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 14 of 14.
“On a point of clarification, Mr Speaker, Sir.”
“On the whole, Mr Speaker, this is a practical budget devoid of dramatic changes which, unfortunately, in, our present state of development the Finance Minister is not able to make. I support the budget. 6.01 p.m.”
“No, Mr Speaker, I was not referring to that. I was referring to the meeting of the transport companies. I think it was at the invitation - I am not too sure, I stand to be corrected - of the Minister of State for the Prime Minister's Department. But we have heard nothing of that since, and I was wondering whether the Government will now contemplate legislation to nationalise public transport so that the public transport system can be a more rational and efficient one than it is at present. In connection with industrialisation, Mr Speaker, Sir, as we said in the debate over the subject of resettlement last Monday, I think the Government may be paying far too much attention to industrialisation and not enough to the problems of the farming community. As I have said, farming properly developed may again be one of the ways of finding more job opportunities for our unemployed, since, at the present stage of development, it is a labour intensive industry. I see from the financial statement, Mr Speaker, Sir, that a tremendous amount of money is being given out on loan to the Economic Development Board for the development of Jurong. Jurong, Mr Speaker, Sir, is an imaginative scheme. I think it is a scheme of which we in Singapore should be justly proud. On the other hand, Mr Speaker, Sir, if you go to Jurong you can see that a lot of sites are not being taken up and it would possibly benefit the Government to spend more thought on attracting foreign manufacturers to Jurong before developing Jurong further. There is no point in developing the sites when they are not being taken up. It would only be locking up a lot of financial resources which could be better deployed elsewhere.”
“I see that in the Budget Statement there is no mention whatsoever of our public transport system, although sometime ago we saw in the Press that the Government wanted the companies running public transport to come together to work out a certain scheme to better serve the public.”
“Unfortunately it would appear that this is rather restricted and is not broad enough to encourage private development, especially of commercial buildings. A great deal of labour is employed in the construction industry and a boost to that industry will, in fact, be one of the ways of helping the unemployment problem. In this respect, Mr Speaker, Sir, may I recommend the Government to have a look at the present legislation regarding rent control? The present legislation may be an impediment in the development of building and construction, especially of commercial buildings. Perhaps the Government may wish to have a look at this problem and possibly decide, for example, on selective de-control. This could first be done in the commercial areas. Another solution to this problem may be the setting up of a tribunal to settle the question of disputes between landlords and tenants on the amount of compensation payable for removal. If this suggestion does not find favour with the Government, I wonder whether it will at least appoint a committee to look into the whole question of rent control and its effects on development. I am also glad to see the announced intention of the Government to control finance companies. I think this is the appropriate time to do so. We are an affluent society. A lot of us are living on credit. In fact, we may term our present economy as an H.P. (hire-purchase) economy. I think it is high time that legislation should be introduced to protect the consuming public against unscrupulous finance companies, not only, as the Minister in his statement says, to protect the depositors but also to protect the borrowers from the finance companies.”
“In the course of the year, Mr Speaker, Sir, there were certain bi-lateral agreements entered into with East European countries, but it would appear that we were significantly unsuccessful in getting a foothold in the African market in spite of the fact that a trade mission had been to that continent. I have read the debate on last year's budget and I notice that there was a good suggestion from the hon. Member for Punggol: he recommended to the Government to consider the question of creating an export credit guarantee agency. This may be one of the ways of helping our exporters. As the hon. Member for Punggol argued, exporters are usually unfamiliar with export markets, and they are not quite willing to risk their resources in such markets unless they can be reasonably assured that there is a return on their exports. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is difficult to comment upon the Budget Speech in view of the fact that we were given so little time in which to prepare and also the fact that a lot of information is not at our disposal. However, I would like to touch on a few subjects that appear in the current Budget as presented by the Finance Minister. May I, first of all, take the question of building and construction? As appearing in the Budget Statement: 'The value of buildings commenced in the first six months of this year stood at $56.5 million as against $80.7 million for the same period last year.' There is, therefore, a drop of something like $24 million. I think the responsibility for this drop in the development of buildings and construction must be laid at the door of high rates. I am glad that in the present budget the Finance Minister is making provision to lower the rate for special development and for development in designated areas.”
“In this connection, however, I find that the Minister for Finance was practically silent on the prospects of our export markets. A great deal was said last year about the finding of export markets with the help of the Government. Mr Speaker, Sir, may I read from last year's Budget Speech contained in Volume 24, No. 2, of Hansard in which the Minister, with reference to prospective markets, said, and I quote: 'I should like, Mr Speaker, to go into some detail on the question of prospective markets for our manufactured goods. These fall roughly into four categories :- (a) Markets in the developed, highly industrialised countries of the world; (b) New markets in Africa and Eastern Europe; (c) Markets to be provided by those countries which have been consistently running favourable balances of trade with us; and (d) Markets in those countries which have a vested interest in ensuring that Singapore remains viable and stable so that, in turn, their own security interests are not jeopardized.'. I am afraid no further reference to this particular development is contained in the present Budget Speech, especially in regard to category (d) as contained in last year's Budget Speech of the Finance Minister - that is, markets in those countries which have a vested interest in ensuring that Singapore remains a viable and stable country. I wonder whether the Minister for Finance in his reply will inform the House what progress has been made in this particular respect and what prospects there are for our industrial products being taken up by these particular markets.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Budget as presented to this House is a useful and down-to-earth one. This is to be expected in view of the special circumstances in which Singapore is placed. We are a small nation with no natural resources. Our only resources are our manpower. This at once is our asset and our problem. We have a tremendous reservoir of manpower which, if properly deployed and developed, would lead us to fortune, but if neglected would be the cause of our failure. This basic problem of ours is realised by our Government and positive steps are being taken to combat it. Unfortunately, this is a problem which cannot be solved overnight. It gives me confidence, however, to observe that the Minister in charge of financial affairs was the person who, as Chairman of the Housing and Development Board, was responsible for breaking the back of our housing problem. He is now at the helm of our financial affairs actively engaged in tackling this unemployment problem. In order to solve it, a great deal of thought has been spent on industrialisation; but in order to industrialise effectively, we need a market. Singapore by itself is too small to provide a market to absorb all the products that our factories can turn out. Our attention, therefore, is turned to export. However, our industrialists are not quite familiar with the export market. Therefore, in order to encourage them to export, we have to offer them export incentives. In last year's budget, there were certain incentives offered, but these were found insufficient and I am glad to observe that in this year's budget, the incentives we offer are of a bold and imaginative kind and should do well to encourage our industrialists to export.”
“So the women who want to go there must be escorted by their husbands, otherwise they have to use a spittoon as a temporary lavatory. I would like to find out from the Minister whether he remembers that last year there was an unfortunate incident relating to a small girl in this area because there are no self-contained lavatories. This child was victimised and killed after having gone to the common lavatory. In view of the answer given by the Parliamentary Secretary, I would like to ask him whether he is prepared to convert the existing flats for the use of male residents only, or as quarters for men, and the present tenants may be given some other accommodation with self-contained lavatories and kitchens. An hon. Member: Provide separate lavatories.”
“In that case, I do not think I shall ask it. BUKIT HO SWEE FLATS (Conversion into self-contained flats with toilet facilities) 12. Madam Chan Choy Siong asked the Minister for Law and National Development if he will request the Housing and Development Board to consider the possibility of converting the existing 900 Bukit Ho Swee flats, which have common lavatory facilities, into self-contained flats each with its own toilet facilities, or alternatively, the reduction of the rent of such flats. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development (Mr Ho Cheng Choon) (for the Minister for Law and National Development): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Housing and Development Board has considered the possibility of converting the existing Bukit Ho Swee one-room units with communal facilities into self-contained one-room or two-room units. There are altogether 904 units of one-room service communal flats sited in five blocks. The conversion will involve making structural alterations and substantial foundation costs, the cost of which will be prohibitive and not economically justifiable. The rent of these flats is already low - $20 per month - and it is not economically feasible to reduce the rental. The Government subsidy for these one-room units already averages as high as $17 per month per unit. Any further reduction in rental will therefore require a corresponding increase in subsidy. Madam Chan Choy Siong(In Mandarin): I would like to ask the Minister whether he has given some thought to the residents of the 900 flats in this area. I would also like to ask him whether he is aware that there are three urgencies in life. The first urgency is beyond control, and that is one must go to the lavatory. The lavatories are situated in a common corridor.”
“A supplementary, Sir. Does the Minister not consider that the giving of a transport subsidy would, in fact, encourage people to stay away from Jurong rather than stay in Jurong?”
“A supplementary, Mr Speaker, Sir. Is it true that the flats at Jurong are at present half empty and that there was only one registration at the school there and that at present it is being put to other uses?”
“A supplementary question, Sir. What is the Government going to do about this brain-drain from Government departments?”
“Government must then give a special loan to the farmers.”
“You can then do farming in Housing Board flats!”
“Yes, that could be so, but, unfortunately, in this particular case, the result was that some farmhands had to be dismissed, adding to the unemployment problem, and the operation had to be scaled down, leading to a decline in the national output. I am not saying that every farmer must be given as much land as he can farm, but there must be a certain degree of flexibility in the administration of the present Government policy of resettlement. As we all know, farming at the present stage of development in Singapore is labour intensive. It is one of the ways which could be explored to create job opportunities. I submit, Mr Speaker, Sir, that properly developed farming can give tremendous opportunities for employment. The present policy of the Government, however, of allotting a plot of two acres to farmers, irrespective of their special circumstances, is against the development of the farming industry as a whole. It would create a lot of subsistence farmers, but it would not help in the development of farming in the context of the national economy as a whole. Singapore, unfortunately, has not many acres of farm land and we must make the best use of the land available to us for farming. Unfortunately, the present Government's farming policy appears to be piecemeal, and I urge the Minister concerned to spare a few more moments of thought on this particular subject. It will do our farmers and our economy as a whole a great deal of good if he can think of a more coherent, and consistent policy. 5.51 p.m.”
“They were each allocated a plot of land of not more than two acres irrespective of how much land they had been cultivating before, and also without considering their particular type of cultivation. To make way for the resettlement of farmers from Jurong, land in the Choa Chu Kang area was acquired and farmers who were farming on a large scale before suddenly found that they had to squeeze their operations into a much smaller plot of land. As the Member for Bras Basah has just said, most of these lands were held on T.O.L.s. All the Government did was to revoke the T.O.L.s, take back the land and re-allot to these resettled farmers a plot of not more than two acres. Let me give the House an example to illustrate my point. In my constituency, there was an old established poultry farming family rearing chickens on a very large scale on ten acres of land. The annual turnover was in the region of $1 million, and they employed a score or so of farmhands. Because of the Government's resettlement policy, the land was acquired by the Government - in this case the T.O.L. was revoked - and this family was re-allotted a two-acre plot of land. How can the Government expect this particular farming operation that was carried out on a ten-acre plot of land before to be squeezed now into a two-acre plot?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the question of resettlement not only affects our farming population but also affects our economy as a whole. Government appears, however, not to have given sufficient thought to its farming policy. It appears to be preoccupied with industrialisation. Whilst industrialisation rightly demands our urgent attention, our farming policy should not be neglected. Unfortunately, neglected it appears to be. It is, I should say, the Cinderella in our Government policy. In acquiring the Jurong site for industrial development, for example, farmers from that area were resettled in the Choa Chu Kang Constituency.”
“When will the area proposed to be developed for sawmills be ready for occupation?”
“Also clause 8 of the Bill enables an insurer to get out of the deposit by getting a bank covenant. No doubt the primary object of requiring the $300,000 deposit is that there should be enough money to pay any compensation when compensation is payable. But surely there should be a secondary object, that this amount of money should be invested in securities, especially securities of local industries. So this requirement of a $300,000 deposit would kill two birds with one stone. It would also oblige insurance companies to invest their money locally. As I have said just now, Mr Speaker, Sir, this is a good Bill on the whole, and with the exception of these minor criticisms, I support it.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I think this Bill is a good one. It is designed to control and regulate the insurance industry in Singapore. My only criticism of this Bill is that it is not comprehensive enough, especially in regard to motor insurance. The law with regard to motor insurance at present requires compulsory third-party insurance. But third-party insurance, unfortunately, does not include passenger liability. I would request the Government to consider including passenger liability possibly in an amendment to the Third Party Risks and Compensation Ordinance as third-party liability. Under the existing law, Mr Speaker, Sir, an insurance company can still avoid liability with regard to third-party risks in certain circumstances. This may be just in respect of the insured, but it definitely works an injustice towards the injured third party. To overcome this, possibly Government can consider setting up an insurance compensation fund. This could be contributed to by the insurance companies undertaking motor insurance business. The alternative is to require insurance companies to insure drivers with regard to third-party risks rather than insuring cars. Let me give the House an example. Many of our Government Front-benchers are accomplished golfers. I understand the Minister concerned with this Bill is one of them. A golfer should insure himself against third-party liability, in case he hits the ball into somebody instead of into the hole. The present position of insuring cars instead of insuring drivers is as absurd as insuring the golfers' clubs rather than the golfers themselves against third-party liability. Yet we think nothing of that. May I recommend the Minister in charge of this Bill to spend a few thoughts on this point, possibly between golf shots?”
“I am speaking, Mr Speaker, Sir, as a bachelor of 34 years' standing! Mr Speaker, Sir, as I was saying before the interruption, whether a country is happy or progressive depends upon its basic unit, that is, the family. As I see it, Mr Speaker, Sir, there is no point in keeping two persons together who cannot agree with each other and who hate the sight of each other and are at loggerheads all the time. It would not then be a holy wedlock but it would be a wholly deadlock if the hon. Member for Delta had her way! I am glad that the Government is committing this amendment Bill to a Select Committee and no doubt representations from the public, especially from organisations connected with children and women, will be made to this Committee. I wish the Select Committee well in its deliberations. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support this amendment Bill in principle.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have no experience in matters matrimonial, but I can assure the hon. Member for Delta that seven years is a long time to wait, and if I were -”
“I do not mean that once a person is married he or she should not be allowed to divorce for proper reasons, because the law clearly and specifically provides that when a couple have registered under the Ordinance for two years, any one party who has been cruelly treated, or has any dissatisfaction or has sufficient reasons, could petition for a divorce. Then why have this redundant clause saying that after seven years they can petition for a divorce? Since they are already allowed, after two years, to petition for a divorce, why should you now add seven years? This would encourage a husband to leave his wife to get a new wife.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, although I am physically occupying a seat customarily reserved for the Opposition, let me assure you that my heart is with the Government. In this respect, I am sure I speak for all my colleagues on this side of the House. It is fitting that I should now rise to support the Government on this Bill. The Women's Charter is one of the noted pieces of social legislation introduced by the Government. It seeks to protect the rights and interests of women and children in the Republic and to abolish polygamy. When it was introduced in 1961, it demolished, as it were, by a stroke of the pen, the polygamous haven that was Singapore, no doubt to the regret of many a polygamist! The Charter has been in existence for the last five years, and during this time certain loopholes were discovered. It is appropriate that the Government should now take stock of this piece of legislation and try to bring it up to date. I was rather surprised just now when I heard the hon. Member for Delta criticising one of the clauses in the Bill. This clause seeks to permit the dissolution of a marriage after separation for seven years, during which time all attempts at reconciliation have been unsuccessful. It would appear, from what she has said, that once a marriage is contracted, it should never be dissolved. That, Mr Speaker, I cannot agree to and I do not think it is in line with present day sociological trends. Mr Speaker, the basic unit of a country is the family. Whether a country is happy or progressive depends upon whether this basic - Madam Chan Choy Siong(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, can I clarify in a few sentences? Just now I have clearly pointed out that the Minister in this amending Bill has provided one redundant clause, namely, clause 28.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I understand that under Standing Order 20, paragraph (2) , Members are entitled to request that questions that are not answered be postponed for oral answer at a later sitting. May I request that my two questions set down on the Order Paper be so postponed?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, let me hasten to assure the Minister for National Development that I, for one, was not thinking that he was building fountains for himself. But there is still the general principle of priorities, and on this point I am not quite satisfied with the explanation given and I wish that this amendment be put to a vote. Question on the amendment put, and negatived. The sum of $97,997 for Head D 07 ordered to stand part of the First Supplementary Development Estimates of Expenditure for 1966.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not quite satisfied with the explanation given by the Minister. While it may be quite true that a tremendous amount of money is being spent in the rural areas - and he has given me figures for the amounts spent in Choa Chu Kang in respect of water and lighting - the fact remains that in these rural areas the basic amenities of life are not satisfied. My thesis is that unless and until such amenities are satisfied, it is against socialist principles that the urban areas should be given amenities that are not the basic requirements of life. The Minister has also said that it is a matter of opinion whether Mount Faber is a better area after a tremendous amount of money has been spent on it. I do not think it improves it scenically and I am sure a lot of people do not think so. If that is the case, why should we spend money on something that is not necessary while, at the same time, leaving the basic requirements of life not satisfied? Take public lighting in Mount Faber, for example. I am sure it is not appreciated there. In fact, I think it does cause considerable annoyance to a lot of people, especially loving young couples who visit Mount Faber. Funds for such public lighting could very well be spent and would very much be appreciated in, for example, my constituency. That, Mr Speaker, Sir, is my thesis: that the Minister has got his priorities wrong.”
“As I have said earlier about my suspicions regarding payments made to the Ministry of Health, I am rather worried if the use of the car park, as mentioned in this scheme, is to be paid for, as is done at the Airport at present, because it will be a burden to the people who want to make use of the car park. Normally, people who visit parks like MacRitchie Reservoir are usually poor. Although we see them going there in cars, these cars are sometimes borrowed from their friends or hired. For example, on a Saturday if someone wants to go for a ride or stroll in MacRitchie Reservoir during the day, he has to pay car park charges at High Street and then in the evening he will have to pay again. This will be a burden, Mr Speaker. There are also occasions when rich people go to the parks, but they will not make visits to MacRitchie Reservoir as they have better places to go to which are in line with their status. But there are also rich people who go to MacRitchie Reservoir. I would like to know once again from the Minister concerned whether the use of the car park proposed in this scheme will be paid for.”
“On the other hand, I have heard a lot of complaints that the cosiness of the place, the romance of it, is being spoilt. The harsh public lighting is no substitute for the soft moonlight. But even granted that we are so insensitive as to prefer a man-made fountain to a natural running stream and decide that this project should be proceeded with, regardless, there is still the question of priority to be considered. We are a small country. Our resources, as I have said just now, are limited. We must, therefore, make the best use of them. We are here proposing to spend a quarter of a million dollars on something that needs no improvement, whilst, at the same time, in the rural areas basic amenities like electricity and piped water have not been provided for. In my constituency in Choa Chu Kang, for example, Sir, there are areas - and indeed large areas - where there is not even piped water, not to say the luxury of public lighting. And the money to be spent on these projects could be better spent, I submit, on the rural areas. If a quarter of a million dollars could be channelled into the rural areas, it would do a tremendous lot to improve the basic standard of living of the rural people. It would be little comfort to the rural folks to be told by the Minister for National Development that they could watch coloured water playing in the floating fountain in MacRitchie Reservoir, when they have not even piped water at home to drink or to use. That is the irony of this project, Sir, and I beg to move. Inche Mahmud Awang(In Malay): Mr Speaker, on this new subhead 024, I would like to know from the Minister for Law and National Development whether the purpose of this vote is to make a park for the people of Singapore with the idea of reducing the dust and filth.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head D 07 be reduced by $10 in respect of new subhead 024. Mr Speaker, Sir, there are two points to be considered here. The first point is whether it is necessary to disturb the present natural environment of MacRitchie Reservoir. The second point is whether, even if it is decided that we should do so, it is not a question of wrong priorities. On the first question, Mr Speaker, Sir, I think MacRitchie Reservoir is a natural beautiful park as it is. I have visited it, and it has all the aesthetic features of a natural environment - tall shady trees, soft green grass, birds singing overhead, insects humming around. Mr Speaker, Sir, attap shelters cannot take the place of shady trees, and paved footpaths cannot take the place of soft green grass, and a floating fountain and a tea kiosk will not, I submit, Mr Speaker, Sir, improve the aesthetic features of the park. When concrete and mortar and a motorway are brought in, the natural environment of MacRitchie Reservoir will be no more. I take it that the P.W.D. will be in charge of the project. The P.W.D. is a solid, hardworking department. Unfortunately, it has so far not proved itself capable of being the author of any aesthetically beautiful project. Take the Raffles Underground Car Park and Garden, Sir. It is functional but it is ugly. It has a fountain and a flower bed, but fountains and flower beds alone do not make beautiful gardens. It is the arrangement - the overall arrangement - of these things that makes beautiful gardens. Mr Speaker, Sir, if Mount Faber is another place to judge by, I feel very apprehensive about the natural beauty of our park at MacRitchie Reservoir. I do not think we have improved Mount Faber, scenically speaking.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in view of the assurance given by the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $6,591,677 for Head D 06 ordered to stand part of the First Supplementary Development Estimates of Expenditure for 1966. Head D 07 -”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head D 06 be reduced by $10 in respect of new subhead 028. In this new subhead, Mr Speaker, Sir, this House is asked to approve a sum of some $6� million for the improvement of Television and Broadcasting Services, again without this House being supplied with any information or a detailed breakdown of the amount required. It is appreciated that there is urgent need for the improvement of television and radio services, especially the radio services, since our independence. We are a multi-racial, multi-religious and multi-lingual society professing and practising democratic socialist principles. We should therefore make our policy known to all our people at home and to project our image abroad, and the best means of doing so is through the television and radio services. But it does not mean that this House will approve some $6� million without knowing how the money is going to be spent. I understand that the sum is in addition to the sum of more than $3 million that has already been spent on the new Television House. There is one thing I would like to say about television, and that is commercial advertising. Whilst we appreciate that it may be necessary to allow commercial advertising in television to help it pay its way, commercial advertising seems to be now getting out of hand, especially during what are called the "peak hours" when the amount of advertising time is fast approaching that of the ordinary programme time. If this tendency is not checked, we may soon get into the ridiculous situation of having the "Radio Weekly" detailing only the commercial programmes and leaving us to have glimpses of cowboys shooting Indians in between the commercials. 4.00 p.m.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $224,400 for Head D 04 ordered to stand part of the First Supplementary Development Estimates of Expenditure for 1966. Head D 06 -”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head D 04 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 013. In this subhead, Mr Speaker, Sir, we are asked to vote some quarter of a million dollars without any details being given to this House. Outpatient service in the General Hospital is notoriously bad, and unfortunately, I myself have had a very unpleasant experience of such bad treatment. The usual excuse is that the doctors in charge are over-worked. If that is the reason, the remedy is surely to engage more doctors and improve the service, and not to inflict the result of this shortage of doctors on patients. 3.45 p.m.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $19,618,358 for Head D 01 ordered to stand part of the First Supplementary Development Estimates of Expenditure for 1966. Head D 04 -”
“I can assure the Member for Choa Chu Kang that an enormous amount of detailed work has gone into the valuation of the plant and removable and immovable property of Cable and Wireless. He need not fear that we have been cheated or over-paid on account of the take-over. I will only add that there has been justice done to both sides, to the Company and also to us.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head D 01 be reduced by $10 in respect of new subhead 037. Mr Speaker, Sir, telecommunication is vital to an international trading centre like Singapore. I think the Government deserves to be congratulated on its decision to acquire the assets of Cable and Wireless Limited and on its firm stand in its negotiations with the Malaysian Government in regard to the acquisition of Cable and Wireless Limited. The point I want to raise is one of detail only. I just want to know whether we are paying the right price for the Company's assets. I have been trying to do some research on my own, but, unfortunately, without much success. Through the kind help of the House Librarian, I managed to get a copy of the Company's Report and Accounts for the Year ending 31st March, 1964 -that was just before the Company was acquired by the Malaysian Government then. Unfortunately, the Report contained only consolidated accounts of the Cable and Wireless Group as a whole, with no breakdown for the Singapore operations, and without any indication of the value of the assets in Singapore. I should be pleased if the Minister would enlighten us on this point. Dr Toh Chin Chye: Mr Speaker, if the Member for Choa Chu Kang had earlier indicated to me what information he required, I myself could have done a little investigation into this enormous volume of files which began since 1962. In that year the lease of Cable and Wireless Limited was expiring and we had proposed the formation of an Overseas Telecommunications Board which would have, as partners, the Singapore Government holding 51 per cent of the shares and the Company 49 per cent. In fact, at that period we had conducted investigations into the capital assets of the Company.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am satisfied with the assurance given by the Deputy Prime Minister and I wish to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head D 01 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 028. Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore is an international trading centre. It is, therefore, logical that we should join in international communication projects, and SEACOM is such a project. We should, however, be able to know the extent of our commitments. Unfortunately, our resources are limited and we must make the best use of them. From the estimates, I see that our original commitment was some $10 million. We are now, however, asked to increase our commitment by some $2 million. The reason given is that the increase is necessary because of the re-routing and increase in the capacity of the cable. It is, therefore, relevant to ask whether Singapore was consulted on the re-routing and also on the increase in the capacity of the cable to be laid. Can the Minister assure us that this will not be an open-handed commitment in which we will be asked to increase our contribution from time to time?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the Bill. The reasons outlined by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance for Singapore to join the Asian Development Bank are cogent enough. By becoming a member, Singapore will be able to take advantage of not only the financial facilities of the Bank, but also other technical facilities. Looking through the Bill, however, I see that clause 9 (1) provides for certain provisions of the Agreement of the Bank to have the force of law in Singapore. And turning to paragraph 2 of Article 56 as published in the Schedule of the Bill, it would appear that employees of the Bank, irrespective of their status, would have facilities offered to them, amongst which facilities is the exemption from income tax. Now, most countries in the world always reserve the right to themselves to tax their own nationals and I see no reason why Singapore should be an exception; that is, I see no reason why Singapore should give up the right to tax its nationals simply because they are employees of the Bank. I wonder whether the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance will give this House an undertaking that employees of the Bank, at least the clerical staff, will not get exemption from the tax laws of Singapore. Subject to that reservation, Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.”
“Yes, Mr Speaker. But these specific details, in fact, concern the broad policy of the Bill, because it does mean that, broadly speaking, the punishment provided in this Bill, as I view it, is far too severe in view of the existing provisions of the Minor Offences Ordinance, section 11 (1) of which has not been amended. May I, Mr Speaker, quote from section 11? `11 - (1) Any person who commits any of the following offences shall be liable to a fine not exceeding fifty dollars:- (a) without authority in the case of public property, or without the consent of the owner or occupier in the case of private property, affixes or causes to be affixed any advertisement, bill or notice, or any paper against or upon any building, wall or fence, or writes upon, defaces or marks any such building, wall or fence with chalk or paint or in any other way;'. This person would then be punished with only a fine on conviction of $50. Whereas if the law-enforcing authorities should charge the same person for the same offence under the new Act to be passed, he would be punished with a fine of not less than $2,000 or imprisonment of three years with mandatory caning. I am just bringing up these provisions for the consideration of the Government. Possibly the Government may wish to amend section 11 (1) of the Minor Offences Ordinance so as to bring it into line with the policy of deterrent against offenders who commit acts of vandalism. As I said, Mr Speaker, on the whole, we appreciate the reasons for the introduction of this Bill and I on balance support it. 4.38p.m.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the House will accept the reasons given by the Minister of State of Defence for the necessity of introducing this Bill. However, looking at the Bill as a whole and especially at the amendments that the Minister is going to introduce for the punishment of acts of vandalism as defined in the Bill, I have the impression that the Government is taking the view that severity of punishment is a deterrent. Mr Speaker, Sir, severity of punishment may not, in fact, necessarily be a deterrent. The way to deter any crime, I submit, is to impress on the wrong-doer the certainty of his being found out if he commits one. Also I have the impression that as far as acts of vandalism are concerned, that is, excluding the anti-national elements, this Bill could only be an interim measure, because, as I see it, vandalism cannot be rooted out by the introduction of a Bill with very severe punishment. It can only be rooted out by educating our young to respect public property and to have a sense of pride in the public amenities provided by society. Also there appear to be certain inconsistencies in the law if this Bill is passed, and I wonder whether the Minister will consider amending the law regarding punishment. Here in this Bill it says that an act of vandalism - if the amendments go through - is punishable by a fine of not exceeding $2,000, or imprisonment of a term not exceeding three years, and also mandatory caning except in certain circumstances. However, the Minor Offences Ordinance, section 11 of which has not been -”
“Not quite, Mr Speaker, because the Finance Minister did say that our dollar can always be exchanged at 2s. 4d. That means that we are pegging our dollar to pound sterling, in which case, should there be a devaluation in pound sterling, we may then be in some trouble. In view of this, would the Government consider, instead of fixing the exchange parity at 2s. 4d, pound sterling, pegging our dollar to gold, so as to ensure that we would not run into financial crises whenever the pound sterling does so?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, if the cause of the breakdown of the negotiations was over the ownership of Singapore's reserves, how is it that we read in the papers that Mr Tan Siew Sin said in the Malaysian Parliament that disagreement over the economic and banking policies arising out of two separate political entities of Singapore and Malaysia led to the breakdown of the negotiations? Why has our Minister for Finance not told us of this in his statement this afternoon?”
“I think the answer to this question depends on how much we expect to borrow from the World Bank over, say, the next five years, and how easy it would be, and how much more expensive it is, to borrow from other sources. We will have tied up in the Bank, as we are informed in the Explanatory Statement to the Bill, something like U.S.$62 million, or something like M$180 million. If we have all this money tied up, I fail to see why we cannot, in fact, use it for our own development rather than joining the World Bank, putting this in as subscription and in turn borrowing money back from the World Bank. No doubt, the World Bank gives other facilities as well. For example, it offers technical help in the evaluation of projects which it is called on to finance. However, in the past, the World Bank has shown extreme conservatism in its lending policy. For example, it has only recently been lending money for water schemes and for educational purposes. It did not do so in the past. It is to be hoped that the World Bank will now extend its facilities to cover other social development schemes like housing and sewerage. However, should we become a member, it is also to be hoped that the World Bank will be more generous to us in financing local costs of development projects. This will enable certain development projects, such as the East Coast Reclamation, to be financed by the World Bank. On balance, however, taking into account the money that has to be tied up, it may, in fact, be far cheaper for us not to join the World Bank. Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to oppose the Bill.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, just before I sat down, I was saying to the House that the amount of money that we have to pay to the International Monetary Fund is 25 per cent of U.S. $30 million in gold and the balance in local currency. I was under the impression that the balance of the 75 per cent to be subscribed could, in fact, be subscribed in the form of non-interest bearing notes. But it would appear from what the Hon. Minister has told us that this is not the case; in which case, it would appear that the amount of money tied up would be much more than I had thought. As far as the World Bank is concerned, that is the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the amount we are asked to subscribe in gold is, in fact, much smaller. We have to subscribe to 320 shares, each at U.S. $100,000, making a total of U.S. $32 million. But only 20 per cent of one-half of the 320 shares are to be called up straightaway and only two per cent of the half of 320 shares are payable in gold. The amount of the subscription payable, therefore, will only come to one per cent of U.S. $32 million, meaning U.S. $320,000 or about M$1 million. The balance of 18 per cent of the half, that is, nine per cent of the total U.S. $32 million, is to be paid in our own currency. It will, therefore, follow that about 90 per cent of the shares of the World Bank will only be subject to call, and of this 20 per cent of the half called up, 18 per cent is to be in our own currency. The amount tied up, therefore, will, in fact, be quite extensive. The question to be asked is, is it worthwhile to spend all this amount of money?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I think it is befitting the status of Singapore as an independent sovereign country to seek membership of international bodies like the International Monetary Fund and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. Membership of these two international organisations would not only enhance the status and prestige of Singapore, but would also help our development. However, we must consider whether the price we are called on to pay in the form of membership fee is not too high for us. We must also consider what benefits we can derive from being a member. There is no point in joining an international organisation just for prestige sake. It may be a luxury which Singapore can ill afford. The World Bank helps in the financing of specific projects approved by it, and developing countries like Singapore can take advantage of both its financial and technical facilities. The International Monetary Fund, on the other hand, is more geared to helping developed countries to meet their short-term balance of payment problems and would not be of much benefit to Singapore as a developing nation. Unfortunately, as the Hon. Minister informed us, we cannot become a member of one without becoming a member of the other. It is a condition of membership of the World Bank that we must also be a member of the I.M.F. And it is ironical that membership of the I.M.F. from which we do not derive much benefit should be more expensive than that of the World Bank which would substantially benefit us. Although Singapore's subscription to the World Bank is U.S. $30 million, 25 per cent of this will have to be paid in gold. The balance of the money would have to be in Singapore currency. This means that - 3.30 p.m. Committee of Supply. Later - 3.34 p.m.”