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 33 of 38.
“What problems does the Government attempt to solve by these drastic and dangerous measures? What good will come to the Republic of Singapore by pushing through this controversial Bill? It is difficult to find the answer to this obvious question, for those who favour liberalising our abortion laws keep chopping and changing the reasons they put forward to justify this move. They tell you horror stories about women suffering disability or death at the hands of illegal abortionists. When it is proved to them that legalising abortion does not lead to any decrease in the number of illegal abortions, they change their ground and say that it is necessary to control the population growth. When it is pointed out that our rate of increase is well on the way to being controlled by less drastic mea sures, they change again and say that no woman should be obliged to bear a child which she never wanted to have. When it is again pointed out that it may be necessary to take into consideration the right of the child to be born, they resort to abuse and claim that one is talking idealistic nonsense. Now, let us try to look dispassionately at these alleged reasons for changing our law. First of all, to get rid of the criminal abortionist. It is commonly assumed that it is necessary to legalise abortion if we are to reduce the number of criminal abortions. May I point out in passing that in no other criminal activity has it been suggested that ordinary citizens, much less the members of a dignified profession, should take over from the criminals because they do the job so much better. Again, what does the experience of other countries teach us about the relationship between liberalising the abortion laws and reducing the number of illegal abortions?”
“Once the law sanctions the invasion of that fundamental right, may I ask, where then does it draw the line? Or will it be said that because the foetus is not yet fully developed, therefore it possesses no rights? This is a dangerous principle on which to rely. Once we start putting the convenience of an individual or of the state before respect for a human life that is not yet fully developed, then we have set our feet on the slippery path indeed. If one considers oneself justified in destroying foetal human life for the well-being of the mother, or the family, or the state, then there is every danger that one will not be satisfied to stop there. I am not thinking of this Government. I am thinking of whatever government might be sitting here 10 or 20 years from now. If we here today abandon the principle that human life, even foetal human life, must be respected, then we have opened the way for a future government to argue that it is justifiable to legislate for the destruction of deformed babies, of the mentally defective, of the incurably ill, of the old and the sick and the economically worthless. In other words, once we allow the destruction of foetal human life on the grounds that it is not completely human, then we leave the door open to others to argue about what constitutes a "complete human". Compulsory euthanasia is not unthinkable in a society that has accepted voluntary abortion. Once one starts to value human beings according to their worth to the community, then one soon begins to notice quite a few without whom the community - the rest of the community, that is, - might be considered better off. This is the sort of thing of which people are always accusing politicians - sacrificing principles for expediency. And all for what?”
“From the International Code of Medical Ethics published by the World Medical Association: 'A doctor must always bear in mind the importance of preserving human life from the time of conception until death.' [Ref. INTERCHANGE - Vol. 1, No. 4 of 1968, page 206]. 2. From the International Conference on Abortion held in Harvard in 1967: 'From the present available data, we can only conclude that human life begins at conception, or no later than 'blastcyst' (i.e, eight days after conception). The foetus, therefore, at least from blastcyst, deserves respect as human foetal life.' [Ref. INTERCHANGE - Vol. 1, No. 4 of 1968, page 206]. 3. From Professor Scott, Professor of Obstetrics and Gynaecology at Leeds University, who, after lengthy research into this question, concluded: 'The most important fact that gynaecologists know, and the one most understandably suppressed, is that performing an abortion at the time they are usually called upon to do so involves destruction of a clearly recognisable human being.' [Ref. INTERCHANGE - Vol. 1, No. 4 of 1968, page 205]. The point of these citations from experts - and they could be multiplied indefinitely - is to show that it is a solidly founded tradition that foetal life is somehow human. Because this brings us to the central issue at stake in this debate. That central issue is this: our present law on abortion embodies a traditional social belief about the humanness of foetal life, a belief strongly supported by scientific opinion. Any decision by this House to change that law involves society in a decision affecting life and death, not merely for the foetus, but ultimately for the whole of society. For what is at issue is the right to life.”
“Tow Siang Hwa, Why I disapprove of legalised socio-economic abortion: 'The "unwanted child" - if there is such a term - should surely be entrusted to the care of an adoption society rather than to the abortionist.' I would prefer to change this slogan to: "Every child a protected child." Here is an aim which is worthy of a truly liberal and enlightened society. The cornerstone of a truly enlightened society lies in its protection of the right to life. In such a society the function of the law is seen to be primarily to protect the rights of individuals, of which the most fundamental is the right to life. The protection which the law affords to individuals extends to the unborn child in its mother's womb. In our society the assumption underlying the law is that the value of a human life, even the life of the unborn child, is so great that its destruction could never be justified on the grounds of mere convenience, either to an individual or to the state. Now there is wish to change all this; there is wish to change a basic principle of our society and of our law; there is wish to measure the right to life of the unborn child according to the socio-economic circumstances of its mother. On what grounds does the Government seek to reverse a long-held tradition of our society about the right to life of the unborn child? Is it on the grounds that this foetus is not human, and therefore does not enjoy the right to life which is embodied in our law? If this is the view of those who wish to liberalise our abortion laws, then it is up to them to prove it, for the weight of evidence lies heavily against them. From innumerable testimonies available I shall choose only three: 1.”
“If it is, then why not say so, instead of making us all study a long and complicated Bill with provisions for "Boards" and "committees" and "approved institutions" and the rest? But the Bill is not what is intended, so let us stop pretending that a liberalised Abortion Bill will ensure that every child is a wanted child. "Every child a wanted child" -often enough we have to deplore the circumstances in which a pregnancy occurs, but once the child has been conceived we have an obligation to protect it. We cannot be deflected from this duty because the intercourse might have been illegal (because of rape or incest); or because the woman might be unmarried, or separated, or divorced; or because her environment might not be suitable (whatever that might mean); or because the baby might be born handicapped. All these circumstances might be deplorable, but not to the extent of justifying the killing of the unborn child. To say otherwise would be to legislate out of sentimentalism. We speak of the right of the child to be a wanted child - and then we deprive it of the right to live. What sort of crazy logic is this? "Every child a wanted child" - this should indeed be our ideal; but not by increasing the number of abortions. Who can really judge whether or not the child is wanted until it is born? There are innumerable cases reported of women who, when they first became pregnant, asked for an abortion - but were persuaded to have the baby, and once it was born, were very grateful that the doctor had not given in to their request. In any case, a child unwanted by its parents may well become a treasure to some childless couple. I quote from a paper by Prof.”
“Some doctors would like to see this interpretation written into the statute. But I think this would be unwise. This statute embodies one of the fundamental values of our society - respect for human life, even the life of the unborn child - and any tampering with this statute will give the impression that we are changing our sense of human values. Moreover, if the present stricter wording of the law makes doctors cautious in the matter of performing abortions, this is as it should be; an abortion is a destructive procedure which should never be contemplated except with extreme caution. As for the other clauses in the Bill under which abortions would be allowed, they are completely un acceptable. Either they are reducible to the preservation of the life or health of the mother - in which case they are unnecessary - or they are a totally unwarranted extension of the one plausible reason for even considering permitting an abortion. Nobody arguing in favour of changing our present law has brought forward any convincing reason for change. Many reasons indeed have been advanced. None of them, in my opinion, will stand up to critical analysis. For instance, we have been told that our ideal should be: "Every child a wanted child." Now, may I ask, either this is meant seriously - in which case it is an argument for abortion on demand - or it is not - in which case it is an example of irresponsible sloganeering. "Every child a wanted child" - what is this supposed to mean? That every woman who finds herself unexpectedly pregnant has a legal right to have the baby removed? This is abortion on demand. Is this what is wanted?”
“So far the people have shown no enthusiasm for the Government's proposal to grant them easier facilities for abortion, in spite of all the comments made, and because the people are convinced that abortion is a bad thing. They are not easily deceived by those who tell them that liberalised abortion is an enlightened policy. They are not confused by philosophical arguments as to when exactly human life is present. They know that abortion means killing a life which, if left alone, would very soon be a baby boy or a baby girl. And they are quite sure that the fewer abortions there are the better. But if this Bill before the House today is passed, the one certain result is that the number of abortions performed in Singapore is going to increase enormously. It has happened everywhere else where they have changed the law and I am positive it will happen here also. People know this, and are far from enthusiastic about it. Of one thing I am absolutely convinced, namely, that any change in the existing law will bring more harm than good to the Republic. There is no need to change the law. The only grounds on which any self-respecting doctor would wish to be allowed to perform an abortion would be on very rare medical grounds, when the life or health of the mother is at stake. This is already provided for in our present law. By statute, the doctor is not liable to prosecution if he operates to save the life of the mother. By interpretation, he will not be prosecuted if he operates to prevent the mother from becoming "a physical or mental wreck". The doctor who, in good faith, operates for this purpose, provided he has followed the accepted medical practice in therapeutic abortion, will have nothing to fear from the existing law as actually applied.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill which we are debating today is by far the most controversial ever to come before the House. Since it was first raised in the middle of 1967, the question of liberalised abortion has been discussed at great length by civic, professional and religious bodies in Singapore. It has been the subject of three extraordinary general meetings of the Singapore Medical Association; it has been the subject of forums in the University of Singapore and the Polytechnic; it has been much talked about over the radio and on TV; it has been the subject of articles and letters in the press. From all the discussions no consensus of opinion has emerged. Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that a consensus has been reached on only two points: first, no responsible body in Singapore would approve of abortion on demand, and, secondly, scarcely anybody is satisfied with the present Bill as it stands. It is my contention that the Abortion Bill now before the House is ill-conceived and ill-timed, and that it should be withdrawn from the programme of the Government. This Bill does not serve any useful purpose at all and will not answer any need expressed by the people. When the then Minister for Health announced that the Government was proposing to introduce a Bill to liberalise abortion, was this in response to any public clamour for a change in the existing law? It was not. His announcement was received with dismay by many, with surprise by all. This Bill was not something that the people wanted, lt was something that the Government thought up for the good of the state; it was something on which, in my opinion, the Government's thinking went seriously wrong.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, according to the Estimates, the Ambassadors and High Commissioners are placed under certain grades like 'E' and so forth. I think they do come into this?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in our debate on the 1968 Estimates I noticed that we have various categories of Ambassadors and High Commissioners. Would all these come under one and the same category?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I think I have come across a number of cases where senior civil servants have been acting for quite a long time. I am inclined to agree with the Minister that promotion exercises should be more frequent. I hope the time factor will be taken into consideration, that is, instead of a lapse of 18 months, let us have promotion exercises on a yearly basis so that we will not have senior officers acting for two or three years. If they are found to be unsuitable for promotion, another officer ought to be found to act with a view to finding the right man for the right place.”
“Sir, yesterday the Minister mentioned promotion exercises. I would like to know how frequently promotion exercises will be held so as to enable Division I officers to be promoted e.g, to Superscale C, B or A posts.”
“Sir, does it mean that the taxpayers will have to dig deeper into their pockets if Government pays $5¬ million more each year?”
“Sir, since Government accepts a good proportion of the recommendations of the Salaries Commission, it means that more expenditure will have to be incurred each year. Therefore, I shall be grateful if the Minister for Finance can enlighten the House on how much the additional recurrent expenditure will be for each year.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, what measure of success has been achieved as a result of the introduction of E.T.V. programmes in secondary schools?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, since the Educational Advisory Council is inefficient and too large, would the Government consider abolishing it?”
“Mr Speaker, as stated by you, Sir, and in view of the lengthy statement of the Hon. Minister for Finance on the Report of the Civil Service Salaries Commission of Singapore, 1967, I would like, notwithstanding Standing Orders, to seek general concurrence so that questions be taken tomorrow.”
“Sir, can the Parliamentary Secretary clarify the phrase "as soon as possible"?”
“Sir, can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Communications inform this House when this scheme will be implemented?”
“Will the Minister give the House the location of these sub-collection centres and collection points of the mobile sub-collection centres?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, will the Minister indicate whether the Public Utilities Board is continuously looking into the question of setting up more sub-collection centres?”
“The Bill is not out. How can I study it?”
“I think the Minister for Health will agree with me that I stated that I reserved my comments on the Bill until it comes before this House. Mr Chua Sian Chin: The Member for Punggol is putting the cart before the horse! He opposes first, and then says that when he looks at the provisions -”
“Once it is put up, I hope I can be assured that it will not turn out to be a "white elephant". Also what contribution will this National Stadium make in the field of sports? How often will it be used, and how will it help towards the building of a more robust and rugged society, as has just been mentioned by the Member for Changi? Therefore, justification must be made "to get full value for every dollar spent". May I, Sir, now come to my last point. I refer to the last paragraph in the Addendum sub-titled "Family Planning" under the Ministry of Health. No doubt it is a short paragraph but if one were to read it carefully, one finds that "family planning will be prosecuted with greater vigour". I have already expressed my views on this matter when I commented on the Government's White Paper on family planning and this is contained in the Hansard, Vol. 24, No. 4, dated 15th December, 1965, in columns 171 to 173. I am astounded to know that "family planning will be prosecuted with great vigour" and will be "augmented by the . .legislation to legalise abortions and the voluntary sterilization of persons". I am not in favour of it and I shall reserve my comments until the Bill is introduced. Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, I have earlier stated that I shall deal with only a few topics and leave the rest to my colleagues, the Backbenchers. I have also pointed out at the beginning of my short speech that we are one people, determined to face the future in spite of the crucial years ahead and to be a nation. I am confident that we will continue to survive, come what may. 3.53 p.m.”
“As we are in the process of training a new generation of fishermen for both off-shore and deep-sea fishing which no doubt will ultimately help in the economic growth, we will continue to have to depend largely on the import of fish and maybe fishing vessels from other countries to discharge their catches at Jurong. If this is the case, then we may envisage the need to build a fish-canning factory near the market. Mr Speaker, Sir, since I have mentioned the National Sports Stadium earlier, I would like to obtain some form of assurance and information regarding this complex. I understand that $50 million will be needed to put up and complete this complex. Once it is put up, I hope I can be ---”
“This is a "fishy" problem, because we have neither a Navy nor adequate marine patrols to patrol satisfactorily our territorial waters to give the necessary protection for our trawlers and fishermen when they go out to the open sea to make their living and to make a safe return. Hon. Members in the last Parliament will remember the occasions when it was brought to light that a number of our trawlers and fishermen had been apprehended or held to ransom by pirates just outside international waters. What then would be the safeguards and measures the Government will take to ensure our fishermen a free- from-hindrance fear when they take to sea? This is the crux of the problem. Providing the necessary know how, technique and training for a new generation of fishermen is not so much of a problem; the real problem lies in what I have just pointed out. Under the heading "Primary Production and Urban and Rural Services", the second paragraph outlines the expansion of the fishing industry. It is interesting to note that a Fisheries Wharf and Central Fish Auction Market are being constructed to provide a system of fish landing, marketing and distribution at Jurong. To date, Sir, I would like to know of the number of deep-fishing companies set up and the total capital invested. Also, how are we to make full use of the facilities in attracting larger fishing vessels to discharge their catches here? In other words, what depth of study in this particular field has been made and what proportions would it benefit us? I am not being pessimistic about the project.”
“The building of more farm schools in centrally-located farming areas for the training and teaching of correct farming techniques is essential. Otherwise, farming as a means of livelihood will not attract those handicapped educationally, so to speak, to take to farming. And in that case the dependence on farm products from the countries outside the Republic will become greater. Sir, it is becoming more apparent that more and more land which were once zoned for agricultural purposes are today fast disappearing, for many an area has given way to other forms of development. If such is the case, there will come a time when farming will cease altogether. I hope this will not come about and that every possible step will be taken to preserve such lands for farming activities, for their products have been helping our national economy in no small measure. That the fisheries industry is being catered for and that considerable efforts are being made towards the training of a new generation of fishermen both off-shore and deep-sea fishing deserve some comment. At present off-shore fishing is carried out mainly by otter-trawlers ranging from five to 15 tons and manned by crews from five to 10 persons. Whilst noting that steps are being taken in this direction, I find again in the Addendum no safeguards or protection for our trawlers; simply because marine patrols are lacking and neighbouring countries have extended their territorial waters from three to 12 miles. Therefore, some form of arrangement should be made between these countries to allow free passage of our trawlers in their fishing pursuits, not forgetting that Singapore is a small State surrounded by water and also surrounded by other countries.”
“In my area it is much larger; probably ten Stamford parliamentary divisions can be put into Punggol. Sir, it is simply because laying a water main to these remote areas would entail high costs. Therefore, how long have these people to wait before they are given the supplies? However, it is indeed reassuring to note that with the commissioning of the Johore River Waterworks and the commencement of the Seletar Project, water supplies will be immensely increased. It is thus my hope that the rural folks in such areas will not have to wait too long and that their needs will not be forgotten. I would go on to suggest that a scheme be drawn up with a view to ensuring that water supplies be made available to the remotest village or kampong in any rural constituency, probably Choa Chu Kang, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance, was trying to catch my eye. Now that he is on the Government Bench, he finds it difficult to bring up such matters. This scheme or project may not sound workable in view of the high costs, but if it is carried out, it will close the gap between the "haves and the have-nots" by a step closer. Primary production takes my attention next. It is also reassuring to note that the farmers will continue to be taken care of through the provision of services and advice to enable them to increase their farm products and reduce production costs. It appears vague in the Addendum, Sir, and I would like to know how this is to be done. As land availability is limited, intensive and diversified farming becomes essential to sustain this part of our economy. Maximum utilisation of the land available for farming activities to increase farm products must result. The outmoded form of farming must give way to modern techniques.”
“No doubt a good part of Punggol has been electrified; there are, however, certain remote areas where the population is sparse and for which such supplies are not available. As I understand it, it is because of the heavy costs that will have to be incurred that they are prevented from enjoying this facility. I suppose that several million dollars are needed to electrify these remote villages or kampongs in the various rural constituencies. But if I may ask, what is several million dollars compared to spending fifty million dollars to build a National Sports Stadium complex as Kallang where I am sure, Sir, not all the two million people will benefit. Therefore, I would plead that the Government do consider my point, as many requests have been made and some have yet to be acceeded to. I now turn to water supplies. I wish to make a similar plea on supplies of water. A national exercise is being carried out to remove as many public standpipes as possible. This, I understand, resulted from public wastage and indiscriminate use of water and the Government has to pay as much as $1.5 million to $2 million worth of water consumed at these standpipes each year. But before the standpipes are removed, plans will have to be prepared for the laying of water mains to the kampongs and connection of water supplies to the homes will have to be encouraged. Again, Sir, I must emphasise that such supplies should also be made available to the remotest kampong. For example, I have in my constituency several remote kampongs which up till today have yet to have such supplies, let alone having a stand-pipe to share. Why is this so? [Interruption] That is because the hon. Member's constituency is urban and he does not need standpipes.”
“, then he will benefit in three ways for his services, namely, pension, gratuity and C.P.F, contributions. This should not be the case. Therefore, a scheme will have to be worked out whereby all those already emplaced in permanent service may be allowed to draw a pension upon their retirement and made to contribute' towards the C.P.F, up to their retirement age; maybe a smaller proportion of the gratuity will be paid to them; also those on probation will be made to contribute, say, 73 per cent to 10 per cent of their salary or total emoluments to the C.P.F, and the Government, as employer, will do likewise. Upon his retirement, the employee will receive a lump sum instead, and this will, of course, be bigger than the gratuity that he would have received if he had not contributed towards the C.P.F. I hope this suggestion will deserve consideration in that not only will it help economic growth, but it will also enable a compulsory saving scheme to' materialise in which every employee is made to be a contributor to the C.P.F. With this, Sir, I now come to the problem in which the gap between "the' haves and the have-nots", though considerably reduced, has as yet to be bridged. In other words, the perspective, as I look at, is the provision of social amenities in the rural constituencies like Jalan Kayu and Tampines, or Punggol for that matter. Although much has been provided for them by way of electricity and water supplies and better roads and drainage, I am of the opinion that a lot more will have to be done so that the facilities as such that are being enjoyed by the urban population will by the best possible means be also made available to the rural population. In this respect, I propose to deal with the problem by items: - I refer first to electrification scheme.”
“I welcome the proposal to increase the range of contributions towards the Central Provident Fund by including both those employed in the Government and the Statutory Boards as a necessary measure to mobilise domestic savings to be employed to counter recession strategy. This move is both sound and wise. Not only will it bring about an equitable sharing of responsibility by both the employer and the employee to make a must of compulsory saving, but in this case the Government is realistic enough to realise that, by introducing such a move, both the Government and people will benefit directly and indirectly. Directly, it takes shape in the form of compulsory savings that will be reserved for the member-contributor until he reaches retiring age when he will have at his disposal a considerable sum that will continue to ensure him a more secure future in spending his years of retirement. Obviously, he may turn to voluntary social service to the Republic despite his retirement. This is the direct benefit the employee, whether he is from the private sector or public service, will get. Indirectly, with the contributions, of both the employee and employer, the Central Provident Fund will be able to mobilise the use of such funds to counter the recession strategy and promote industrial growth. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to suggest further that with the introduction of such a proposal, the question of payment of other forms of benefits. In the public service, like gratuities, be abolished. In the field of public service, a civil servant on top of getting his pension also gets his gratuity, the amount of which will depend on the number of years of service he has put in. And if he should be made to contribute towards the C.P.F.”
“However, given the right thinking and approach, I am optimistic that unemployment will be greatly reduced if real sacrifices are made and everybody plays his part well. In a small way, if the retirement age is limited to 55 years instead of the present 60 years, the chances of job opportunities would increase, though not considerably. Bearing in mind that more than half our population is below the age of 21, this would help ease, to some extent, the unemployment situation if both the private and public sectors retire workers who reach the age of 55. With the younger workers replacing those retired, recurrent expenditure by way of salaries and other emoluments would be reduced. This is a possibility well worth looking into. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Finance, over radio and T.V, on 30th March this year, talked on "How to beat the slump". He clearly elucidated that the gradual withdrawal of the British defence commitments would mean a reduction in military expenditure to the tune of $900 million between now and 1971. He then went on to explain in general detail how the Government proposes "to prevent this recession". And in his subsequent talk on 16th April on "Economic Growth", he laid emphasis on the increase of economic growth through the entrepot trade, tourism, shipping and the manufacturing industry. These two talks clearly present the complexity and magnitude of the crucial years ahead of us. As I have pointed out, Sir, I am no economist, so I will turn to the next heading "Central Provident Fund".”
“Therefore, if the introduction of the Bill were to bring about more job opportunities in the fields which I have mentioned earlier, then it might prove inadequate to resolve the unemployment situation. But I do not think the Government is so naive as to introduce a Bill to serve a particular purpose only. As has been briefly described, it is to "increase productivity and promote more industrial growth", therefore the scope would cover a wider field definitely, and this must rightly be so. But again there is the question of how fast can industrial growth be generated or accelerated in order to provide jobs for the thousands of already unemployed and, at the same time, for some 20,000 secondary school-leavers who will be entering the labour market each year. Therefore, industrial growth must take a new dimension if we are to reduce this staggering figure of the unemployed to a manageable number. In other words, this figure must somehow be reduced through industrial growth to manageable proportions so that social discontent and instability may not result. I am particularly happy to see that with the expanding hotel and catering industry, courses will be organised to train people in the know-how of this particular industry. But again I would imagine that only a certain number would benefit. I am no economist, and I do not profess to be one either. However, looking at the ever-increasing number of unemployed in spite of the vigorous efforts the Government has consistently put in, I would be credulous if I were to believe that unemployment could be solved that easily. This has been proved in countries which are both more highly industrialised and well developed.”
“In this respect, I hope, Mr Speaker, Sir, you will allow me latitude and bear with me if I were to be a bit too specific and detailed in the course of my speech, because details are sometimes necessary to illustrate and emphasise a point. It is reassuring to note that a comprehensive Employment Bill will be introduced and that some of the Ordinances like the Labour Ordinance of 1955, the Shop Assistants Employment Ordinance of 1957 and the Clerks Employment Ordinance of 1957 will be repealed. In other words, the proposed Bill will cut across all sections of the `so many schemes or agreements of employment and will establish one single comprehensive form of employment Ordinance that will regulate and curtail employment benefits. Inevitably, more employment opportunities would result to take in a good number of the unemployed. It is, therefore, opportune and timely to introduce such a form of employment legislation, as Singapore will have to face and live up to the crucial years ahead. The order of the day will be "sacrifice and more sacrifice" and every worker must put in a full day's work for a full day's wage. It is both a commendable and ambitious scheme and can only succeed when the people bravely live up to `the challenge. I am positive we will. However, neither the number of jobs to be created nor the percentage of the total unemployed to be reduced by this piece of legislation is indicated in the Addendum to the President's Speech. I am of the opinion that the trade sector will be unable to take in a considerable number, say, for example, the white-collar jobs. Admittedly this sector will not be a good job-provider. This point has already been explained by the Finance Minister in his Budget Statement in the last Parliamentary Budget session.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I speak in support of the motion moved by the Prime Minister. In his speech, the President described this Parliament as a "Parliament which is faced with problems of more than usual magnitude" and he finally exhorted hon. Members "to speak in forthright terms to reflect and more important to lead thinking and feeling in the country". And to leave our Republic more flourishing and secure at the end of this Parliament. I am positive and optimistic that we all will give of our best. For this is our country. The people have almost unanimously voted for all the 58 candidates of the P.A.P., of whom 51 were returned unopposed on Nomination Day, to make this Parliament a one-party Parliament! This is not only unique in the history of parliamentary democracy at work; but more important still, it manifests to the world the demonstration of absolute unity on the part of the people in a multi-racial nation of two million to be a people, to be a nation and to survive as one as long as time, in this part of turbulent Southeast Asia. Sir, the Addendum to the speech by the President and also the series of talks given by the Ministers clearly portray the crucial years ahead and what positive steps the Government will be taking to resolve them. Also, what the people and country will have to face in the next five years or more. With the absence of an Opposition, it does not necessarily mean that this Parliament will not make any contribution; in fact, it shall at the end of its life leave Singapore more flourishing and secure. Since there are many hon. Members in this Chamber who will be making solid and constructive comments on the President's Speech, I shall on my part traverse a few topics and leave the rest for my colleagues to deliberate.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is fully aware of such cases. My question is: would the Minister, of whichever Ministry concerned, try to seek the release of our fishermen? And if I may add, Sir, I have copies of correspondence seeking the release of our fishermen, and up to date no sign of any release has been made.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, is the Minister of State of Defence aware that some of our fishermen who have been kidnapped by pirates arc at present stranded in certain islands off Singapore? And if he is aware, what steps will he take to seek their release?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, is the Deputy Prime Minister aware that since the Standing Orders were drawn up, they have been amended several times? But subsequent to our achieving independent status and the passing of several Acts, namely, the Constitution (Amendment) Act, 1965, and the Republic of Singapore Inde pendence Act (No. 9 of 1965), I believe there are consequential amendments necessary to be made to the Standing Orders. For example, in the Standing Orders, under the section "Order of Business", one sees "Yang di-Pertuan Negara's Address" and "Messages from the Yang di-Pertuan Negara". I would say that, in order to keep our Standing Orders up to date, amendments are necessary.”
“Sir, I have just mentioned it. I can table this in the House. It is a list showing the amounts of money approved by the U.R.S.C. and Projects Committee for urban and rural services for the year 1967. I was just going to establish the fact that the M.P.s in the rural areas are not sleeping. They are working and in some cases have already asked for more funds than necessary. I think it is not fair of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development in one breath to make it appear that all M.P.s in the rural areas are sleeping and not working.”
“If others do not make use of the funds, we, the M.P.s in the rural areas, must ask that these funds be expended. Serangoon Gardens, for example, was given only $21,521. Amount expended - I think it is a shocking amount - was $143,931.50. In other words, Serangoon Gardens has overspent -”
“Sir, I have to point out that the rural M.P.s did their job as a result of that circular. Pasir Panjang over-expended more than $3,000. Paya Lebar was allocated $35,000; it spent $56,000; overspent by $20,000. Punggol was allocated $78,247; it spent $88,383; overspent by $10,000. An hon. Member: Well done!”
“Sir, may I deal with one particular point which the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development has pointed out? It is in regard to a circular his Minister sent out to all rural M.P.s asking them to come forward with their recommendations to utilise the surplus funds that vvere not expended. Sir, in one breath he stated that all the rural M.P.s did not do their job. Therefore, in refuting this I produce the Urban and Rural Services Committee's list showing the aniount of money approved by the U.R.S.C. and Projects Committee for urban and rural services for the year 1967. Let me trouble the House with a little bit of detail. Changi, for example, is a rural constituency. The revised allocation of funds stood at $87,969; the amount expended was $98,180. In other words, a debit amount of $10,211. Therefore, the M.P. has done his job. Similarly, Choa Chu Kang, which is a rural area, was allocated $77,500, and it expended $89,900; over-expenditure $12,000. Now let us come to Kampong Kembangan. Amount allocated was $44,100; amount expended was $68,420; amount over-expended was $24,350.25. An hon. Member: What about Punggol?”
“meet and decide what to do with the requests from the various constituencies, it will not be necessary just to say, "All right, we have expended the provision under the particular item; therefore, nothing can be done further." So, on that note I hope the rural constituencies will benefit more as a result of the many requests made by my colleagues, the Members of Parliament representing the rural areas, and also as a result of the motions on the adjourn, ment put before the House sometime this year.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, as an M.P. from the rural area I have to dwell on the urban and rural services. I notice that in 1966 and 1967 there was an estimated expenditure of some $2.78 million, but for next year it is only $2.2 million. That is a big slice of about half a million dollars less for the provision of such services. I would say that instead of provision for urban and rural services, it should be provision for rural services. I take in particular item 001, for which $700,000 is provided. There is a big cut of more than $600,000. I fully subscribe to what my colleagues from the rural areas have stated; that is, give a little bit to the urban areas, just a token provision, as what has been listed in many items in the Development Estimates. If there is a project which warrants a particular sum of expenditure, then the Urban and Rural Services Committee would decide whether that money should be spent. The funds to be proportionately allocated to the constituencies should take into consideration the fact that the rural constituencies need these funds most. The rural folks lack a lot of social amenities. For example, you can see under item 011, extension of water supply, that the vote has been increased to $600,000. Many motions on the adjournment have been made in this House pertaining to the needs of the rural folks in these constituencies. I am happy to note that the provisions have been increased for certain items. However, in the case of agricultural and kampong roads, there is a big cut. I hope with this $2.256 million the Parlia mentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development will take into consideration the fact that when the U.R.S.C.”
“Yes, Sir. In fact, I anticipated this answer and that is why I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $9,975,060 for Head 66 ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head 67 -”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 66 be reduced by the whole sum in respect of subhead 104. Sir, I notice that this subhead refers to sewerage in Serangoon. As Punggol is next to Serangoon, I wonder whether the sewerage system can be extended to that part of Punggol which is quite well developed. As for the rest of Punggol, the Minister will probably turn round and say that it is a rural area with a low population density.”
“Sir, I would like to dwell on this topic - pedestrian overhead bridges and underpasses. I fully agree with what the Minister has said. But I have another point here and that is two pedestrian crossings were obliterated at Upper Serangoon Road 6¼ m.s. An overhead bridge was constructed near one of them. But over on the other side, away from Tampines Circus where traffic lights have just been installed, the pedestrian crossing has been obliterated by the Public Works Department. I did point out to the traffic police and the P.W.D, that they should have studied the case first before removing such a crossing, since this has caused a lot of inconvenience to the public in that the pedestrian crossing happened to be used mostly by the residents in Punggol and those living around that area. Although that pedestrian crossing has been removed, people are still treating it as if there is still a pedestrian crossing there and crossing the road at random, and on many occasions I had to slow down my car in order to enable the pedestrians to cross. On this note, will the Minister kindly look into this matter regarding the obliteration of the pedestrian crossing at Upper Serangoon Road 6¼ m.s.?”
“Yes, Sir. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The following amendment stood in the name of Mr Ng Kah Ting - (2) That the sum to be allocated for Head 63 be reduced by the whole sum in respect of subhead 105.”
“Sir, there is no doubt that the $10 token vote is there, but as I have pointed out just now, I appeal to the Minister to convince his colleague the Minister for Finance to provide the necessary funds for the building of abattoirs in the rural areas. Until the Jurong Abattoir has been completed, the residents living in areas remote from Jurong in the meantime will be suffering and how can we relieve them?”
“Thank you, Sir,I hope that next time when I speak, my friend the Member for Choa Chu Kang will not care to interrupt. This cuts jif a lot of time. While Members are complaining that they have no time and Ministers too have no time to reply, one Member here stands up and says,. "No quorum." Thank you very much, Sir, for saying that there is a quorum. Coming back to my point - rural abattoirs. I am making a special appeal in this House for the consideration of the Minister to construct rural abattoirs in certain rural areas where they can be located for the convenience of the' butchers. In the markets, probably the butchers could sell a few pigs a day.. But if you have to travel all the way to the Central Abattoir in Jurong, which actually is meant for meat canning - do you get the services you want? I do not know, but this is an important point that I want to press home.”