Tang See Chim
Singapore
“In this Bill, Sir, 4 1/2 pages of the Bill out of 20 1/2 pages are devoted to the definition of terms used in the Bill and almost every other clause defines one term or another. Finally, Sir, what about the agent of the corrupt person, the go-between, the abettor of the crime?”
“Sir, maybe it was a misplaced metaphor. Maybe I should say a skunk smells just as evil by any other name. This is exactly the position. There is no point your telling us that conditions have now returned to normal when manufacturers are asked to pay a higher rental. They have to compete.”
“Sir, the Minister said that he has not increased rent but he just revalued the value of the land. This is exactly the same as increasing rent. I mean you call a rose a rose. You increase the rent whether you call it the rent or call it the base value of the property. To the manufacturer, it is still the same.”
“The Senior Parliamentary Secretary said that the rent demanded by the JTC is comparable to that for private premises outside. But I think the JTC has almost a monopoly on industrial property. I just do not see how the Senior Parliamentary Secretary could make such a comparison.”
“Sir, the difference is that once they get the entry visa, they will be allowed permanent residence in the United Kingdom. Whereas here, we may allow them to enter for two weeks and after that we will turf them out. Also, may I just take up this further point.”
“Sir, I just want to take up with the Minister on the regulations he read out from the booklet. Indeed, if all those conditions are met, the person will be given an entry clearance and then he will be able to enter the United Kingdom.”
The complete record
Every one of 698 lines we hold for Tang See Chim, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 10 of 14.
“Sir, may I allay the doubts raised by the Member for Serangoon Gardens? While I appreciate his concern about derogation of our sovereignty, may I assure him that this Bill does not in any way derogate from the sovereignty of our State? [Mr Speaker in the Chair] 4.10 p.m. What it means is that by being a party to the Convention, we are merely transferring the jurisdiction of our local courts to the International Centre for Investment Disputes in cases where the disputes have not been satisfactorily resolved in our local courts. This is provided by Article 26 of the Convention. Incidentally, the Articles are attached to the Bill as a Schedule. Article 26 reads as follows: 'Consent of the parties to arbitration under this Convention shall, unless otherwise stated, be deemed consent to such arbitration to the exclusion of any other remedy. A Contracting State may require the exhaustion of local administrative or judicial remedies as a condition of its consent to arbitration under this Convention.' Therefore, Sir, this is not a derogation of our sovereignty but only the delegation of some of our judicial functions to the international Centre for Investment Disputes. It is true that when a dispute is referred to the Centre for arbitration, the law to be applied is the law agreed between the parties, and if the parties do not so agree, the arbitral tribunal would apply the law of the State party to the dispute; that is, it would apply municipal law as well as such rules of international law as may be applicable. While we ourselves have complete confidence in our judicial system in Singapore, foreign investors, however, may prefer an international tribunal. That is the whole point here.”
“Singapore's pre-eminence as a trading centre now rapidly moving towards industrialisation gives us a wide market and equally wide opportunities to satisfy a wide range of demands both in price and quality. Given the same qualities of flexibility, agility and dynamism with which our trading community has succeeded in the past to adjust to changing trading patterns, there is no reason why our industrial community cannot also succeed with made-in-Singapore goods locally and in export markets. TECHNICAL AND VOCATIONAL TRAINING CENTRES (Provision for unemployed school certificate holders) 4. Mr Ang Nam Piau asked the Minister for Education whether the Government will consider setting up a special Technical and Vocational Training Centre to train those School-Certificate holders who are unemployed, so as to enable them to find jobs in the industrial or commercial sector.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government exercises continuous vigilance over the quality of industrial products. The Industrial Research Unit of the Economic Development Board, which is a member of the International Standards Organisation, provides a wide range of information on major international standards and has facilities for testing to these standards. Local manufacturers are encouraged to make maximum use of these facilities. There are two aspects to standards. One of these is to ensure protection of consumers particularly in matters of food products, drugs and safety equipment. In these matters, there is existing machinery for quality control, for example, control over quality specifications for monosodium glutamate (commonly known as gourmet's powder) and the compulsory testing of safety helmets and of flourescent lamp ballast. The other aspect is that of quality excellence. This depends on the aims of manufacturers to achieve the highest quality possible in excellence regardless of the minimum standards acceptable to others. Thus, the standards imposed upon themselves by certain companies have come to be accepted internationally as household words for excellence, such as "Rolls Royce" quality. Such high standards cannot be legislated for but must be desired and worked towards. Successful competition does not depend on this alone. Appropriate price, quality value for that price and assurance that this quality is regularly met, are important. Promptness in delivery is equally important. But even more important for success at home and abroad is aggressive marketing. This demands extreme alertness to changing market conditions and to consumer tastes, a constant search for new markets and dynamism and courage in the capture of such markets.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in May 1967, the Government appointed a Working Party consisting of representatives of banks, insurance companies, manufacturers and the Ministry of Finance to report on the feasibility of an Export Credit Insurance Scheme. The Working Party submitted its report in May 1968. The Working Party's Report is now under consideration. No decision has yet been arrived at as to whether an Export Credit Insurance Scheme should be introduced in Singapore. LOCALLY-PRODUCED GOODS (Regulation of standard) 3. Mr Ang Nam Piau asked the Minister for Finance whether he will consider setting up machinery to regulate the standard of locally-produced goods, so that they can compete successfully with foreign goods in the overseas and local markets.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, as regards the first question, I can only repeat what I have said, that there is no prejudice against women and that candidates are considered strictly on their suitability for the posts concerned. As to the second question, I am afraid I cannot accept the hon. Member's contention that the P.S.C. is biased against females. As regards membership of the P.S.C., perhaps if a suitable female candidate could be found, I am sure the President would be delighted to appoint her. EMPLOYMENT BILL Order read for resumption of debate on Question [10th July. 1968], "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Question again proposed. 3.47 p.m.”
“DESTRUCTION OF DISEASE-BEARING INSECTS BILL "to provide for the destruction of disease-bearing insects and for the medical examination and treatment of persons suffering from insect-borne diseases and for matters connected therewith, and to repeal the Destruction of Mosquitoes Ordinance (Chapter 139 of the Revised Edition)", recommendation of President signified; presented by the Minister for Health (Mr Chua Sian Chin); read the First time, to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. 3.15 p.m. ADJOURNMENT MOTION (Business Motion)”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, soon after the devaluation of Sterling, the Government issued details of holdings of our overseas assets. The object of this statement was to inform the public of the soundness of the backing of the currency of the Republic. The position has remained basically the same except that there has been an increase in our external assets. BILLS INTRODUCED 3.10 p.m. CONSTITUTION (AMENDMENT NO. 2) BILL "to amend the Constitution of Singapore", presented by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Labour (Mr S. Rajaratnam); read the First time, to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL "to amend the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1960 (No. 20 of 1960)", presented by Mr Rajaratnam; read the First time, to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND (AMENDMENT) BILL "to amend the Central Provident Fund Ordinance (Chapter 150 of the Revised Edition)", recommendation of President signified; presented by Mr Rajaratnam; read the First time, to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. HIRE-PURCHASE BILL "to regulate the form and contents of hire-purchase agreements and the rights and duties of parties to such agreements and for matters connected therewith", presented by the Minister for Law and National Development (Mr E. W. Barker); read the First time, to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. LAND ACQUISITION (AMENDMENT) BILL "to amend the Land Acquisition Act, 1966 (No. 41 of 1966)", presented by Mr Barker; read the First time, to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.”
“No, Sir,I am sure the hon. Member does not expect me to carry these figures in my head. If he will table this question, I shall be delighted to answer it. OVERSEAS INVESTMENT OF GOVERNMENT FUNDS SINCE SINGAPORE DAY (Particulars) 13. Mr Ang Nam Piau asked the Minister for Finance whether any Government funds have been invested overseas since Singapore Day, the amount of such investments and in what countries.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the answers are: (a) 327 pioneer certificates have been approved up to April 1968. (b) approximately $229 million. In most cases, the land and/or factory buildings occupied by pioneer industries are leased from the Government. If they had to buy land and construct their own buildings, capital outlay would have been much more. (c) of the $229 million, a sum of $114 million is from local investors and $115 million is foreign capital, the greater proportion of which comes from the U.S.A., Japan, Hong Kong. Malaysia, the United Kingdom and Canada. Capital has also come from Switzerland, Australia, Denmark, Sweden, Holland, Italy, Thailand, West Germany, New Zealand and the Philippines.”
“These shops display conspicuous price tags and issue receipts for purchases made, so that complaints of cheating could be investigated and redressed, if possible. My Ministry intends to ask the Tourist Promotion Board to take steps to ensure wider acceptance of the code of ethics by a larger number of retailers who are not members of the Singapore Tourist Association and to consider instituting sanctions against those found guilty of unscrupulous fleecing of tourists. Besides transport and shopping, the Tourist Promotion Board is now looking into all aspects of service facilities provided by the private sector to the tourists. These services will have to be up-graded in terms of quality and honesty. The Tourist Promotion Board will soon be setting up a complaints bureau to attend to complaints from tourists as well as those involved in the tourist trade. This will ensure that we will be able to focus a proper image as a first-class tourist centre. PIONEER CERTIFICATES (Particulars) 12. Mr Ang Nam Piau asked the Minister for Finance (a) how many pioneer certificates have been granted since June 1959, up to a latest convenient date; (b) what is the total amount of the paid-up capital of the pioneer industries involved; and (c) how much of this capital is (i) from local investors, and (ii) from foreign investors and from what countries.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, through the combined efforts of the Tourist Promotion Board, the relevant Government departments, the taxi-drivers' associations, the bus operators and the Singapore Tourist Association, many of the evils which beset the tourist industry in the past have been corrected to some extent. I shall first deal with taxi transport. The Airport taxi service racket, whereby taxis did not use meters, has been stopped. Since late last year the Airport Police and a representative of the Taxi Association at the Airport have undertaken supervision to ensure that meters are used. Those taxi drivers who did not comply have had their permits to operate at the Airport withdrawn. At the Port of Singapore Authority, the transport service is also satisfactory. Adequate numbers of taxis are allowed into the harbour area when a passenger vessel is in port and the police ensure that meters are used. Tourists are also given alternative transport facilities such as a bus service direct to Raffles Place. But once outside the Airport or harbour area, there is little control on unscrupulous taxi drivers. However, the Registrar of Vehicles has powers to revoke or suspend licences issued to taxi drivers who are found guilty of malpractices or improper conduct. Educating the taxi drivers is important. The Tourist Promotion Board will in future he working closely with representatives of the various taxi associations to minimise cheating and discourtesy to tourists. Apart from the taxi drivers, there are the shop-keepers who can be equally unscrupulous, if not more so. The Tourist Promotion Board, through its counterpart in the private sector, the Singapore Tourist Association, has taken steps to ensure that some 130 of its members in the retail trade follow a code of ethics.”
“The technical mission returned to Singapore on 8th May, 1968, and its members are preparing a report for submission to the Governments of Indonesia and Singapore. The report is now in the course of being printed and will soon be laid before Parliament. All I can say at this stage is that the prospects of successful development of Bali as an international tourist centre are much better than had previously been thought possible. The preparation of the runway to cope with international jet airliners is in an advanced stage. Another welcome factor is the willingness of the Indonesian Government to offer favourable terms to foreign investment in hotels. But, most of all, we are encouraged by the high quality of Indonesian engineers and architects now planning the Bali project. Professional members of the Singapore mission were impressed by their qualifications, experience and dedication. There are, however, a number of problems to be solved and no doubt the report will go into these at some length. This project offers much scope for co-operation between the Governments of Indonesia and Singapore within the framework of ASEAN. TOURIST PROMOTION BOARD (Measures to eliminate fleecing of tourists) 11. Mr Yeoh Ghim Seng asked the Minister for Finance whether he is aware of any measures now being taken or proposed to be taken by the Tourist Promotion Board to eliminate any possible fleecing of tourists by unscrupulous taxi-drivers, shop-keepers, etc.; and whether he will inform the House of such measures.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, would other people find it credible that we can defend ourselves by the end of 1971?”
“It would appear that these fishermen are citizens of Singapore. Are we prepared to send, for example, a gunboat along to their rescue?”
“But wou!d the Minister of State of Defence not agree that drunken driving occurs on all roads? Why should it be particularly prevalent on this stretch of the highway?”
“If the rate of accidents on this particular highway is higher than that on any other highway, what proposals has the Minister of State of Defence to reduce it?”
“Is the Minister of State of Defence satisfied that the rate of accidents on Nicoll Highway is no higher than that on any other comparable highway in the Republic?”
“Mr Speaker, you will recall that during the Budget debate in Committee of Supply, time and again we ran into difficulties about guillotine times. Would the Deputy Prime Minister not agree that there is now occasion for extending the time for the Budget debate in Committee of Supply?”
“As you please, Mr Speaker, Sir. Question put, and agreed to. Clause 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 18 to 27 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 28 -”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Finance has asked whether I can propose a happier set of wording. Unfortunately, I have not given notice of an amendment to this paragraph (a). But with your consent and with the general assent of the House, I can do so.”
“My colleague, the Minister for Law, might want to comment on this. It is not really within my professional province. As regards clause 17 (1) (c), what the Member said is quite true. But I think the intention of the law officers who drafted it is to draw attention to the fact that the director, agent or manager of a finance company is not exempted from these restrictions. I think the intention is to make it clear beyond all doubt. I do not know whether my colleague, the Minister for Law, can perhaps elaborate on this.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I agree with the aims of clause 17 in controlling the dealings of finance companies. My only complaint is that the clause is not happily drafted, it is rather vague. Clause 17 (1) reads: `No finance company shall --- (a) accept any deposit which is repayable on demand by cheque, draft or order;'. I do not quite know what this means, if it is the intention of the paragraph that deposit accounts in finance companies should not be drawn on by the depositor by the use of cheque, draft or order, it should be expressly stated. With regard to paragraph (c) . Sir, the granting of unsecured advances to '(i) a firm ... (ii) any other person or body of persons whether incorporated or not.', I am of the opinion that legally it is comprehensive enough to say that no finance companies shall grant unsecured loans to any person or body of persons whether incorporated or not, it embraces everybody - persons, companies, firms or what have you. It is unnecessary to have the first paragraph which expressly defines a firm in which a director of a finance company is interested, etc. These are my complaints about the drafting. They have nothing to do with the aim or the intention of this clause to control finance companies . Dr Goh Keng Swee: The intention of clause 17 (1) (a) is as stated by the Member for Choa Chu Kang. I do not know how it can be redraf ted in a happier way. I would have thought that, as it stands, this is to describe a bank account which is operated by payment on demand by cheque. If the hon. Member can propose a happier form of words, I am sure the House will be willing to consider it. I thought that there was some ambiguity about paragraph (a). It looks a bit odd, I confess. But on deeper reflection, I think the meaning becomes clear.”
“Again, why should a finance company be allowed to hold more than 25 per cent of its equity capital in the shares of any of the under takings listed under clause 20 of the Bill? Clause 21 does not prevent a finance company from holding immovable property as long as such property is held as security and not as assets. I think another complaint is that finance companies are required to keep a certain liquidity ratio. Again, I see no reason why this should not be done. If banks have to hold a minimum liquidity ratio, I see no reason why finance companies should be an exception. There are one or two minor complaints that I can voice. One of these complaints, which I made in the Budget debate, is the need to introduce legis lation to control hire purchase, which is the other side of the finance company's business. The other minor complaint is the unhappy drafting of some of the clauses of the Bill, especially clause 17. But as far as the main aim of the Bill in controlling finance companies for the proper protection of the small investor is concerned, I am in hearty agreement with the Government, and I support the Bill unreservedly. 6.19 p.m.”
“A bank may have the advantage of that finance company without any of the attendant disadvantages. That is the point, is it not, Mr Tang?' And I replied, "That is right." The witness then said: `Mr Speaker, although there is no legal. liability on the part of the bank, the moral responsibility here, however, is very grave.' You went on to say, Mr Speaker, Sir: `I think we accept that. But Mr Tang's point of view is that, if a finance company that is a wholly-owned subsidiary of a bank, fails, it will be poor consolation to the depositors who have lost money even if that, finance company has had the bank's moral. backing.'. And that is exactly the position with regard to a finance company which is wholly owned by a bank. I think it was very well put, Mr Speaker, Sir, when you said that it was cold comfort to the depositors. Banks are strictly controlled because they also make use of the public's & money for re-lending and in the process make a profit. In the same way, the finance companies do that on a smaller scale. If banks are controlled, why should not finance companies also accept some control? Mr Speaker, Sir, I think most of the complaints of my colleagues about this. Bill centre on clauses 19, 20 and 21. These are restrictions on the type of business that a finance company can enter into. I think these complaints arise from a misunderstanding of the functions of a finance company. If a company professes its business to be that of lending money to the public, and borrowing and using the money for relending, why should it be allowed carry on all sorts of trade, especially import and export, which, unless you are in that line, is a very risky sort of business?”
“If a subsidiary company fails, the parent company, which is a bank, is under no legal obligation to come to its aid. In this connection, Mr Speaker, Sir, perhaps I may be allowed to quote a passage from the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Select Committee on the Companies Bill. I refer to the Report of the Select Committee on the Companies Bill [Parl. 11 of 1967]. I quote from at page B 19 of the Minutes of Evidence. As you know, Mr Speaker, Sir, I was on this Committee and this is what I said: `...Surely a wholly-owned subsidiary - a finance company - would also be a limited company. The bank is legally in the clear. Although, according to what you say [meaning what the witness says], there is moral responsibility, surely moral responsibility is just not good enough. We want legal responsibility for the protection of the depositors.' And in the Select Committee you, Sir, as Chairman, said: `I think Mr Tang's point is simply this. You make use of a bank's good name in your advertisements to get deposits for that bank's wholly-owned subsidiary finance company. You utilise the bank's good name without any legal liability on the part of the bank. Let us say today you have the Pasir Panjang Bank Ltd. It owns a subsidiary finance company called the Pasir Panjang Finance Ltd. You see irs the papers advertisements by the Pasir Panjang Finance Ltd. stating that it is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Pasir Panjang Bank Ltd. So there full advantage is taken of the bank's, good name and that may well be the only reason why the public deposits with that finance company, rather than with an index pendent finance company. But, at the same time, the bank is not in any way legally liable should its finance company fail.”
“But finance companies are not making use of their own money; they are making use of the public's money. The Government has a responsibility to the public and must see that the small investors are not - to use a common phrase done in. Therefore, if finance companies want to make use of the public's money, they must accept certain responsibilities and must equally accept a certain degree of control. Without exception, all finance companies are, as far as I understand, limited companies. In law, if a limited company fails, who is responsible? Nobody. The shareholders or contributors of the company are only responsible to the extent of the unpaid portion of the shares which they hold and generally these shareholdings are very small and normally they are fully paid up. So when a finance company, which is normally a limited company, fails, who is responsible? Nobody. The shareholders have fully paid up their shares. They will say, "It is just too bad. The company has run unnecessary risks and it has failed." You can only get hold of their common seal. The directors are not responsible, unless, of course, they can be prosecuted under the Companies Ordinance for fraud, and it is always very difficult to prove fraud. Even if you succeed in the prosecution and send them to gaol, what does it benefit the poor investor? It is small consolation and cold comfort to a small investor who has lost his life savings to see the director of a finance company sent to gaol. In this connection, I must point out that even finance companies which are subsidiaries of reputed banks stand in the same legal position. They may be subsidiary companies but they are separate legal entities.”
“We must now go further down and read what the definition of "financing business" is: `"financing business" means the business of - (a) borrowing money from the public, by acceptance of deposits and issuing certificates or other documents acknowledging or evidencing indebtedness to the public and undertaking to repay the money on call or after an agreed maturity period, which period shall be not less than one month of the original acceptance of any deposit; and (b) lending money to the public or to a company deemed to be related to the finance company by virtue of section 6 of the Companies Act, 1967 (hereinafter in this Act referred to as the "related company") on the basis that the public or the related company undertakes to repay the money, whether within an agreed period of time or not, or by instalments;'. Therefore, Mr Speaker, Sir, it is very clear from this that a finance company is a company that borrows money from the public and lends money to the public: that is, a company that makes use of the public's money by borrowing and lending and in the process makes a profit. If it does not borrow money from the public, it is not a finance company. So in order to fit in with the definition, it must borrow money from the public and lend money to the public. When a company borrows money from the public and makes use of that borrowed money to make a profit, it must accept a certain degree of control. If, however, it makes use of its own money and does not borrow money from the public, it does not come within the definition and it can do what it likes. It can establish a limited company and throw away its money by taking unnecessary risks and nobody will complain, much less the Government.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government's intention of bringing in legislation to regulate finance companies was first announced in last year's Budget debate. It has taken a full year for the Bill to come before Parliament. It is, of course, better late than never. It is very necessary that legislation be introduced to control what my colleague calls the mushrooming of finance companies. The object of this Bill is to protect small investors. That is what a socialist government like the P.A.P, should and must do. It is ironical, therefore, that some of my colleagues in this House who are good socialists should have forgotten the small man and have taken up the cudgels on behalf of finance companies. I think the reason for this is that my colleagues are labouring under the misunderstanding of what a finance company is. In this connection, Mr Speaker, Sir, may I be allowed to read the definition of "finance company" in clause 2 of the Bill: `"finance company" means any company licensed under this Act, to carry on financing business, and all branches and offices in Singapore of such a company shall be deemed to be one finance company for the purposes of this Act;'.”
“(11) That the sum to be allocated for Head 63 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 305. (12) That the sum to be allocated for Head 63 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 901.”
“(8) That the sum to be allocated for Head 63 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 301. Mr Ng Kah Ting: (9) That the sum to be allocated for Head 63 be reduced by the whole sum in respect of subhead 301.”
“I beg leave to withdraw, Sir. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 63 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 201. I just wish to know, Mr Speaker, Sir, what are the functions of these Agricultural Extension Centres, for which there is a token vote of $10. My remarks also apply to amendments Nos. (4)* and (5)+ which stand in my name, and which I shall not be moving. * Amendment No. (4) reads as follows: That the sum to be allocated for Head 63 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 202. + Amendment No. (5) reads as follows: That the sum to be allocated for Head 63 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 203. I come from the rural constituency of Choa Chu Kang. Sir, and these centres and schemes are hardly felt there. Perhaps the Minister can let the House know what are the centres and schemes going to do and also to give it the widest publicity so that the rural people who are engaged in agriculture will have the benefit of any schemes that are being established.”
“On a point of order, Sir, I do not think there is a quorum. An hon. Member: There are only 12 Members. The Chairman: There is, in fact, a quorum according to my count.”
“I beg leave to withdraw, Sir. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The following amendment stood in the name of Mr Ho See Beng - (4) That the sum to be allocated for Head 62 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (003) of subhead 402.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 62 be reduced by the whole sum in respect of item (003) of subhead 310. To put it very shortly, Sir, I wish to know why this item is in the Develop, ment Estimates and not in the Ordinary Estimates. My remark also applies to amendment No. (5)* standing in my name which I shall not be moving. * Amendment No. (5) reads as follows: That the sum to be allocated for Head 62 be reduced by the whole sum in respect of subhead 406.”
“I withdraw, Sir. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Mr Speaker,. Sir, I beg to move. That the sum to be allocated for Head 60 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 001*. * The same amendment also stood in the name of Mr Ng Yeow Chong Mr Speaker, Sir, in the Development Estimates this item is shown as "Improvement to Beaches". I suppose this is principally concerned with the cleaning of beaches. I am glad to see in' yesterday's papers that the Tourist Promotion Board is taking a hand in cleaning up our beaches which could be very beautiful but for the uncivic consciousness of some of our beach users. The beaches in Singapore have been littered with rubbish like beer cans and other things. I am also very glad to see that my colleague, the Member for Changi, also took a very active part in the campaign which was also helped by some very prominent businessmen in our Republic. I hope this will set an example which other people can follow. Here, Mr Speaker, Sir, may I make an appeal to our people to have more regard for other users of beaches and also to help keep our beaches clean? Apart from the tourist promotion point of view, it can also be very beneficial' to ourselves. In this regard, Sir, may I ask the Minister to look into the question of providing more bins properly labelled? For example, call a spade a spade; call a rubbish bin a rubbish bin and not a litter bin, because there can be a misunderstanding by tourists who are not English-educated. These tourists could put letters and postcards into those bins.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I raise a point of clarification? I wonder whether the Parliamentary Secretary can answer our question of priorities rather than giving us a list of all the details. If he wishes to give us the details, we will take them in a memorandum.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I fully support the sentiments of my colleague, the Member for Punggol, when he said that it is a waste of money building a fountain in the lake in the Botanic Gardens, and that this money could be better spent elsewhere. There is also the question of aesthetic taste to be considered. I think the Botanic Gardens in its natural surroundings is a very beautiful place and its beauty will not be enhanced one little bit with the building of a fountain in the lake. It will only disturb the fish and frighten the swans. Furthermore, Sir, I wonder whether a very good fountain can be built for $138,000. I remember, during last year's debate on the building of a floating fountain at the MacRitchie Reservoir, the Minister for Law and National Development quoted the cryptic remark of the Finance Minister. I quote, Sir, this is in Hansard Vol. 25, No. 6, col. 385: '"Better to have two or three lavish fountains than to have a large number of scraggy ones."'. I wonder whether this fountain to be built will be a scraggy one. And even if it were to be a lavish one, I do not suppose we can compete with cities that are renowned for their fountains, for example, the Tivoli Fountains of Rome Mr Speaker, Sir, I know there are fountains in the Western hemisphere which are so lavish that they can throw patterns for one full hour in jets of water without repeating any of those patterns. If this is one of the schemes, to attract tourists, I think it is a very mis- conceived scheme. I think the money can be better used elsewhere. For example, $138,000 will bring water to Yew Tee Village in Choa Chu Kang, for which over hundreds of families will be very grateful. But with the fountain, we please no one, Sir.”
“I withdraw, Sir. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The time allotted for Head 52 having expired, the following amendment, standing in the name of Mr Teong Eng Siong, was not proceeded with: That the fotal sum to be allocated for Head 52 be reduced by $100. The sum of $646,900 for Head 52 ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head 53 -”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 52 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 101. I fully support the vote for $646,900 for the establishment of a branch library at Queenstown. My only complaint is that there is no provision for establishing branch libraries in other satellite towns, e.g., at Toa Payoh which is being built now and will soon be populated.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister said that he was not expecting praise. He was not. He demanded it. While we are in the happy position of accommodating a quarter of our population in Housing Board flats, for which I think the Government deserve lavish praise, I wonder whether the Minister will look into the proposition of building better flats now that our society is getting more affluent, instead of just building one-room units.”
“On a point of clarification, Mr Speaker, Sir. Since we had no opportunity whatsoever to debate the policy and day-to-day running of these statutory boards during the consideration of the Ordinary Estimates, perhaps you can relax the rule and allow us this opportunity to do so.”
“I do not intend to use the President's name to influence the course of the debate. But I just wish to quote what the President said. He announced that a site had been found for the rebuilding of Raffles Institution. I was just wondering whether the Minister could enlighten this House on whether the present site has been rejected and a new site found.”
“Sir, I am no old boy of Raffles Institution but I attended the last Annual Dinner as a guest. At the function the President made a speech. He was the guest of honour. He informed the annual gathering that a site for Raffles Institution had been found and I think i! was somewhere around Grange Road.”
“I am glad to hear that the E.P.U, has reconsidered its decision and that possibly a further sum may be voted on. I am quite satisfied and indeed very glad to hear what the Minister has said, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“As you please, Mr Speaker, Sir. What I fear is that a small sum of only $11,000 may not be sufficient for the development of this educational television programme.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 20 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 103. Mr Speaker, Sir, I think we can congratulate ourselves on being one of the first countries, if not the first country, in this region to have educational TV. But I see that only a small sum of $11,000 is being provided for its development next year, as compared with a sum of $691,500 for the previous year. I wonder whether all the development has been done this year, so that next year there need only be a small sum. Furthermore, I understand that the programme is not quite up to standard and I fear that ---”
“Exactly! I think the Government has fallen between two stools. I am not satisfied. I want a vote. Question on the amendment put, and negatived. Madam Chan Choy Siong(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to spend more time on this subhead so that I will not bring up my other amendments. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 1002 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1351. Mr Speaker, Sir, I want to bring up a few points about T.V. Singapura programmes and news. I feel that there is an unfair distribution of news. For example, some Members of Parliament appear on T.V. when they take part in celebrations, while other Members do not appear on T.V. There are others who always appear on T.V. For example, the Member for Sembawang always appears on T.V. I do not know whether it is because --- Mr Teong Eng Siong (Sembawang) rose -”
“If it is run on a commercial basis, why must we vote for this sum of money? If it is run on a social and cultural basis, why all these advertisements?”