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 9 of 38.
“Sir, may I ask the Parliamentary Secretary how many of these schools will be built in the Punggol constituency?”
“Sir, would it not be right to say that on the expiry of their contract, these officers or other ranks would have to look for alternative employment in other sectors, bearing in mind the fact that they have already done some service in the specialised form or whatever?”
“If that is the case, would it not make service in the Armed Forces less attractive in view of the contractual time?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, can I ask the hon. Minister of State, if the condition on contract were to be removed, would it not help the SAF better?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, is the Minister of State aware that the term "boat-building" here implies that the boat-builders have upgraded themselves into building fibre-glass boats, like pleasure craft and small fishing craft? If that is the case, would the Minister seek the assistance of the agency, like JTC, in the relocation of such business which is affected by resettlement?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, can I ask the Minister of State what steps are being taken to maintain zero defect of the ARD?”
“Sir, if that is the case, would the Parliamentary Secretary confirm that, come August 1984, these two primary schools will be ready, since he has just pointed out that piling tender has just been awarded. Mr Ho Kah Leong: Sir, we shall try to ask the PWD to meet the target date. PROTECTION FOR LITERARY WORKS 2. Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam asked the Minister for Law whether his Ministry is aware of the deep dissatisfaction felt by writers in Singapore at the lack of protection for literary works published by them and whether the Government proposes to do anything about this.”
“Sir, may I know from the Parliamentary Secretary what is the cost of this primary school?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in view of the announcement by the Hon. Minister for National Development that prices of HDB flats will go up in the next two to three years, does not this become a more compelling reason for the compensation rates, whether they are ex gratia or otherwise, to be revised?”
“To ask the Miniser for National Development how much has been raised by the levy of $10 per pig slaughtered in the abattoirs since 1st March, 1981, and whether the $100 per pig subsidy, as announced by the Minister for the Environment, will be sufficient to defray the cost of construction of the pig-waste treatment plant.”
“(2) That the sum to be allocated for Head 0 be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead OB-01 of the Development Estimates. The sum of $49,678,760 for Head 0 ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $12,000,000 for Head 0 ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head J -”
“(8) That the sum to be allocated for Head P be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead PH-02 of the Development Estimates.”
“(6) That the sum to be allocated for Head P be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead PD-02 of the Development Estimates.”
“Sir, I am more than happy with the Minister of State's reply and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head T be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead TH-06 of the Development Estimates. Sir, with your indulgence, the Minister of State has, in fact, given some answers to questions that I intend to raise about the - development of farmlands at Punggol and Seletar when he mentioned about the success in the development of pig farms. There are about 200 pig farmers in Punggol and my problem is that the pig farmers are now being asked to install treatment plants for pig waste. The House is well aware of the fact that $10 is levied per pig slaughtered, and a sum of $25 million was collected sometime ago. I suppose the figure is bigger now. What form of help would these farmers get when they are asked to set up these pig waste treatment plants? My question on fisheries is actually a very small point pertaining to the Punggol Fishing Port and Auction Market which has been under construction for some time. My concern is the slow progress because I note there has been a re-vote of $1.5 million against a provision of some $3 million in FY 81. For FY 82, the provision is $3.457 million. I hope the Minister can enlighten this House as to the progress of the development of the Punggol Fishing Port, and when it will be completed.”
“To be fair to the Resettlement Department of the HDB, I must say that they are really doing their work for in some cases the Resettlement Department officials have been able to accommodate some of the requests. However, Sir, I can see the obvious problems arising out of the varied requests as I am given to understand that cases of rehousing under the resettlement programme take priority over public housing applicants. So they stand a chance but at a slight advantage over the ordinary public housing applicants. Whilst I understand the plight of those affected by resettlement, I would like to ask the Hon. Minister how he proposes to alleviate the trauma of those affected by resettlement. As rightly pointed out by the Member for Chua Chu Kang, these people have been uprooted from their place, a place they have lived maybe for two or three generations and as a result they have come to us with various types of requests. Now, Sir, I do not wish to go into the various details in this House as I have already spoken quite clearly on this matter on many occasions in the last 11 years. Suffice it to say, Sir, I would like to ask whether the Government would give more than a listening ear to the requests of those affected by clearance, that is to say, the Government must show more compassion and concern for these people.”
“Thank you, Sir, for your correction. I am happy to note the very substantial increase in the provision to $27 million for resettlement as against $19 million provided for FY 81. As I have said earlier, this is an increase of 50%. I take it that the increase in this year's provision is largely due to the numerous representations by my PAP colleagues on the Backbench. In this respect, may I refer to the reply given by the Hon. Minister of State for National Development in this House on 22nd December last year to the Member for Tiong Bahru, who has now been elevated to the office of Senior Parliamentary Secretary (Prime Minister's Office). The reply was as follows [Hansard, Vol. 41, col. 304]: '. . it is Government policy to review periodically the rates for resettlement compensation. There have been two reviews in the last three years. In March, 1979, compensation rates were increased by an average of 20%. In March 1981, there was a further increase of 30% in compensation rates. The next review of rates will be undertaken by the Housing and Development Board in the first half of 1982.' Sir, it is specifically towards this end that I am directing my remarks to the Hon. Minister, that is, to enlighten the House whether there will in fact be an increase in the rates of ex-gratia compensation. I would like to make a strong plea to the Minister. In my constituency resettlement has been going on for the last 11 years since 1971. There are many thousands of resettlement cases in Punggol and it is not surprising at all for me to receive so many requests not only for rehousing priority in the area of their choice but also against the paltry sums, I repeat, paltry sums, classified as "rates of ex-gratia payment", that is, payment out of grace which is not a right.”
“That may be so. But, in actual fact, I suspect there is going to be an increase. I think the Hon. Minister will come to this question eventually. Sir, with the substantial increase of $27 million - Mr Tang See Chim: Sir, on a point of order. I do not know whether -”
“Sir, first of all, for the information of the Member for Chua Chu Kang, under Subhead TG-02 of the Development Estimates, there is a provision of $27 million for FY 82 as against $19 million for FY 81. This represents a 50% increase in the payment of ex-gratia compensation.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have an amendment* under the Development Estimates in respect of resettlement. May I have your permission to speak now so that I need not move my amendment later?”
“But we must strike a balance because we cannot convert all the open spaces into car parks and thereby deprive the residents of the greenery. On this question of shortage of car parks in Punggol, I think I will ask the HDB to look into it, and we will base the request on the same principle. If there are really not enough car parks, we will provide more car parks. On the question of upgrading the skills of construction workers, HDB is at present providing interest-free loans to contractors to buy more machines in order to mechanize more processes in the construction industry. The second point is that HDB has awarded the "prefabrication" contract to foreign contractors, and we hope the foreign contractors will bring new construction techniques and new technology to Singapore to upgrade the construction industry. Another matter is that the HDB is undertaking the training of some of the national servicemen to be skilled construction workers. We are hoping that these people, after their national service, will eventually remain in the building industry to become skilled workers. Also, HDB together with other Government departments are at present considering the setting up of a school to train skilled workers. This is in the thinking stage at the moment.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the Hon. Minister has not answered two of my questions. One is on the overall central planning of new estates. Can the HDB not look into the question of providing sufficient car parking lots? The second question is with regard to the upgrading of skills in the construction industry. How does the HDB propose to tackle this problem of upgrading the skills, taking into consideration mechanization and automation? The Minister has not replied to these two points. Mr Teh Cheang Wan: Mr Speaker, Sir, regarding the increase of car parks in HDB estates, the HDB has a standard on the provision of car parks for various types of flats. From our experience, when an estate is occupied, in the beginning, the car parks are adequate. But subsequently as the owners of flats or tenants improve their economic situation, they start buying cars, then there is the complaint of the shortage of car parks. On the whole, there are more car parks in the HDB estates than cars. But the reason car owners. are complaining is that they are unable to park their cars in the particular car park, usually near their flats. The HDB works on the principle that if there are surplus car parks within the housing estate but are some distance away from the popular areas, then the HDB will not increase the car parks. The HDB will tell the residents, "If you cannot get parking lots in this particular car park, there are other car parks in the estate with vacant lots and you can apply for those lots." But if there are really not enough car parking lots, in other words, there are more cars than parking lots, then the HDB will consider providing additional car parks. 3.00 p.m.”
“I think public housing deserves top priority over other pressing matters, as it is a programme to meet the housing needs of our people. While we take pride that about 70% of our population are now housed in HDB flats, I am sure a good number of new applicants have joined in the queue for more flats. Hence, the need to accelerate the housing programme in the 80s. May the Hon. Minister in reply also enlighten the House on upgrading skills in the construction industry, not only from the point of mechanization and automation, but also from the point of developing higher skills on the part of our construction workers, bearing in mind the fact that foreign workers will be phased out in years to come. Sir, can the HDB not also look into the question of providing more car parking lots in the new estates in their conceptual plans of housing estates, as the number of flat dwellers owning cars has definitely increased? For example, Punggol Estate, which has some 21 housing blocks, needs at least 200 more car parking lots. Finally, Sir, in accelerating the housing programme, can the Hon. Minister inform the House of the reduction in the waiting time for those who have applied for HDB flats? Mr Jeyaretnam rose -”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to ask a few questions of the Hon. Minister for National Development with regard to the fact that the HDB will be given a loan of $2.253 billion for FY 82, representing an increase of $789 million or 53.9% over FY 81 provision. Before I come to my question, I would like to draw the attention of the House to the remarks made by the Hon. Minister for Trade and Industry in his Budget Statement where it is stated: 'Over this decade, the construction industry will figure even more in our economic plan because of the additional challenge it faces of having to build 290,000 new HDB flats for our population by 1990.' To my mind, the growth of the HDB with regard to the building of housing units in the years 1980 and 1981 had been rather slow, due to a variety of factors like shortage of labour, and building materials. Whilst the HDB has been able to overcome the latter problem, that is, building materials, it has still to come to grips and work out the question of labour. This brings me to the point of what the HDB intends to do to overcome the problem. According to the HDB Annual Report 1980-81, a record Government loan of $1.13 billion was given to the Board which represented 36% more than the year before, but despite this increase in loans, the number of housing units completed, as I was given to understand, was very much less. In this respect, with such a substantial increase in loan for FY 82, can the Hon. Minister elaborate on what would be the target of growth in the public housing programme for the coming fiscal year? I know that the HDB had in the latter half of last year been able to get contractors to come forward and accept big contracts so as to build more housing units.”
“A little space set aside for a coffee-shop so that there will be some opportunity for coffee-shop talk. [Interruption]. Nothing is for free! Mr Speaker, Sir, I can only hope that this money is well spent; I repeat, money well spent. The size of the MRT is so huge and that is why Parliament has, by statute, set up the Provisional Mass Rapid Transit Authority and allocated funds to it to make further studies from all angles, as to its cost-effectiveness, viability and so on - I am no economist and so I cannot use all the economics jargon, but I work on simple arithmetic, i.e. on dollars and cents - whether this is a right move, a good one, and most of all, whether it is in the interest of Singaporeans and Singapore. That is the key question. Of course, we must not forget that it entails losses; as pointed out rightly by my good Friend, the hon. Member for Clementi, that in running such a system, it would mean that it is bound to incur losses. If there is a loss, may the House be informed of the extent of this loss annually. If that is forthcoming, we will then debate further when we resume sitting on Monday.”
“Yes, community centres. At today's price, Sir, there would be at least 10 new community centres with squash courts, lawn tennis courts, indoor badminton courts as well as a nice auditorium. An hon. Member: Coffee-shop.”
“He has. Let us hear from him on Monday whether a firm decision has been taken. I share the points made by the hon. Member for Clementi that with the $21 million already spent, we could have done other things.”
“No. Because more than that was spent. My good Friend, the Member for Khe Bong, had made the remark that so much public money had been spent on all kinds of feasibility studies, and one calls it an on-going project? This year, for FY 82, this House is asked to approve $8.523 million. In other words, a rough estimate of $21 million would have been spent on feasibility studies alone, Mr Speaker, Sir. No decision has been taken so far and this is the point which I want to stress - I hope the Minister has got all the reports in hand.”
“Sir, thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak under the same Subhead. I share fully the sentiments expressed by the hon. Members for Telok Blangah and Clementi. The subject of MRT has been debated in the last few years, What I wish to point out is that, according to the Memorandum on the Budget, page 17, the MRT is described as an on-going project. In other words, the project is on. The total original cost, as stated in the Development Estimates, is $21 million. For FY 80 and FY 81, $7.5 million of public money has already been spent. Was it worth it? An hon. Member: Yes.”
“Sir, can I ask the Minister one small point concerning telemetering? The Minister mentioned that this telemeter could automatically read the consumption of water, gas and electricity. May I ask him what is the degree of accuracy of such reading because he mentioned that this prob(em of quarrelling with the PUB over meter-reading would then be resolved. I must ask him to inform this House how accurate is this telemeter. Mr Jeyaretnam: Sir, I am sorry, but I must again ask for your indulgence to say a little bit. I am sorry that the Member for Khe Bong has used this amendment to attack me in this House. Let us get everything clear because I have got nothing to hide about these things. This meeting two Sundays ago was at the request of people who came to see me at my Meet-the-People sessions. I met them at the void deck. If the Member for Khe Bong would like to know who attended, I have got a list, and it is not just two or three non-citizens. I have got their addresses and their identity card numbers. Would he like to inspect them?”
“Thank you, Sir. I rise to speak, first of all, in support of the observations of my good Friend, the Member for Khe Bong. I would like to ask the Hon. Minister for Communications and Minister for Labour two questions. First, I have read in the local press reports about the development of two systems called the telemetering and teleview which are supposed to provide various types of information through the television set. Would the Minister give this House some idea as to what these projects are, their present stage of development and how much these will cost the consumer? Talking about costs, may I refer the Hon. Minister to the Memorandum on the Budget, at page 7, just below Table V, where it states. 'Stringent control has been exercised on increases in recurrent expenditure so that more funds can be made available for development projects.' Sir, in my amendment under Subhead (A-01 Object Group 3310, there are three items under "Other transfers:- (1) Dental subsidy, (2) Staff recreation and welfare expenses and (3) Skills Development Fund contribution." Of course, I am not quarrelling with him on the Skills Development Fund contribution. But I notice that the other two new items can also be found under the same subheads of the other Heads of Expenditure. I hope in his answer he will no doubt cover the other Ministries as well. What is the reason for these provisions? Can the amount of, say, $200 for dental subsidy be sufficient under the General Administration? With regard to Staff recreation and welfare expenses, there is a provision of $39,100. I would be grateful if the Minister could kindly elaborate on these three points.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to speak on this subhead now so that I need not move amendment No.(2)?*”
“Sir, I was not in any way trying to answer for the Hon. Minister of State. I was just highlighting by the two examples the rigidity of the Immigration policy that is closely adhered to by the Immigration Department. But since he has mentioned the question of work permit holders, is he not aware that we have granted many thousands of work permits? Does this not, therefore, bring about more than a social problem in time to come? Fortunately we are plugging the loophole that foreign workers will be out by 1984. Therefore, the other part of the question is what will the Ministry do, in conjunction with the Ministry of Labour, in regard to those work permit holders who have worked here for quite some time but who have not complied with the rules and conditions governing contracting of marriages outside Singapore with Singapore citizens and then saying, "Look, I have been working in Singapore for some time. Can I bring my spouse in?" "Spouse" is a neutral gender that embraces both the male and female. So I would be grateful if the Hon. Minister of State can elaborate on this.”
“Let me therefore ask this House to face one cold fact - that the world does not owe us a living. We must make our own living not only for ourselves but also for our children and our children's children. In other words, Sir, I mean that the policies carried out by the Government must be in the interest of Singapore and her people.”
“This illegal immigrant had been living in Singapore for some years after having illegally come to Singapore. Despite my plea for an extension of stay, the Immigration Department refused, and subsequently this person decided to go back to China. The reason given by the Controller of Immigration was that this particular person could not be allowed to continue to stay in Singapore as he had no proper travel documents. Moreover, when he was questioned as to where he came from, he refused to disclose except to say that he was born in China. So he had to go back to China. Rightly, the Immigration Department politely but firmly refused my two requests. It goes on to show that the Government does carry out its Immigration policy fairly but firmly in disallowing in these two instances continued indefinite stay in Singapore. May I submit that we cannot let Singapore become a haven for refugees nor allow illegal immigrants to enter Singapore? Needless to say, we do not have the capacity for such acts of humanitarianism. I am sure our citizens will not allow this. We must not forget to note the fact that when the so-called champions of human rights were asked to help in getting their governments to allow such people, be they refugees or illegal immigrants, to go into their own countries, they did little or nothing at all. Perhaps here the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) can give a clearer picture of this position, i.e. among those countries that champion such rights, what is the number of such cases they have allowed. More recently, Sir, we read in numerous press reports, not just one or two, that the United States Coast Guard have had to turn away thousands of refugees fleeing from Cuba. How about that.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head Q be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead QJ-01 of the Main Estimates. This particular Subhead concerns the Immigration Department. One of the objectives is to regulate the entry of persons into Singapore and the duration of their stay. In this respect, Sir, I have just one question to ask the Hon. Minister, whether he could further elaborate on the tight immigration policy that Singapore adopts. Though I have asked the Hon. Minister this question concerning the rigid enforcement of Government immigration policy, I would like to cite two examples. Sometime ago, an elderly constituent brought a family to my house and sought my assistance to allow the family of six (husband, wife and four children) to stay in Singapore. I asked why? I was told that they had been discovered to be illegal immigrants, i.e. they came into Singapore illegally without the proper travel documents and they had managed all these several years to escape detection by the Immigration authorities. This came to light only when the eldest child wanted to apply for an identity card, for which he had to produce documents to prove that he was born in Singapore, who his parents were, etc. So the Immigration Department took action and asked them to leave Singapore. This old constituent of mine pleaded with me to take up the case. I referred the matter to the proper authorities, and subsequently they were allowed on what is known as special visit pass for a short duration of time during which they had to make arrangements to leave Singapore. In another case, an illegal immigrant was apprehended by the immigration authorities and told to leave Singapore.”
“Sir, I am satisfied with the Minister's reply and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment by leave, withdrawn.”
“Sir, of the three examples that I cited, the third is a case where the drug addict has relapsed, and it is precisely this hardcore case that I am referring to. Whilst we treat these addicts, there must also be action against the source of supply. Towards this end, may I know from the Hon. Minister of State what progress has been made by the Central Narcotics Bureau in suppressing the sources of supply of such drugs to the hardcore addicts. The Hon. Minister of State also touched on the discussion held at the ASEAN conferences. I take it that this is AIPO - the ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Organization Conferences. Yes, I remember discussing this problem. So towards this end, can the Hon. Minister of State enlighten this House on the joint measures taken with our other ASEAN counterparts to root out this menace, that is, the source of supply, as well as the addiction? 4.15 p.m.”
“The third is the case of a younger brother of a hawker, who had already kicked off the drug addiction but went back to it again. In other words, he became addicted again and was suffering from recidivism. So the elder brother sought my assistance to get his younger brother sent to the DRC again as his younger brother had resorted to other means of getting more money to pay for the drugs. Sir, in narrating these three cases, I would like to ask the Hon. Minister whether he would agree with my view that there are people who are grateful to the Government for being bold enough to do the unpleasant job of rehabilitating drug addicts. If I may, Sir, add a last point that neither the Central Narcotics Bureau nor the Police would like to cause unnecessary inconvenience to anybody by simply pulling him in on suspicion of drug addiction. One morning, Sir, I got a call from one of my community leaders informing me that the police had rounded up a group of longhaired youths on suspicion of having taken drugs and he wanted me to look into the matter as the parents were rather disturbed. I promised to look into the matter and accordingly I informed the complainant that the police had given the assurance that if those rounded up were not found to have taken drugs, they would be released. Subsequently, all of them were released. Sir, I would like to end by saying that Singapore can ill-afford to allow drug pedlars and drug traffickers to drain away our only resource, i.e. human resource, and that rehabilitation of drug addicts has got to be carried out for the future well-being of this young nation.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head Q be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead 01-02 of the Main Estimates. This Subhead concerns Drug Enforcement and Rehabilitation Programme. The objective is to prevent and reduce drug abuse. Towards this end, may I ask the Hon. Minister what is the regime the Government has adopted to combat drug addiction and drug trafficking? What progress has been made? What are the problems encountered and how would they tackle this problem? Sir, in asking these questions of the Hon. Minister, may I relate three examples? (1) Some parents came to see me at one of my Meet-the-People sessions for assistance concerning their sons' involvement in drug-taking at a certain place. In one case, one of the youths, a national serviceman, was subsequently court martialled and sentenced to imprisonment. Whilst his mother was very upset, however, his father appreciated Mindef's action as it gave their son an opportunity to be rehabilitated and to begin a new lease of life. In the second example, one SAF instructor came to see me about his elder brother, a technician, who was in a drug rehabilitation centre, and he requested for an early release on the grounds that his elder brother was helping to maintain the family. He told me that his brother was hooked on drugs as a result of merely wanting to get a kick, to feel what it is like to take drugs. I referred the matter to the Ministry concerned and was later informed that this particular person cannot be released as the DRC was of the view that he had not been fully rehabilitated. I passed on this explanation to this young SAF instructor; he understood and accepted the decision.”
“I think the Hon. Minister of State was inviting a question from me when I responded to his question that where a physical fitness apparatus is under-utilized - and that is where I meant that the physical fitness apparatus at the Kangkar Community Centre is underutilized - he said that this apparatus should be located at more densely populated areas. The Punggol Community Centre has been built within the Punggol Estate, which has got some 21 blocks comprising 3,091 housing units.”
“Would the Hon. Minister of State consider removing the physical fitness apparatus now sited at Kangkar Community Centre and relocate it at the Punggol Community Centre in Tampines Way?”
“Sir, may I ask the Hon. Minister of State whether a survey has been conducted to ascertain the number of reservists making use of such physical fitness apparatus set up in community centres, noting the fact that these community centres are open from about 2.30 p.m. or 3.00 p.m. in the afternoon.”
“Sir, I am not at all confused. I know what I am talking. In any case, I think the hon. Member for Anson has finished and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, before the Hon. Minister gives his reply, I do recall the abolition of the police posts. I stand to be corrected. But I do not think I am far wrong. Yes, there were police posts, but they were during the colonial days and when we, the PAP, came to power, the entire police structure was revamped and reorganized. With the increasing facilities and easier communication through the telephone and radio patrol cars, there was no need for police posts to be sited in various parts of Singapore, so that the manpower could be better deployed on the beat, in the patrol cars and at the police stations to serve the community better. I know it as a fact for I have been in this House since 1963. I am glad that Paya Lebar Police Station, which serves about 13 constituencies, in 'F' Division, is doing a good job. For the record, that is why even the police post in Jalan Kayu was taken away for that matter, and sited in Toa Payoh. I think that, in part, answers the question of the Member for Anson.”
“Sir, I am grateful to the Hon. Minister for his reply and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam (Anson) rose -”
“Therefore, may I ask whether his idea of having more police stations in these satellite towns has been dropped. And if the idea has been dropped, may the House be informed why?”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head Q be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead QB-02 of the Development Estimates. Sir, may I seek your indulgence to range my remarks concerning police stations because the provision for the building of police stations is not provided elsewhere in the Development Estimates. Last year, this House debated at great length on the need to build police divisional headquarters. Just now, in answer to my question, the Hon. Minister disclosed that he himself has led a study team to Japan to see how the Japanese police system is organized. We also know that Singapore has also sent officials to America to study the American system, that is, the Federal Bureau of Investigation. My question is: Why is there no provision for police divisional headquarters? As the population shifts, due to the building of satellite towns like Ang Mo Kio, Toa Payoh, Hougang, Yishun, etc., there must be this need and, I recall, Sir, that in his reply last year the Minister mentioned that there were two schools of thought on this question of policing. I am more concerned with the ground level which involves the common people, the constituents, or anybody who has to lodge a complaint or who has to seek police help could go to the police station. Sir, we all know that the Paya Lebar Police Station, which comes under the 'F' Division, has been in existence for a long time. As I just mentioned earlier on, the shift of population to these large satellite towns that the HDB has built is surely a pressing problem which must occupy part of the attention of the Minister for Home Affairs. There must be people who would want to go to the police station for one reason or another.”
“Sir, I thank the Minister for his kind reply. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head Q be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead QA-01 Object Group 2610 of the Main Estimates. Sir, in moving this amendment, I merely have a small question to ask the Minister for Home Affairs. It concerns items (2) and (3) of the Object Group, i.e. Conferences and Expenses in connection with visits of advisers, experts, consultants, etc. Could the Minister elaborate on these two items of expenditure?”