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 27 of 38.
“Sir, I had already asked several questions in the House last night before Parliament rose and the Minister must have missed my questions when he answered another Member's questions. Sir, a lot of money has been spent by Government on the reclamation of land. I wish to know how much has been spent on reclamation schemes to date, and what is the acreage of the reclaimed land. I am asking these questions because I have had occasion to travel along Bedok Road where I saw vast stretches of reclaimed land. However, I noticed that there are only several blocks of buildings there. In this connection, I wonder whether the Ministry of Law and National Development, in particular the National Development Division, has any plans to develop the reclaimed land and, if so, what they are. Also will some of the sites be offered to the private sector, like the "Golden Mile", for private development? I shall be grateful if the Minister can enlighten this House on my queries.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 72 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 301. Sir, with your permission, may I, in my remarks, range over the next amendment* on subhead 302 which stands in my name? * The amendment reads as follows: That the sum to be allocated for Head 72 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 302.”
“Sir, in view of the Minister's reply, 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 72 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 204. Sir, can the Minister please explain why the construction of a garbage composting plant is being contemplated? I note that this project is still subject to the Development Planning Committee's sanction.”
“Sir, I am grateful to 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 72 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 202. Sir, in moving this amendment, I merely wish to know from the Minister where these parking places will be established.”
“Sir, I thank the Minister for his reply, and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 3.00 p.m.”
“Sir, when will the car park be completed? Another question is, how many cars will this car park hold?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. That the sum to be allocated for Head 72 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 201. Sir, I note that no less than $218,000 has already been spent on the underground car park at St. Andrew's Cathedral grounds. I shall be grateful if the Minister for Law and National Development can enlighten this House on what progress has been made on this project. I refer to page 7 of the Memorandum on the Development Estimates in which it is stated: 'Work on the car park costing about $1.90 million is expected to start in the 1971/72 financial year.' Sir, a sum of more than $200,000 has been spent. Can the Minister enlighten this House on how, why and where this sum has been spent? Also, when will the underground car park be completed and how many cars will it be able to hold?”
“Then I will wait till tomorrow. I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $12,269,510 for Head 71 ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. 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 71 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 201*. (* The same amendment also stood in the name of Mr S. Ramaswamy.) Sir, every year we in this House have to approve money for land acquisition by Government for public purposes. I believe that the Minister for Law and National Development has already said something about land acquisition and compensation. What I want to know is whether the allegations made by some quarters that Government acquires land cheaply and sells it at a big profit are true. That is the first point for clarification. My second point is in respect of reclamation schemes. Sir, I have two amendments+ under Head 72 but I propose, with your permission, to range over them now so that I need not have to move them tomorrow. I notice that a vast stretch of land has already been reclaimed on the east coast, and many questions have been posed to the Government on the optimum use of the land. At the moment, I believe that certain stretches of the land are ready for development. In fact, a few military camps have already been set up at Bedok. I would like the Minister to clarify his Ministry's plans on the question of land reclamation and land acquisition. + The amendments reads as follows: (4) That the sum to be allocated for Head 72 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 301. (5) That the sum to be allocated for Head 72 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 302.”
“In view of the Parliamentary Secretary's 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 61 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 101. Sir, in moving this amendment, I wish to know from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Affairs what progress has been made in the construction of the Junior Approved School. I ask this question because this House is being asked to revote the same sum as was voted last year.”
“In view of the Minister's detailed reply, I beg leave to withdraw, Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $803,500 for Head 52 ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head 61 -”
“In this respect, I do not think it is wise simply to subsidise a community centre so that it will be run by the management committee, and not lift a finger to help when the management committee asks for extensions and better facilities for their community centre. To reinforce my argument, I will bring up one point, and that is the extension to the Punggol Community Centre. The management committee did not get a cent from the Government, but fortunately we had some good Samaritans. They pooled their resources together and managed to put up the extension. In the past, these points have been raised and Ministers have replied, "Why not do it on your own, since other centres can get more money to increase the facilities of their own centres?" This is hardly a wise move, because we have a provision of $313,000 in the Development Estimates for two community centres affected by urban renewal. What about those centres that really need such facilities, for example, the rural type? Such a centre has only one room, partitioned into a small office and a store room. They expect the management committee to run kindergarten classes with limited space. I hope the Minister for Culture will bring these points to the attention of the authorities in the People's Association and take the necessary steps to remedy such a situation.”
“Thank you, Sir. According to the Memorandum on the Development Estimates, in page 5. section 37, it is very clear that the sum of money to be voted for will be not only for the Pasir Ris Holiday Flats but also for two community centres. Paragraph 2 of section 37 states: 'A sum of $313,000 is provided as subsidy for resiting the Kampong Glam Community Centre and the Kota Raja Community Centre. The balance of the provision is for the construction of five new standard community centres and five new rural community centres. The sites of these community centres have yet to be decided.' Sir, I am not asking that there should be a new community centre in Punggol. I am not going to ask for any more community centre. My quarrel with the Minister for Culture is that if one takes $3l3, 000 out of this allocation for subhead 101, nothing is left in the provision to construct five new standard community centres and five new rural community centres. I do not know how this equation is going to work out. Another point I would like to raise is about the facilities at these community centres. We have management committees in all these community centres, and invariably facilities are lacking. As a result, the management committees have to look for funds to enable them to have more facilities at their centres. I understand the People's Association does give a certain sum as subsidy depending on the type of centre, to all these community centres. If they are of the standard type, they get more, and if they are of the rural type, they get less.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 52 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 101*. (* The same amendment also stood in the names of Messrs. Ho Kah Leong and Ng Yeow Chong.) Sir, with your permission, I will also in my discussion range over subhead 201+ so that I do not have to speak again. + The amendment reads as follows: (3) That the sum to be allocated for Head 52 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 201. The Chairman: All right, Mr Ng.”
“Sir, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply and I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $2,635,630 for Head 51 ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head 52 -”
“Mr Speaker. Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 51 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 103. In moving this amendment, I merely wish to know from the Minister for Culture what steps have been taken to introduce Adult Education Television Service in Singapore. No doubt this is only a $10 token vote, but I believe there is some thinking behind the introduction of Adult Education Television Service. I shall be grateful if the Minister will throw some light on what Adult E.T.V. will do for Singapore.”
“Sir, before I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. I have just one point to add. Perhaps in the next 10 or 20 years, more engineering graduates will be required than graduates from the academic side. On that note, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The following amendment stood in the name of Mr Yeo Choo Kok (15) That the total sum to be allocated for Head 41 be reduced by $100.”
“Sir, I am not quite convinced that it is cheaper or economical to move the Polytechnic to Dover Road because it involves a sum of no less than $6 million and a token vote of $10 for that matter. I am no engineer and, with due respect to the Minister of State who is a Doctor of Engineering, I am not very conversant with this matter. But as a layman, I think in terms of saving money. The Minister of State has just now mentioned that the present University building is not suitable for the Polytechnic. But is he or is he not aware that there are ample vacant grounds in the University campus where buildings suitable for accommodating engineering equipment can be built? And with the money saved, we can have better facilities. The Minister of State says the decision to site the Polytechnic at Dover Road is final. If it is final, let it be final. But I am making a plea that if we can save money, why not use it for better facilities?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. That the sum to be allocated for Head 41 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1202. Sir, in moving this amendment, I am somewhat astonished to find that the Polytechnic will have a new campus at Dover Road. As stated in the Memorandum on the Development Estimates of Singapore, (Paper Misc. 2 of 1971), $6 million is required for this campus. If I can refer the Minister of State for Education to Hansard, Volume 29, dated 26th of March, 1970, at col. 1182, in which the Minister for Law and National Development interjected and said - I quote: '... if plans for moving the University of Singapore to Kent Ridge are implemented, then the Polytechnic may move to the present site of the University. When the University moves, we must find a use for the present building and grounds. In my view, the present University site would be the best site for the Polytechnic.' 6.30 p.m. Sir, I wish to know why there is a change of mind and I hope the Minister of State will not say, "Look, previously I was the Parliamentary Secretary, but now I am the Minister of State and we have a new Minister for Education." That kind of argument will not get us anywhere. Anyway, Sir, I will be interested to know why the Polytechnic cannot make use of the University of Singapore campus when the University moves to Kent Ridge. Why should we spend millions of dollars on constructing a new building for the Polytechnic? I am well aware that the present Polytechnic building is inadequate for the purposes for which it was set up. In that respect, Sir, if the Minister of State for Education can kindly enlighten this House the reasons for the change of site and the construction of a new building for the Polytechnic, I will be most grateful.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, cannot the Singapore Polytechnic conduct a diploma course at a level higher than the ordinary technician level? However, coming to the point where the Minister of State has just now mentioned that when the Singapore Technical Institute has trained some instructors and teachers, invariably they are pinched by industry. I believe the Minister of State is fully aware that when a serving officer is sent overseas for further training, he is required to enter into a bond whereby, upon the completion of such a course, he serves the Government or a quasi-government body for a period of no less than five years. I would suggest that he continue exercising this condition when the Singapore Technical Institute, or for that matter the Ministry of Education sends anybody overseas for any course.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, Parliament has been asked to approve a sum of $1.8 million for the Singapore Technical Institute. From what I can gather at the present moment, this Institute is sharing its premises, that is, workshops and other facilities, with another institute which, I believe is the former Junior Trade School at Balestier Road. The Singapore Technical Institute is considered an institute of higher technical learning. Why should it share its workshops, probably classrooms too, with a vocational institute? The Minister of State for Education has clearly explained just now the different levels of instruction between the vocational institutes and the schools. I believe that there is a distinct difference between the level of instruction in a vocational institute and a technical institute. I suspect that the Singapore Technical Institute will somehow be duplicating some of the courses run or organised by the Polytechnic. In his reply last year, the Minister of State clearly explained that there was some duplication and he would see to it that there would be none. In other words, if there is a duplication of courses, what is the use of having both the Polytechnic and the Singapore Technical Institute? Another question I would like to ask is the level of instruction which the Singapore Technical Institute offers. The House has occasion to hear just now of the training of semi-skills and skills. What kind of skills will the Singapore Technical Institute provide?”
“Sir, though I agree that there is an institute known as the Ponggol Industrial Training Centre sited in Punggol, I can safely say that more than 90 per cent of the students are not from Punggol. However, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Sir, I do not think that is the answer. I am not quite happy with it. The Minister of State has quoted 1970 figures, but we know quite well that these vocational institutes started in 1969 and the Minister of State has mentioned short courses. In other words, in the course of time there must have been a good number of students who have passed out from such institutes. Therefore, has the Ministry taken a closer look to see how many of these students who have passed out have got employment?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in that respect, I wish to know whether the Minister of State for Education is able to indicate the number of graduates who have passed out from such institutions, and whether they have been able to find employment. In other words, whether the skills or semi-skills which they have acquired from such institutions are adequate for the labour market.”
“I hope the Minister of State for Education will take serious note of this, otherwise this will lead to very serious trouble. We say that we have to rely on semi-skilled and fully-skilled labour, and yet we cannot produce enough from such institutions. So the present situation is, as I believe Members of the House are fully aware, that we have to import certain types of skills, even the common skills. In other words, there should be a clear-cut policy on all the courses conducted, spelling out whatever level of skills the courses are designed for, so that the parents when they think of sending their children to such institutions, will be rest assured that their children are going to acquire a certain level of skill.”
“Later on the Ministry of Education came up with another idea and said, "Look, now we want the vocational schools to be converted into vocational institutes." But Sir, these vocational institutes carried another name. They were called "Industrial Training Centres". I am not saying that the Technical Education Department of the Ministry of Education is trying to mislead this House with regard to the technical education policy. What I wish to know is what sort of courses, and up to what level are such institutions giving? There is a saying "A rose by any other name smells just as sweet" - but I do not believe that this can be applied to the schools! There is the "bilateral school", the "vocational institute" and the "industrial training centre"! We have a lot of our young students who may not have the intelligence to proceed to the purely academic stream. So when the shift comes to technical education, we have all sorts of institutes called by all sorts of names. We have to ensure that whilst we put up such institutes, the courses organised must be so designed as to enable the students to obtain jobs that will be available to them. 6.00 p.m. For example, I have in my constituency the Ponggol Vocational Institute, Sir, the item under this subhead should not read "Ponggol Vocational Institute", but "Ponggol Industrial Training Centre". What is unique about it is this. I noticed that at the beginning it had a small name-plate put up near the fence, and the name was `Ponggol Vocational School". This was removed, and the new name was the "Ponggol Industrial Training Centre". But down it came again. I do not know whether or not the students there are trying to apply the skills they have learnt in this Industrial Training Centre.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 41 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 802. Here again, we have the title "Conversion of Vocational Schools into Vocational Institutes". I do not know what is the difference between a vocational school and a vocational institute. When I cast my mind back to last year's debate, I recollect that the Minister of State, who was then Parliamentary Secretary, did explain the whys and wherefores of these two institutions. What I am driving at is this. Looking at the number of so-called technical schools, vocational schools and vocational institutes that have been set up over the past two years, I believe that there is no clear-cut policy on technical education. I hope the Minister of State for Education will enlighten the House on this, There seems to be a lot of conversion. We are treading on very dangerous ground by using children as guinea pigs in order to find out which type of technical education will be most suited to our conditions. Since the emphasis is on the acceleration of our industrialisation scheme, therefore there is a need for skilled and semi-skilled technicians. There has been a shift in emphasis over the last two years. Whilst I believe this shift is correct, the Ministry of Education, however, does not seem to have any clearly defined technical education policy. I do not know whether the Technical Education Department of the Ministry of Education is aware of this fact. We started off with vocational schools for the primary six failures, keeping them in school for two years. Some courses were concocted. After some time the scheme fell through. Then the Education Ministry said, "Well, put them into vocational institutes and teach them." But how? They did acquire some sort of skill.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister of State has taken the words out of my mouth, because this was what I was coming to! I notice that there has been a conversion of all sorts of schools - "bilateral", "trilateral" and what not. Anyway, he has given a satisfactory answer and I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 41 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 703. In moving this amendment, I have a simple and straight-forward question to ask. I note that the title to this subhead is "Conversion of Academic/ Vocational Schools into Bilateral Schools". I would be grateful if the Minister of State could inform this House what "bilateral schools" are. Dr Lee Chiaw Meng: Mr Speaker, Sir, I must apologise for the term "bilateral schools" appearing in the Estimates of Revenue and Expenditure (Paper Cmd. 3), and the Development Estimates (Paper Cmd. 4). This is a term used administratively within the Ministry to indicate schools which have a Technical wing as well as a General Education wing. In fact, a circular has been sent to all schools instructing them henceforth not to use such terms as "technical schools", "bilateral schools", "multi-lateral schools", "integrated schools". All secondary schools are henceforth known as secondary schools.”
“Sir, in view of the reply of the Minister of State, I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Sir, from what I can gather, the new Centre will be able to train about a thousand people annually, but I wonder whether the Minister of State will clarify what the criteria of selection will be if there is more than the number required for the courses; in other words, if the number of applicants exceeds the number per course.”
“Sir, in view of the reply of the Minister of State, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Sir, if $1 million is to go towards the building of the aided junior colleges, then the subhead should not have been put down as "Capital Grants to Government-Aided Schools".”
“Sir, my question is out of the $1.3 million to be approved, how much will be provided for the building of aided junior colleges?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 41 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 503. Sir, in moving this amendment, I wish to seek details of the capital grants to Government-aided schools. I note on page 4 of the Memorandum on the Development Estimates that the sum of $1.3 million includes the Government's contribution to the construction of Government-aided junior colleges. I would like to know how many government-aided junior colleges will be constructed; how much money will be provided for each college; and whether the Government will match the funds raised by non-governmental bodies dollar for dollar for the construction of these junior colleges?”
“Sir, I thank the Minister of State 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 41 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 302. Sir, in moving this amendment I merely wish to seek clarification from the Minister concerned as to which primary schools are involved in having major extensions.”
“I thank the Minister for his very kind remarks. I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“I am very grateful that the Minister of State for Education has come in at this juncture, because I have been doing a little bit of calculation here. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education has mentioned that the total project will cost $6.6 million, of which $6 million will come from the United States Government. We have just heard interjection from the Minister of State. I do not know how the two statements in this respect are going to be reconciled. It is very clear in the Development Estimates that the vote is for the Regional English Language Centre. To what extent will this money be used for the Centre, bearing in mind that there has been a correction from the Minister of State and that the money is coming from the South-east Asia Ministers of Education Council? In other words, a large sum of American dollars is being brought into Singapore. I will leave Members to imagine what I am driving at. But my interest is this: what is the optimum use to which the Regional English Language Centre will be put?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 41 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 205. I just wish to ask a few simple and straightforward questions. I note with some apprehension that last year's provision of $599,600 has not been used and today this House is being asked to approve $894,330. There is a little marginal note saying that there is a revote of last year's amount and that $275,000 is subject to Development Planning Committee sanction. I wish to know why this sum has not been spent and why this House is being asked to approve more money for the Regional English Language Centre. What is this Centre for; when is it going to be set up; how is it going to be set up; and will Parliament be asked to vote for more provision when the time comes? Just now we have had a very interesting debate in which one of the Ministers said that costs had gone up and, as a result, their evaluation was all wrong. I am not an economist, and frankly I do not know. However, I am very interested to know why this sum of $599,600 was not spent and why this House is today being asked to approve more than what is necessary.”
“Mr Speaker. Sir, I rise to speak in full support of the views raised by my two colleagues, the Member for Delta and the Member for Jurong. It is interesting to note that in respect of subhead 203, with regard to the sports complex for Nanyang University, we are asked to revote the 1971-72 provision against the 1970-71 provision. In other words, last year this House already voted a sum of $700,000 to set up a sports complex in Nanyang University, and today this House has to be asked to revote $692,000. I would be grateful if the Minister of State for Education could enlighten this House on why this revote is necessary. The money was already voted for and ought to have been spent. If the money had been spent, my two colleagues who, I believe, come from Nanyang University, would have no squabble with the Ministry of Education. I can understand why the Member for Jurong wants more money. It is quite a reasonable request, because he has some very strong grounds for it, and I am with him on this point. And if I may draw the attention of the Minister of State to page 4 of the Memorandum on the Development Estimates, para. 25 under Head 41, the intention is extremely clear: 'A sum of $2.85 million is provided for the new Raffles Institution...' Now, if Raffles Institution, which is a secondary school, can get $2.85 million, why cannot Nanyang University, which is a university, get the money asked for? And why must we come here to grant a revote? I would urge the Member for Delta, should he get an unsatisfactory reply, to put his amendment to the vote. Some hon. Members: Yes.”
“I am glad the Minister for Culture has come to the assistance of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education. I am happy that the Parliamentary Secretary has taken note of my suggestion and I hope that he will see to it that the E.T.V. officials will take note of these points. I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“I thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education for his reply. I understand that E.T.V. has also made some films which have won awards. Will it or will it not be possible for E.T.V. to concentrate more on the type of lessons to be introduced into secondary or primary schools than to try to produce a film with the idea of getting an international award? I am not saying that it is no good. What I am trying to imply is that more energy should be channelled towards the education of school children rather than to try to produce a film for international competition. From time to time we read in the papers that E.T.V. has won awards far and wide. I am not very happy with the answer given by the Parliamentary Secretary regarding the percentage of primary schools participating in E.T.V. lessons. It is not 100 per cent. He mentioned that 75.8 per cent of our primary schools are making full use of the E.T.V. programmes. In the secondary schools it is also not even a 100 per cent. In other words, there is still room for tremendous improvement on the part of E.T.V. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will care to comment on this.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 41 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 103. Sir, the introduction of Educational Television to schools has come about some time ago and I wish to seek some information from the Minister of State for Education, or the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, as to what evaluation studies have been undertaken in this respect; how much benefit school children are getting from attending E.T.V. lessons; and how many schools are involved. This takes my mind back to a short exchange between my colleague, the Member for Katong, and the Minister for Education regarding an E.T.V. programme which the Member saw. It is in that spirit that I am asking such questions.”
“I have explained that the Public Service Commission has already completed a recruitment exercise to fill vacancies for the financial year 1970-71, which is soon coming to an end, and in addition we have done a projected increase in staff for next year. So all the additional posts should be filled and the second half of 1971 should be a good year for the Telecommunications Department, with fewer complaints and more men to staff the positions. Yet another matter which has not been given much limelight has been the great inadequacies of the department because of lack of proper training. In October last year we were able to start a temporary training centre at No. 8, Stevens Road, and I had the pleasure of performing the opening ceremony The International Telecommunications Union has been approached and, with the assistance of finance from the United Nations Development Programme, they will shortly be providing us with two experts who will be lecturing on technical subjects, and a third expert will be responsible for overall training co-ordination and development. 4.15 p.m. Once we have this proper training school, crash courses will be conducted. All the new intakes will be required to undergo this training and they should be available to man positions in the second half of this year. These are all the measures that are in hand, and I hope they will improve the situation in the second half of 1971. Mr Ng Kah Ting: In view of the Minister's reply, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $12,345,650 for Head 33 ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head 41”
“Our range of development is spectacular and much too rapid for the staff or the equipment that we have, and therefore when businessmen try to put through calls, there is congestion. And so there is delay. Naturally this brings about complaints. Under these circumstances, a high vacancy position of 9 to 10 per cent and an exceedingly high rate of demand for our services have, together, compounded the situation and made it appear to be worse than before. Mr Speaker, Sir, last week I assured the Member for Telok Blangah, who raised a query about gross overtime and so much time off that the Telecommunications staff could not really make use of it, that I was very confident that things should improve this year with the very large recruitment of staff. A doubting Thomas, he did not believe that anything could be improved this year. I should like to tell him that we have taken a number of steps to improve the situation. For example, the exchange capacity at any one time for simultaneous calls, now put at 62, will be increased to 88 in the middle of May. That is why we are asking for this provision of $39,200. This represents only the first phase of an extension programme which was started way back in 1967 with a capacity of only 55 calls. By early 1972, the second phase will begin to increase the capacity to 118 calls. Furthermore, there will be no shortage of international channels, because our Earth Satellite Station at Sentosa, which we hope will be operational later this year, will have a capacity of 132 telephone channels. So the capacity is suddenly doubled and I suppose it should be adequate for the foreseeable future. Of course.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 33 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 401. Sir, in moving this amendment. I merely wish to draw the Minister's attention to the complaints by businessmen and others who find it extremely difficult to book international telephone calls. According to the telephone directory, if one wishes to book an international call, all one has to do is to dial 908. But it is becoming extremely difficult to get even this number, let alone get the call through to another country. I hope the Minister for Communications will care to look into this matter and remedy the situation, because I believe that a lot of business can be done and is being done as a result of telephone exchanges between Singapore and other countries. Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: Sir, it is conceded that there has been some justification for the complaints by the public against our Telecommunications Department. There is really no excuse, but there are certain circumstances which I hope the Member for Punggol and members of the public will be able to accept. When debating the Estimates of Expenditure last week, we have explained the difficulties the Telecoms Department has to face. First, we have a high vacancy position of 9 to 10 per cent, and the existing staff have to cover up for the deficiency of staff. It is all very well if development work is going on at the normal tempo, and so forth. In the case of the Telecoms Department, it is doing a very fine job coping with what goes on in the commercial world, because more business is transacted, more requests for telephones, telex, international telephone calls are made.”