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 11 of 14.
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 1002 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1301* Mr Speaker, Sir, my complaint put very shortly is that there are too many advertisements over the radio and on T.V. and that they come on at the most unnatural of times, for example, in the middle of a sequence. If we must have advertisements, perhaps we can have them at the appropriate time, for example, at what is known as a natural break. I think the Minister must decide once and for all whether we are going to run the Broadcasting Division on a commercial basis or on a social and cultural basis. Hon. Members: Hear, hear!”
“I have also touched on this matter of wages earlier. Normally a worker gets $2.50 per day. But the answer given by the Minister is that this $2.50 is not regarded as wages but as an allowance, because most of the workers are unmarried and this is a sort of allowance given to them. But after investigation, I found that it is not actually so. This sort of policy therefore actually contradicts the announced policy of the P.A.P. Government. If you regard these workers as apprentices, then it is not right. In the past I have tried to rectify this abnormal situation, but we can still find it going on in the Jurong industrial site. I have found that many of the workers who are getting $2.50 per day are actually married. The Minister has said that they are unmarried, but after my investigations, I have found that they are married with children. So this policy, in actual fact, contradicts the P.A.P. announced policy on labour. I feel that an erroneous conception has been so formed so that the employer looks down upon women labour. Another point is that when we say that we want to help the workers, we mean that the workers' unions concerned will look after their members. But many of the workers in Jurong do not join any union. Firstly, they get very low wages. They have to spend more than $1 a day when they travel to and from their places of work. For lunch they have to spend about $1 per day so that when they return home they have nothing left for their family if their wages are only $2.50 per day. Because of this, the workers do not join any trade union. Because of this, the employers exploit them so that all their claims have been ignored, especially the claims of women workers, like maternity benefit and medical care.”
“I am sorry. Madam Chan Choy Siong(In Mandarin): I was saying that the workers should get a reasonable share for their effort. Without this basic condition, even if we have the capital, entrepot trade and other facilities, the labouring class who produces the wealth will not get equal benefit, and there will not be a balance of interests. So if we want to be prosperous through industrialisation, hut we cannot succeed, it is because good working conditions and other benefits to the workers cannot be procured, and the workers will not get their rightful reward. The present situation, however, very clearly tells the people of Singapore that the P.A.P. Government is looking after them well. Ever since we the P.A.P. came to power, we have all along abided by these tenets or promises which we have made to our electorate up to now. If we re-examine our present declared policy, we will find that perhaps the Government thinks that because Singapore has achieved independence it can lose sight of this declaration that was made some time ago. Some workers have been neglected, especially workers in the Jurong industrial site. True, Singapore must industrialise in order to maintain the livelihood of its two million people, but very clearly we have this policy which says that we must achieve a balance of interests, in other words, we must look after the interests of capital as well as the interests of labour. If we examine the actual conditions of the workers in the Jurong industrial site, we will find that they have been exploited in their wages. The money given to them can be regarded only as an allowance and not as actual wages, because they, who have been producing goods for their employers, are only given meagre allowances, not even amounting to wages, if I can call it.”
“On a point of order, Sir,I think this is now the time for consideration of Head 0902, and I hear the Member for Delta speaking on -”
“In view of the Finance Minister's explanation, Sir, I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Perhaps the Minister for Finance might have misunderstood the position here. Quit rent is very different from annual value. Moreover, annual value is assessed irrespective of whether the owner occupies the house or not, although, of course, there is a difference in the rate of assessment. If it is owner-occupied, the rate is slightly lower.”
“On a point of clarification, Sir. Dr Goh Keng Swee resumed his seat.”
“But if he were to be so foolish as to put his investment into a house, as mentioned earlier, he would have to pay the Government $48 a year. As I have said, as far as the law of property tax goes, the Property Tax Division is quite correct in assessing this case. But I think they are applying the law far too rigidly. If I am not mistaken, there is provision in the Property Tax Ordinance for relief, but this provision is never made use of and never applied. I wonder whether the Minister can assure the House that in deserving cases for relief, he will ask the Comptroller of Property Tax to invoke this provision liberally.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 0807 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1101. Mr Speaker, Sir, recently there has been a spate of upward revisions of property tax, especially in the rural areas. I can quote examples of upward revision in my constituency, Choa Chu Kang, which caused tremendous distress among my constituents who are rural folks and earn their living by farming, and generally are poor people. I appreciate that legally the levy of a property tax has no reference to the income of a property owner. Property tax is levied according to the annual value, i.e. what a property can fetch in rent. Let me give an example to the House how inequitable sometimes the rigid application of the law can be. Let us say a family has only a house which is assessed by the Property Tax Division as a property capable of fetching $300 income a year, which means $25 a month. This is the rent that the property would fetch at market rates. Then the Property Tax Division proceeds to levy a tax on the property, i.e., 18 or 23 per cent or whatever the rate is on this annual value of $300. If, say, it is 18 per cent, the head of the family would have to pay something like $48 a month. But the rent is the sole income of the property owner. However, if, for example, he has a sum of money and, instead of investing it in a piece of property, he puts it in a bank and earns interest. Let us say he gets an equivalent of $300 interest a year. Now, if that is his sole income, he would be free from payment of income tax, because his income is $300 a year only. And since he has no other income than this $300 he need not have to pay income tax.”
“I am not moving. The following amendment stood in the name of Mr Lim Cheng Lock - (5) That the sum to be allocated for Head 0804 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 2381.”
“I am quite satisfied with the explanation and I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The following amendment stood in the name of Inche Mohd. Ariff Bin Suradi - That the sum to be allocated for Head 0803 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 2052.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 0803 be reduced by the whole sum in respect of subhead 2041. Sir, I was rather interested to note under subhead 2041 that the allowances to the descendants of Sultan Hussain, amounting to $70,000, had been voted each year. I just want some explanation from the Minister for Finance as to what are these allowances and whether there is any way of reducing them or not paying them at all. 5.15 p.m.”
“I wish to withdraw the amendment, Sir. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 7.30 p.m. The sum of $7,395,530 for Head 0501 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head 0501 be reduced by $l00++. ++ The same amendment also stood in the names of Mr Teong Eng Siong, Inche Mohd. Ariff Bin Suradi, Mr Chow Chiok Hock and Madam Chan Choy Siong. In fact, what I want to say has been anticipated by the hon. Member for River Valley. What I wanted to ask of the Foreign Minister was why an embassy in Japan had not been established, although in the Estimates for 1967 there was provision for the setting up of such an embassy. In view of the fact that we have very close trading relations with Japan, and especially in our industrialization efforts a great deal of capital as well as technical skill have come from Japan, I think the establishment of an embassy in Japan should have been given priority. I notice from the establishment of the other missions that possibly the Foreign Ministry has given wrong priorities to the setting up of these overseas missions,”
“I have spoken on it, and I am not moving it. The sum of $1,690,940 for Head 0402 ordered to stand part of the Estimates. 6.45 p.m. Head 0501 -”
“Sir, I think it is still a practice in the police for certain officers to have the services of some sort of a footman in the form of a constable. I think this is a left-over of the colonial system. In fact, wrong use is made of a constable, on whom we have spent a considerable amount of money training him to be a constable, by making him a footman. Will the Minister consider discontinuing this practice and assure the House that he will do so?”
“I am satisfied, Mr Speaker, and I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $1,741,990 for Head 0302 ordered to stand part of the Estimates. Head 0304 -”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head 0302 be reduced by $100. Sir, Singapore is the fifth largest port in the world. As such, I think it is befitting its status that it should have its own registry. This was established some time ago. I would now like information from the Deputy Prime Minister on the tonnage that has been registered since its establishment; also, whether he is satisfied with the progress so far, and, if not, whether he thinks that this lack of progress is due to the very high standard that we require for a ship to be registered here, and whether he will consider lowering it. For example, take a leaf from the Panamanian Registry or the Liberian Registry so as to encourage the registering of ships here. This, I understand, would create very good employment opportunities for our unemployed here.”
“I wish to withdraw the amendment, Sir. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 0107 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1010. Mr Speaker, Sir, I am afraid the Minister for Law has anticipated part of my argument in his reply to my earlier amendment regarding newly qualified persons being appointed to the Bench. However, my reason against this is that this is not a very good practice, because a newly qualified person should do a stint in the A.G.'s Chambers first rather than being appointed to the Bench straightaway. Also a newly qualified person appointed to the Bench is likely to be transferred at one time or another to the Attorney-General's Chambers where his superior is someone who had appeared before him when he was on the Bench. This is an invidious position to place a newly qualified person as a magistrate and it is unfair to him. This could result in a perversion of the course of justice.”
“I beg leave to withdraw, Sir. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $932,880 for Head 0105 ordered to stand part of the Estimates. Head 0107 -”
“Unfortunately, such a state of affairs appears to persist and I would like an explanation and an assurance from the Minister that it would be remedied.”
“Yes, because my comments will be relevant to the other two subheads. In last year's debate in Committee of Supply, I raised the question of State Counsel or Legal Officers being kept at one post for a considerable length of time, so much so that when they came up for promotion before the Legal Service Commission, they were asked what experience they had got. Of course, they had none because they were kept in that one post for a long time, a state of affairs to which they themselves did not agree. I was then assured by the Acting Minister for Law -it was the Minister for Health then replying on behalf of the Minister for Law and National Development -who said this state of affairs would be looked into and he assured the House that it would not be continued. With your permission, Sir, may I quote from Hansard -”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 0105 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1004. Sir, in moving the amendment to the vote for subhead 1004, I also wish to move *amendments (2) and (3) , because they are all inter-related. With your permission, I shall do that together. * Amendments (2) and (3) read as follows: (2) That the sum to be allocated for Head 0105 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1005. (3)That the sum to be allocated for Head 0105 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1006.”
“I wish to withdraw the amendment, Sir. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 0104 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 2012. The subject of Malaya Hall -I think it is now called Malaysia Hall -is dear to my heart and I was interested to find that the sum allocated this year was doubled to $300,000. I sought explanation in Appendix H which says that Government's contribution is "shared in proportion of students from each territory including Sabah and Sarawak." I wonder whether the Prime Minister can inform this House whether the number of our students using Malaysia Hall has, in fact, doubled in the course of the year. I was in Malaysia Hall sometime at the beginning of this year and there was no evidence of that.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 0103 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 3002. Sir, this is in regard to the production of Hansard. I wish to know why the sum is reduced to $4,100, when last year's allocation was $16,000. I wonder whether this drastic reduction will affect its efficiency. At present, I must say that the production of Hansard is very efficient and I can give an example to this House. During the Budget sitting on 5th December, the Finance Minister ended his Budget Speech sometime, I think, at 4.30 p.m. The next morning at 9.30 the first copy of his speech was ready for the use of Members of this House. I think this is a tribute to the efficiency of the Reporting and Editing Section, and I would like to know why this reduction is made, and also the possible consequences of such a reduction. Would it not lead to inefficiency in the production of Hansard in the future?”
“4 million Ordinary Expenditure, about 45 per cent will be spent on social services. These are for Education, Health, and such like services. This is as it should be. A socialist government like the P.A.P., pledged to create a more just and more equal society, must spend more of the expenditure on social services. As a socialist, I would, of course, like to see more money being spent in social development, but we must be realistic and take account of the grave economic situation facing us. I for one, Mr Speaker, Sir, am thankful for the $39 million to be spent on the development of social services in the coming year. 6.54 p.m.”
“450): 'While we can expect teenagers to spend another year or two living with their families without experiencing undue hardship, the older ones who have lost their jobs and are trying to get another create both an economic and a social problem of some importance.' It may well be asked: where will the money come from? The Finance Minister, of course, is the best person to answer this question. Perhaps it could be by voluntary contributions from the workers. Instead of paying 5 per cent of the salary to the C.P.F., perhaps a worker may be persuaded to increase his contribution to 10 per cent. Or perhaps the money could be raised from additional taxation, for example, on hard liquor. I am sure nobody would complain about additional taxation on liquor. In the Budget speech of last year, the then Finance Minister promised to bring in legislation to control finance companies. It has taken one full year for this to materialise, and the Finance Companies Bill is now before the House for consideration on the 21st of this month. I do not wish to say anything on it at this moment. But I had assumed that the control of finance companies would also mean the introduction of legislation regulating hire purchase transactions which are, in fact, part of the business of finance companies. Unfortunately this has not been done and we are still left with the existing law on hire purchase. As you are well aware, Mr Speaker, Sir, the existing law is complicated and uncertain, and I think it is high time the Government brought in legislation to regulate hire purchase which affects the lives of so many of our citizens. Coming back to the Estimates for next year, Mr Speaker, Sir, I am glad to note that out of a total of $646.”
“It is my opinion that the present legislation on rent control is impeding the development of building and construction, especially of commercial buildings. In his reply, the then Minister for Finance said that the Government would look into the matter. May I quote from Hansard that part of the Minister's reply on this subject? This is Hansard, Volume 25, No. 9, , and I quote: '...we are thinking along the lines of setting up a tribunal in order to be able to settle compensation payable for removal for development purposes.' I would like to know from the Finance Minister whether this matter has now got past the thinking stage. On the question of unemployment insurance, Mr Speaker, Sir, this matter was first raised in last year's Budget debate by the hon. Member for Telok Blangah. In his reply, the then Finance Minister said, and I quote once again -this is the same issue of Hansard, col. 674: 'The Member for Serangoon - is it Serangoon? - Telok Blangah, yes. Mr Speaker, he proposed that we should look after the unemployed by bringing in a national unemployment insurance scheme. I can assure him that we are trying to get an actuary to work out unemployment insurance for this country, and so far we have not been successful. But I hope during the course of next year to be able to put up a scheme for consideration by the Cabinet and by this House.' Perhaps the Minister for Finance can tell us when such a scheme can be established. Such a scheme is important. The Finance Minister realised the grave social implications of a man who has a family to support being out of work, when he said (and I quote again - this is in the present Budget speech at col.”
“Let me now touch on three matters which arose during last year's Budget debate, but about which the Government appears to have taken no action. These are (1) export insurance, (2) rent control, and (3) unemployment insurance. During last year's debate on the Budget, I echoed a very good suggestion from the hon. Member for Punggol, who first proposed the creation of an export-credit guarantee agency. I would once again urge the Minister to give serious consideration to this suggestion. In this year's Budget speech, the Minister for Finance referred to the creation of, I quote [col. 459]: 'an international trading agency of some kind which will relieve the manufacturers in Singapore of many of the problems connected with the export of their products to overseas markets.' The Finance Minister went on to say that this problem was receiving very close attention in his Ministry but that he would say: 'no more than that the implementation of this policy may well result in far-reaching arrangements in the structure and pattern of our international trade today.' I am not too sure that this international trading agency will embrace the export-credit guarantee agency. I spoke about it last year, but as the Finance Minister has been deliberately vague in this matter, I can only hope that he will take account of what I say here and seriously consider the establishment of some sort of an export insurance scheme which, in my opinion, would be of great help in our search for export markets. In last year's Budget debate, Mr Speaker, Sir, I have also suggested that the Government should take a look at the present legislation regarding rent control.”
“According to the Finance Minister, the total local expenditure of the British military forces amounted to no less than 14 per cent of our gross domestic expenditure in 1966, and the reduced spending would mean an accumulative reduction of some two per cent of our gross domestic expenditure in each year. However, this does not present an insurmountable problem if we remember that our gross national product grows at the rate of some six per cent per annum. It would, therefore, only mean that our gross national product will not increase at the rate that it was wont to do. Rather, it will be at a slower rate provided, of course, that the reduction in spending is not too sudden that it could not be absorbed by the growth of our gross national product. By far the gravest problem that confronts us is the aggravation of the unemployment problem caused by the British military withdrawal. The Finance Minister has spent considerable time in his Budget speech on this problem. It is an enormous problem and I need only pose it in another way. If the present figures of unemployment were to be maintained and not increased, at least 30,000 jobs must be created each year. If the figures were to be reduced to 3 per cent of the working population by 1971 - and the figure of 3 per cent, Mr Speaker, Sir, is considered by economists to be the best figure at which to keep unemployment - some 40,000 jobs a year will have to be created. A realistic plan has been proposed by the Finance Minister to solve this problem, and details have been given to this House. The magnitude of this problem was clearly and frankly stated. Perhaps we could only hope to contain it. And if that is to be done at all, Mr Speaker, Sir, I am sure our Government will be able to do it.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the Budget presented by the Minister for Finance to this House on the 5th of this month can be characterised in the Minister's own words as --- 'a normal continuation Budget with no major innovations or changes both in the Ordinary Estimates and the Development Estimates'. That being so, there will be little to say on the Budget except to congratulate the Minister on his frank and detailed analysis of the economic situation facing Singapore in the years ahead. This is the sombre situation created by the run-down of the British bases in Singapore. This grave economic situation is fully appreciated and squarely faced by the Government and plans are afoot to contain it if not to overcome it. It is comforting to note that the present Finance Minister is the very person who, as the architect of our industrialisation programme, was the master-mind responsible for turning Jurong from a swamp into the modern industrial estate that it is today. The run-down of the British bases has presented us with three problems - one, the aggravation of our unemployment problem by the retrenchment of personnel at present employed at the British bases; two, the reduction of spending in Singapore leading to a possible decline in our gross national product; three, an increase in defence expenditure made necessary by the British military withdrawal. The last problem, that is, our increased defence expenditure, is the least of all the three problems because it was anticipated when the defence plans of the Republic were first framed some two years ago; and we must once again congratulate the Finance Minister, who as the then Defence Minister was responsible for the framing of the defence plans, on this masterpiece of anticipation.”
“I will not be moving, Sir. The sum of $7,100,000 for Head 67 ordered to stand part of the First Supplementary Development Estimates of Expenditure for 1967.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in view of what I said when I moved subhead 102, I shall not be moving this amendment.”
“I am quite satisfied with the Minister's explanation, Sir, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 67 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 102. Mr Speaker, Sir, what I am going to say also applies to the other subheads in respect of which I have also proposed to move reductions. It would appear from the explanatory notes in the First Supplementary Development Estimates that all these five subheads, namely, subheads 102, 103, 104, 202 and 208, could have been anticipated at the beginning of the year. As such, once again I must say that the Ministry should have anticipated this expenditure. It would only be a waste of parliamentary time to come at the end of the year for supplementary estimates.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The following amendment stood in the name of Inche Mohd. Ariff Bin Suradi - That the sum to be allocated for Head 1002 be reduced by the whole sum in respect of subhead 1.”
“Sir, I am satisfied except for the fact that my colleague, the hon. Member for Punggol, has asked for detailed figures. I wonder whether the Minister could oblige. The Minister for Culture and Social Affairs (Inche Othman Bin Wok): Sir, I have the figures with me. This is purely due to reorganisation which was done. There were altogether 74 persons who have been recruited in the Broadcasting Division, including Announcers, two, Engineer, one, Technical Assistant (Superscale), five, Technical Assistant (Special Grade), none, Technical Assistant and Technical Cadet, two, Technicians, 23.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 1002 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead l.* * The same admendment also stood in the name of Mr Ng Kah Ting. Mr Speaker, Sir, I am very glad to hear the Minister for Finance say just now that all estimates are prepared in the most exact manner possible. Unfortunately, the explanatory note to Head 1002 subhead 1 gives an idea that it is not so. 3.00 p.m. Every year, each Ministry puts in its estimates and it expects them to be cut down by the Treasury. It is something like bargaining or haggling in the market. I open my price at, say, $3 million. You say, "No, you can get only $2 million." Then at the end of the year, you find that $2 million is not enough and you have to come back to Parliament to get the extra money required. That exactly is the position here, Mr Speaker, Sir,I think it behoves the Ministries and the Treasury to come to a certain understanding, so that there need not be any bargaining. What the Ministries want must be stated exactly, and if Treasury want to reduce it, they must give good reasons. And once the sum is reduced, the Ministry should see to it that it sticks to that figure, instead of, as in this instance, a $2 million reduction, expecting certain vacancies not to be filled, and they had, in the course of the year, filled vacancies up to a sum of $660,000. This is the sum that falls short, and now we are here asked to vote again. Parliament may not be very busy, Sir, but surely this is no way of employing its time!”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I think what is more important is the reason why the retirement of officers was not anticipated at the beginning of the year. As I see it, surely it should be Government policy, especially in view of the present unemployment situation in the country, to retire all officers compulsorily when they reach retiring age in order to give job opportunities to younger men who enter the labour market. Can the Minister give reasons for the increase in payments and why they were not anticipated at the beginning of the year?”
“I am quite satisfied with the explanation by the Minister of Defence, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The following amendment stood in the name of Inche Mohd. Ariff Bin Suradi - That the sum to be allocated for Head 0401 be reduced by the whole sum in respect of subhead 1.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 0401 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead l.* * The same admendment also stood in the name of Mr Ng Kah Ting. It would appear that the grant for the salary increases was given by the Malaysian Government in July 1965 with retrospective effect from 1st of March, 1963. It should, therefore, have been anticipated by the Ministry concerned and provision be made at the beginning of this year for the increase. This has not been done and we are now being asked to vote for a sum of nearly $5 million for the increase. Furthermore, I would like to know the total sum involved in this increase. Mr Ng Kah Ting (Punggol): Mr Speaker, Sir, I fully subscribe to the questions posed by the hon. Member for Choa Chu Kang. Further, I would like to know the exact number of personnel who will be benefiting from such salary increases with effect from 1st March, 1963. Secondly, if I remember well, retrospective increases and payments were not to be supported when the previous Minister for Finance, in answer to a speech on a motion on the adjournment by the Member for Telok Blangah, said that the Government was not prepared to give back pay with effect from 1961 in respect of claims by the Public Daily-Rated Employees' Unions Federation. I believe there is no connection with this whatsoever since the decision to give salary increases was made by the Malaysian Government. However, I fully endorse the views of the Member for Choa Chu Kang on this question of the Government having to come to Parliament and ask it to endorse a vote of nearly $5 million.”
“Can the Minister clarify whether the words "in his view" mean "in his opinion" or "in his presence"?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like clarification from the Minister on the new section 78A (4) in clause 9 of the Bill. Section 78A (4) reads as follows: `Any police officer may arrest without warrant any person offending in his view against any of the provisions of this section and take him as soon as practicable before a Magistrate's Court to be dealt with according to law.'. The words I wish clarification on appear in the second line - "in his view". Does this phrase mean "in the opinion" or "in the presence" of the police officer? Can the Minister clarify it and, if necessary, amend this new sub-section to make it clearer? Reading the subsection as a whole, I think it should be "in his presence".”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, is this then not contradictory policy on the part of the Ministry of National Development? And what is the Minister going to do about it?”
“On a point of clarification. Mr Speaker, Sir, I hate to interrupt the Minister. But I never suggested anything like flouting the law. In fact, if the Minister will recall, I did say perhaps in necessary cases the Government's power of acquisition under the existing law should be exercised.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, surely the point is that the Member of Parliament for any particular constituency is the best judge of what are the requirements of that constituency. It is not up to the P.W.D, to build, say, a cycle track along Choa Chu Kang and extend it to Jurong. Possibly both Choa Chu Kang and Jurong do not want cycle tracks. Choa Chu Kang, for example, wants water. Surely the question of social services should not be based on economic grounds. A social service is not a trade or a business. Therefore, the urgency and the importance of the requirement must be taken into account. The Projects Committee should not just be allowed to say that street lighting should be installed in Tengah Village and then proceed to spend $16,000 there, when at the same time the people in Choa Chu Kang - in Yew Tee Village - do not have drinking water. The wells there dry up during the dry season and water carts have to be used to bring water to rural folks. Surely in this case the Member of Parliament concerned must have the discretion, even if it means that half of the funds allocated to him goes to this particular project.”
“It is more likely that permission would be given when sought for by Government departments rather than by community leaders who have no official status, at least in the eyes of the private landowners. In the event of private landowners being unreasonable in holding up projects which would benefit a large number of people, I would suggest that the Government should consider exercising powers of acquisition under the existing law as a last resort. 5.29 p.m.”
“Yet, at the same time, a project for street lighting not supported by me nor by the Citizens' Consultative Committee was approved. How can the Projects Committee explain its decision that the water project was not economical and yet the street lighting project was economical? And if projects are approved and rejected on economic grounds, when has this criterion come about? Can the decision for social service projects be based on economic grounds? I would like a categorical statement from the Minister concerned. Coming down to the detailed administration of the urban and rural services projects, at present Citizens' Consultative Committees are asked to help search the records at the Land Registry to ascertain the ownership where projects affect private land. I am of the opinion that this is imposing too heavy a burden on the Citizens' Consultative Committees, a burden they are not equipped to shoulder. Members of the Citizens' Consultative Committees are local community leaders. They are sensitive to the needs of the constituencies but they do not understand the workings of the Land Registry and the making of searches of the records kept there. Furthermore, the Citizens' Consultative Committees are asked to obtain the owners' permission where any projects affecting private land are considered. This again I consider to be quite inappropriate. It would be more effective if the Urban and Rural Services Committee could obtain the private landowner's permission after ascertaining that any particular project affects private land. All urban and rural services projects are for the benefit of the community and the community should not be held to ransom by private landowners.”