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 26 of 38.
“Sir, the Minister of State has just explained that the Antipollution Unit is primarily concerned with air pollution and that queries on other forms of pollution such as noise, should be referred to the appropriate authority. But I think that this Unit should not confine itself to air pollution. For the moment, it may confine itself to air pollution, but as I have mentioned just now, it should co-ordinate its activities with other departments though the Minister of State has also pointed out that the Unit acts as a co-ordinating body for such activities. What I would like to point out are the important functions this Unit will be performing and is now performing. With a few officials - the Head of the Unit, a couple of engineers and scientists - I doubt that much can be done for the present. Even with the loss of Government revenue through encouraging industries to install anti-pollution devices or equipment to reduce air pollution, I would say that the price Government is paying for is well worth it because, in the long run, what little is saved at the moment, will save us a much higher price later on. In this respect, will the Minister of State see to it that more trained officers are recruited into this Unit? The Minister of State has also failed to answer my point with regard to the three scientists who were sent overseas- one to Australia, one to America and another to Europe and of whom the Minister of Defence mentioned as a high-calibre team. I suppose these three specialists must have returned with bagfuls of ideas on the various measures of countering pollution. Will the Minister of State care to elaborate on this? Tuan Haji Ya'acob(In Malay): As I said just now, Mr Speaker, Sir, this Anti-Pollution Unit was recently established.”
“Sir, it is indeed highly commendable that Singapore is tackling this pollution problem seriously and at a much earlier stage than many other developed countries like the United Kingdom, the United States of America and Japan, which only recently began to grapple with this problem, long after it has become an environmental hazard. Another minor observation, if I may hasten to add, is that, although this Unit has been charged with a very high responsibility, its entire staffing position, ranging from the Head of the Unit right down to the office boy comes to a total strength of only 23 persons. In other words, this Unit appears rather small to be able to co-ordinate its activities against air pollution, pollution of water-ways, etc. I, therefore, hope that the Minister of State will be good enough to throw some light on the measures which are being taken or will be taken to ensure that Singapore will be pollution free.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 0201 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1041*.(* The same amendment also stood in the name of Mr P. Govindaswamy.) Sir, during the Budget debate last year, my colleagues, the Members for Mountbatten and Telok Blangah, expressed their views on this important set-up, the Anti-Pollution Unit, within the Prime Minister's portfolio. Whilst their observations are noteworthy, I would like to seek further elucidation from the Minister of State, Prime Minister's Office, on the scope, function, and future planning of this very important Unit. Sir, the Minister of Defence, who was speaking for the Prime Minister during the Budget session last year, disclosed that this Unit, comprising a team of three scientists of very high calibre, exists in the Public Works Department. I quote from Hansard dated 18th March, 1971, Vol. 30, No. 12, col. 790: `... - all three of them - have gone abroad to study air pollution problems; one to Australia, the second to America, and the third to Europe.' He also mentioned that their functions were not those of an enforcement nature but purely to study the problems and to establish monitoring stations, make recommendations to the Prime Minister on matters of policy, including legislation, and advise on measures that suit our situation best. In this respect, perhaps the Minister of State would care to enlighten this House as to whether any recommendations from this top calibre, high-powered team of scientists have been submitted to the Prime Minister. As a consequence, will any measures be taken by this Unit, on a long-term basis, to ensure that our City state will not be faced with the hazards of pollution?”
“Sir, I am grateful to the Minister for his detailed reply. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $996,350 for Head 0108 ordered to stand part of the Estimates. Head 0201 -”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 0108 be reduced by $10 in respect of sub- head 2006. Sir, I am seeking information similar to what I sought just now. Since this item concerns legal fees, claims and Costs for all departments, will the Minister concerned inform this House as to the number of claims and costs awarded, the departments involved, and what action has been taken against those found guilty, wholly or partially?”
“Sir, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the Minister has not replied to my other point, that is, the extent of injuries to persons. In respect of claims, I note that there were 97 cases involving vehicles from the Ministry of Defence, 43 from the Public Health Department, and 20 from the Police. The total number is less than 200. But last year this House had occasion to hear Members' views that drivers of Government vehicles should take more care on the roads. Much has been done to prevent accidents, by way of road safety campaigns as well as industrial safety campaigns. Therefore, to this extent, I would like to inquire whether the Ministries or departments concerned would seriously take note of the number of cases involving them, because to my mind the figure is still quite high.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 0108 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 2001. Sir, this item concerns accidents involving Government vehicles. I would be grateful if the Minister for Law and National Development would care to indicate the number of vehicles involved in accidents in the last financial year, the cost of damage to these vehicles, which departments are involved, and whether action has been taken against those found negligent, and what is the extent of injuries to persons, if any. 3.00 p.m.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister of State for Finance mentioned domestic exports to the United States. I would like to know what is the position of our re-exports to the United States.”
“On that note, Sir, I thank the Minister for Home Affairs and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $3,419,810 for Head 101 ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.”
“Before I withdraw my amendment, can the Minister for Home Affairs indicate in the affirmative that a new divisional police headquarters will come about to serve "F" Division, which covers the constituencies of Sembawang, Nee Soon, Jalan Kayu, Serangoon Gardens, Upper Serangoon, Punggol, Paya Lebar and certain parts of Tampines?”
“We have considered the pros and cons of whether to continue with the present system of police patrol, which is highly labour intensive, or whether to adopt a more modern method of police patrol, which cuts down manpower but uses a high degree of police technology in the form of more vehicles and better radio equipment. As I have publicly stated earlier this year, we are going to equip two divisions this year, and try out whether this is more economical and, from the long-term point of view, more effective. I will go down to Paya Lebar Police Station again some time this year, and view the whole area in relation to this new system of policing. This time, for some very good reasons, I will bring along with me all the M.P.s who are involved in that area. I am not quite sure a police post is the answer to the problem, for the simple reason that with this new method of policing, the police force will have greater mobility. There will also be greater frequency of patrols. I have been to another rural area, that is the Rural West Division, where there is a police post and we put a man there. There is no crime. From the point of view of the public, it is convenient, but it is not a very efficient way of using manpower. Although my predecessor, the Minister of Defence, agreed to set up a police post in Punggol, I am not aware of it. I do not believe that provision has been made for such a police post. I will certainly look into the question, bearing in mind the larger problem of more efficient use of police manpower.”
“I do not say that it should be in Punggol, but I did ask a question previously about the setting up of a police post in Punggol, and it was agreed to by the Minister of State of Defence when the Police was under the Ministry of Defence. 7.45 p.m. Now that the Police comes under the portfolio of the Minister for Home Affairs, I shall be grateful if the Minister can indicate whether or not a police post will be set up in Punggol. Or is it because there has been a change of Ministry and Minister that the idea has also been changed? The Minister for Home Affairs (Prof. Wong Lin Ken): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am fully aware of the conditions of Paya Lebar Police Station. In fact, when I assumed office, this was one of the first police stations I personally visited. One of the first things I did when I was in the Ministry, after my visit to this police station, was to look into the question of renovating it. It has come to light that the cost of renovation is quite high. At the moment, I think it would be far better to look into the need of having a new police station, properly sited, to take care of the fairly large area covered by this divisional police headquarters. I believe it requires, at the very least, $150,000 just to renovate the place. If a new police station is to be built, the cost can be anything from $150,000 to half a million dollars. So it is far better to have a new police station. I am fully aware that some barracks have been converted into offices, and I myself have visited these offices. I think they are inadequate. The question of manpower is one of the problems the Ministry is taking very seriously.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 101 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 101. Sir, in moving this amendment, I merely wish to draw the attention of the Minister for Home Affairs to the need for a new divisional headquarters for Paya Lebar Police Station. I am, of course, happy to note there is a provision of $100,010 for the divisional headquarters at Grange Road. There was some news about Paya Lebar Police Station some time ago and I gather the Minister for Home Affairs is well aware of it. Perhaps it would be pertinent for me to inform the House of the facilities at this police station. They are grossly inadequate to meet the needs of the eight constituencies which come under Paya Lebar Police Station, which is in "F" Division. I also wonder whether the Minister for Home Affairs is aware that some former police barracks have now been converted into offices. I believe the total population of the eight constituencies, including Serangoon Gardens which is represented by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs, is quite large. I believe there is a shortage of manpower at Paya Lebar Police Station. Very often petty thefts and robberies are committed along roads like Punggol Road and Tampines Road. It is the shortage of manpower and lack of facilities at Paya Lebar Police Station that brings about such problems. In this respect, I shall be grateful if the Minister for Home Affairs can indicate to this House whether there are plans for the expansion of Paya Lebar Police Station, or whether there are plans for the construction of a new divisional police headquarters to be sited in any of the eight constituencies.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am indeed grateful to the Minister for Finance for assuring this House that the provisions are well taken care of and that the viability of the loans given is also assured. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The following amendment stood in the name of Mr Ng Kah Ting - (6) That the sum to be allocated for Head 91 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 301.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, if I may be permitted to seek further elaboration from the Minister for Finance on the projects of Chartered Industries of Singapore Limited.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 91 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 101*. (* The same amendment also stood in the name of Mr Sim Boon Woo.) Sir, the provision for Loans to Industrial and Commercial Enterprises for the next financial year has been increased three-fold. Apart from the explanation in the Memorandum on the Development Estimates of Singapore, I would like to seek further clarification from the Minister for Finance as to how this huge sum of nearly $200 million will be utilised. The explanatory note in the memorandum (para. 84 at page 12) is somewhat unclear where it says: 'A sum of $96.00 million will be provided for the Development Bank of Singapore. In 1968, the Government has approved two lines of credit totalling $80.00 million; however in May and December 1970, further lines of credit amounting to $374.00 million were approved.' Among other enterprises, we have Neptune Orient Lines Ltd, and Jurong Shipbuilders and the rest coming within the scope of this provision. So I shall be grateful if the Minister for Finance can explain to this House what lines of credit are involved.”
“Your Ministry's officials should keep an eye on them. I am not employed to look after your Ministry!”
“Passing back the buck to the Minister for Finance!”
“Tuan Haji Rahmat Bin Kenap (Geylang Serai)(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I notice that the provision under subhead 603 has been reduced by $96,500 for this year. I would like to ask the Minister for Health whether this provision is sufficient to meet the needs of the public cleansing service. As far as I know, the number of lorries for removing garbage is not sufficient. I had occasion to observe privately-owned lorries hired by the Ministry of Health to remove garbage. These lorries are not suitable for the purpose. I have seen garbage spilling on to the road from such lorries. Such a state of affairs will not help to improve the cleanliness of our roads. On the contrary, our roads will become dirty when these lorries pass. Another matter I wish to touch upon is that the workers of the Public Cleansing Department are not supplied with the necessary tools, such as changkols, scythes, knives, etc, to clean the drains in the rural areas. I myself have noticed that the workers engaged in cleaning the drains in the Geylang Serai area are handicapped for lack of tools and so are not able to cut away the thick growth of grass which is choking up the drains. The result is that the drains have become breeding grounds for mosquitoes. This is one of the reasons why there are many mosquitoes in the Geylang Serai area. The workers lack the necessary tools to carry out their work properly. I hope the Minister for Health will do what is necessary to overcome this shortcoming.”
“Sir, the provision of $1.5 million is for the purchase of vehicles for the Public Cleansing Service and Environmental Public Health. My question is this: I wonder whether the Minister for Health is aware that a good number of the public cleansing vehicles need cleaning themselves, because I have come across several of them travelling along Upper Serangoon Road and not only are they dirty looking but a lot of watery waste drips from them as they pass by on their way to the Tampines dumping ground. Sir, there have been campaigns such as "Keep Singapore Clean", "Keep Singapore Clean and Green"; "Keep Singapore Clean and Pollution Free". Action has also been taken against people who do not obey the law to keep Singapore clean. However, I hope that before the Ministry of Health takes any action against the law-breakers it should put its own house in order, that is, keep its own vehicles clean. I also wonder whether the Minister for Health is aware that the collection of refuse and garbage is very inadequate. There are several bin centres in my area for which there is only one daily collection. But the bin centres will be again full before the next day. I hope that with the purchase of more public cleansing vehicles, the situation will be remedied. I come now to the question of refuse treatment and disposal plants. I note with very deep regret that the token vote of $10 is still a revote. I shall be grateful if the Minister can enlighten this House on what this $10 token vote is for. How can the Ministry conduct any study into refuse treatment and disposal plants with this $10? Are there going to be refuse treatment and disposal plants in the republic, and, if so, where are they?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 81 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 603. Mr Speaker. Sir, with your permission, I wish to range over the amendment* against subhead 605 which stands in my name. * The amendment reads as follows: (3) That the sum to be allocated for Head 81 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 605”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Minister for his reply. I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 81 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 109 Sir, this new provision is for the Rehabilitation Centre for Hemiplegics and Paraplegics at Mandalay Road, Tan Tock Seng Hospital. I would like to ask the Minister for Health what is the purpose and the scope of this centre. I notice this is the first time that the Government has come into the picture in rehabilitating hemiplegics and paraplegics. Sir, I wonder whether the Minister for Health has any plans to assist those welfare organisations which look after such cases.”
“I am not happy with the reply and I wish to take a vote. Question on the amendment put, and negatived. The time allotted for Head 78 having expired, the following amendment standing in the names of Mr Teong Eng Siong and Mr Ho Kah Leong, was not proceeded with: (4) That the sum to be allocated for Head 78 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 101. The sum of $2,475,000 for Head 78 ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head 81 -”
“In winding up my speech, so as to give the Parliamentary Secretary sufficient time to reply, I would urge, should this provision be insufficient, that the Urban and Rural Services Committee should not hesitate to ask for more money from the Minister for Finance in order to accede to the requests made from the rural constituencies.”
“And the Urban and Rural Services Committee was a bit reluctant to consider favourably these requests. I now come to electricity supply. The provision of $50,000, I take it, is a subsidy for the electrification scheme, but I am disappointed to note that of late the Electricity Department of the Public Utilities Board has not been able to implement the various electrification schemes, thereby causing delays of up to two years. I think the Parliamentary Secretary does have a list, or maybe two lists which have been prepared by the P.U.B. Electricity Department indicating how they will be implementing such electrification schemes. Many of the Members of Parliament for the rural areas know that these requests for electricity as well as water supplies, and, for that matter, the making up of agricultural and kampong roads, have been made quite some time ago. And "quite some time ago", as the Member for Changi has remarked -means four or five years ago. And some of these requests are still outstanding. The reason is quite simple. The funds allocated to the rural constituencies are paltry, negligible sums. Does the Parliamentary Secretary mean to say that the rural folk should not enjoy the same amenities as those enjoyed by the city folk? The rural folk, for the information of the Parliamentary Secretary, also pay the same rates as those paid by the city folk for water and electricity supplies. They pay the full rate not just the domestic rate alone, especially the farmers..”
“Sir, I do not quite follow the Parliamentary Secretary's remark that there is a provision of $2.7 million for urban and rural services in 1971-72. In actual fact, it is only $2.475 million. He says that this provision is adequate to cover all the outstanding requests by all the constituencies. In other words, what he means possibly is the requests from the urban as well as the rural constituencies. But I do not know whether he realises that there are still more requests to come as a result, and therefore, this provision of $ 2.475 million is grossly inadequate. I note, with gratitude, that the Minister for Finance is here with us at this moment, and I would urge him to give us some sympathy. When I say "give us some sympathy", I mean I can safely speak for those Members who come from the rural areas, including the Minister of State for Finance who comes from Choa Chu Kang. He is nodding his head, too, in approval. Coming to the point of making requests to the Urban and Rural Services Committee, I think it is high time the U.R.S.C. formulated a new method by which requests can be considered as quickly as possible and not through the District Committees. In other words, processing requests through the District Committees invariably causes a lot of time being used up. Sir, may I come to my point about the extension of water supply as well as electricity supply? Members may care to note that an amount of $382,900 was unspent last year on the extension of water supply. I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary is fully aware that there are requests that have been outstanding for several years. The reason why these requests have been outstanding for so many years is simply that they could not be met as a result of the costs involved.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 78 be reduced by $10 in respect of item 011 of subhead 101. In order to save time, may I, in my remarks, range over item 012* of subhead 101? * The amendment reads as follows: That the sum to be allocated for Head 78 be reduced by $10 in respect of item 012 of subhead 101.”
“I thank the Minister for his reply and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. That the sum to be allocated for Head 75 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 307. Sir, in moving this amendment, I wish to draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that many of the existing roads need urgent repairs; repairs in the sense that I have noticed that quite a number of roads which have been dug up and repaired, have become bumpy as a result. Take Punggol Road as an example. Certain stretches are quite bumpy, and when complaints are made, the Public Works Department steps in to patch up some of the pot-holes. As a result of this patching up, you get the bumps. Sir, I wonder whether the Ministry has plans to resurface Punggol Road which is in very dire need of resurfacing. 5.45 p. m.”
“I thank the Minister for his kind remarks. I was not actually voicing my dissatisfaction with the planting of trees and shrubs in the gardening campaign. What I said was that perhaps there should have been some imagination and creativeness in the planting. To illustrate my point, Sir, there was a big signboard at Punggol point which was eventually taken down. I asked for some flowering shrubs to be planted there. However, when I went up there. I could not see the shrubs although I was told that there were shrubs. I looked further. I went down the steps leading to the jetty and there I found a few trees and shrubs planted. That was not exactly the idea I had in mind. I was not consulted on this matter. If the Minister says I can be co-opted into this garden committee, I will be happy to offer any services that I can. With these remarks, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $7,025,000 for Head 74 ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. The Chairman: I think it is an appropriate time to have the suspension now. Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 74 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 209*. Mr Speaker, Sir, whilst I welcome the big increase in the provision for roadside trees and shrubs, including the landscaping and improvement of open spaces and parks in the republic, I wish to draw the attention of the Minister for Law and National Development to the planting of such roadside trees and shrubs. Sir, it seems to me that the Parks and Trees Division has no creative or imaginative ideas about planting the necessary types of flowering shrubs or roadside trees in order to create the type of garden city that we wish to have. I bring this matter up because I see that although there has been a lot of planting of roadside trees and shrubs, there seems to be no landscaping in the work. A lot of trees and shrubs are planted, but what do they represent'? There may be greenery, yes, but from the point of view of beauty or artistic appreciation, there is none. The Parks and Trees Division has also embarked upon a scheme whereby commercial firms are encouraged to maintain their plots of greenery, and towards that end flowering shrubs and trees have been planted in certain areas. I have seen one or two of them, but I do not know whether or not they are being regularly maintained. Sir, to spend a sum of no less than $1.2 million requires very careful consideration. There must be creativeness and imagination in the planting of roadside trees and shrubs so that a truly green and beautiful garden city will come about.”
“Sir, I thank the Minister for his reply, that whilst no other plans are being envisaged in Kankar, at least the jetty is being considered. However, I must stress that since the Primary Production Department has no plans to develop the Kankar Fish Market, the market itself is in the process of developing more or less. Sir, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“I would also like to know what is happening to the latest petition asking for a jetty that was sent to the Director of the Primary Production Department.”
“Thank you very much, Sir. I would like to know from the Minister for Law and National Development how much fish by way of tonnage and value the Jurong Fishing Port and Fish Market handles each year. As far as Kankar is concerned, I believe I have given the figure of no less than $7.2 million worth of fish being handled at the little market in Ponggol. Therefore it is not "fishy business", as earlier indicated. I mean it is really fishing business pertaining to fish and not "fishy business" in the sense that you may think of. Anyway, I attach much importance to deep-sea fishing and offshore fishing. Invariably, the facilities at the Jurong Fishing Port and Fish Market are inadequate and I welcome the provision of $200,000 in this respect. If the Minister can enlighten this House on how this provision will be utilised, I shall be most grateful. With respect to the fish market and fishing port at Kankar, I am glad to say that the wisdom of the Government has prevailed, because, between 1964 and 1966, the Ministry of National Development was quite adamant in removing the little fishing fleet from Kankar to Jurong. However, common sense prevailed and today I can safely say that the fishing port at Kankar has developed very fast, in fact too fast. From a fleet of less than 60 fishing vessels, ranging from five tons to 15 tons, using this port during those years, it has now been increased to slightly more than a hundred. I am told that several more are being built. They are much bigger in size, in length and in tonnage. The fishing port at Kankar is fast becoming quite a busy place and the facilities there will be inadequate in the next few years. With this in mind, I would like to ask the Minister whether his Ministry has any plans to develop the Kankar fish market.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 73 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 302*. (* The same amendment also stood in the name of Mr Ho Kah Leong.) In moving this amendment, I wish to bring up two points. The first point refers to the Jurong Fishing Port and Fish Market and the second to the fish market at Kankar, which is in the Punggol constituency.”
“Mr Speaker. Sir, if I may add another point. At Kankar, in Punggol, there is a small fishing port. There is an acute shortage of seamen. I welcome any Member who can recommend seamen to me.”
“Sir, I am indeed grateful to the Minister for his patience and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, that is not the question. The price of eggs as it stands is insufficient for the farmers to make a marginal profit. I come from a rural area and I know what the position is. The point is that there is a surplus of eggs on the market resulting in a dip in the price. The Minister has just now mentioned that it is a question of supply and demand. But I am afraid the supply exceeds the demand. There was a plan to set up a factory to turn eggs into egg powder for sale overseas. The Minister has mentioned that his Ministry tried to interest several parties to start this factory but no one was interested. This takes my mind back to the time when one of our Ministers - I cannot remember who said that Government would take the plunge. If investors dare not go into a venture because they think there is no likelihood of making money, why should the Government not take a closer look into the question of setting up an egg-powder factory? The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): And get more votes in Punggol!”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have raised the question of the surplus of eggs, their low price, and what good use we will make from this surplus of eggs; for example, the building of an egg-powder factory in Singapore. I shall be grateful if the Minister can enlighten this House on this matter. 4.00 p.m.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 73 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 202. Sir, before I make some remarks on this subhead, may I, with your permission, range over subhead 203*, which also stands in my name? * The same amendment also stood in the name of Mr Ho Kah Leong, reads as follows: (3) That the sum to be allocated for Head 73 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 203.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, just now when I read out the relevant portion of the Minister's reply last year, he was not here to listen to it. I do not wish to reiterate, but since he has agreed with me that we should give this new company time to settle down and that he will try to accommodate my suggestion. I am happy with that, and therefore beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“It is not under investigation. If the Minister for Social Affairs says it is still under investigation, I wonder when he will complete his investigation. Sir, this is the crux of the problem. Even the statement that the matter is under "active consideration" means nothing to me. What I want is positive construction of the rural abattoirs.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in replying to the Member for Sembawang, the Parliamentary Secretary said that he would bring up to the new private company the suggestion of having abattoirs in the rural areas. What I said was that three years have already passed. What is being done in this connection? This is my question. I know that whenever suggestions are put forward, the reply is, "We will consider them and bring them up." But what is the net result? If there is no result, then something else must be done.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am glad to hear that there is a feasibility study on whether or not abattoirs in the rural areas could be set up by this private organisation. But I am afraid that the Parliamentary Secretary has forgotten that in 1968 there was a provision of a token vote of $10 for three rural abattoirs to be set up. In 1969 there was no vote, but the matter was brought up again in 1970. I sincerely hope that there will be no further "feasibility study" into this matter. Three years have gone by and I have brought up the question of abattoirs in the rural areas purely from another angle, namely, these rural abattoirs will relieve the pork retailers of having to travel all the way up to Jurong, since the abattoir at French Road has closed down. Not only will the retailers in Punggol be inconvenienced but also those from as far as Jalan Kayu, Tampines, and, for that matter, Changi. Sir, I do hope that the Primary Production Department, which is in control of the private organisation as stated by the Parliamentary Secretary, will seriously look into this matter.”
“In this connection, may I refer again to the Hansard of the same date and to the same column in which the Minister said, and I quote: 'But Government's thinking on who should run these abattoirs has changed. In view of our experience at the Jurong Abattoir, we are thinking of letting private enterprise run even the Jurong Abattoir-in other words, a statutory board or a public company-and we are inviting the private sector to come in. We do not want just the civil servants to run the abattoir if it is converted into a public company.' Sir, I believe some progress has been made, and I would like to know the actual progress made.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 73 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 104*. (* The same amendment also stood in the name of Mr Ho Kah Leong.) In moving this amendment, I wish to draw the attention of the House to the fact that, apart from the provision asked for in respect of the Central Abattoir in Jurong, there is, however, no provision for rural abattoirs. Sir, if I may refresh the memory of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Law and National Development by referring him to Hansard, Vol. 29, No. 16, dated 26th March, 1970, col. 1211, in which his Minister said: 'Government's thinking on the need for rural abattoirs has not changed.' 3.30 p.m. Further down in the reply, he said: 'That does not mean to say that we have abandoned the idea of building abattoirs in the rural areas.' Sir, it is precisely for this reason that I wish the Parliamentary Secretary to inform the House of the reasons for the deletion of the provision in the Development Estimates for the ensuing year for the setting up of rural abattoirs. Sir, some of my colleagues have vigorously argued for the setting up of rural abattoirs. I believe the Member for Jalan Kayu did make some remarks in this respect, and so did some other Members. Sir, we shall be grateful if the Minister can explain why the idea of setting up abattoirs in the rural areas has been shelved. Coming back to the Central Abattoir in Jurong, I remember the Minister on that same occasion said that his Ministry was looking into the question of handing over the running of the Central Abattoir to a private organisation.”
“Sir, assuming that the cost of reclaiming land is between $1 and $2 per square foot and taking into account the provision for the infrastructure, will the Ministry consider not making exorbitant profits, as has been alleged in this House, when the sites are offered for sale to the private sector?”
“Sir, the Minister has not answered my query on the cost involved in reclaiming the thousands of acres of land.”