Hansard, 1970-03-20

"That the sum to be allocated for Head 0501 be 2.31 p.m.

At the Moment of interruption last night we were on Section: BUDGET Order read for resumed consideration in Committee of Supply (2nd Allotted Day]. Resumption of debate on Question (19th March, 1970), reduced by $10 in respect of subhead l0O1."-[Madam Chan Choy Siong]. Head 0501 (contd.) - the first amendment to Head 0501, Ministry of Foreign Affairs. "That the sum to be allocated for Head 0501 be The Question is, reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1001." The Member for Punggol had the Floor when the debate was interrupted. Mr Ng Kah Ting, you have three minutes.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I was touching on the question of the staffing of our overseas missions when the Moment of interruption came. I think I dealt with that issue at some length. My last question is whether the Minister for Foreign Affairs will consider creating a post of Information Officer in each of these missions so that, among other things, he can also help boost the tourist trade.

Mr Speaker, Sir, since the general remarks made by Members have been gratifying, I will not take up the time of this House by dealing with them. However, I would like to elucidate on or reply to some of the points raised by Members. The Member for Sembawang wanted to know what benefit Singapore would gain by joining A.S.E.A.N. and what projects, if any, it has initiated. He wanted to seek further details about the $3 million that we have contributed towards A.S.E.A.N. The third ministerial meeting of A.S.E.A.N, was held at Cameron Highlands last year. The meeting approved 98 recommendations covering projects for co-operation among A.S.E.A.N, countries. They include, among other things, the fields of commerce and industry, tourism, shipping, civil aviation, air traffic services, meteorology, transportation and communications, food supply, fisheries and so on. The A.S.E.A.N. Standing Committee and the A.S.E.A.N. Secretaries-General at their meeting last month in Manila decided to meet more often in order to keep in touch with the progress of the work of the various committees and to get a move on with the work of A.S.E.A.N. As I have repeatedly stated, A.S.E.A.N, is rather a new venture by relatively under-developed countries which have agreed to work towards regional co-operation. I just want to remind Members of the House that the European Economic Community, consisting largely of well-established and highly industrialised nations, has after a period of some 20 years, just about got going with regional co-operation. So I do not think we should expect too much of A.S.E.A.N, during a period of only three years. However, though nothing spectacular will be achieved for a long time, there is, nevertheless, some small but hopeful progress being made. For example, take three of the more important achievements, if you would like to call them that. First, there is the project for a "Visit A.S.E.A.N. Year" in 1971 to promote tourism in the region. Secondly, there is the acceptance of a Memorandum of Understanding on Assistance to A,S.E.A.N, on Economic Co-operation by E.C.A.F.E. Thirdly, there is the creation of an A.S.E.A.N. Fund. I will take this opportunity to reply to the Member for Punggol about the purposes of the A.S.E.A.N. Fund. We agreed at the meeting at Cameron Highlands to contribute U.S. $1 million, which works out roughly to $3,080,000 in our currency. The contribution is to be paid into the national fund of each member country and held in custody by that country. The national fund will be replenished by each member country to the required level as decided by the Foreign Ministers, taking into account any outstanding claims for reimbursements by member countries. The fund is to be used only for the purposes of implementing projects which have been approved by the Foreign Ministers of A.S.E.A.N, countries. The projects so approved will be categorised as approved projects. Under the agreement, the host government will be responsible for the administrative and capital costs of the approved projects, the operational cost being shared equally by member countries. The agreement also provides for the ownership of any property, movable or immovable, acquired by the host government, under an approved project to be vested in the host government. However, the host government may not exercise the right to dispose of any such property until after completion of the approved projects unless otherwise agreed to by the Foreign Ministers. Sir, this roughly is the principle on which the A.S.E.A.N. Fund will operate. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Anson raised the question of housing allowances for officers serving in our missions abroad. It is true that Government officers serving in our missions abroad are not paid a separate housing allowance for the simple reason that they are provided free accommodation in their respective stations. The accommodation is commensurate with their status. In each case a rent ceiling is fixed, again commensurate with the status of the particular officer and having regard to the prevailing conditions. It is true that officers are expected to obtain suitable accommodation of their choice in locations approved by the heads of missions but within an approved ceiling. In the opinion of the head of the mission, if the accommodation is sometimes considered inadequate or inappropriate, such representations are carefully considered. Rent ceilings have by and large been raised to the recommended levels. The other point which the Member for Anson raised was whether, on their return, serving officers are provided with accommodation until they are reposted. There has been no provision in the past for quarters or accommodation for officers returning from abroad. But they are allowed three days' stay in a hotel in Singapore at Government expense on their return from abroad. However, it has now been agreed with the Ministry of Finance that suitable accommodation be provided for such officers on payment of a reasonable rent. At present, negotiations are under way for the leasing of suitable flats, probably from the Housing and Development Board. These flats will be used to accommodate officers returning from abroad until their next posting, or to enable them to secure suitable accommodation for themselves or their families if they are not being posted. I think the Member for Telok Blangah and a few other Members made some comments on the lack of equipment in some of the overseas offices, about rent being paid for houses which are not occupied, and that they should be larger and so on. I think the Member had one particular mission in mind, where admittedly things were a little bit rough for the head of the mission. 2.45 p.m. In fact, he has written to me a number of times. The reason is that we had to send an advance team from the Ministry of Finance to this particular country to recommend purchases in regard to office equipment, furniture and so on. But it was found that things like typewriters, duplicating machines and a few other pieces of office equipment were extremely expensive in that particular country. So we had to purchase and ship them from Singapore and communications are not all that speedy in that part of the world. So the head of the mission and his staff had to rough it out for a while. But I am happy to say that since then I have had no letters of complaint from the head of the mission. He is extremely satisfied. In fact, he has gone on a visit to other parts of this particular country. I think this matter has been rectified. On the question of rent which was paid for a house which was not occupied for some four months, this was due to the delay in selecting a suitable officer for this particular mission. At the same time, we did not want to let go this particular house because we might have to send another advance team from Singapore to look for another house. So we asked them to hold on to the house. Unfortunately, the selection took about four months. The officer is there now and he is occupying the house and everything is going along smoothly. The Member for Punggol wanted to know about the annual contributions that Singapore makes to international organisations. My Ministry is responsible for contributing to some 17 international organisations such as the World Meteorological Organisation, the International Civil Aviation Organisation, the International Customs Tariff Bureau and other international agencies like the United Nations, E.C.A.F.E., the United Nations Industrial Development Organisation and so on. The amounts of contributions vary from year to year as they are generally based on the annual budget submitted by these bodies. The annual budget is apportioned on a particular formula. In addition to these, we also make donations to such organisations as the Peace Keeping Force in Cyprus, the Refugee Fund in the Middle East and so on, on an ad hoc basis.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I welcome the idea of sending

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is part of my strategy an advance team before setting up a foreign mission. But the idea of sending two members from the Treasury is not practical. Is it not possible to include in this advance team a member from the Foreign Ministry who would be in a better position to set up missions abroad than an officer from the Treasury who only thinks of dollars and cents? always to appear to be cooperating with the Treasury. I always like to have one member and, if possible, more members from the Treasury in the advance team, because whatever recommendations they eventually make on the spot are generally far more acceptable than recommendations made from the home office. But I would agree that in future somebody from Foreign Office should also accompany an official from the Treasury so that he would be able to bring home to the Treasury official the requirements of a mission abroad.

Sir, as the Minister has given satisfactory answers, I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 0501 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1062. Sir, some time ago I raised the question of Students' Counsellor and inquired of the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether or not there would be other Students' Counsellors to be posted to other missions. Here again, I would like the Minister for Foreign Affairs to consider posting more Students' Advisers to our missions abroad and to places where we have a concentration of our students. With the help of these Advisers, our students abroad will be able to keep themselves informed of events in Singapore. At the same time, they will be able to explain to their friends what and where Singapore is. This is important because, in the course of my meetings with some of our students overseas, they complain that they do not know What is happening at home. In order to get information, they have to go to our missions and some of them are far away from their places of study. In this respect, if more Students' Advisers are attached to our missions, they will be a great help to our students.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not disagree in principle that it is good to have as many Students' Advisers as possible wherever there are students. But, by and large, our students are concentrated in the United Kingdom, Australia, and an increasing number in the United States. It is impractical to have a Students' Adviser attached to all places or universities where students forgather. In the United Kingdom, we have about 1,500 students, and therefore it is both practical and worth our while to have a Students' Adviser attached to our High Commission in London. His duties include assisting in placement work, the welfare of students and so on. In Australia, where there is another heavy concentration of Singapore students, there is no Students' Adviser. But there are Students' Liaison Officers in Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide and Perth who work direct with our High Commissioner in regard to student affairs, including welfare in their respective areas. If at some future time we feel that there is a sufficient number of students in any particular locality or country to justify either a Students' Adviser or a Students' Liaison Officer, we shall give it consideration.

Sir, I am happy with the Minister's reply, and I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "Cypher Officer" There are only six posts and I That the sum to be allocated for Head 0501 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1071. Sir, I would like to take issue on the term think the term "Cypher Officer" should not be included in the Estimates. It should be changed to another name. My contention is this. We have some 15 missions overseas and I believe more will be set up in the future. In most of these missions, we will inevitably be having such officers. Therefore, if we have the figure "6" against the term "Cypher Officer", are we not letting the cat out of the bag, so to speak? I urge the Minister to consider redesignating this post.

Sir, the point of the Member is that by redesignating a Cypher Officer as a Stenographer or some other name, the country concerned will not get on to the fact that the gentleman is a Cypher Officer. I do not think much purpose would be served by changing the name unless there are far more pressing reasons. Last year, the Member suggested changing the designation of one particular officer. There was some justification.

Sir, if that is the case, I beg leave to withdraw But in the case of "Cypher Officers", I do not think we are going to achieve very much. Most likely I will get into difficulties with the Treasury because they can say, "You are supposed to have Cypher Officers. How is it that you have somebody else?" I understand the intentions of the Member. We are not going to solve the problem or allay his fears by redesignating the term "Cypher Officer" by some other name. my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 3.00 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 0501 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1095. Sir, I believe the question of what is a make-up allowance was raised by my colleague, the Member for Anson, last evening. This is a new provision. I do not know whether it is "make-up" in the sense that we generally take it to be, or make-up in another sense. I shall be grateful if the Minister will care to clarify.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this subhead 1095 means what it (lie sum total of the salary and allowances, if means. It is a make-up allowance and it does not make up anything else. The special make-up allowance has been designed to compensate overseas officers with working wives for the loss of their wives' income. In the world of diplomacy, as Members know, it is not only desirable, but very wise, that married officer diplomats should have their wives with them in foreign countries. Working wives who have to give up their employment in Singapore to accompany their husbands overseas, we feel, should be compensated for by adjustments to their husbands' salary. At the moment, the overseas allowance to officers does not take into account loss of wives' earnings. It is only paid to enable overseas officers to meet additional expenses that they would have to incur to maintain a standard of living that would be a credit to Singapore, and to meet the high cost of living in the countries of their postings. Therefore, it is only reasonable, we feel, that an allowance should be paid to compensate the husband and wife for their loss. The quantum of allowance is arrived at by subtracting any, of a husband and wife drawn on the date immediately before the date of the husband's posting overseas from the sum of the salary, overseas allowance, children's allowance, acting allowance and so on, payable to him as a result of his posting to a mission.

Sir, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply and I beg leave to have my amendment withdrawn. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 0501 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1162. Sir, according to the explanatory note under this head, it is a post different from that of subhead 1163, that is a clerk/typist. In other words, it seems to me that this officer has been promoted as an Executive Assistant, drawing a salary which I believe is equivalent to our administrative officer. Sir, in this respect, I would like to seek elucidation from the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether he would consider replacing such an officer with one of our equivalent rank, that is, an administrative officer, whose post will be probably that of a Second Secretary. Although I do not know the nature of the work of this Executive Assistant and whether we should recruit such local staff at such a high salary, I think we can supply such an officer from Singapore.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this subhead 1162 refers to the appointment of an Executive Assistant. Past experience has led our mission in New York to conclude that they need a local person capable of preparing factual draft briefs on agenda items for the United Nations General Assembly sessions, research on any given subject, translating correspondence in French and Spanish into English, putting up background material on matters which come before the United Nations as directed by our permanent representative to the United Nations, and preparing factual minutes of the United Nations resolutions adopted during the General Assembly sessions. This was therefore supported by my Ministry, and as obviously the duties call for special talent and experience far greater than those expected of a clerk or typist, it was proposed and agreed to by the Ministry of Finance that the post of Executive Assistant should be created against the deletion of the post of Clerk/ Typist, and that it should be filled by a local person.

Sir, I fully agree with the Minister on the second part of the question, but I do not quite see his point on the first part, because with regard to extracting minutes or proceedings in the United Nations, whether they be committee meetings or plenary sessions, such work can be done and the officer can be trained and taught how to do it. Probably the other difficulty may be the question of interpreting or translating foreign languages like Spanish. French and Russian. In this respect, Sir, we could try to find out whether or not one of our local citizens of that calibre can be found, and if he or she is found, whether he or she can be sent over to the mission and, in course of time, learn the nature of the job.

Of course, Mr Speaker, Sir,I do agree that if we can find a local person with those capabilities, naturally he would be sent, but unfortunately we have not been able to find that talent. Even if there is such talent, I do not think we will be able to entice him to come to my Ministry. That being the case, we have to make good with whatever is available. But just for the information of Members, despite what appears to be a fairly attractive pay, the lady in question has decided to tender her resignation because she is getting married and hopes to get a better job.

Sir, I must thank the Minister for his patience, and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

Sir, I am afraid this particular item escaped my That the sum to be allocated for Head 0501 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1521. This is to seek information only. I note that the provision for the Embassy at Rangoon is only for locally recruited staff and appears to be for part of the year only. Is it the intention of the Government to ask another Ambassador to cover the duties in our Rangoon Embassy, and begin operations only at the end of the year? If so, will the Minister state which Ambassador will cover the duties in our Rangoon Embassy and when will it begin work? notice until it appeared in print in the Budget Estimates. This was in the early days soon after independence when we were deciding where to put up our missions. Since then, events have moved very fast and with our limited resources we have had a different system of priorities. So even should we announce that "Tomorrow we are going to establish a mission in such and such a place," events would have so overtaken our initial planning that we might have to change the venue from one country to another. Therefore, I am afraid that this particular item is one which has been overtaken by events. Not that we have no intention of establishing a mission in Rangoon, but with our limited resources and priorities, there is no immediate intention of establishing a mission in Rangoon.

Sir, in view of the Minister's clarification, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 0501 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1646. Sir, in moving this amendment, I am just seeking information from the Minister why we should have a security guard posted in our mission in Manila, for nowhere in the other provisions of the Estimates do I see the post of a security guard.

Sir, this is merely an instance of our having to do "in Rome what the Romans do". Sir, from the rather forcibly expressed letters from our Ambassador in Manila, I understand that it is the practice in Manila for offices as well as residential areas to have security guards for a variety of reasons. Indeed, all diplomatic missions in Manila have their own security guards to look after their own chanceries. The security guard shown under the subhead 1646 is for our chancery in Manila. Our Ambassador's residence is located in Forbes Park Village, and there is an association which affords protection to residents in the village. A sum of about 520 pesos is paid daily by each resident to meet the salaries of the security guards and other expenses. Therefore, this sum is only to pay for a security guard for our chancery. I must congratulate our Ambassador there, because he has not yet pressed for a security guard for his residence. 3.15 p.m.

Sir, in view of the Minister's reply I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Mr Ng Yeow Chong: Mr N. Govindasamy:

Amendment No. (8), Mr Ng Yeow Chong.

Sir, I am not moving.

Sir, I am also not moving my amendment.

Mr Speaker, Sir,I beg to move, * The amendment reads as follows:

All right.

Thank you, Sir. Subhead 3104 concerns "Staff and

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member is quite right in The following amendments stood on the Order Paper Supplement (8) That the sum to be allocated for Head 0501 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 2016. (9) That the sum to be allocated for Head 0501 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 2020. That the sum to be allocated for Head 0501 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 3104. Sir, in moving this amendment, may I seek your permission to range over the subject covered in the next amendlnent* standing in my name? (11) That the sum to be allocated for Head 0501 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 3105. Expenses for Singapore Missions Overseas". But I notice that provision is already made for these missions under subheads 2081 to 2096, under the section "Overseas Missions". I would be grateful if the Minister could enlighten this House on the necessity of having to provide staff and expenses amounting to $1,483,760 for Singapore Missions Overseas. I take it that there might be new overseas missions to be set up, and, if so, will he kindly indicate where and when they will be set up? Subhead 3105, "Expenses on Representations Overseas", is a new subhead, and it has three little letters "sts" against it, meaning "Subject to Treasury sanction". I would like to seek further information on the provision of $36,000. What are the overseas representations that we are likely to attend, and who will be attending them? his guess--that subhead 3104 is in respect of expenses which will be incurred in connection with the opening of new missions. We have the agreement of Treasury to open four new missions. Apparently it will be indiscreet of me to mention the names and places of representations that we may or may not open, because it will cause a loss of face all round. We propose to open about four new missions, two of which are fairly certain to be established -one in Moscow and the other in one of the countries in Western Europe. Certainly it will be administratively convenient to have the funds first before we make decisions to open new missions during the coming year. Subhead 3105 refers to provision for heads of missions who are concurrently accredited to more than one country. The sum entered under this subhead is to meet travelling expenses, subsistence allowances, communications expenses, and so on. In the performance of their duties, heads of missions have to incur such expenses when they visit countries to which they are concurrently accredited. For example, our Ambassador in Washington is also accredited to Brazil. Our permanent representative in the United Nations in New York is also accredited to Canada. Our High Commissioner in New Delhi is also accredited to the Kingdom of Nepal and our Ambassador in Cairo is also accredited to four countries - the Lebanon, Yugoslavia, Pakistan and Ethiopia.

Sir, in view of the Minister's satisfactory replies, I beg leave to withdraw my amendments. Amendments, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head 0501 be reduced by $100*. (* The same amendment also stood in the name of Mr Low Yong Nguan.) Sir, can the Foreign Minister inform this House whether there is a practice to ensure periodical examination of the position of our missions abroad, with a view to assessing their needs and requirements? is there any way to relax Treasury control of certain expenditure by our missions abroad? Perhaps these problems may be efficiently resolved by investing our Ambassadors or High Commissioners with the discretion and authority to interpret their own problems. At this moment the Ministry of Foreign Affairs finds it rather difficult to attract highly qualified people to join the foreign service because, as I say, there is no scheme to ensure promotion, if this scheme is absent, surely no one is interested as he will suffer in the long run.

I am not speaking. Sir.

Sir, in regard to the re-examination of the Again, Sir, can the Minister inform this House what measures are being taken to ensure that the recruitment of personnel into the diplomatic service abroad is sound and effective? Also, in view of the high cost of living abroad, may I know what entertainment allowances are given to our officers in overseas missions? working of the missions abroad, in the light of experience over the past few years, I think we have, through a series of trial and error procedures, finally arrived at a position where we are able to for-mulate a more coherent foreign service scheme. The first step is to attract and retain officers as well as to smooth out the inevitable difficulties that the man-on-the-spot, i.e., our Ambassadors, encounters when he conies up against the machinery of the government at home. It is a fairly comprehensive scheme, but one of the aims is that there will be a greater delegation of responsibility to the Ambassador concerned, in regard to details of finance or otherwise. This is so partly because a routine has been established. In the early days everybody in the foreign service was a bit cautious because the Ambassador was new, everybody else was new to the game. If there were no strict controls, we might find ourselves involved in unnecessary difficulties. With regard to a foreign service scheme, I think we are now moving to a position where we feel that we can attract more suitable people who are prepared to serve abroad. One of the difficulties is that if a young local officer is given the choice, he would rather enter the local administrative service, where the prospects of promotion are greater, than join the foreign service where the scope for advancement is limited because the Foreign Ministry itself is a small outfit. So these officers naturally tend to be diffident about serving abroad because they feel that they will miss chances for promotion and advancement in the civil service. This is one of the reasons why we are reluctant to have a separate foreign service because then the officer feels that he will fall into a trap. Therefore, we are devising a scheme whereby an officer entering the foreign service will not lose or be deprived of a chance, depending on his ability and so on, of rapid advance in the home service. As regards entertainment allowances, I think there is no problem. Everybody likes to have a bit more entertainment allowance, and as far as I know, there has been no serious representation made by some of our missions abroad as to the inadequacy of these allowances.

Sir, in view of the answer given by the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $11,181,780 for Head 0501 ordered to stand part of the Estimates. 3.30 p.m. Head 0601 -

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 0601 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1001*. (* The same amendment also stood in the names of Madam Chan Choy Siong, Mr P.Govindaswamy, Mr Hwang Soo un, Mr Seah Mui Kok, and Mr Cheong Yuen Chee.) Sir, I wish to raise three questions under this amendment, i.e., citizenship, work permits and industrial accidents. First, I will speak on citizenship. Backbenchers have often raised the question of citizenship. However, we do this not because we like to grumble at the Minister. As spokesmen of the people, it is our duty to give our views reflecting the current opinion of our people. The question of citizenship is a pressing problem to many of our people. Many of the applications for citizenship have come from old people, young wives and children. If people have no citizenship, how can they provide a livelihood for their family? I hope the Minister will adopt a sympathetic attitude towards these people. Mr Speaker, Sir, I remember on the 9th of this month the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour told the House that the Government would review the policy on citizenship. He said that each case would be carefully considered on its merits. This is a very wise attitude to take. It shows that the Parliamentary Secretary is not a stubborn man. However, as far as I know, the Government has not in fact changed its policy on citizenship for the past two or three years. There are applications which have been outstanding for a few years. After waiting for some years, the applicants have now received a notice that they have not been granted citizenship. I think the Government has not made a frequent enough review of its policy on this matter. This goes to show that the Parliamentary Secretary says one thing and means another. His words and actions do not tally. Mr Speaker, I realise, of course, that the reason why we have to be strict with applications for citizenship is that our country is now facing serious economic problems. However, our economy is now showing an upward trend. The number of unemployed has fallen sharply. The time has therefore come for us to review the conditions which qualify a person for citizenship. Of course, we cannot completely relax the conditions. I would like to ask the Minister to relax at least 50 per cent of the conditions. If he can do this, I am sure we can relieve the hardships of many of the applicants. If we adopt a policy of gradual change, then in a few years' time we will be able to solve the question of citizenship completely. Let me now touch on the question of work permits. In his Budget speech recently, the Minister for Finance told the House that the Government intended to relax the conditions for the issuing of work permits. This is very good news to the would-be applicants. I am sure that when the Minister referred to the relaxation of immigration rules, he was referring to applicants with specialised skills. This is an important factor in our economy. I would also like to point out that in addition to workers with specialised skills, we are also short of unskilled labourers. As far as I know, some barber shops, coffee shops and restaurants are very short of workers. There are two reasons for this shortage. First, a large, number of our young people have been called up for national service. Secondly, our rapidly expanding industries have been absorbing many of our young workers. There is thus a case for relaxing the conditions for granting work permits to ordinary workers. The last point I wish to touch upon is industrial accidents. As a result of the rapid expansion of our industries, there is a corresponding and shocking increase in the number of industrial accidents. According to the report, there were 8,147 cases of industrial accidents in 1968, 109 being fatal. In 1969 there were 8,714 cases of industrial accidents, 130 being fatal. We can thus see that the number of industrial accidents is increasing from year to year. As a result, many widows and orphans are left to suffer. In his replies to questions in this House, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour said that these industrial accidents had occurred as a result of the shortage of staff in the section for the prevention of industrial accidents. I think more people should be employed to strengthen the staff in this section of the Ministry of Labour. I hope the staff in this section are familiar, with the different types of machinery so that they can prevent the increase of industrial accidents. I would like to know what steps have been taken to overcome this problem. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will take a more positive attitude towards this matter. I hope he will take immediate steps to prevent industrial accidents. It is only through effective measures that we can reduce its number.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, we all remember when the Minister for Labour introduced the Employment Bill. The reason he gave was that this Bill would improve the relationship between employers and employees to their mutual benefit. This would in turn help to promote our industrialisation efforts. As Members of Parliament, we were pleased to hear this. In fact, all the people of Singapore were pleased to hear this. The Minister also said at that time that, as Members of Parliament reflect the opinions of the people, they would have some reservations about the Bill. The Bill would have certain unfavourable effects on labour. The Minister then gave a guarantee that after a certain time the Employment Act would be subject to review. However, a considerable length of time has elapsed since the Employment Bill was passed. We know that the Employment Act has been more favourable to the employers than to the employees. It is not to the advantage of the workers. Employers have often abused the powers given to them under this Act. They have forced the workers to work hard for them. There have been some cases of exploitation by employers. I can quote some examples. Before the Employment Act was passed, every shop assistant was entitled to 21 days' full-pay leave. However, I know that in many firms the shop assistants have now lost the right of full-pay leave. This right has been taken away from them. Furthermore, during Christmas or the Chinese festival, business is better and, of course, those who are in business would like to make money on these occasions. They like their shops to remain open even on Sunday although it is supposed to be a day of rest for the employees. There is no provision in the Act to say that Sunday should be a day of rest. In other words, they can have a day of rest any day of the week but not specifically on Sunday. The workers have accepted this as a matter of fact. The employers can have more business on Sunday and the employees can make more money and thus they can look after one another's interest. But the question is this. During the months before the festival, many shops are open for business the whole week without a day of rest. The shop assistants have lost the compulsory day of rest to which they are entitled. If the employers and employees are in sympathy with each other, business will thrive. The employees are willing to help because it is only during these few months that business improves a great deal. 3.45 p.m. Of course, they are willing to help their employers to make more profits. But the employers think that the workers are fools and that they can get them to work seven days a week without a day off. The employers just gloss over this matter and their employees are not given a rest day. Another matter is about bonus. During the Second Reading of the Employment Bill, the Minister said that on the question of bonus, there would be no specific provisions in the Bill. The reason he gave was that workers must compete against one another, thereby increasing productivity. After a lengthy debate, it was agreed that nothing specific about bonus should be provided in the Bill. Since there is no specific provision in the Employment Act as, regards bonus, employers take advantage of it and pay their employees a smaller bonus. I would like the Minister to clarify this point. In order to encourage workers to be more productive, they should be given incentives and the lazy ones should not get bonuses. Can the Minister say how many employers have on their own accord given bigger bonuses to their employees since the passage of the Employment Act? I feel that the Employment Act has adverse effects on the workers. Therefore, I hope the Minister will review it. Of course, we would like to see our country progress. We also hope that there is industrial peace so that Singapore can continue to enjoy economic prosperity. But we should not allow our workers to carry on with empty stomachs.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is noted that some of our people dislike to work as scavengers. The reason is that scavengers are daily-rated and are paid a small sum of $4.55 per day, whereas others who have the same qualifications and who are fortunate to become attendants and are employed in allied grades are paid a starting salary of $140 per month with yearly increments. The majority of these people have completed their primary education and may have gone up to Secondary I or II before they left school. $4.55 per day may be sufficient for a bachelor, but what if he gets married and has children? An hon. Member: Do not marry then!

Sir, with industrialisation and shipbuilding programmes, job opportunities in these fields have increased and naturally you will find scavengers leaving the service to take up cleaner and better-paid jobs in the factories and shipyards. This cannot be prevented unless something is done to increase the wages of scavengers. Sir, in many socialist countries, wage rates are standardised. One is paid according to his qualifications and he may choose the type of work he likes. A person with a secondary education may prefer to work as a scavenger if he is paid the same wage as is paid to an attendant. This will not only keep the workers in the job of their choice, but will also encourage those who are still in school to study harder and attain higher qualifications so that when they go to work they can get higher wages. Can the Minister give this matter due consideration? Furthermore, my opinion is that there should be a minimum wage for the lower income group so that these people can maintain their families without having any difficulties. Singapore has a high standard of living and we must try to increase the wages of the lower income group. An hon. Member: The cost of living is going up!

Yes, the cost of living is also going up.

Mr Speaker, Sir, on at least two occasions last year the Minister for Labour was urged in the House to revise the Workmen's Compensation Ordinance with a view to providing better benefits. On both occasions, the Minister, answering through his Parliamentary Secretary, rejected the suggestion on the ground that the existing benefits were adequate. Sir, as you may be aware, under the Ordinance, when a workman meets with an accident in the course of his employment, all he gets if he is permanently disabled is $9,600 or 48 months' earnings, whichever is lesser. If he should die, all that his dependants will receive is limited to $7,200 or 36 months earnings, whichever is lesser. In terms of present-day standards and the cost of living, I cannot really see how these benefits can be described as adequate. Take a person who dies, leaving behind a family of young children. How do we expect these young children to be brought up decently and graciously on $7,200 until they are able to fend for themselves? Sir, I am sure you have read press reports of cases of road accident victims who were awarded very much more substantial benefits than those I have just mentioned. If the workmen's compensation benefits at their present level can be considered adequate, then it can only mean that the rates of compensation currently awarded by our High Court are inflated out of all proportion. Whilst we boast of having one of the highest per capita incomes in this region, the benefits under our Workmen's Compensation Ordinance compare most unfavourably with those of a number of our neighbours. Some of them have gone on to something resembling a social security scheme. In the case of Hong Kong which is still a colony, the corresponding benefits have recently been substantially revised upwards. Sir, in our endeavour to industrialise, we have called upon our workers to make sacrifices and to improve their rate of productivity. They have done this, and splendidly too. On our part, I feel that the least we can do is to put their minds at ease by assuring them that if in their endeavours they should be unfortunate enough to be maimed for life or to die, their family will be well looked after. Sir, another point I would like to make concerns the rehabilitation of workmen who sustain permanent disablement as a result of accidents at work. In view of the increasing number of such cases, I wonder whether the Minister will consider setting up special rehabilitation centres to provide training for such unfortunate people so that with some kind of retraining they can continue to lead a useful economic life.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in Singapore and Malaysia, we have several companies operating their business in both countries. A good number of their employees have been transferred either to Malaysia or Singapore. This kind of transfer disrupts the employees' families; the houses already bought by them have to be sold away; their children have to change schools; and extra money has to be incurred to start new homes. Most of the workers who have been transferred through the request of their employers have worked for several years, some even more than twenty years. Failing to accept transfer to, say, Malaysia, their services will be terminated by the employers. After years of faithful and loyal service, and through no fault of theirs, their work permits have been withdrawn by the Malaysian Government and the employers served them with letters of termination. I believe this is an act of exploitation and abuse. Therefore, it is necessary to review the Employment Act and the Industrial Relations Ordinance as soon as possible. I would just like to quote one case in a company called "X" in Singapore. It has its business in Malaysia as well. The employee was given the option to accept transfer to its office in Malaya in 1952 or he had to leave the company. He accepted the transfer to Malaya (now Malaysia). He had been working in its Kuala Lumpur office for 17 years, and his total service with the company was 23 years. Recently, he received a termination letter from his company and the reason given was that his work permit had been withdrawn by the Malaysian Government. For his 23 years of faithful service to the company, this is what he is going to get: (a) A monthly pension of $115; (b) A lump sum retirement allowance of $3,200; (c) A special ex gratia payment of $3,300. If this employee were to be treated as a redundant case and according to the collective agreement, he would get about $17,000. A good employer would certainly either transfer him back to the Singapore office or pay him according to the collective agreement redundancy benefit of $17,000 rather than $6,500, especially at his present age which is nearing 50 years. There is no possibility of his getting a clerical job with a $600 salary; neither can he be trained for a technical job. How is he going to live with $6,500? How is he going to start life in Singapore? How is he to get his children to school in Singapore? How is he to furnish a new home? Where can he get a new job in Singapore? Will the monthly pension of $115 be sufficient for his family, for food, rental, transport, children's schooling and other miscellaneous expenses? If he is unemployed for one year, that $6,500 will be exhausted and he has to ask the Social Welfare Department for assistance. I am just quoting one case, but there are many more cases which are worse than this one. 4.00 p.m. I am not criticising the right of Government to withdraw work permits from non-citizens. A government is responsible to its own citizens and to see that non-citizens are not an economic burden to the country. But I cannot tolerate the irresponsible way employers are treating the citizens of Singapore by terminating their services because their work permits have been withdrawn by the Malaysian Government. The least the employers should do is to give them whatever jobs that are available in their Singapore office. If there are no vacancies, then a substantial sum of compensation should be given to them so that they may have the opportunity to start life anew with some hope for the future, particularly having regard to the number of years of service rendered to the company. Since both the Singapore Government and the Malaysian Government have introduced work permits for workers who are non-citizens in the territories concerned, perhaps it would be a good idea if consideration can be given to the setting up of an arrangement whereby the Singapore Government can request all Singapore citizens now employed in Malaysia to register with the High Commissioner there, furnishing him with full particulars and details of employment, so that the total number of people who are working in Malaysia with work permits can be ascertained. In the event that their work permits are withdrawn by the Malaysian Government, the employers that have their offices in Singapore should consider giving them employment, provided their skill, experience, training and qualifications are suitable for the jobs to be filled in Singapore. Sir, the employers are given the power and right to transfer their employees; therefore, they must also accept the responsibility to transfer back their employees to their Singapore office should their work permits be withdrawn by the Malaysian Government and not to terminate the services of their employees. If employers are not willing to accept this responsibility to transfer them back to Singapore, then they have no right to transfer their employees outside Singapore. Mr Speaker, Sir, in conclusion, I sincerely hope the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Labour will request the employers not to terminate the services of their employees whose work permits have been withdrawn by the Malaysian Government, but to give them jobs in their Singapore offices. If that is not possible, then the employers must give substantial monetary compensation to their employees, and not to exploit or abuse them by terminating their services.

Mr Speaker, Sir, since the implementation of the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Ordinance, several well-established commercial undertakings have taken advantage of the provisions in section 17 (2) concerning retrenchment where unions cannot challenge the bona fides of retrenchments, even though they are effected on the flimsy grounds of reorganisation within the undertakings. Since then, 29 established firms, whose employees are represented by one union, have retrenched a total of 282 workers. Many of these employees had spent the best part of their working lives for their respective employers. There may be other employees represented by other unions facing the same plight. For reasons of age, education and other factors, many of those retrenched could not find alternative employment, nor could they be retrained for other trades in the industries. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is not my intention to turn this august Chamber into a labour court. I am merely bringing to the notice of the Government the inherent danger that may occur if employers are given free rein to retrench employees just to increase their profits, which are not and may not be reinvested in Singapore. It is beginning to be a practice amongst some employers to do away with staff who are drawing high salaries, and later on recruit new employees at less than half the salaries paid to those who were retrenched. The amendment to the Industrial Relations Ordinance has taken the teeth out of the unions, and certain provisions in the Employment Act further weaken the unions by appearing to cut out their tongues as well. A few employers have even gone to the extent of hiring labour contractors, commonly known as kepalas, to perform the work normally done by their permanent staff. This is effected by retrenching all or some of the permanent staff. One of the intentions of the Employment Act and the amendment to the Industrial Relations Ordinance is to restrain irresponsible labour, but nothing has been done so far to check employers from making use of the provisions of our labour laws for their selfish ends. I do hope that the Minister for Labour will take the necessary steps to rectify such a situation. Mr Speaker, Sir, on the question of citizenship, I would like to bring to the notice of the Minister the hardships faced by both parents and young persons who have registered as citizens under Article 58 of the Constitution. I have come across several cases where persons so registered as citizens have had their citizenship withdrawn by reason of their failure to take an oath of renunciation and allegiance, as provided for under the Constitution, on reaching the age of 21. It is true that there is no provision in the Constitution to empower the Registrar of Citizens to extend the deadline for taking the oath. It is also true that the recent amendment to the Constitution which requires the holder of a certificate, who is a minor, to take an oath of renunciation and allegiance on reaching the age of 21, is printed in English on the certificate itself. But owing to ignorance either on the part of the holders or their parents of this requirement as a result of the constitutional amendment, the persons concerned lose their citizenship, necessitating the surrender of their certificates and also their pink identity cards. Some of these young ex-citizens who had been granted citizenship during their early teens subsequently obtained employment. As a result, they have to ask their employers to apply for work permits in order to continue in employment. Such applications may or may not be approved by the Commissioner of Employment. These are the more fortunate ones whose employers are prepared to apply for work permits on their behalf. There are, however, a few employers who take the opportunity to terminate the employment of these unfortunate persons, regardless of the hardship that may be caused. I wonder whether it would be possible for the Government to give advance notice through the media of T.V. and Radio, just as it is now being done in the case of eligibility for national service, so that the persons concerned can take the necessary steps to take their oath of renunciation and allegiance.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I say how much I share the views of the Member for Toa Payoh on the question of eligibility of citizenship and the way by which citizenship is granted to applicants? Speaking on the basis of my own experience in my own constituency, I feel that, perhaps, there should be some relaxation and more compassionate ways in which applications for citizenship are considered. Let me briefly bring out two instances of how people are affected by the way in which applications for citizenship were considered. I have a very difficult case of a hawker who is the main breadwinner in the family. He came from China a long time ago, as a result of which he could not have any tangible evidence to indicate his length of residence in Singapore. All his children were born in Singapore, and they are considered Singapore citizens by birth. As there are some difficulties in the nature of his evidence to prove his residence, he has never been granted his citizenship. The only way in which he can earn a living is to hawk illegally, and, periodically, he is fined by so many agencies which exist to fine hawkers who hawk illegally. This is just one specific instance, and I can in fact quote many more cases if I have my files here. There is another instance where a person was almost deprived of his citizenship by a procedure which I believe is wrong. It happened that two persons were in possession of two birth certificates bearing identical numbers, dating back to the days before the outbreak of the Second World War. On the basis of some administrative enquiry, one person was asked to surrender his Singapore identity card, which in this case was a red identity card, and which indicates that he is a Singapore citizen. He had the common sense to come and see me about it. It seems to me that if he had surrendered his identity card, he would have automatically lost his citizenship, whereas I believe there is a proper procedure by which a person can be deprived of his citizenship, if he has acquired his birth certificate by fraudulent means. As a result of my protests, I was told that the case had been reconsidered. I am not in a position to judge the merits of the case of the two claimants to the ownership of the birth certificates, but I hope that such serious administrative measures which have the result of depriving persons of their citizenship should be taken in a proper procedural manner.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I thank you for allowing me to speak on this head? I wanted to raise this matter under a different head, but since the question of citizenship has cropped up, I would like to say a few words on it also. This is a thorny and hoary problem which has come up before the House several times, but I think we should patiently urge a reconsideration of Government's policy on the granting of citizenship. The House may recall the repeated assertions by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour who, in this House very recently, said that the policy on citizenship is always under constant review, if that is so, does it mean that the policy on citizenship is always changing? Somehow, I feel there seems very little feedback to M.P.s, or to the people in general, regarding the current position of the citizenship policy. This policy of constant review may result in some bewilderment and even despondency, especially when you have cases during meet-the-people sessions. May I suggest that we settle down to a policy that, while it is not rigid, may be sufficiently stable to give people a reliable basis for their expectations? I do not want to make any suggestion that may result in Parkinson's law operating, but if we could have a committee perhaps to look into the matter and come to some definite decisions, then I think it may prove fruitful. In implementing the citizenship policy, whatever it may be, perhaps preponderant weight is placed on the legalistic aspect of the application. For example, a colleague of mine, who was on leave in England, found that he was saddled with a son born in England. He found that he could not get citizenship for the son because of some legalistic aspect of the situation. The father was a citizen by registration, and the High Commission in England refused to register the son as a Singapore citizen. So we find that while the father is a Singapore citizen, the son is a citizen of the United Kingdom, travelling on a United Kingdom passport. I think that, on humane consideration, perhaps cases like this could be given special consideration. I would like to support what the Member for Toa Payoh has suggested regarding notice given to minor citizens so that they can observe the necessary procedures to have their citizenship position rectified. 4.15 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, since this question of citizenship has arisen I might as well take the opportunity to speak on it. The granting of citizenship to permanent residents in Singapore was raised in the House only just now. The reply that the Government gave was not very enlightening or acceptable to the Backbenchers. Citizenship admittedly is still a very thorny problem, so much so that we have many cases of people who have nowhere else to go but to remain in Singapore whether or not they are given citizenship. Sir, criticisms of the citizenship policy have been made a number of times. If these criticisms seem harsh, the Government should bear with them because we have been elected by the people, and since we are all from one party, we should give no opportunity, for people to exploit any situation and say that since we are a one-party Government, we can do what we like. Since the last time the Minister sought to enlighten us on Government's policy on citizenship, many changes have taken place and I feel that the time has come to review it. We have been told that there is an acute shortage of skilled workers. We are trying to recruit skilled workers from abroad by offering all kinds of incentives, even the incentive of Singapore citizenship. In the meantime, we know of cases of locally domiciled people, some of whom are skilled workers, who after two years are still waiting for a note of approval from the Registrar of Citizens. Citizenship applications have been rejected offhand. I think the criterion which the Registrar of Citizens uses when considering applications is whether or not the applicant can be replaced by a Singapore citizen if he is working in Singapore. I believe the Registrar also thinks in terms of whether or not the applicant will be of economic value to Singapore. Citizenship applications from persons who have been employed in statutory boards for more than 10 years now have been rejected. Their background has not been looked into at all whether they are skilled or unskilled workers, or whether they are clerks, or telephone operators. It appears that the only question that the Registrar asks himself is whether the applicant can be replaced by a Singapore citizen. If he can be replaced, then his citizenship application is rejected, irrespective of the fact that the applicant may be a very hard-working man or that his services may be much needed by his employer. No consideration is given whether he has worked for one year, five years or 10 years in the same place, or whether he has a wife and children who are Singapore citizens, or whether he can leave the country or not, or whether he has any other means of supporting his family. Sir, let me cite a few examples where citizenship applications from locally domiciled people were rejected. There was one instance in which a locally domiciled resident of Singapore, who had been registered as a minor citizen, failed to take his oath because of his ignorance. As a result, his citizenship was withdrawn. This particular individual, whose parents are Singapore citizens, has a wife who is a Singapore citizen and two children who were both born in Singapore. He had been working in one of the statutory boards for more than five years. Since his citizenship was withdrawn, he had to apply for a work permit. Unfortunately, the Commissioner for Employment also asked himself the same question: could this man be replaced in his job by a Singapore citizen? He thought it was possible and, therefore, his application for a work permit was rejected. What do you expect him to do? He has nowhere else to go. He claims he was born in Singapore during the Japanese occupation, and his birth was not registered. He has a wife who is a Singapore citizen, and two children who are also Singapore citizens. I believe the wife has now applied for public assistance from the Social Welfare Department. But since we have cut the Social Welfare budget for this year, perhaps she might not receive it. There was another case of a girl who was a minor citizen. She works as a telephone operator. She was unaware that she had to take the oath of allegiance at the age of 21. It was only after she was past 21 years of age that she heard from her colleagues that minor citizens had to take the oath. She voluntarily went to the Registry of Citizens and offered to take the oath. Her citizenship papers were recalled, and she was issued with a blue identity card, and asked to reapply for citizenship. She reapplied and her application was rejected. Her parents, brothers and sisters are all Singapore citizens. She has nowhere else to go. There was another case which is much more interesting - the case of a clerk whose application for citizenship was rejected. He has been working in a statutory board for many years and has been awarded the Public Administration Medal. In this case, Sir, just as in the other cases, the Registrar of Citizens, when considering his application for citizenship, asked himself, "What does this man do? As he is a clerk, can we get a citizen to replace him? Yes, hundreds of them are available." And his citizenship was rejected. His service to the statutory board, which in turn is service to the Government, was considered sufficiently good enough for him to be awarded the Public Administration Medal, but not good enough for him to be granted Singapore citizenship. Sir,I feel that the time has come for us to look at this policy on citizenship more realistically and to review it.

Mr Speaker, Sir, since the subject of citizenship has come up, I do not like to let it pass without saying a few words. I support what the Member for Toa Payoh, the Member for Telok Blangah, and also the Member for Katong, have said on citizenship. I wish to point out the case of a family who are all Singapore citizens except for just one of the children who happened to be born overseas. This child has been staying with his parents and has been studying here for many years, but he has not been given citizenship. I would like to know from the Minister if it is possible to grant citizenship to this boy, otherwise he has no one to turn to, and most probably he might have to commit suicide!

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have an amendment in respect of subhead 1251, which is also on citizenship. I wonder if I can speak on it now, with your permission?

So far, I have been very indulgent to Members. But if they all ask for my indulgence, I may have to cancel the amendment to subhead 1251, on the Singapore Citizenship Registry. However, if you like, you may carry on, Mr Lim.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the subject of citizenship has been a burning issue for some two years now, ever since the announcement of the British withdrawal and the tightening up of the policy on Singapore citizenship. On 21st May, 1968, the Minister for Labour said this in regard to the new policy on the issue of citizenship, and again in the last Budget debate on 16th December, 1968, he was quoted by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour. It says here [Hansard, Vol. 28, col. 339]: 'A person who is granted citizenship must be able to make a positive contribution to the economic well-being of Singapore.' Accepting the fact that it is necessary to protect the majority of the people of Singapore by granting citizenship only to persons who can positively contribute to the well-being of Singapore, I think there is no clear-cut definition of what "positive contribution" means. All this started off with the Government offer to a person who has $250,000 to invest in Singapore. That was the first announcement. Some months ago the Government reviewed the policy, and it was priced at half, $125,000, to Malaysian citizens coming in to invest in Singapore and so contribute to our well-being. Recently there was another review, and the policy says that, because of the shortage of skilled labour, persons who have technical skill can come into Singapore, work here, and after a period of five years they can be considered for citizenship. The question that we want to ask is: what about those stateless citizens here who are now making an economic contribution to Singapore'? What is their worth? If the Minister can give a clearly defined statement of what is "positive contribution", then I think we can possibly clear up a lot of misunderstanding on this issue of citizenship. 4.30 p.m. At the last Budget session the Member for Delta suggested that we should have an advisory committee to review all applications for citizenship. In today's debate there is also a similar suggestion. I think this is a very good idea. We should review all the outstanding applications once and for all, and see to what extent we can grant citizenship to deserving cases. Over the last few years we have gone through various political changes. We went into Malaysia and came out of Malaysia. There has been a lot of confusion. There are people residing here who have been caught in this unfortunate situation through no fault of their own and they now find themselves in the difficult situation of not being able to obtain citizenship. I would suggest that the Minister review this matter again and deal with all the outstanding applications.

Mr Speaker, Sir, since we are touching on various aspects of citizenship, may I bring the attention of the Minister to the fairly large number of people who have been deprived of their citizenship? Sir, I refer to those people who, after having spent a large part of their lives here, are told that they are no longer citizens. These are the people whose parents had made use of other people's birth certificates in order to get them into school some 30 to 40 years ago. This, of course, was a dishonest act. But parents are known to have done more dishonest things for their children. The question now is whether these people should be penalised and made stateless persons as a result of the dishonest acts of their parents which were committed decades ago. Sir, I feel that these people deserve our utmost sympathetic consideration. I hope the Minister will take into consideration such applications for citizenship.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, many Members have touched on the question of citizenship. I spoke on this subject in 1968. Up till today there has been a great deal of controversy over it. This shows that citizenship is a very important and crucial question. At the meet-the-people sessions, we are confronted with all sorts of problems from the people. I want to bring up one matter which has also been raised by the Member for Toa Payoh. According to the regulations, those who apply for citizenship through their parents must first go to the Registry of Citizenship to take an oath before they can be granted citizenship. Of course, this is the correct procedure. The Member for Alexandra has also touched on this question just now. However, we must not put the blame entirely on the residents. I have come across residents at the meet-the-people sessions who are mostly Chinese-educated. They have complained to me that most of the documents are printed in English. The officials have not pointed out to them that when they reach the age of 21, they should go to the Registry of Citizenship to take an oath before they can become citizens. These applicants say that they are Chinese-educated and are not conversant with the legal terminology in the documents. I therefore support the view that the fault to take the oath in time should not be placed on the residents. When they reach the age of 21, they should be reminded that they should go to the Registry to take the oath, otherwise they will be disqualified. If they fail to do so, then it is their fault. However, we have not given them any reminder. Many people cannot remember the date when, at the end of three years, after their child has attained the age of 18, they have to take an oath at the Registry. We should not cause any inconvenience to the residents merely on a matter of procedure. They may have possessed the red identity cards and may have been employed. For example, there was a hawker in Tiong Bahru who failed to take the oath at the Registry, and, as a result, his citizenship was taken away. He asked whether I could help him. I went with him to the Registry and appealed to the officials to consider his case. However, according to the officials, his citizenship was withdrawn in accordance with the law. He was then asked to reapply. He reapplied and was given a blue identity card. He went to the Ministry of Health to pay his licence fee. When asked to produce his identity card, he presented his blue identity card. As a result, his licence was cancelled by the Hawkers Department. Thus his rice bowl was broken. He depends on hawking for his livelihood. His wife is not a citizen. His children are citizens, but they are very young. Therefore, the whole family is placed in difficulty because his citizenship has been withdrawn. Sir, taking the oath is a question of procedure. If we can avoid causing any inconvenience and hardship to the people, we should do so. The Minister for Foreign Affairs is also the Minister for Labour. He has many duties to perform. However, he should consider my suggestion for setting up a consultative committee to help him review all the outstanding applications for citizenship. The committee's recommendations will then be submitted to the Minister for his approval. This will prevent the unpleasant consequences which I have mentioned.

I propose to take the suspension now. Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House.

I suspend the sitting of the House now and shall take the Chair again at 5.10 p.m. Sitting accordingly suspended at 4.40 p.m. until 5.10 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.10 p.m.

Debate in Committee of Supply resumed.

Head 0601 (contd.) -

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank you very much for giving me this opportunity to make a speech. I have to voice my own feelings. We are now touching on the question of citizenship. I feel pained at heart when speaking on this question. I am very much irked by this problem. There is a Chinese saying that when soldiers are killed, the blame must be placed on the general. Now there have been many complaints about the mistakes made by officers. Permanent Secretaries and others. However, all the blame should be put on the Ministers and the Parliamentary Secretaries. For instance, the Minister for Labour goes to the Ministry of Labour only a few times a month - maybe only once a month. He is also dealing with foreign affairs but, nevertheless, he should take the entire blame. The Minister has not come into contact with the lower rungs of our society. He should go to various parts of the country to keep in touch with the general public. Once I went to Mr Lim Joo Hock's office and I saw a big number of files on his desk. I can personally deal with 500 files in one day. I am not boasting. I am not blowing my own trumpet. I can deal with many cases in one day. Yet I saw so many stacks of files piled up on his desk. The question of citizenship has no political considerations. If Ministers do not have a political ideology, how can they become Ministers? Even if some people have a political bias, you should not regard that as a barrier when they apply for citizenship, especially in the case of those who come from the Federation. Many of the Ministers came from Malaysia. I myself came from Indonesia. Yet I am a Member of Parliament. So you must not take a person's politics into consideration. If a robber qualifies for citizenship, his application should be approved. A gangster's application should also be approved. Even many of the C.I.D. staff are former gangsters. There are many precedents of people with many wives. How can you deny them citizenship because they have many wives? You should also approve their applications. If I were to deal with applications for citizenship, I can clear about 500 applications per day. It is something that can be done. It is a simple matter. If a person's application cannot be approved, you tell him so, unless he can produce certain evidence to support his application. You cannot just say that there is no proof or that there are certain other causes which bar him from getting citizenship. There should be a clear-cut method. 5.15 p.m. Sir, I also want to say that I agree with the suggestion put forward by some Members that there should be a committee, instead of the Minister or the Permanent Secretary, to consider applications for citizenship. This is a very simple matter to deal with.

Mr Speaker, Sir, first of all, I think the Member for Delta has probably summed up why the discussion has centred largely on the question of citizenship. She says that she has been harassed at meet-the-people sessions, and that life has been made intolerable for every Member of Parliament because of representations on the question of citizenship. Let me say that if I were to follow the suggestion of the Member for Ulu Pandan, who obviously is a "super Permanent Secretary" as he says he can go through 500 files in one day

I can go through a thousand files if I do it his way!

If he were there and it is simply done by saying "All right" to all applications, then your next problem would be that every non-citizen who becomes a citizen is entitled to all the privileges of citizenship, including jobs. Mr Lee Teck Him rose -

Mr Minister, are you prepared to give way?

No, Sir. Mr Lee Teck Him resumed his seal.

Then instead of being harassed about citizenship, you are going to be harassed about jobs, but with this difference. This time the man who harasses you can vote you out of office because he has citizenship. Whereas now he cannot. The main reason is that it is our duty to protect the interests first of our citizens. I am a Member of Parliament, too, and I have the same difficulty. As a Member of Parliament, I disapprove of what the Minister for Labour is doing. But as the Minister for Labour, I must follow a policy which I think is in the long-term interest of the country. Popularity is not always the surest way to success. I note that time after time, my Parliamentary Secretary especially has been harassed for the best part of the year on this question. And as Members of Parliament, it is your duty to do all you can to relieve pressure on yourself by bringing pressure to bear on the Government to change the laws on citizenship or any other law. Before I deal with some of the specific points made by Members, let me outline once again the general approach of the Government in regard to citizenship. First, you should be clear in your own minds that the grant of citizenship is a privilege given not because somebody is in trouble or because there are sad stories about individuals. That is not the criterion. Even the United Kingdom is very strict about citizenship. Once you are a British subject, you are a British subject forever. That has been the tradition of English jurisprudence from time immemorial. But now in the light of harsh realities, they have had to modify that principle. As you know, it happened in the case of certain British subjects in the former colonies who wanted to get back to Britain on the grounds that they are British subjects. But the British Government has very firmly rejected this. They modified a principle of English jurisprudence because they have to face harsh realities. Therefore, listening to some of the points of Members, I have the impression they believe that the grant of citizenship on the basis of humanitarian grounds is a matter of right or an obligation. It is not. I did say so in 1968 and harsh things were said about my Parliamentary Secretary that he was stubborn and so on. He was not being stubborn. He was carrying out a policy. I said that the grant of citizenship is a matter of privilege and not of right. Why do we insist on standing firm on this policy of going slow in granting citizenship to non-citizens, largely to blue identity card holders? It is not because we are not unmoved by some of the stories that we have heard. There are hardship cases here. There are hardship cases outside of Singapore. Once you change laws, you have to stand firm. We have to judge the interest of our citizens against that of non-citizens. If conditions were different, we would like to satisfy both. If conditions were different, we would be quite prepared to grant citizenship not only to blue identity card holders but to any other people whose position deserves sympathetic consideration, like refugees from other countries. That is, if conditions were different and if we could absorb them. But so long as we cannot, our primary responsibility is to our citizens. However, let me give a few statistics. Most of the Members have talked as if we are hard-hearted and we never make any concessions. We have said, and the Parliamentary Secretary has said, that we will review the situation from time to time. It is quite true that we do it from time to time. It is not in the policy but in the application of the policy that we give ourselves considerable flexibility. Where a year ago we would have said "No", hereafter we may say "Yes" in the same circumstances. Let me give Members some statistics. For example, in 1967, we approved 8,948 applications before we were told of the bad news of the accelerated British withdrawal. Once that news was announced, we decided to be very strict about citizenship. So in 1968, only 3,768 applications were approved. However, since then the economy has been picking up, and in 1969 we approved applications equal to what had been granted in the previous two years. In 1969, 11,325 applications were approved. So you cannot judge your policy on the basis of those who come and complain to you, those who did not get their applications approved. Those who have got it do not come and congratulate you. So if you judge Government's policy by two persons who, rightly or wrongly, complain to you and you are not aware of the others who are satisfied, then you may go wrong in assessing our policy. Let me state the principles on which we give citizenship to non-citizens, largely to blue identity card holders. First, depending on circumstances, the principle is this - that every non-citizen who becomes a citizen must be an asset and not a liability. Anybody who advocates making non-citizens citizens is being very foolish, if those people become a burden to you and to society. And he is not being a good citizen either. So the first principle is that every citizen who joins your ranks must have high regard for your citizenship. Do not cheapen it. Some of us may be lucky. Maybe we do not deserve citizenship. But at least pay some regard and respect for your citizenship. If it is worth $100, do not treat it as if it is worth only 50 cents. Therefore, we say that anybody who becomes a Singapore citizen must be an asset to our society. And we say that we will give citizenship as of today to anybody who can contribute to the economic well-being, the cultural progress, the social progress of our society because we need them. They all will get citizenship. That is why the number has increased. I know of a few cases - I am not saying it applies to all those who do not have citizenship - who want to get citizenship because they can get cheap Housing Board flats and because they can get free education for their children. Some of them openly say so. Some of them say, "Look, I want citizenship because otherwise I cannot educate my children, because I have to pay for their education." 5.30 p.m. If people of this type want to become our citizens, then I say in the long run Singapore society will go to pieces. These people should go somewhere else. I am not saying that some of the cases that some Members have mentioned are not worthy of sympathetic consideration, but we must balance them against this major principle. First, we want citizens, in the present circumstances prevailing here, who will become an asset to Singapore, especially as Singapore is going to be subjected to so many pressures in the years ahead. If the community cannot stand the strain, then it will break up, like many other societies in this part of the world. People will pack up their bags and move off somewhere else. However, we are prepared to consider applications. There may be instances where the bureaucratic machinery is sometimes over-cautious in dealing with cases of individuals who satisfy the requirements, i.e., they have the skills. By "skills" I do not mean people who are able to sweep roads and so on, because we have plenty of our citizens who are able to sweep roads. By "skills" I mean people who are able to contribute, directly and immediately, talents to Singapore in certain fields in which there is a considerable shortage. So, if you have a skilled carpenter, a furniture maker - skills for which there is a demand - I can assure you that in those cases the applications for citizenship would be considered favourably. On the other hand, you may have an applicant who is going to be a liability to Singapore. For example, one who comes and asks, "I want social welfare aid. I am a citizen. I have six children. Please give me aid." I know of one or two such cases. It is not that I am indifferent to the hardships of a non-citizen, but as a member responsible for the administration and government of Singapore, I cannot allow my sentiments to jeopardise our bigger responsibility. There is another way, apart from skills and so on, in which younger people who are non-citizens can acquire citizenship. I think the Minister for Defence will back me up in this: that if any non-citizen who is a permanent resident in Singapore volunteers for, national service, he will be given citizenship at the end of his national service. That is a test of citizenship: you are prepared to die for your country. What I am saying is: do not lower the standard of your citizenship. All the stories I have heard are, "Yes, he cannot hawk and so on." I am not unsympathetic to it, but that is not the standard required for citizenship. Therefore, if you do not base your citizenship on a high standard, then I do not think you are going to get very far. Mr Low Yong Nguan rose -

Mr Rajaratnam, would you like to give way to Mr Low Yong Nguan? Mr Rajaratnam resumed his seat.

Was the Minister trying to imply that through their trial and error methods - this Government seems to be very interested in trial and error methods - we are going to put our security in the hands of non-citizens first? Let them prove their worth first and then grant them citizenship. To allow non-citizens to defend our country, people whom we cannot trust in the first instance, please, do not try that.

No, no. These are people, as I said, who are permanent residents, people who have no other place to go. If they are prepared to volunteer for national service, then once they have completed their national service, they will be allowed citizenship. If a man who is a non-citizen is prepared to die for the country, then he is worthy of citizenship, because he is more reliable than some who are born into citizenship. Of course, let us not be too patriotic about this. Most of us were not originally Singaporeans. Our great grandfathers came here and settled down. They built this society.

I was born here!

Some of us were not born here. My father was not born here. What I want is a citizen who is prepared to contribute something to the betterment of Singapore.

Then how about the females?

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I gallantly say this: there is an English saying that when we refer to the male, the term also embraces the female! Prof. Wong Lin Ken rose -

Mr Rajaratnam, would you like to give way to Professor Wong Lin Ken? Mr Rajaratnam resumed his seat.

I want to seek clarification. The Minister for Labour has said that we should be careful that those people who apply for citizenship do not do so just because they think they can get Housing and Development Board flats and free education for their children. I must ask him, how about those children who are born Singapore citizens, but their parents cannot get Singapore citizenship, and for that reason they are in difficulty? I want to seek clarification on that point.

I am coming to that, Mr Speaker. I will go on to some of the specific points that have been raised. A point was made about minor citizenship certificates having been withdrawn. The number of such cases from the beginning of 1968 to the end of 1969 was 291. We have since then given sympathetic consideration to cases where there has been genuine error - they failed to take the oath of allegiance through ignorance and through bona fide mistakes. We are prepared to consider such cases where there have been genuine mistakes. There is the case raised by the Member for Alexandra. I think it is about two persons having two birth certificates. Let me state here that obviously when people have two birth certificates, one of them is a spurious certificate. We cannot take a rather lackadaisical attitude towards people who use forged documents, because it is an offence in any case. However, where it can be shown that there was genuine grievance as far as the child is concerned, the innocent party, through false representation, then I think we would be prepared to reconsider the case. If there is collusion, we cannot afford to allow it to pass.

Just a matter of clarification about this question of two birth certificates. I was not interested in who had the false birth certificate. What I was concerned about was that an officer in the Singapore Citizenship Registry had asked the person to surrender his red identity card and in its place he was to be given a non-citizen blue identity card. I think by that action the person would have been deprived of his citizenship, and he would have had no means of defending himself. I think there is a proper procedure by which he can be deprived of his citizenship, and also by the same procedure he can defend his case. This is the case that I was very concerned about.

I do not know the particulars of the case. If this did happen, the person concerned has the right of appeal in regard to any withdrawal of citizenship. Whether he has done so or not, I do not know.

But not in the way by which he was asked to surrender his red identity card. He has no means of redress. As far as I understand, there is a procedure by which a person can appeal with regard to the deprivation of his citizenship. This person was asked to surrender his Singapore red identity card. He was not asked to give up his citizenship. That is a different matter, Sir.

I do not know of the particular case, but if the officer in the Citizenship Registry had reason to believe that there was something improper, that the birth certificate was obtained improperly, then he would naturally take back the red identity card and give him a blue identity card. He had the perfect right to do that. If the aggrieved person felt that something had been improperly done, he could have appealed to the Ministry or to the Minister himself. In view of the fact that Government has announced that we are prepared to invite skilled workers from Hong Kong and elsewhere to come and work here, and after a period they would be considered for citizenship, I was asked why that privilege should not be extended to our blue identity card holders. I would like to say that the same privilege will be extended to non-citizens, that is, blue identity card holders, if they are skilled; or if they show that they have the necessary capacity, we will give them citizenship. I think another Member asked why Singapore blue identity card holders who go abroad temporarily have to surrender their identity cards. 5.45 p.m. I would like to say that a blue identity card holder who goes away temporarily need not and should not surrender his identity card on leaving Singapore. He only needs to surrender it when he leaves the country permanently to go elsewhere. That is when he withdraws his provident fund and so on, and decides to cut his roots in Singapore permanently. It is only then that his blue identity card will be withdrawn. I think those are the main points in regard to citizenship, as far as my notes go. There is one other matter - whether we would relax conditions in regard to the issue of work permits. As I have said, we do relax and have been relaxing in so far as we feel that we can permit non-citizens to work here without affecting the interests of our citizens. This is especially so at this time when there is a labour shortage. We grant more and more work permits to people who are non-citizens, especially if they are skilled or semi-skilled. They should have no difficulty in getting work permits. One Member also asked whether we would be prepared to allow skilled workers like hairdressers to work in Singapore, if they are non-citizens. I do not know whether there is a shortage of hairdressers, but if there is, I am quite sure we are prepared to consider the issue of work permits to such people. The Member for Delta made the point that with the introduction of the new labour laws allegedly to the advantage of the employer, the standard of living of the worker has been seriously affected. I think this kind of generalisation does not take into consideration the main purpose of the modification of our labour laws. When we introduced these new laws, we made it quite clear that these limitations on the freedom of trade unions of workers were made for a wider purpose, i.e., to increase as quickly as possible the base of industrialisation, and therefore economic expansion. In those terms, it again depends on how you see it. For example, before the introduction of the new labour laws in June 1968, there were 1,586 manufacturing establishments employing 74,800 workers. One year after that, the number of factories increased from 1,586 to 1,716, providing jobs for 89,804 people instead of 74,800 people. That means an increase of something like 15,000 jobs for people who otherwise would not have got any work. It is a matter of opinion whether it would be better that a few workers could not get a bit more bonus and have to work without any magical rise in their incomes (does this mean that the labour laws have adversely affected them?), or whether it would be better that 15,000 more people now can have work. We say that the maximum good for the maximum number is the better objective for Government to pursue, than the maximum benefits for a small number. You can also see that, in terms of investment, again before the labour laws were passed, the total flow of investments was about $184 million in 1968. But the year after the implementation of the new labour legislation, it shot up to $550 million. You can say, "Well, this only benefits the capitalists", and so on. But supposing we have not passed these new laws, then not even $10 would have been invested. So this extra investment means more jobs for more people. Let us not work on the basis that capitalists are philanthropists. They will invest money where they can get profits, e.g., when a foreign capitalist or a local entrepreneur invests $100 million here in Singapore, he may make 20 per cent profit. But this is the difference - if he had not come in there would have been no jobs for anybody. There would be no factories and no expertise. That is the price we have to pay. But if you want foreigners to invest here, they will have to make money, and they come here only to make money. So they put up factories here. It may be that they will set up an oil refinery, something which we cannot do. If we had not promised them profits, then there would be no oil refinery, meaning no work and probably also no profit for the entrepreneur. Profit for the entrepreneur means more work and enhanced income. This is one of the hard facts of life. So it is no use saying that because it benefits the employer, therefore, it must be bad for the workers. It is not necessarily so. That is about all I have to say on this particular subhead.

Mr Teong, do you wish to withdraw your amendment?

Sir, I would like to know if the Minister is going to reply to my questions, particularly on the minimum wage.

Under Standing Orders, the Minister is only allowed 15 minutes to reply to all the points raised. So the more questions Members ask the more time the Minister will need to reply.

Sir, my question on revising the workmen's compensation benefits has also not been answered.

Mr Rajaratnam, would you like to reply to the points raised?

Yes, Sir, In regard to the point raised by the Member for Anson, I think I have already given the facts. My Parliamentary Secretary has a head for details, and he has drawn my attention to the fact that it is not $4.55, but $4.75 per day. So that is not quite correct. As regards a minimum wage, I think many of the Left-wing trade unions and the more radical ones do not want a minimum wage. Once you have a minimum wage , that becomes the wage. The Finance Minister has indicated that perhaps we can get over this major fear or inhibition we have about what will happen in 1971. As you know, from the end of this year or the beginning of next year, the British withdrawal will be so fast that about 30,000 or 40,000 people will be without jobs. If we cannot find jobs for them, all this economic progress that we have made will be set back, and providing jobs for as many people as are going to be unemployed will be a big problem. Until we have stabilised the situation. I think the policy should be to allow wages to find their own levels in a dynamic situation where unions will not be interested in minimum wages but they will say, "We will get as much as the economic system can bear without disrupting it." That is the reason why I think we will not consider implementing a minimum wage, nor will it be wise for trade unions at this juncture to press for minimum wages. The other point, I think, was in regard to workmen's compensation. This question has been raised on several occasions. It is the view of the Government that the current scale of workmen's compensation provided under the Ordinance is adequate. This is because the maximum benefits payable on death or permanent disability are based on an employee's earnings of $200 per month. This figure as of today is below the average earnings of workers in Singapore. In 1968 the average earnings of workers in Singapore, according to a sample survey, were about $180 per month, whilst in 1969 they were about $183 per month. If the average monthly earnings of the worker exceed $200 per month, then legislation may be introduced to increase the maximum benefits payable. 6.00 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, earlier on the Member for Sembawang was talking about citizenship and he said that there should be constant reviews in the granting of citizenship. He said I was a stubborn old man and that I was a liar. The Minister has indicated just now the number of applications approved over the last three years. This definitely shows that there have been constant reviews in the policy of granting citizenship. The Member for Sembawang called me "Kou sze sin fei". Mr Speaker, you did not get the translation, but that is equivalent to calling me a liar. I think that is an unparliamentary remark and he should withdraw it and apologise.

Mr Teong, have you heard what the Parliamentary Secretary has said?

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to clarify certain points. I did not say that he was a stubborn person. I said he was not such a person.

He said I was stubborn and he followed it up by calling me "Kou sze sin fei", that is, I am a liar.

Mr Teong, I take it you will withdraw this expression?

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the expression, "He says one thing but practises, another," - Kou sze sin fei - will not have any adverse effect on him. If he can assure us that he will review the policy on citizenship now and then, then I withdraw.

My Minister has already indicated that that is so. In 1967, about 8,000 applications were approved, and in 1968 about 3,000. Last year about 11,000 applications were approved.

Mr Sia, Mr Teong has withdrawn the expression but you object to --

No, Sir. His withdrawal is on the condition that I give him the assurance that the granting of citizenship will be under constant review.

Mr Speaker, Sir, why did the Parliamentary Secretary not raise the objection straightaway when the Member first made that remark?

Mr Teong, I take it you have withdrawn the words you used?

(In Mandarin): Sir, since you have directed me, I withdraw the expression. "He says one thing and does another."

I take it you are withdrawing your amendment?

(In Mandarin): Sir, before I withdraw my amendment, there is one question which has not been answered by the Minister. Perhaps he was confused by the many speeches made, and he has forgotten about it. I asked him what measures he proposes to take in order to prevent industrial accidents. He has not given a reply.

I would also like the Minister to answer my question. He has forgotten to do so.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir, for your indulgence because I have already exceeded considerably the time allotted to me.

I am afraid that is so under Standing Order 43, paragraph (8). But I will be indulgent!

First, I will deal with the point about the proposed swop between Malaysian citizens who are working in Singapore and Singapore citizens who are working in Malaysia and have lost their jobs as a result of the withdrawal of work permits. I think a swop is not a feasible proposition for a government to enforce legally. First, it is a very immoral policy. It is immoral to deprive one man of a job because somebody else has lost a job elsewhere. But what I would suggest is this. Perhaps somebody from my Ministry could make some mutual arrangement and persuade the firm here to transfer a Malaysian citizen who is willing to go. Regardless of whether the person is a Malaysian citizen or not, once he has worked in Singapore, I think he has contributed something towards Singapore and I would not like to say to him, "Now, buzz off, I want to bring in a citizen from Singapore who has lost his job." But if some kind of arrangement could be made and if all the parties concerned are agreeable, then maybe my Ministry could act as an intermediary, but we will not enforce such a policy on either the employer or the worker concerned. In regard to industrial accidents, as the Member has rightly pointed out, this is a problem of increasing concern and importance to Singapore, especially as the pace of industrialisation has accelerated. The following steps have been taken by the Factory Inspectorate to cut down on the increasing number of industrial accidents and to induce a greater awareness of the need for industrial safety. More stringent inspection of factories is being carried out. Factory owners are warned to take the necessary safety precautions to ensure industrial safety in their premises. The factory inspectors have also established closer links with the Public Utilities Board electrical inspectorate to ensure proper inspection of electrical installations in factories. The co-operation of the fire prevention officer is also sought to ensure the taking of adequate measures for extinguishing fires. In fact, we have organised a national safety seminar to spread the idea of industrial safety. A newsletter was published by the Factory Inspectorate to disseminate knowledge of how to prevent industrial accidents. Two executives from the International Executive Service Corps were invited to advise the inspectorate on modern methods of accident prevention. An inspector was sent to the United Kingdom for further training on the problem of industrial safety. As the building construction industry contributed the largest number of industrial accidents in the past year, we had meetings with representatives of the Contractors' Association to discuss safety problems in building construction.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, in his reply to the question of citizenship, the Minister assured us that skilled and semi-skilled workers would be given sympathetic consideration when they apply for citizenship. He also said that if holders of blue identity cards who were permanent residents were willing to join the People's Defence Force, they would be granted citizenship. I hope the question of citizenship can be solved once and for all. I thank the Minister for his reply. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 0601 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1005*. (* The same amendment also stood in the name of Mr Lim Cheng Lock.) Mr Speaker, Sir, our country is now in the midst of nation building. We are expanding our activities in all fields of human endeavour. Our burden has now become heavier. To be successful in nation building, there must be efficiency in all the departments of Government. In order to attain a high rate of efficiency, the work in the departments should be so distributed that the staff will be able to spend their time, effort and energy in the best possible manner. Our country will then make further progress. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Permanent Secretary plays a very important role in his Ministry. He holds the highest rank in the administrative service and he has the duty of implementing Government policy. His work is very important and his burden is heavy. As far as I know, the Permanent Secretary to the Minister for Labour is also the Permanent Secretary to the Minister for Culture. He is also the Director of Broadcasting. Mr Speaker, Sir, I think a person's stock of energy is limited. When a person is responsible for so many jobs, he will be overworked. He will be worn out. In order to maintain a high rate of efficiency and in order that senior officers can concentrate on their own work, I hope the Government will try to avoid giving them too many jobs. The same person should not be given too many appointments. 6.15 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, a few days ago the Minister for Science and Technology, who is also the Chairman of the P.A.P., made a statement in the Straits Times on the need to ensure that competent political leadership for the Republic is available to carry on the work of government when the present leaders retire, and also that the political stability of Singapore is maintained. Sir, these are very commendable objectives of the P.A.P. But whether in time to come they will be acceptable by the people is another matter.

Mr Lim, are you talking about the Political Secretary or the Permanent Secretary?

Sir, I am coming to the point. What I would like to stress is that these objectives should not only rest with political leadership. It is also important to pursue this policy in the civil service. This is where I come to the availability of suitable and good material for the positions of Permanent Secretaries who are considered the right arm of the Ministers. In the last few years, we have seen a handful of persons asking concurrently in two or three important positions. For instance, the previous Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Labour was also the Chairman of the Central Provident Fund. I believe he is still the Chairman of the C.P.F. He is also the Chairman of the Housing and Development Board. He is also the Permanent Secretary for Home Affairs. I believe he is also a director of certain companies. I am only illustrating one such Permanent Secretary. My colleague, the Member for Tiong Bahru, has just now indicated that the present holder of this post is holding more than one important position. In this respect, I feel that the Government has neglected to take stock of the suitable people required now and in the future. I think it is not too late for the Government to do so. Trying to make one person hold two or more positions, I feel, is quite unjustified in that not only does it create injustice to the person concerned, as he can only perform well under certain conditions and with limitations, but it is also unjustified to the departments or to the people who come under his control. In fact, during the last few years, two or three jobs have been centred on one person, so much so that these people have become swollen-headed and arrogant because they feel that they can hide underneath the skirts of the Ministers.

Mr Lim, did you say skirts?

Or trousers, Sir. They are not directly responsible to the people of Singapore. Some even have the audacity to ignore Members of Parliament. Sir, I want to make it very clear that my remarks are not directed at the Permanent Secretary under subhead 1005. Sir, under this subhead, I would like to touch on another important subject. This is in regard to the Central Provident Fund. The Minister for Labour is in charge of the C.P.F. and, according to past practice, the Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Labour is made Chairman of the C.P.F. Sir, I am raising this point because the C.P.F. is one of the very important institutions in Singapore today. It started in 1955 when the total balance of the Fund was over $9 million.

Mr Lim, does the Central Provident Fund come under subhead 1005?

Sir, according to past practice, the Permanent Secretary to the Ministry of Labour is also the Chairman of the Central Provident Fund.

We are now discussing the Estimates for 1970-71.

Sir, if you will allow me, I am talking about the Permanent Secretary because he is also the Chairman of the Central Provident Fund.

All right.

He is also the Chairman of the Housing and Development Board and also the Permanent Secretary for Home Affairs. I feel that he cannot devote sufficient time to the Central Provident Fund. Just before I was interrupted, I was trying to make it known that in 1968 the total balance of the C.P.F. amounted to over $500 million. This goes to show that the C.P.F. is an important institution which looks after the interest of over half a million workers in Singapore, and it is not desirable for one person to be made responsible for so many important institutions.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as a Minister who also happens to hold more posts than he normally should, I begin to see the point of the argument put forward by the Member for Kampong Kapor. It is simply that a man should not be made to do more than one job and, if he is a Permanent Secretary, he should not be over-worked. This is a problem which we face not only with Permanent Secretaries but at many other levels of government. It is no use promoting somebody whom we generally feel is not yet ready to take over the responsibilities of a Permanent Secretary. Therefore, for the time being, we have to make Permanent Secretaries do more than they normally should. This is a problem which the Minister for Finance has already indicated - that the private sector today can offer far more than just a Mercedes Benz to people with ability comparable to our Permanent Secretaries. And objection has been taken to offering a Mercedes Benz to them. Therefore, it is very difficult to retain men in the civil service of sufficient maturity and who are leaving to take up jobs elsewhere. This is a problem of which we are not unaware. We do not want Permanent Secretaries to do more than they should, or to be a kind of general factotum, doing far too many jobs. We agree with the principle that a man should not be over-burdened with too many responsibilities. But it is a matter of finding the digits to take over some of the responsibilities. That is not as easy as it sounds, but when such people are available, I can assure the House that every encouragement will be given to them to take over these responsibilities.

Sir, I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 0601 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1014. Sir, during my weekly meet-the-people sessions, I have come across many cases of persons who have registered at the Labour Exchange. But after many months, they have not been given any recommendations for jobs. On the other hand, I have heard of cases who have, within a short time of registration, been given jobs. I do not know what accounts for this situation. For those unfortunate people, registering at the Labour Exchange is like betting on Toto. If you are lucky, your number comes up and you get a job. If not, then you have to wait for months and months and nothing happens. I suspect that there might be some string-pulling or favouritism being practised in the Labour Exchange. Sir, this is one area of administration in which we can best prove that we not only preach but practise equal opportunities for all. I would like an assurance from the Minister that stricter supervision is kept on this particular section of the Ministry of Labour to ensure that the distribution of job vacancies is done strictly on the basis of first come first served.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as far as I know, the criterion of first come first served constitutes the basis for selection of persons registered with the Employment Exchange. Where there might be deviation from this principle is when employers notify the Exchange that they need certain vacancies to be filled on an urgent basis. 6.30 p.m. Selection of registrants is done from among those who happen to be at the Employment Exchange at that time. However, such instances of on-the-spot selection, I understand, are few and far between. Very often when employers ring up and say that they want a man immediately, the employers are generally told that it would be better if they could give the exchange advance notice so that they can select a more suitable one from their register. I would also like to assure the Member that the Manager of the Employment Exchange supervises the Exchange, and carries out checks from time to time to ensure that the principle of first come first served is being followed. I do not know whether there is any deviation from this principle, but if Members do, come across instances where there is a deliberate deviation from this principle, I shall be glad to look into such cases.

In view of the explanation, I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I was thinking of not, moving my amendment to subhead 1101 as a formal protest against this House for not paying greater attention to labour problems during the debate over the chopping of the Minister's Head! However, Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 0601 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1101*. (* The same amendment also stood in the name of Madam Chan Choy Siong.) Mr Speaker, Sir, I am sorry that the issue of citizenship for non-citizens has overshadowed the problems of citizen workers in regard to employment, job security and job safety over matters which relate to the welfare and progress of labour. Although the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Labour has made certain clarification in regard to the matter, I wish to put on record and stress again what my labour colleagues have said on the issue of job safety. You may recall, Sir, that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour told this House during Question Time on 23rd December 1969, that consideration would be given by the Ministry of Labour to reorganise the Factory Inspectorate in order to increase its effectiveness in enforcing the law and in promoting industrial health and safety. I believe that the effectiveness of the Factory Inspectorate would be increased by legislative and administrative measures. I believe that if decisions are made to upgrade their jobs, to increase their morale, to retrain them, to reallocate their duties, to increase their numbers and to improve liaison among the various Government departments and public institutions interested in the field of industrial safety and health believe all these measures could enable the Chief Inspector of Factories and the other inspectors to carry out their duties efficiently but, however, none of these measures are to be introduced by the Ministry. Further, we have been informed by the Parliamentary Secretary that two of the Inspectors of Factories have been called up for national service, leaving only four Inspectors of Factories, including a temporary inspector, as one of them who has been called up for national service will be returning to his job in April 1970, we were told, and the other one will be returning to his job in September 1970. I find, to my surprise, that reorganisation of the Factory Inspectorate has resulted in the reduction of the number of Inspectors of Factories by one, and he has been transferred to the Industrial Health Unit which the Ministry of Health is forming with a small group composed of one Senior Health Officer, one Inspector of Factories with either a degree or a diploma, two qualified or trainee Public Health Inspectors, and two staff or student nurses, to promote industrial health in the Republic. At this vital and crucial juncture in the industrialisation of our Republic, I do not know how two trainee Health Inspectors and two student nurses could do anything for the industrial Health Unit. Anyway, that is not the subject under discussion. What do the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Health hope to achieve by this set-up? I believe that for the Factory Inspectorate to function more effectively, many more things need to be done. The Factories Ordinance must be revised and modernised to suit the present and future situations in industries. It is inadequate in many ways, and the Chief Inspector of Factories can best testify to its inadequacies. The Annual Report of the Ministry of Labour dealing with safety, health and welfare plaintively described the pitiful situation under which the Chief Inspector of Factories and the other inspectors have to tackle their tasks. In the 1968 Annual Report of the Ministry of Labour, (Paper Cmd. 27 of 1969), the Ministry admitted that the scope of the Factories Ordinance is not broad enough, and the Factory inspectorate has to resort to the safety regulations of the International Labour Organisation for guidance. I suppose these safety regulations have discreetly been imposed upon the owners and occupiers of unsafe factories. Therefore, why not revise and modernise the Factories Ordinance? That is my point. At this stage, I would like to say that if the Inspector of Factories is to do his work with propriety, he must honestly be equipped with an adequate piece of legislation and philosophy. On the one hand, he must be honestly charged with the care of work safety and, on the other hand, he must honestly care to promote work safety to the maximum. But under the present circumstances it is not quite possible, so much so that the Factory Inspectorate admitted in the 1968 Annual Report of the Ministry of Labour, and I quote: 'The main function of the Factory Inspectorate is to ensure that the minimum standards of safety, health and welfare of persons employed in factories are upheld in accordance with the provisions of the Factories Ordinance.' Sir, may I ask why it is minimum and not maximum standards? I have said that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour admitted during Question Time on 23rd December, 1969, that the Factories Ordinance is inadequate, so much so that the I.L.O. safety regulations have been referred to and, wherever possible, applied and imposed. Mr Speaker, Sir, in my opinion the Factories Ordinance is inadequate to look after all situations in matters of industrial safety and health, although there is provision in this particular piece of legislation whereby the Minister can make special regulations to uphold higher standards of safety and the health of workers in industries where the risk of bodily injuries is abnormal. I believe that if the Minister is fully aware of the importance of the problem of industrial safety and health to productivity and the economy of the country, he will not hesitate to introduce legislative and administrative measures to bring about higher standards of industrial work safety in factories. I would strongly urge the Ministry to pay greater attention to the question of work safety. I think more could be done in this field. From the low budgetary provision for the staffing of the Factory Inspectorate and the Industrial Health Unit, the lack of legislative and administrative measures, and the sketchy official report, one could not but get the impression that scant attention is being paid to the safety and health of workers. I would think that with the high occurrences of infringement of the law, the high occurrences of industrial accidents and payments of workmen's compensation, some positive steps should immediately be taken to check the loss to the economy and personal losses to the workmen and their families. In 1968, there were 3,854 factories. The owners or occupiers of 1,770 factories had committed infringements of the law ranging from the installation of electrical equipment not in accordance with the generally accepted principle of sound and safety practice, and using unsafe machinery, equipment and tools, to infringements where no fire-fighting equipment and Safety-Aid boxes were provided in the factories. In 1968 itself, $1,104,193.22 was paid out by employers in 8,147 workmen's compensation cases. Among those 8,147 accident cases, there were 109 fatal cases, five total permanent disablement cases, 690 partial permanent disablement cases, and 7,343 temporary disablement cases. The Ministry of Labour piously reported that there was no case of occupational disease, but the Ministry of Health Report, (Paper Cmd. 1 of 1970) estimated that some 30 per cent to 40 per cent of the workers in the 26 quarries in 1967 in Singapore were suffering from some form of pneumono-coniosis, which means that about 500 to 600 of these workers are victims of this dreadful and deadly disease. Asbestosis among workers dealing with asbestos work, and lead poisoning among workers in battery factories and lead smelting plants, are quite prevalent and should not be disregarded. I reckon, however, that there will be realistic changes in legislation by the Government after it has heard and studied representations by responsible representatives of labour in this Chamber, and through the National Trades Union Congress. I do recognise and accept that the proposed changes to the Factories Ordinance should be studied carefully and thoroughly by the Government and industry. I hope the Government will do everything possible under the present circumstances by introducing measures to give maximum protection to the health and safety of workers. It should be remembered that a worker is not a digit of production. The Ministry said that a worker is a digit of production, but I say that a worker is, in every sense of the word, not a digit of production. He has life; he has a mind; he has feelings; he has sense and feels pain. I hope the Minister will give every consideration to revising and modernising the Factories Ordinance, after hearing the representation from my labour colleagues and me. 6.45 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I ask your permission to speak on this subhead, because I have already spoken on my amendment to subhead 2003. Sir, I support my colleague, the Member for Kallang, in what he said. In respect of the question raised by my colleague, the Member for Jalan Kayu, I am not very happy with the reply given by the Minister. Although he is a democratic socialist, he does not seem very socialistic in his reply. I wish to elaborate on the statement made by the Member for Jalan Kayu. With rapid industrialisation and increasing activity in off-shore exploration, many new industries, such as off-shore rig manufacturing, ship-repairing and ship-building, iron and steel manufacturing, and other ancillary engineering industries, have been set up, and more will be established in future. These industries employ many skilled and semi-skilled tradesmen. These workers comprise the most important natural resources of the state as they make very significant contributions to the economic growth of our Republic. We cannot afford to lose them through death or permanent disability. More stringent legislation should therefore be provided to improve the standard of safety in industries, so that sufficient safeguards are made for the lives of the workers. The incidence of death and permanent disability of these workers due to accidents are now very high. Most of them are young and have many more years of useful economic productive work to contribute to their employers, and in turn to the state. More often than not, they have large families, and are the main bread-winners. Statistics obtained from the Annual Report of the Ministry of Labour, 1968 (Paper Cmd. 27 of 1969) show that that number of fatal and permanent disablement cases for the years beginning from 1964 is as follows: Permanent Death Disablement Total 1964 85 448 533 1965 98 539 637 1966 108 552 660 1967 68 598 666 1968 109 695 804 During the years 1964-68, when the tempo of industrialisation was stepped up, one can see from these figures that the percentage increase in death and permanent disability was almost 50.8 per cent. Therefore, it is obvious that the dependants of these victims have to go to the state for social welfare assistance and to make claims under the Workmen's Compensation Ordinance. It was pointed out by the Member for Jalan Kayu that the present rate of compensation is $7,200 or 36 months' earnings; for death and total disablement $9,600 or 48 months' earnings. I wish to point out to the Minister that the Workmen's Compensation Ordinance, 1955, is actually an amended version of the British Workmen's Compensation Ordinance, which was introduced in 1933. The present Ordinance, therefore, is already 15 years behind time. Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to emphasise to this House that our party is a democratic socialist party. As an employer, I have always the workers' welfare at heart. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Our Government, after more than 10 years in power, should have seen fit at an early date to revise the Workmen's Compensation Ordinance, 1955, to meet the conditions and circumstances prevailing in Singapore in the l960s and l970s. I wish to inform the Minister that the Hong Kong Government, which is a colonial government, has passed a law which makes the quantum of compensation HK$45,000 for death and HK$60,000 for total disablement. But here, although we are a Government elected by the people, we are not sympathetic enough to our workers who are the mainstay of our economic survival. It is to be expected that, with the influx of overseas personnel, the cost of living will rise rapidly. In fact, this is already taking place. Rentals have gone up by 100 to 200 per cent. The water rate has also gone up. Other daily necessities, also cost more. Lux soap which used to be 30 cents per cake, has gone up to about 40 cents now. Bearing these factors in mind, Members on this side of the House will agree with me that the purchasing value of our dollar has been reduced by about 30 or 40 per cent since 1955. Therefore, if a worker's family get $7,200 or $9,600 benefit on death or total disablement respectively, they will find it extremely difficult to buy even the bare daily necessities of life. Therefore, they will become a burden to the state, and this will create social problems for the Government. Mr Speaker, I wish to suggest to the Government to review the Workmen's Compensation Ordinance, 1955, and to bring the quantum of compensation payable on death and total disablement to workers to a more realistic figure, commensurate with the cost of living obtaining in the l970s. At the same time. I would suggest that the quantum of compensation under the Ordinance be reviewed every five or ten years so as to arrive at a more realistic figure in relation to the current cost of living. In this way the decreasing purchasing power of our dollar as the years go by will be in line with the cost of living then ruling, so that the families of these unfortunate victims working in heavy industrial establishments can have hope and succour without losing the human dignity as unwanted members of our society, through no fault of their own.

Sir, on the one hand, it is so heartening to hear one of our large employers from Jurong advocating an upward revision of the quantum of compensation laid down in the Workmen's Compensation Ordinance, and another employer-representative here also advocating the same thing. But on the other hand. I am sorry to say that I have to join my colleagues here in saying that we were taken aback and dissatisfied with the reply given by the Minister on workmen's compensation.

You are an employer.

Perhaps. Sir, in respect of the Factory Inspectorate, the Ordinance also needs revision. The employers' organisation agrees to a revision. The employees' representatives also agree to a revision. But I am sorry to hear that the Government, however, feels that the present Ordinance is adequate for our present improved industrial conditions.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in regard to the question of prevention of industrial accidents, first of all, let me say that the Ministry endorses much of all that has been said. Since the last few years - and there has been no doubt about it - the number of industrial accidents has been increasing at an alarming rate. According to my Ministry's figure for last year, the number of accidents rose by 48 per cent over the previous year. It is not only a question of having sufficient inspectorate staff and qualified personnel to enforce legislation to bring about safety in manufacturing and other industries, but it is also a question of educating workers. I am told that in a large number of factories there are certain rather elementary and primitive rules on industrial safety, such as wearing helmets or goggles and so on, which are constantly disregarded by workers. Sir, this is also a matter of educating the workers. Therefore, as I said earlier, the Ministry has sought the assistance of two experts from the International Executive Service Corps, and they have made recommendations to reorganise the Factory Inspectorate. These recommendations are now being studied and consideration is being given to the question of creating a post of Chief Inspector of Factories. I would like to assure Members that the problem of industrial safety is occupying the minds of the officers of the Labour Ministry. Within the limitations of an extremely small and inadequate staff, the Factory Inspectors have tried to maintain at least the minimum safety and health standards required in the factories. The safety programme recently launched by the Ministry has to be widened so as to ensure that safety education reaches all levels of both management and workers. This matter is tied up with industrial diseases and so on, a point raised by the Member for Kallang. This is also tied up with the Ministry of Health, because this is the medical aspect of industrial health. With the assistance of the Ministry of Health, the Industrial Health Unit was set up. I think, in 1967. However. I understand that the work of the Unit has been confined to very narrow limits, largely owing to inadequate resources. 7.00 p.m. The inadequacy of resources to man the Public Health Unit is reflected in the recent recommendations made by Dr Cressol, an I.L.O. expert on occupational health. He has advised that the Unit should consist of one senior medical officer one industrial hygienist, two industrial health inspectors and two staff nurses. It is hoped that in time these personnel will be made available so that systematic efforts can be made in ensuring the health and well-being of our workers. As regards the other aspects of industrial safety, I have only one point to add. In the estimates for 1969 the Factory inspectorate had six posts of Inspectors of Factories. As Members have mentioned, two of these inspectors are still undergoing national service. Of the six inspectors, one holds a degree in Chemical Engineering. His duties are to enforce the provisions pertaining to industrial hygiene. However, it should be noted that in the estimates for 1970 the Government has approved the establishment of an Industrial Health Unit. As far as my Ministry is concerned, it is true that, with other preoccupations and not allowing for the rapid development of our industries, this particular aspect of the problem has not been given much attention in the past. I hope it will be possible for us to do so and convince the authorities, who are in a position to dispense these things, of the urgency of this problem.

Mr Speaker. Sir, the Minister has admitted that his Ministry has not been paying very much attention to the problem of industrial health and safety in the past. However, I feel he has already realised that work safety is important for the workers and for the economic well-being of the country. I am going to withdraw my amendment, but before I do so, I will say to the Minister that if his Ministry does not do anything by the next budget, it will get more hammering from labour. I am sure good employers like the Member for River Valley and the Member for Jalan Kayu will be on my side. I beg to withdraw my amendment.

Can I just draw the Minister's attention to the fact that earlier on I have mentioned the question of setting up a rehabilitation centre for the thousands of people who have lost either an arm or a leg in accidents and so on? I do not think I have heard an answer to that question.

Has the Minister replied to that?

I understand the Ministry has in operation a scheme for, the rehabilitation and retraining of disabled persons. This is provided for under subhead 2007 of Head 0601. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The following amendment stood in the names of Inche Abdul Aziz Karim and Mr Hwang Soo Jin -

Amendment No. (5), Inche Abdul Aziz Karim.

Mr Speaker. Sir, I have said enough just now. I am not moving. The following amendments stood in the name of Madam Chan Choy Siong -

I am not moving my amendments. The following amendment stood in the names of Madam Chan Choy Siong, Mr P. Govindaswamy, Mr N. Govindasamy, Mr Cheong Yuen Chee. Mr Lim Soo Peng, Mr J. F. Conceicao, Mr P. Selvadurai, and Mr Lim Cheng Lock -

Madam Chan, are you moving the amendment? Members talked a lot on citizenship when an amendment was moved in respect of subhead 1001. Are you going to repeat the same performance, Madam Chan?

I am not moving, Sir.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 0601 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1281*. (* The same amendment also stood in the names of Mr Hwang Soo Jin, Mr J. F. Conceicao and Mr Ng Kah Ting.) Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like the Minister to inform the House whether he could give sympathetic consideration to the following cases. The first case is a Malaysian who married a Singapore woman. A child was born to them in the Federation. After a month the child was brought to Singapore and he lived with his mother. His school is in Singapore. He is now about 12 years old. He wanted to apply for an identity card. He could not get it because the department concerned wanted documents relating to his father's permanent residence here. His father could not produce them because he worked on board a ship. He would come to Singapore for a few days' stay and he would go off to sea again. Under the circumstances, the child could not obtain a Singapore identity card, not even a blue identity card. He could not also get an identity card from the Federation. This situation has created hardship for the child. I wonder whether sympathetic consideration can be given to this case. Another case concerns a child who was born to a Malay family some 20 years ago. He was registered at birth as Ahmad bin Abdullah. Some years later, because of the superstitious belief of the parents that the child's name was not suitable, they changed it to Hashim bin Abdullah. From the time the child went to school up to now - a period of 20 years - he has been using the name of Hashim bin Abdullah. When a laminated identity card was introduced, this young man went to register himself. However, he was given a blue identity card because the name on his birth certificate was different from that in his identity card. The officer in charge said, "Sorry. I have to give you a blue identity card. You must apply for citizenship." I wonder whether the Minister can give favourable consideration to his case. There is a case of an adopted child. He was adopted many years ago. Through the stupidity of the parent -thinking that my surname is Sim and the adopted son's name is Ng, and I was then stupid - I withdraw that unparliamentary word, Sir.

Is that a confession, Mr Sim?

I got hold of somebody's --

Three minutes to go, Mr Sim. Do you want a reply?

Got hold of somebody's birth certificate which bore the surname "Sim" and gave it to the adopted child. It was then found that it was not the actual birth certificate. A Singapore citizen identity card was not given to him. He was given a blue identity card. Sir, I would like the Minister to give me a reply to this.

The Minister has exactly two minutes to reply.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am always reluctant to make a pronouncement on cases brought before me when I do not know all the facts. Only one side of the case is presented. So I would not like to make any judgment on the cases instanced by the Member. But I shall state the broad principles on which we issue identity cards. First, they are issued only to lawful permanent residents within Singapore. Therefore, a child who has attained the age of 12 years must prove beyond doubt to the Commissioner of National Registration that he has lawfully resided in Singapore before a Singapore identity card can be issued to him.

He has been in school for 12 years.

If he can prove that he has attended a school here for 12 years, an identity card will be issued to him. Mr Speaker, Sir, that is why I am very chary of listening to one advocate's case. I must also listen to the other side. When you investigate a case, you will find that it is not as clear-cut as it is sometimes made out to be. But if the Member can send me the facts, I will have the case examined and apply the broad principles which I have enunciated to it. Under the National Registration Act, persons holding Malaysian identity cards are exempted from registration.

Sir, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 7.15 p.m.

It is "guillotine" time. The time allotted for Head 0601 having expired, the following amendments were not proceeded with: Mr N. Govindasamy: (11) That the sum to be allocated for Head 0601 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1301. Madam Chan Choy Siong: Mr Ho Kah Leong: Mr Ng Kah Ting: (12) That the sum to be allocated for Head 0601 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1351. Mr Low Guan Onn: (13) That the sum to be allocated for Head 0601 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 2003. Mr Ng Kah Ting: (14) That the sum to be allocated for Head 0601 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 2053. (15) That the sum to be allocated for Head 0601 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 2073. (16) That the sum to be allocated for Head 0601 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 2105. Mr Ng Yeow Chong: (17) That the sum to be allocated for Head 0601 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (3) of subhead 3002. Mr Ng Kah Ting: (18) That the sum to be allocated for Head 0601 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 3004. Madam Chan Choy Siong: (19) That the total sum to be allocated for Head 0601 be reduced by $100. The sum of $2,273,880 for Head 0601 ordered to stand part of the Estimates. Head 0602 -

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 0602 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 2002. Sir, briefly, can this House get an explanation why the provision for Allowance for Panel Members and Referees has been slashed from $12,500 for a 15-month period from 1st January, 1969, to 3lst March, 1970, in the 1969-70 budget, to $3,500 for 12 months from 1st April, 1970, to 31st March, 1971? I reckon that $3,500 is just enough for 35 full days court sittings. Is it anticipated that there will be fewer cases, fewer hearings and quicker rulings? Is it because fewer panel members are going to be appointed? From the statistics provided in the Annual Report of the President of the Industrial Arbitration Court for 1968 (S. 6 of 1969), the number of cases has dwindled from 100 cases in 1966 to 78 cases in 1967 and 46 cases in 1968. Awards delivered by the two Courts were 72 in 1966, 47 in 1967 and 31 in 1968. The number of referee decisions were eight in 1966, two in 1967 and none in 1968. Mr Speaker, Sir, I am wondering if the First Court will suffer the fate of the Second Court. All that we have is a registrar of collective agreements, no presidents, no panel members and no referees. I foresaw the closure of the Second Court. Can the Minister let us know his inner thoughts in this respect?

Mr Speaker, Sir, no wise Minister ever reveals his inner thoughts! But I must congratulate the Member for Kallang, for I think he has stumbled on the real reason for the precipitous decline in the allocation of funds to the panel members and referees appointed to hear Industrial Arbitration Court cases. The first reason is that there has been a decline in the number of cases that panel members and referees are appointed to hear. Since January 1968, there has been a decline in the number of disputes and other matters referred to the Court. This can be attributed to sustained industrial peace prevailing in the Republic, the enactment of the Employment Act, and amendments made to the Industrial Relations Ordinance, including the wider powers conferred on the President to constitute the Court alone without panel members. I may also mention that six of the panel members are public servants who are, therefore, not eligible for the allowance under the Industrial Relations Regulations, 1960. The second reason is that in the Court's budget proposal relating to this matter which was submitted in October 1969, account was taken of the distinct possibility of the closure of the Second Court, which, in fact, took place in January of this year. As for the speculation by the Member as to the fate of the First Court. I will allow him to speculate.

Sir, as the Minister does not wish me to probe any further, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendments, by leave, withdrawn. The following amendment stood in the name of Inche Abdul Aziz Karim (2)That the total sum to be allocated for Head 0602 be reduced by $100.

Inche Abdul Aziz, amendment (2).

I am not moving, Sir. The sum of $182,230 for Head 0602 ordered to stand part of the Estimates. Head 0701 -

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 0701 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1001*. (* The same amendment also stood in the names of Mr N. Govindasamy and Mr Ho Kah Leong) Sir, I would like to raise a point regarding the mushrooming of kindergartens in the Republic. In the past, these kindergartens were not popular. But since 1967, they have been conducted by various community centres under the auspices of the People's Association. And ever since, many private kindergartens have sprung up. For example, missions and churches have also started kindergarten classes. This is a good sign. In other words, kindergarten education is popular and widespread and our young children are being looked after. This is a sign of progress for our country. However, after a lapse of three or four years, a problem has arisen. The fact is that the teachers of kindergarten classes have not been given training. They have not been trained in child psychology or in the method of teaching. They are not qualified teachers. They are only graduates of Secondary IV and some of them do not even have this qualification. Yet they are employed as teachers to teach children in the kindergartens. We have found that children who have completed a two-year course in the kindergartens have been taught certain lessons which, strictly speaking, should be taught in Primary I. As a result, when these children are admitted to Primary I, they have already formed certain conceptions and they are not interested in whatever the teacher teaches them. They even tell their teacher, "I can teach you to read this character or word." So the children are disgusted and they lose interest in whatever is being taught to them. This will have an adverse effect on their primary education. The Ministry of Education should take measures to train teachers of kindergartens. There are also kindergartens run by some political parties, but I do not intend to ask the Ministry to close them down. In addition to imparting certain elementary knowledge to children, these political parties also try to indoctrinate them with political ideas. I do not think it is necessary to take action against these kindergartens. But we should take responsibility not to mislead our young children. I feel that the Ministry should carry out investigations into the qualifications of the teachers in these kindergartens, and also to supervise their teaching. The Ministry should find out where these kindergartens are housed. It should also conduct training courses for the teachers. Just as the Teachers' Training College trains teachers of primary and secondary schools, so should it conduct courses for kindergarten teachers. As regards the sites of kindergartens, we cannot expect an ideal environment because they are housed in old buildings. But as regards the teachers, we should see that they are given training so that the pupils are properly taught. I have been informed that the teachers of kindergartens run by the People's Association are given training. The training is in two stages. Firstly, the teachers must attend classes run jointly by the Adult Education Board and the Ministry of Education. After that, they have to undergo a training course in the People's Association conducted by a specialist trained in Australia. As a result, the kindergartens run by the People's Association are well organised. 7.30 p.m. They are not so much concerned with teaching the children during the three hours as with laying emphasis on proper training in living, discipline and group co-operation. The Ministry can also, with the co-operation of the Adult Education Board, conduct certain courses for teachers. All teachers must undergo training and certificates will be awarded to them if they are qualified to teach.

Mr Speaker, Sir, during the last Budget debate in 1968, a number of Members in this House spoke lengthily on the Government's education policy, and the Minister for Education promised to look into the possibilities of rectifying the many anomalies prevailing in the Ministry and the staffing position in our schools. I am sorry to say that the anomalies that I made reference to during the last debate have not been rectified or resolved. The establishment in the Ministry of Education urgently needs a thorough overhauling. May I again remind the Minister that his Ministry is the only Ministry where promotion posts do not carry any salary scales? The Ministry has already agreed with the Singapore Teachers Union that this is a wrong practice. The Harvey Commission Report also recommended in paragraph 198 of its report that the structure and reorganisation of the Ministry of Education must be looked into. These matters. Sir, I have raised before, and I do not want to elaborate. Let us now consider the reply that the Minister gave on the issues that I made during the last debate. If I may quote the Minister, he said [Vol. 28 No. 6 dated 17-12-68, cols. 445-6]: 'I think he [referring to me] is aware that the whole question of teachers' salaries, post allowances for principals and so on is a very complicated one . . . . The problem is so complicated that the Harvey Salaries Commission was afraid to delve into the whole question. It has, therefore, suggested a separate Commission to go into the matter in detail.' He then continued and I quote him: 'Until I have sought the views of the Finance Minister on whether there should be a separate commission to go into the whole question of the salaries of teachers and principals, I am not in a position to give a satisfactory answer.' The Minister agreed with me that there should be a separate salary scale for promotion posts. He advocated that there should be assistant principals instead of at present senior assistants. I would like to know, in the last 15 months since the last debate, if the Minister has gone into consultation with the Ministry of Finance to rectify these serious anomalies which have been in existence, to quote the Minister, "for almost 20 years". He agrees that these anomalies have been there for almost 20 years. He agrees that they have to be rectified, but they are still with us. Sir, during the debate on the estimates last year, I spoke on the present undesirable practice of having one principal for both sessions in the same school, the need for remuneration and to give a status to the senior assistants of the schools. I would not want to repeat my contention that the work performed by the senior assistants is equivalent to that of the principals, since this issue has been taken up with the Ministry of Education many, many times. Let me quote the Minister's reply during the debate on the estimates on 17th December, 1968, in regard to this matter [col. 450]: 'While we cannot afford to have one principal for one session, I think it is possible to consider a principal for one session and an assistant principal for the other session in the same school, it is a compromise proposal which I thought was feasible and that is why the suggestion was made to the Harvey Salaries Commission. I am not in a position, at the moment, to give a positive reply on this matter. But if the time is appropriate, I will take up this matter again.' Sir, since the last debate, matters have become worse. Now we have what is known as bilateral schools which are, in fact, two secondary schools under one principal. As a result of the two schools being grouped together, provision is made only for one principal and one vice-principal. In other words, where there were two principals and senior assistants, we have now one principal and one vice-principal. Sir, may I suggest that now is the appropriate time to rectify once and for all this exploitation of the senior assistants? I think this is the appropriate time because we are all aware that the Minister for Finance in the Budget proposals did not paint a gloomy picture of our future, but, on the contrary, in my opinion, he made a forecast of greater expectations and improvement in the economy of Singapore. It is for the Ministry of Education, which has time and again agreed that the present conditions are not as satisfactory as they should be, to make the necessary representation to the Ministry of Finance to rectify this outstanding grievance. Sir, in all other departments in Singapore with promotion posts, a man is paid for the job he does and not for the qualification he has. The salaries of a Permanent Secretary, a Deputy Secretary and an Assistant Secretary in the various Ministries are the same irrespective of whether the holders of the posts are Honours degree graduates or Pass degree graduates. Whereas in the Ministry of Education, although the principals of all secondary schools and primary schools are performing the same job, yet their salaries are differentiated according to the certificates they possess. Sir, a teacher who is appointed principal of a school, whether he be an Honours graduate, a General Degree graduate or a Normal Trained teacher, in principle and in practice, performs the same functions. I see no reason why there should be any differentiation of salary if they are principals of the same type of schools. All these anomalies arise because of the post allowances attached to their substantive salaries. Sir, let me now come to the Inspectorate in the Ministry of Education. We learn from the Budget speech of the increase in the number of schools and school-going children in the past ten years. This, of course, has resulted in an increase in the number of teachers, but there has not been a proportional increase in the Inspectorate staff to assist and advise teachers on professional matters. The inspectors are largely occupied with the supervision and investigation of teachers to ascertain whether they should be recommended for crossing the bar, confirmation, annual increments, and with other administrative functions which leave them with very little time or none at all for giving professional assistance and guidance to teachers. As a result, teachers have begun to view the visits of inspectors of schools as purely for the purpose of inspecting them, that is, to find fault with them, and not for the purpose of assisting and advising them. We are fully aware that an inspector's role is not only to find fault with the teachers, but also to assist and guide them in professional matters. This can only be done if the Inspectorate has a sufficient number of officials who can devote their time for this purpose. Sir, the Ministry seems to interest itself only with statistics. The Member for Bras Basah spoke on 18th March, 1970, on the attempt of the Ministry to make the teachers quack doctors. Sir, I am told at the moment that there is a health course being conducted in a number of primary schools. The lecturers in this course are teachers who have been lectured by other teachers who attended a similar course conducted by qualified people. The lecturers of the health course in primary schools attended six lectures given by six other teachers, and they are in turn expected to lecture to their fellow teachers. Sir, not everybody who has attended a course can lecture to others who, in many cases, are very much senior in service to the lecturers. If the teachers have to go through a course on health, by all means let them go through a course on health, but let these courses be conducted by qualified people. Recently, schools were required to form School Advisory Committees. These committees are working well in some schools, but in many they are not functioning properly. The Ministry should look into the functioning of the School Advisory Committees and to rectify the situation if it has to be rectified. Sir, questions were raised in Parliament by the Member for Serangoon Gardens who has now gone over to the other side on the practice of the Ministry of issuing instructions to schools by telephone. The assurance given to the House was that this would be kept to the minimum and only on urgent matters. Sir, may I suggest that even now the telephone relay system is utilised for frivolous matters and also for important instructions for which circulars should have been prepared well in advance. During the months of January and February this year alone, the telephone relay system has been used nine times. I do not know why the Ministry officials do not like to put their instructions in writing. 7.45 p.m. Sir, another sore point I have with the Ministry is that of acting appointments in the education service. I know of a number of "actors" in the headquarters of the Ministry of Education.

The Ministry of Culture.

In Culture too, I believe. I am told that in certain schools there are even teachers who have been acting as principals for as long as four years. The last promotion exercise for principals of primary schools was conducted more than two years ago. Can the Ministry not make arrangements for promotion exercises to be conducted over shorter periods, so as to minimise the number of acting appointments?

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, from Table 19* appended to the Budget statement of the Minister for Finance, we see that the total school enrolment of primary and secondary schools and higher institutions for 1969 is 525,695, which is about a quarter of the total population. This large number shows that education is widespread, and is something of which we can be proud. Of course, the quality of these students will depend on the type of education they receive today. From this point we can realise the importance of education and the difficulties involved in it. Teaching is an illustrious and honourable task. (* See Cols. 533-4) Sir, the educational programme should meet the requirements of our society. There is no doubt about that. The present society is undergoing changes, so the education of our society should also change with time. There should be a reformation in our education policy in order to meet present requirements. For instance, in the past year we began to change the trend and direction of our education by putting full emphasis on technical education in order to meet the trend towards an industrialised society. This is a very correct move. The education policy should change with time to meet the requirements of society. In this process of change, there will inevitably arise questions involving amendments and reformation of our education policy. All this will result in placing our education policy on a better footing so that our people and country may progress further. Sir, I depend on teaching as a means of livelihood, and I personally have gone through the mill. That being so, I know intimately many matters concerning education, and I will avail myself of this opportunity to inform the Minister of certain problems in education. Let me begin with the Teachers' Training College. This College is responsible for the training of school teachers in the various language streams. The merits or demerits of the T.T.C. have a great effect on the quality of the teachers produced. Sir, we all know that when someone aspires to be a teacher, he will have to be trained in the T.T.C. for some years. Upon his graduation, he will be recognised as a qualified teacher. But if we were to ask -- what usefulness has a trainee teacher got after undergoing all this training? -- the reply possibly would be, what has been learnt is merely to meet the requirements of the lecturers. When training ends, everything ends also. There has been very little use made of what the trainee teacher has learnt. Why? Because what he has learnt is not practical. Many lecturers only teach the trainees how to teach, and also inspect them to see how they teach. They never demonstrate the practical way of teaching. Some lecturers even blow their bassoons in the classroom. And when the time for examinations comes along, they will just prepare lecture notes in a haphazard way. So with this sort of training, what results can you expect from the teachers? Sir, many trained teachers will unanimously say that their training was a period of tribulation and hardship. After this training, they will be relieved of all this suffering. In fact, the Teachers' Training College is a place where the "soul-engineers" are trained. But we doubt if the result will meet our objective. I personally experienced this suffering and tribulation in 1965-66. What I have learnt has no practical use. Many a time I have heard of suggestions to reform the College, but when I asked the present trainee teachers, I knew that things in the College have not changed very much. Sir, for the sake of our national development, why cannot we teach our trainee teachers something practical to make them understand our national policy and to inculcate in them a strong sense of national consciousness, so that they can understand the tasks required of them for the future good of our country? In this way, what they teach will be more beneficial and more practical. Is this not better? One aspect of our education is to give equal treatment to all the four language streams of education. But we all know of complaints that if teachers or principals who do not speak English go to the Education Ministry, they will be looked down upon and given the cold shoulder. We have also heard of complaints from principals that sometimes they are required to go to the Ministry immediately they receive a telephone call. Sometimes orders or directives are given through the telephone; this has been pointed out by the Member for Telok Blangah. It is very well to give directives over the telephone, but very often another telephone call is made to change the previous instructions. So I cannot agree with this means of conveying administrative instructions over the telephone. Nowadays it is not easy to be a teacher. The teachers are confidentially reported on by their principals. They also have to face school inspectors whom they fear. The inspectors come to inspect their method of teaching, not with a view to improving it or to benefit them in some way. Their purpose is to find fault with the teachers and, as a result, there will be unfavourable remarks in the teachers' record. This is what the teachers are worried about. Sir, our society is a just and equal society where all races are equal, and therefore the work of public officers is also on an equal footing with equal opportunities. But today teachers in Government-aided schools are not as well treated as teachers in Government schools. How do you explain this? Sir, I do not know whether the Minister has given attention to the grouse that nowadays teachers have a heavy load, and this load is increasing. Besides teaching, many other duties are also entrusted to them. Let me enumerate here the various duties they are expected to do outside normal teaching hours. (1) There is the writing up of teaching records, the number of classes, subjects, periods. All this has to be written up clearly. (2) There is the correction of homework, including exercises, weekly reports, reading reports, newspaper cuttings, calligraphy, fair copy tests, practical reports, mapping, contour, drawing, and composition. (3) The making of teaching aids, looking for materials, note-taking, and lesson preparation. (4) Filling in the particulars of attendance registers, collection of school fees, miscellaneous fees, attending to requests by students for leave, entering results in report cards, filling up of various forms, and the registration of new students. (5) There are duties in relation to extra-curricular activities. (6) Taking the students out for meetings or visits to social homes. (7) Taking part in various campaigns to support some social work. (8) Research work, including attendances at the T.T.C. and second-language training, specialised subject training, cadet officers' training and various other forms of training, say, technical training. (9) Teaching the students how to brush their teeth. (10) Duties at athletic meets, and teaching children to queue up for buses, and so on and so forth. I have taken up much of the valuable time of the House. My purpose is not to make complaints, but to point out that the teachers have to bear all these hardships. If they are well commented upon, I am sure they do not mind working even harder. Instead, Sir, aided school teachers do not even enjoy. medical benefits. Every year Teachers' Day has been neglected. There is no fixed day for Teachers' Day. Last year Teachers' Day passed just like any normal school day. Over the last two or three years, the various language streams have been engaged in extra-curricular activities, and, as students are expected to take part, they have responded keenly. Because of their over-participation in these extra-curricular activities, their school studies have suffered greatly. 8.00 p.m.

Order. Moment of interruption. Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee, and took the Chair of the House.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply has made progress on the Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 1st April, 1970, to 31st March, 1971, and ask leave to sit again on Monday, 23rd March, 1970.

So be it. Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn." -[Mr Ong Pang Boon]. Adjourned accordingly at One minute past Eight o'clock p.m. until Monday, 23rd March, 1970.