has not replied to the Member for Changi's observation on heavier penalties.”
“I am happy to say that the complaints about piracy in international waters, especially near the Horsburgh Lighthouse, have somewhat reduced. Thanks to the relevant Government department for their prompt action. In view of all this, I wonder what the Minister has in mind to overcome all the problems.”
“And when tempers rise, you can bet that violence will result. Therefore I echo the plea of the Member for Changi that the Fisheries Department should take stronger measures to eradicate illegal trawling. I suggest that when the operators of illegal trawlers are caught, the Department concerned should press for stiffer sentences, not only to impose heavier fines but also to confiscate both the boat and fishing gear. This will, I hope, deter them. Thus, we would not only protect the livelihood of the inshore fishermen against threats but also prevent any serious consequences from arising, which the Member for Changi has rightly pointed out. Sir, another point I wish to raise is in regard to the United Nations Development Programme-sponsored Fishing Training Centre and the Fishing Training School Vessel. Members will notice that, in fact, a lot of money has been spent on the running of this project. The Government together with the T.JNDP have jointly organised courses to encourage more of our youths to take to the sea. I am told that there is good response to the courses run by the training centre. But when those who have attended such courses go out to fish, a good number of them simply leave the boats on their return. The main reason may be attributed to their having to stay for a long period away from shore, and sea-sickness. In this respect, after having spent a lot of money on training them, the net result is that only a handful really stay behind. This is therefore far from satisfactory. I am also told that a few companies are involved in offshore and deep-sea fishing activities. But a large proportion of their boats are actually otter trawlers. Most of these otter trawlers are based in Kangkar, which is part of my constituency.”
“Thank you, Sir. With regard to illegal trawling, I fully share the sentiments expressed by my good friend, the Member for Changi and I would also like to make a similar complaint to the Minister for Law and National Development. The Member for Changi just now mentioned that there has been illegal trawling operations along the east coast of the Republic, but I think it has extended to the north-east sector too, i.e, into the Straits of Johore. Sir, illegal trawling has caused considerable harm and is threatening the livelihood of a good number of inshore fishermen in my constituency. I believe complaints have been made to the Department concerned. Action, in fact, has been taken, but somehow these illegal trawlers come back. Members of this House have just heard a vivid illustration of what may eventually take place if no stern or proper action is taken to deprive these illegal trawlers of trawling not only in the Straits of Johore but also in the east coast. I am told that these illegal trawlers prowl the Straits of Johore only in the early hours of the morning between 4 a.m. and 6 a.m. I must make it clear that I was told that the Fisheries Division of the Primary Production Department has been watchful over this matter and that the Marine Police has also come into the picture. Sir, to give an idea of how the illegal trawlers operate, allow me to say this. These boats are pretty small, but quite highly powered. They are unlicensed boats and each is manned generally by three or four young men. When they are Out trawling, the boats are completely without lights. That is why in the process of this illegal trawling, they damage the surface nets and other fishing gear belonging to the inshore fishermen. Of course, when such things happen, tempers rise.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to speak on this amendment now, so that I do not have to move my amendment (3) *, which is on Fisheries? * The amendment reads as follows: (3) That the sum to be allocated for Head 1107 be reduces by $10 in respect of subhead 1261.”
“(7) That the sum to be allocated for Head 1001 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 2028. The amendments stood on the Order Paper Supplement as follows:”
“Thank you. Sir, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $27,666,940 for Head 0901 ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $10,671,900 for Head 0901 ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Pursuant to a resolution of the House, Mr Speaker thereupon left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House.”
“I do not think it is going to be very costly when Government acquires a piece of land for public development because it is in the interest of the public. In that respect, if I get the assurance of the Minister for Culture that he will look into all these aspects, then I will consider withdrawing my amendment.”
“As regards land availability, I think there is no problem. Even though there is a term known as "land-hungry Singapore" as mentioned by the Minister just now, I think the Government can easily acquire land if it wants to. We have seen this going on all the time. So there is no problem about that. What I wanted was that certain coastal parts with beautiful beaches be acquired so that holiday complexes can be built. The Minister also mentioned that holiday camps or complexes are only fully occupied during school holidays. I concede that that is true. But that, of course, proves one point, that during the school holidays everybody goes on holiday, especially parents who want to bring their children to the seaside, or some place like that. It also proves another point, that not everybody can take his holiday and use it by going to the seaside where the People's Association have got these holiday camps, because the children have to go 10 schools. So that is ruled out. But in all probability it may be that the organisations might want to make use of these holiday camps or chalets during certain weekends. Similarly, in that respect, where there is a great demand for these holiday camps at certain times or certain particular periods of the year, there would hardly be sufficient holiday camps or complexes to go round. The Minister said that partitioning may be one way to solve the problem. I would say that it may ease the problem a little but not totally solve it. I cannot agree with him in his assertion that it is difficult to look for land because, as I have mentioned just now, if Government wants to acquire a piece of land for public development it can do so at will. There is no question to that.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 0901 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 63. Sir, I welcome the proposal to replace old buildings and holiday camps at Changi and Tanah Merah with chalets and picnic pavilions with the provision of $200,000. This proves that holiday chalets are becoming more and more popular, and hence there are insufficient chalets to cope with the increasing demand for such facilities. On the question of booking holiday camps and chalets, it takes a long time for the People's Association to approve the application. Moreover, applications have to be submitted very early. I would also like to know from the Minister for Culture whether the People's Association is in the process of acquiring more land, especially in the coastal parts of our Republic, for the purpose of building more holiday chalets or picnic pavilions. Sir, I have pointed out to the House earlier that in an urbanised society like ours, there must be room for recreational facilities for those living in Housing Board flats. I would certainly hope that this is not the end of the holiday complex. I would like to see more holiday complexes being built for the people.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to make a point of clarification. The Minister mentions that the People's Association will take into consideration the request I made just now. I would now like to add to what he has said about the People's Association. I believe the Minister for Culture is the Deputy Chairman of the Board of Management of the People's Association. Therefore, when he says that such request will be taken into consideration, I hope that it will be realised. 6.30 p.m.”
“Thank you, Sir. Just now the Member for Anson asked the Minister for Culture when will colour TV be introduced. I would like to say, Sir, that it is all very well to introduce colour TV but the cost is in the region of $3 million. In actual fact, according to the Memorandum on the Main and Development Estimates, it will require $2.9 million. In introducing colour TV, I wonder whether the Minister for Culture takes into consideration the question of cost of colour TV sets to the viewer. In this respect, I wonder how many people will be able to afford the luxury of a colour TV set. To my mind, only a few will benefit, i.e, those who are well to do. When Government introduces colour TV, I take it as another form of social service for the benefit and enjoyment of the general public. Therefore, if the introduction of such a service is beyond the means of the majority of the people, due to the high cost of the set, I would say that such an introduction would be unwise. However, as a first step upon the introduction of colour TV, perhaps the Minister will consider installing colour TV sets at community centres for the general public. Will he also consider ways and means of reducing the high cost of such sets, so that more people can enjoy this new amenity? I am saying this because I do not wish the Government to give the impression to the general public that when such a service is introduced it is only for the benefit of the privileged few. Also, I hope the manufacturers will not take advantage of this new amenity by charging exorbitant prices for these sets. I am sure Members will agree with me that public money apportioned for such a purpose must be justifiably and worthily spent. That is to say, everybody, whether he is with or without any means, should benefit.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, can I again seek your permission to speak on this amendment, because just now my colleague, the Member for Anson, raised the question of colour TV? If I am permitted to speak now, I will not be moving amendment (12)*. * Amendment (12), standing in the names of Messrs Teong Eng Siong and Ng Kah Ting, reads as follows: That the sum to be allocated for Head 0901 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 12.”
“No, Sir. Whilst ASEAN may have other more urgent and important problems to deal with, I think this is just as important a problem for ASEAN. Whilst the Minister is very pessimistic over this issue, I would like to suggest that he brings it up, and if ASEAN members are agreeable, something may come Out of it. We should be optimistic, and should not be pessimistic.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I make a point of clarification? The Minister for Culture has just mentioned that films are being produced for the countries in Southeast Asia, and that unless the governments in Southeast Asia are concerned with the extent of violence portrayed in such films, and get together to work out a solution, there is nothing much that our Government can do. May I suggest, Sir, that since ASEAN has been dealing with all sorts of projects, such as tourism, would it not be good for its members and for us if ASEAN could set up a steering committee on film censorship with a view to cutting down violence? In this way, producing countries will realise there is no market for such films and they will thereby reduce acts of violence and terrorism in their films? Mr Jek Yeun Thong: Sir, the suggestion, of course, is a very good one. It is worth trying, but I doubt very much if we can get all the ASEAN countries to bring their minds to bear on this matter. They have got much bigger and more serious problems to deal with at the present moment.”