Hansard, 1970-06-26

Under the provisions of clause 2 (d) of Article 30 of the Constitution of Singapore, I have granted permission to the following Members to be or to remain absent from sittings of Parliament (or any committee of Parliament to which they have been appointed) for the periods stated: Mr N. Govindasamy (Telok Blangah) - from 27th May to 18th June, 1970. Mr Sia Kah Hui (Upper Serangoon), Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour and Government Whip - from 3rd to 25th June, 1970. Mr Chor Yeok Eng (Bukit Timah), Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health - from 8th to 20th June, 1970. Mr Cheong Yuen Chee (Toa Payoh) from 8th to 28th June, 1970. Mr Sim Boon Woo (Changi) from 8th June to 2nd July, 1970. Mr Phua Bah Lee (Tampines), Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Communications - from 8th June to 4th July, 1970. Inche Rahmat Bin Kenap (Geylang Serai) - from 8th June to 7th July, 1970. Mr Sia Khoon Seong (Moulmein) - from 8th June to 31st July, 1970. Mr Seah Mui Kok (Bukit Ho Swee) - from 12th to 30th June, 1970. Inche Othman Bin Wok (Pasir Panjang), Minister for Social Affairs - from 25th to 27th June, and from 8th to 29th July, 1970. Inche Mohd. Ghazali Bin Ismail (Aljunied) - from 26th June to 31st July, 1970. Mr Ng Yeow Chong (Mountbatten) from 26th June to 31st July, 1970. Dr Augustine H. H. Tan (Whampoa) - from 5th to 9th July, and from 7th to 15th September, 1970. YEOH GHIM SENG Speaker, Parliament of Singapore

The following Bills were assented to by the President of the Republic of Singapore on the dates stated:- 28th May, 1970 (i) Parliamentary Pensions (Amendment) Bill; and (ii) Civil List and Pension Bill. 3rd June, 1970 (i) Bills of Exchange (Amendment) Bill; (ii) Immigration (Amendment) Bill; (iii) Constitution (Amendment) Bill; (iv) Singapore Telephone Board (Amendment) Bill; (v) Singapore Mariners' Club Bill; (vi) Legal Profession (Amendment) Bill; (vii) Ngee Ann College (Amendment) Bill; (viii) Minor Offences (Amendment) Bill; and (ix) Subordinate Courts Bill. 5th June, 1970 Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment) Bill. YEOH GHIM SENG Speaker, Parliament of Singapore

asked the Minister for Finance whether he will request the Jurong Town Corporation to work out plans with the People's Association and the Housing and Development Board to provide social and recreational amenities in Kallang Basin.

asked the Minister for Defence whether the People's Association will (i) provide another community centre in the Kallang Constituency; and (ii) jointly work out plans with the Housing and Development Board and the Jurong Town Corporation to provide better social and recreational amenities to the people residing and/or working at Kallang Basin.

asked the Minister for Law and National Development (a) whether he realises that the Housing and Development Board hardly provides any social and recreational amenities to the tenants in Kallang Basin; and (b) if he will request the Board to work out plans with the People's Association and the Jurong Town Corporation to provide social and recreational amenities in Kallang Basin.

Question No. 1 - there is a related question directed to the Minister for Defence in Question No. 2. I understand that the Hon. Minister for Defence, in answer to Question No. 2, will also answer Question No. 1. Inche Abdul Aziz Karim, Question No. 2, please.

Yes, Sir. Question No. 2.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. As you have indicated, Sir, in replying to this Question from the Member for Kallang, I will also be replying on behalf of my colleagues, the Minister for Law and National Development and the Minister for Finance, as all three Questions asked by the Member for Kallang are similar in theme. Mr Speaker, Sir, there is in the Development Estimates a provision for six rural type community centres calculated at $10,000 each. This is a balance from the bulk provision for 10 rural type community centres and three standard type community centres under the Five-Year Development Plan 1966-70. As every constituency now has at least one community centre, the balance of available funds will be used only for new community centres in the resettlement areas. Social and recreational amenities are being provided and will be provided by the People's Association in consultation with the Housing and Development Board and the Jurong Town Corporation for the people residing in and working at Kallang Basin. I am told, Sir, that the Housing and Development Board has provided a limited range of social and recreational amenities for its tenants in all the housing estates, and Kallang Basin is no exception. In conjunction with the People's Association, the Housing and Development Board has provided a community centre with outdoor and indoor recreational amenities in Neighbourhood I, bounded by Serangoon Road, Bendemeer Road and Boon Keng Road.

Does the Minister consider a ground floor unit adequate to serve the needs of a population of thousands in Kallang?

I am sure my colleague, the Minister for National Development, will sympathetically consider the request, if it is made to him, for the use of a ground floor unit for recreational activities. But I understand that there is a four-acre ground which the Housing and Development Board has marked out in Kallang Basin for the provision of a park and other recreational amenities for the residents.

Mr Speaker, Sir, does the Minister think that the People's Association, the Housing and Development Board and the Jurong Town Corporation have in the past engaged in imaginative forward plan-fling to provide social and recreational amenities, particularly in Kallang Basin, where the population is growing day by day?

Can the Member repeat the first part of his supplementary question?

Does the Minister think that the People's Association, of which he is in charge, the Housing and Development Board and the Jurong Town Corporation have in the past engaged in imaginative forward planning to provide social and recreational amenities, particularly in Kallang Basin where the population, the working population included, is growing day by day?

Mr Speaker, Sir, we could not have provided the residents of Kallang with what the Member for Kallang described as imaginative planning, because Kallang Basin is just being populated. However, I do not think it is beyond the ingenuity of the People's Association, the Jurong Town Corporation and the Housing and Development Board to provide imaginative planning for recreational amenities for the residents in Kallang.

Mr Speaker, Sir, does the Minister agree with the statement made by the new Director of the People's Association that one of the ways to improve the standard of living of the poorer people is to provide adequate social and recreational facilities in the form of community centres?

Sir, I agree entirely with that statement and we are doing our very best to provide adequate facilities. Here again, I must say that in many instances where adequate facilities are provided, they are not being fully made use of. And in many instances also, we have to close down community centres because they have not been made use of. But where there is a need, we will always try to meet it. If the Member for Kallang can mark out any area where he thinks a community centre will be useful, we will consider it sympathetically.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if the Minister will consider providing an additional community centre or two medium-sized ones in the Kallang Basin Industrial Housing Estates, that will be agreeable.

Sir, as I have already said, there is a community centre nearby. We would like to set up a community centre every 100 yards if we can, but, firstly, that is beyond our means, and, secondly, I do not think we have sufficient land to do this. Anyway, there is a four-acre ground which can be fully exploited to give the residents of Kallang Basin all the amenities that they require for sports, for airing themselves, or their birds if they keep birds, and for a better standard of living.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the present community centre is just like the "Black Hole of Calcutta"! Will the Minister agree to rectify the situation?

We will rectify the situation as best we can.

The Minister for Defence has already answered Question No. 3 in his reply to Questions Nos. 1 and 2.

2.39 p.m.

"to establish a Science Centre Board and for purposes incidental thereto", recommendation of President signified; presented by the Minister for Science and Technology (Dr Toh Chin Chye); read the First time, to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

"to amend the Audit Act, 1966 (No. 3 of 1966)", presented for the Minister for Finance by his Parliamentary Secretary (Mr Tang See Chim); read the First time, to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

"to amend the Singapore Society of Accountants Ordinance, 1963 (No. 14 of 1963)", presented for the Minister for Finance by Mr Tang See Chim; read the First time, to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

"to amend the Economic Expansion Incentives (Relief from Income Tax) Act, 1967 (No. 36 of 1967)", recommendation of President signified (Mr E. W. Barker); presented for the Minister for Finance by Mr Tang See Chim; read the First time, to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

"to amend the Pensions Ordinance, 1956 (No. 22 of 1956)", recommendation of President signified (Mr E. W. Barker); presented for the Minister for Finance by Mr Tang See Chim; read the First time, to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

Order for Second and Third Readings read. 2.42 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The purpose of this Bill is to provide statutory authority in accordance with clause 2 of Article 85 and clause 2 of Article 87 of the Constitution of Singapore for additional provisions for expenditure in excess of the provisions for expenditure authorised by the Supply Act, 1970. These additional sums have been scheduled as Supplementary Estimates which have been considered and approved by the House as Cmd. Paper No. 17 of 1970. They are required for meeting increases in the special allowances for Members of Parliament from $500 per month to $1,000 per month, and in the personal emoluments of the following: Cabinet Ministers: from $2,500 per month to $4,500 per month Ministers of State: from $2,000 per month to $2,500 per month Parliamentary Secretaries: from $1,500 per month to $1,750 per month Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Third time."

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 2.45 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." One of the main objects of this Bill is to provide for more effective action against motor vehicles which emit any smoke or visible vapour so as "to cause annoyance or danger to the public, or injury or damage to any person or property". The present legislation under Rule 104 of the Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) Amendment Rules, 1963, provides that: `No vehicle shall be used which emits any smoke, visible vapour, etc., the emission of which causes or is likely to cause injury or annoyance to any person, or damage to property or which endangers or is likely to endanger the safety of any person'. Penalties for the offence of "smoky exhaust" have been dealt with in one of two ways: (i) with the Police offering to offending owners of such vehicles a composition fine of $20 under section 79 (1) -of the Road Traffic Ordinance, 1961; or (ii) on conviction, to a fine not exceeding $400 and in the case of a second or subsequent conviction to a fine not exceeding $1,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months under section 78 (1) of the said Ordinance. It is clear, although last year more than 7,000 vehicle owners paid composition fines of $20 each for smoky exhausts, yet the problem has not shown any signs of improvement, that the present legislation will have to be amended so that penalties will be made more deterrent if we are to expect any marked improvement in the situation. With the launching of the anti-pollution campaign by the Prime Minister on 31st March, 1970, which, inter alia, has, as a target, the eradication of the smoky exhausts from motor vehicles, this is the opportune time to tighten up on the legislation in this regard. It has therefore been proposed, firstly, to raise the limit of the composition fine from $20 to $50, and this is provided for under clause 6 of the Bill. Secondly, in introducing the subject of "smoky exhaust" into the body of the Road Traffic Ordinance proper instead of appearing as a minor offence under subsidiary legislation, it emphasizes the importance which the Government attaches to the problem of air pollution and its determination to resolve it, with firm measures wherever possible. Clause 3 of the Bill accordingly introduces a new section 28A and it clearly states that both the owner and the driver of a vehicle are guilty of an offence, if such vehicle emits "any smoke or visible vapour". As regards penalties, on first conviction, the maximum fine is to be raised from $400 to $500 to bring it in line with the maximum fine for littering. I am sure Members of this House will agree with me that the offence of air pollution has more serious and damaging consequences to the health of the community than littering and, therefore, the raising of the fine is a legitimate one. It will be noted that a separate subsection (2) of section 28A ensures that vehicles of the Singapore Traction Company are brought within the scope of the amending legislation for smoky exhausts, as it is obvious that any strong anti- pollution measures to be taken must be made applicable to all motor vehicles operating on Singapore roads, and that there can be no exceptions to the law. Members of this House will, I am sure, be interested to know that consequent on Government's decision to raise the taxi fare for the first mile from the present rate of 40 cents to 60 cents with effect from next month, i.e., 1st July, 1970, all 3,800 licensed taxis have been requested to first pass the smoky exhaust test - namely, not to exceed 40 smoke units as shown by the Hartridge Smokemeter. Up to Wednesday, the 24th of this month, a total of 3,166 licensed taxis or more than 80 per cent of taxis were put through the test, but 664 or more than 20 per cent failed it. It is therefore clear that higher standards of maintenance will be necessary if we are to see the last of smoky exhausts from our midst. The next important purpose of this amendment Bill is to be found in clause 4, which introduces another new section 29A, wherein it is clearly stated that "on or after the 1st day of January, 1971, every person who drives or is carried on a motor cycle shall wear securely on his head a protective helmet of a type approved by the Minister". Members of this House are probably aware that since February this year, all "L" licence holders of scooters and motor cycles are already required to wear approved-type crash helmets, and the proposed incorporation of a new section in the body of the Road Traffic Ordinance proper once again draws attention to the importance and emphasis of Government on the compulsory use of crash helmets. It is hoped that, in this way, the former wanton waste of young lives of our population will be greatly reduced hereafter. The manner in which some motorists are causing obstruction or danger to traffic by leaving or abandoning their stalled vehicles on the road whilst they attend to their personal matters first, before attempting to remove their broken-down vehicles, or by parking their vehicles in prohibited areas, necessitates an amendment to section 71. This is to make it clear that the Minister may make rules to provide for the removal and detention of such vehicles. The amendment is made in clause 5 of the Bill. At the same time, the opportunity is also taken to amend the existing definition of "unladen weight" in section 2 of the Ordinance. The new definition will enable the Registrar of Vehicles to prosecute offenders successfully. This amendment is made in clause 2 of the Bill. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 2.53 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, it cannot be denied that at the present juncture the traffic congestion in our Republic is becoming worse and worse. This is particularly so during peak hours. If there is a traffic jam on a certain stretch of the road, then there will be a queue of vehicles as long as a few miles. The question is how to enact the proper legislation and to incorporate the necessary measures so as to improve our road traffic conditions. We must maintain a free flow of traffic on our roads. This is the unavoidable responsibility of the Ministry of Communications. However, as far as this amendment Bill is concerned, there is limited scope for solving the traffic problem. This Bill contains provisions which deal only with the load of vehicles, the control of the emission of smoky exhausts, the compulsory wearing of crash helmets, the enhancement of certain penalties and so on. This is only a superficial attempt to solve our traffic problem. The fundamental problem of traffic congestion still remains. For example, the revision of our public transport system, the widening of our roads and the safety of road users -these problems have not been touched upon. Nevertheless, since the traffic problem is becoming worse and worse, even these minor measures are helpful. Mr Speaker, Sir, as you know, the International Seminar on Road Safety, which was held in the Republic and which ended yesterday, tried to find solutions to minimise road accidents. It is expected that this seminar will make many recommendations so that we and other governments will benefit from them. Mr Speaker, Sir, let me now touch upon certain provisions in the Bill. One of them relates to the compulsory wearing of crash helmets by motor cyclists. This is a very good provision because it will ensure their safety. It will also reduce the rate of fatal accidents among them. The fact that the Government has compelled them to wear crash helmets has resulted in a great demand for these helmets and, because of this, the price of helmets has gone up. This will impose a great burden on the users of these helmets. I hope the Minister will adopt measures to ensure that the price of crash helmets is reasonable. Another clause in this Bill provides that certain categories of traffic offenders will have to pay a composition fine of $50 instead of the present fine of $20. Although the increase in the composition fine will act as a deterrent on the regular traffic offenders, it is, however, in my view, a bit excessive. If it is only a very minor offence, such as parking in a non-parking area or waiting beside a white line, then a fine of $50 in such cases is very unreasonable. Mr Speaker, Sir, taxi drivers will be the people most affected by this regulation because they spend most of their 24 hours on the road in order to earn their livelihood. If the fine is increased to this extent, their livelihood will be made more difficult. In view of this, I suggest that in the implementation of such legislation, consideration should be given to the merits of each case. For example, those minor cases which I have mentioned should not fall within the ambit of this provision. But in the case of rash and inconsiderate drivers, speedsters or those who dash past traffic lights, thereby endangering the lives of other people, the punishment should be adequate in order to ensure that such people obey the traffic rules. Mr Speaker, Sir, this amendment Bill reminds me of the policemen on traffic duty and their attitude towards their work. Perhaps this may not have any direct bearing on this Bill, but I wish to mention the traffic police in passing. If the Minister for Communications cannot answer my points. I think the Minister for Defence will do so. I have received complaints from members of the public that the traffic police are on the road not to maintain a free flow of traffic, but to catch traffic offenders. They hide behind pillars and other places and keep watch on passing vehicles. Why are they doing this? They do it because, by hiding themselves from the motorists, they will be able to catch those who break the traffic rules, take down the numbers of their vehicles, send them summonses and probably bring them to court. Of course, I agree that traffic offenders must be brought to book and dealt with according to the law. This is part of the duties of the traffic police. But I think you will agree with me, Sir, that they have more onerous and more important duties to perform, i.e., the maintenance of a smooth and orderly flow of traffic on our roads. It is not their duty to hide behind pillars and other places to catch traffic offenders. If they do this, how can they direct the flow of traffic? This attitude is not correct and should be rectified accordingly. I do not know whether the Minister concerned agrees with me. Mr Speaker, Sir, though this amendment Bill is very limited in scope, it is by all standards a necessity aimed at promoting the free flow of traffic and ensuring the safety of pedestrians so that the roads will no longer remain, as the saying goes, the mouth of the tiger. In view of this, I support this amendment Bill.

Mr Yong.

Sir, I thought there was going to be a further debate. Mr J. F. Conceicao (Katong) rose -

I do hope Members will catch my eye. If they lie back in their seats. I cannot see them. Mr Conceicao. 3.03 p.m.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. At first, I did not intend to speak. But at the invitation of the Minister for Communications, I would like to say a few words. May I say that I agree with the Member for Sembawang that this Bill has a limited application? It is, however, an earnest of the Government's desire to improve the conditions of road traffic. But in respect of specific aspects of such conditions, this Bill relates to action to be taken against excessive emission of smoke. It ensures safety for those on motor cycles, and it gives power to the Government to take action against those vehicles that are causing obstruction. But the question of road traffic, safety, observance of regulations, I think, has a wider reference. Any motorist can notice the flagrant flouting of traffic laws in the very short distance that he takes to cover the minimum journey. I think this flouting of traffic laws will result in the law itself being brought into disrespect. The whole problem of road safety, road courtesy, and road traffic has to be viewed in its total context. It is hoped that there will be a vigorous attempt to instil into our citizens a respect for the laws of the road and a sense of social discipline where the use of the road is concerned. This Bill does indicate that there has been a certain amount of education preceding the intention now to implement rigorously those aspects which, as I have said, relate to excessive smoke, to the use of crash helmets and to obstruction. I would earnestly ask the responsible Ministers concerned to think of a serious campaign to educate road-users on their responsibilities and, following this education campaign, to implement as rigorously other aspects of traffic laws as those which this Bill seeks to implement in respect of what is contained here. May I finally, say, Sir, that besides the question of simple implementation, there is the question of furnishing our police officers with the necessary equipment and manpower to do their job properly.

Mr Speaker. Sir, first of all, I would like to answer the comment made by the Member for Sembawang on the price of crash helmets having gone up since Government decided to make it compulsory for learner drivers of motor cycles and scooters to wear crash helmets. It is true that the price has moved up somewhat compared to the price existing prior to the announcement by Government that it would be necessary for motor cyclists and scooterists to wear crash helmets. But before the Government announcement was made, it was possible for importers to bring in crash helmets which looked nice but would riot pass the test and the specifications which would be necessary to enable them to be approved. Although the cost of such a test would not have materially increased the price, I think ii is probably because too many people decided to rush to buy the crash helmets at a certain given time. We feel that any price control over the import of such goods is not something we would like to impose on the commercial public, and we shall allow the free play of supply and demand to operate. However, we are aware of the possibilities that, if we are to impose compulsory wearing of crash helmets suddenly for 100,000 motor cyclists and scooterists, the price will really jump very high. That is why, in implementing this policy, we have tried to stagger the implementation. We first started off with those who applied for provisional licences for the first time. That was November last year. It was at the rate of 1,000 a month. It was only in February this year that we said that all learner drivers would need to wear these crash helmets and that would involve 10,000 people. We are allowing as much as another 10 months, i.e., January of next year, before we require every motor cyclist or pillion rider to wear a crash helmet. And the number is 100,000. So we are allowing these 100,000 motor cyclists this much time to buy crash helmets and to get used to wearing them. I think that is as far as we can go in this regard. The Member for Sembawang is very unhappy about the increase in fines for traffic offences, especially the increase in the composition of offences from $20 to $50. Nobody likes to have fines increased. But unfortunately we have found that, as I explained in my Second Reading speech, although more than 7,000 people have paid their $20 fine, yet quite a lot of motor vehicles with smoky exhausts are running on Singapore roads and making it very difficult for those who follow behind them. It is most uncomfortable and I think it is rather ruinous to health. Although we have had a period of education, there does not seem to be very much improvement, so we have no alternative but to increase the fines. Only when it hurts their pocket do these offenders begin to maintain their cars, taxis or buses properly. The fine is quite costly. If it is $50 a week, it will go up to $200 in a month, whereas an ordinary maintenance check would probably cost $10 or $20 and it should be good for a few months. I can only transmit the Member's plea to my colleague, the Minister for Defence, who is in charge of the traffic police, for his officers to use their discretion and not be too hard on booking those owners of vehicles that emit smoke on the road. We hope to see less and less of such smoky exhausts before the year is out. As for the Member for Katong's comment on the flouting of road traffic laws and regulations, unfortunately it is true that it takes time to educate road users. It looks as if we would have to spend some time on road education and, at the same time, increase the penalties for those breaking traffic laws. Lastly, Sir, I would like to draw attention to the comment from both Members that this particular amendment Bill is very limited in scope. It is so. I admit it, But I would like to say that it will not be very long before we have another sitting of the House to consider a White Paper on the re- organisation of road transport in toto. The draft is ready and, unless it is cut down, it runs to 50 pages. So I think there will be a lot of good reading in it and, I hope, good debating material when it is tabled in the House and we can have a very lengthy session on it.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. -[Mr Yong Nyuk Lin]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 3.15 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Mr Speaker, Sir, direction of employment is not something new. It was introduced by Government in December 1963 to assist persons adversely affected by confrontation to obtain alternative employment. Members will agree with the principle that first priority must be given to our discharged national servicemen to fill job vacancies in the Republic, and Government has rightly given an undertaking to assist all discharged national servicemen find suitable employment in the public or private sector. This Bill is to give effect to the principle I have enunciated and to the undertaking we have given. There is already a Job Placement Department in the Central Manpower Base in the Ministry of the Interior and Defence. It has been assisting our discharged national servicemen in finding employment suitable to the skills they have learnt and the training they have received while serving with the Singapore Armed Forces. Wherever possible, discharged national servicemen are placed in jobs relevant to their abilities, skills and experience. This is very important as, upon completion of full- rime national service, they are transferred to the Reserves which form the bulk of our Armed Forces in an emergency and, therefore, a continuity in experience and skill is necessary. I must say we have been most successful in job placement. A total of 98 per cent of those discharged in 1969 have found jobs. In fact, at times we cannot cope with the demand from employers for discharged national servicemen. I understand that most of the national servicemen who have had some technical training in the Armed Forces are offered jobs by prospective employers even before they have completed their national service. For this happy state of affairs, I must express our gratitude to the first few hundreds of discharged national servicemen who have proved to employers that they are better than average workers and are well disciplined and not afraid of hard work. This Bill will now empower the Minister to direct by order published in Government Gazettes that specified categories of employers shall not, without the consent of the Director of Employment appointed under this Bill, engage or re-engage any employee otherwise than from among registered persons. A registered person is a person who has completed full-time national service and whose name is for the time being on the register to be kept by the Director of Employment. Under this Bill, a register will be kept wherein particulars relating to the qualifications and skills of such discharged servicemen will be recorded. By this means, there will be made available to employers a reservoir of manpower resources consisting of a representative cross- section of our young population possessed of a variety of skills and experience from which they can draw to meet their needs. If an employer is unable to find a suitable person from among the discharged national servicemen to fill any vacancy in his concern, he may, upon the presentation of reasonable grounds, be exempted to fill such vacancy with non-national servicemen. Discharged national servicemen should, within seven days upon securing employment, notify the authority of this fact so that correct statistics will be maintained; otherwise, they will disqualify themselves and will not be given priority of employment. Any employer who contravenes the provisions of any order made under the Bill will be guilty of an offence punishable, on conviction, by a fine not exceeding $2,000, and in respect of each employee so employed in contravention thereof, by a fine not exceeding $50 for each day on which that employee is employed. I have said we have been quite successful in finding suitable jobs for discharged national servicemen. This is because: (1) These men have proved to be well disciplined and good workers; (2) There are greater employment opportunities arising out of the success of our industrialization scheme; and (3) There is close liaison between prospective employers and the Job Placement Unit of the M.I.D. As long as employers continue to supply the M.I.D, with their job requirements and specifications, and we continue to place men in jobs as successfully as we are now doing, it is not the intention of my Ministry to bring this Bill into force immediately after it has been passed by Parliament. It will only be enforced when the necessity arises. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 3.20 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I had assumed that the necessity for the introduction of the National Servicemen (Employment) Bill stems from the difficulties that the Ministry of the Interior and Defence might have experienced in placing ex-national servicemen in employment, but now the Minister apparently tells us that this is not so. The Bill will be placed on a contingency basis. The Bill assumes somehow that the required skills from the national servicemen are forthcoming, and that the employers can find from among the ranks of the ex-national servicemen the kinds of skills that they want. Similarly, the national servicemen would accept the jobs which are readily forthcoming. In that kind of situation, I do not think that compelling the employers to accept those national servicemen would amount to a very economic proposition. I do not have any firm figures to show the extent to which the ex-national servicemen have or have not acquired the kinds of technical expertise which will put them readily in employment. It seems to me that if they have not acquired anything else other than the ability to shoot straight, then they are going to be at a disadvantage when they come out of service. Instead of, or in addition to, looking towards a Bill compelling employers to engage or re- engage only registered persons, perhaps the Minister might consider means by which more national servicemen could be given the necessary skills, either during or on completion of their national service. In addition, perhaps opportunities for further formal education might be made available by a preference in granting bursaries, scholarships and loans. One further handicap that I feel some ex-national servicemen might experience is the lack of fluency in English. Indeed, with the foreign investment orientation of our industrialisation, I would think that people who are not fluent in English would be penalised. This problem extends beyond the immediate one of ex-national servicemen. It applies generally to graduates of non-English schools. If language is the barrier, then perhaps remedial courses in English might be conducted within the national service period and/or upon completion. If other measures are necessary, perhaps the Minister might consider the provision of subsidies to employers to provide in-plant training for ex- national servicemen. A further point, perhaps worthy of consideration, is the employment of ex-national servicemen in the public sector to which this Bill is not directed. While I am sure that the Public Service Commission is co-operating fully in giving preference to ex- national servicemen, I am told that, in some cases, processing of applications by the P.S.C. takes up to three months, which is a long enough period to demoralise any ardent defender of our Republic's freedom. Perhaps steps ought to be taken to strengthen the administrative apparatus of the Public Service Commission. In conclusion, I would like to lend my support to this Bill, because clearly our ex-national servicemen are deserving of special consideration for their service to the Republic. However, I would strongly invite the attention of the Minister for Defence to the matter of the employability of ex- national servicemen, especially those who have not been given training in specific skills, and the measures that might be taken to provide further education and English language proficiency. The combination of Ministerial exhortation, the stick provided by this Bill, and my proposed remedial carrots should be, hopefully, redeeming. 3.25 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill is aimed at ensuring that our ex-national servicemen will be able to get jobs. Nobody will quarrel with this. However, I have certain comments to make on the details of this Bill, and I hope the Minister will clarify the few points I am making. Firstly, this Bill does not compel all those national servicemen who have completed their national service to register. I would like to know whether those who have completed their national service but who have not registered according to clause 4 of the Bill will be at liberty to seek jobs. Will any person be able to employ those unregistered persons who nevertheless have completed their national service? Secondly, there is a Labour Exchange at the Ministry of Labour where those people who want to seek jobs can register. This also includes discharged national servicemen. Under this Bill, a register will be kept by the Director of Employment wherein the qualifications of discharged national servicemen will be recorded. According to the Bill, unless there are other arrangements, employers will have to recruit persons who are registered with the Director of Employment in the first instance. Therefore, those persons who have registered with the Ministry of Labour will not have the opportunity to get jobs. I would like to know whether this Bill, after it is passed, will affect the Labour Exchange at the Ministry of Labour. Thirdly, I would like to know whether the authorities concerned have, before drafting this Bill, considered reorganising the Labour Exchange at the Ministry of Labour in order to look after those who have completed their national service. I feel that making use of the Labour Exchange at the Ministry of Labour for employment purposes will be more suitable, because everything will be centralised. Moreover, we will save expenses which will be incurred in setting up a new Register. Mr Speaker, Sir, all along there has been a shortage of labour. Whenever the commercial and industrial sectors want to employ persons, they have difficulty in doing so. I fear that after this Bill is passed, the commercial and industrial sectors will find it unnecessarily cumbersome to recruit workers. Should these things happen, it will be an impediment to the progress of industrialisation in our country. I hope the Minister concerned will clarify the few points that I have raised. 3.29 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am happy to learn the happy state of affairs described by the Minister for Defence so that the Bill, when passed, may not need to be enforced immediately. This Bill requires employers to recruit workers from amongst the ex-national servicemen in the first instance. The Bill is before us, I believe, because many of our young men who are called up for national service, as well as their parents, feel concerned lest they lose out in the competition for jobs to those who are not similarly called, to non-citizens and to girls. This Bill demonstrates to them, in a concrete manner, that the Government fully recognises the contribution that national servicemen make, directly to our Republic's security and indirectly to our prosperity and welfare. It assures them that they do not have to stand at the back of the queue when they seek jobs in civilian life. I am very glad to learn that employers in the private sector already realise the worth of our ex- national servicemen. It must stand to reason that in a small country such as ours, we cannot afford to waste our most valuable resource- manpower. Our Singapore Armed Forces not only impart to their men a training that promotes physical fitness, mental alertness, discipline and self-reliance, but it also improves their education and skills. The S.A.F, make men out of boys and turn out better citizens, more productive workers and potential leaders of our community. As our young ex-national servicemen have already proved to be valuable assets to their employers, I hope that this law need not be enforced. But in the meantime, Mr Speaker, I beg to support the National Servicemen (Employment) Bill. 3.32 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, the main aim of this Bill is to ensure that those who have completed two years' national service will be given priority in employment. This is, in my view, a very wise measure because, as we all know, national servicemen have taken part in national service training in the national interest. They have been trained militarily in order that they can shoulder the great responsibility of protecting our country, our lives and our property. Therefore, to those who have sacrificed so much for the national interest and who have spent time and energy on military training in the defence of our country, it is only right that we should look after them when they have completed their national service. The employers, therefore, have a part to play in this respect. If the national servicemen are sure of getting jobs after their two years' training, then members of their families will have no worry about national service. This will enable the national servicemen to concentrate more on their training. In this way, they will contribute more to national defence. Mr Speaker, Sir, notwithstanding what I have said, I have certain misgivings about the administration of this Bill. With the increase of national servicemen in years to come, the task of the Director of Employment, as provided in this Bill, will be made increasingly difficult. Therefore, there is bound to be some delay in the placement of jobs for the national servicemen. So I would like the Minister concerned to exercise proper supervision over the work of this department to ensure that it is efficient and effective and that there is proper liaison between the employers and the department. As far as I know, Mr Speaker, at the present moment there is some delay in placing a national serviceman in a job. For example, after two years' training a national serviceman should be given a job as soon as possible by the Government or through the Government. But in some cases there is a delay of two to three months. I do not know what the reason is, but there is an undeniable delay. Therefore, we should take steps to remedy the situation to ensure that there is no delay. Another point that I wish to raise with the Minister concerned is this. There are certain national servicemen recruited from the private sector. I do not know whether they are paid according to salary scales provided in the National Service Regulations or whether they continue to draw the same salary as they have drawn in private employment. If it is the practice to pay them according to the rates of pay given in the National Service Regulations, then they are at a great disadvantage, and I would like to ask why. In any case, Mr Speaker, this is a good Bill in principle, because it looks after the interests of our national servicemen in respect of employment. I support it 3.38 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, shall answer the last speaker first, i.e., the Member for Sembawang. I will appreciate it very much if he can tell me of a system whereby a national serviceman, who is discharged today, can rightaway be placed in a job tomorrow, it is inevitable that there must be some delay in placing national servicemen in jobs. Usually we have very early notification from employers of the type of skills that they require. Meanwhile we have to match the requirements of the employer with the qualifications and experience of our discharged or about to be discharged national servicemen. When that is done, we have to write to the employers and send these national servicemen for interview. At the same time, we have to ask the national servicemen whether they do want jobs, because some of them, as I have said just now, have probably been offered jobs or have found jobs on their own. All this takes time. Therefore, if we can find a system to match the skills with the requirements so that the national servicemen can be sent to the employers on the day after their discharge. I think all of us will he most grateful and very happy for the Member's advice. On the question of whether national servicemen will be paid the same salary that they have been getting while working outside, we have our own scales of pay in the Armed Forces. In the private sector different employers have different scales of pay. And if we were to accede to the suggestion made by the Member for Sembawang - that we should pay the national servicemen the same pay that they have been getting outside -then my Paymaster will probably have to include the hundreds of salary scales in the private sector. That, I think, is not feasible. To answer the Member for Delta - as I have said, the system is working quite well now. We are able to place 98 per cent of the ex-national servicemen who were discharged in 1969 in jobs. Also because of the shortage of labour now, it would be quite unnecessary to enforce the Bill. That is the reason why I have said that it is not the intention of this Ministry to enforce this Bill even after it has been passed by Parliament. On the question of whether we can make use of the present Labour Exchange to do this work, I think it would not be possible for the Labour Exchange, as it is constituted at present, to work efficiently as a job placement unit, in the M.I.D, just now, because the Ministry has a complete record of national servicemen with us. Therefore, when we receive the job specifications, it is easier for us to marry them to the requisite skills among the discharged national servicemen, Otherwise we have to send the whole lot of particulars of national servicemen to the Labour Exchange where the administration is probably not so au fait with military reports. This will cause further delay, and greater annoyance to the Member for Sembawang. Of course, the principle here is that first priority for employment is to be given to national servicemen. We all hope the day will not come when the demand for labour will drop so that those who have not done their national service will also have the opportunity to be gainfully employed. At the moment things are going on all right. We are able, as I have said, to place all our ex-national servicemen in jobs. I have already indicated that there is nothing to prevent a national serviceman from seeking a job of his own if he wants to. For the information of Members n general, and the Member for Whampoa in particular, there is a joint M.I.D./ Technical Education Committee looking into the possibility of giving training to ex-national servicemen who have had no training in any skills whatsoever while they were in the Armed Forces. As for improving their fluency in English, in fact, in the Armed Forces at the moment a conscripted national serviceman is given 180 hours' tuition in any language he desires. But we are looking further into it. When we first started. If a serviceman was educated in English, he was given the choice to take up either Chinese or Malay. If he was Chinese educated, he was given the choice to learn English or Malay. But after having worked on it for some time, I think a better method now will be to improve the fluency of the language in which the national serviceman is educated. Let us say a boy has a Secondary III education in English. The time will be more usefully spent if he can improve his fluency in English within the 180 hours of tuition, so that when he comes out he will be more fluent in English, Mandarin, or Malay, or whatever language he is educated in. Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill, if enforced, compels an employer to register with us, so that first priority will be given to national servicemen for employment. But at the moment in the public sector - in the Public Service Commission, the Ministry of Health, and every other Ministry - we have given first priority to national servicemen. That is covered administratively. This is a promise which we have made, and we are keeping it. I hope I have replied to all the questions raised or the doubts that have arisen in the minds of Members.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. -[Mr Lim Kim San]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Third Reading read. 3.48 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Third time." Members will recall that the Bill was referred to a Select Committee on the 22nd December, 1969, to enable further representations of the profession and those of the public to be made so that consideration could be given thereto. I am happy to report that 13 written representations were received and the Select Committee heard oral evidence on three of these representations. Some of the contributions made to the Committee were most valuable and several suggestions were accepted. Amongst these were - Firstly, the reduction of the period of practical experience in engineering required for qualification under section 8 (c) from three years to two years. Secondly, the widening of the powers of the Professional Engineers Board to include the power to suspend an engineer from practice for a period not exceeding one year under any of the circumstances set out in section 12. Thirdly, the increase of the penalties that an unregistered person will be liable to face upon conviction for practising or holding himself out as a professional engineer. The Committee's Report was published on 15th June, 1970, as Paper Parliament 3 of 1970. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Bill as now tabled before this House incorporates the recommendations of the Select Committee. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Law and National Development has just moved the Third Reading of the Bill. I will now avail myself of this opportunity to express my support of it, looking at it from a slightly different angle. My views on this Bill are applicable also to Bills of a similar nature. This Bill, when it is passed by Parliament, will have certain safeguards for professional engineers in the execution of their professional duties. Their social status will be enhanced. I feel that in this respect we are ahead of many other countries. However, I hope those of us who are in the engineering profession will not just look to the legal protection and neglect their obligation to our people. I would say the aim of the Bill is not just to enhance the position of a certain group of people in our society by having their interests protected by law, but it should also enable the engineers to understand their obligations and duties to our society and their part in nation building. They have an obligation towards the people in assisting to bring prosperity to the country in the coming years. We are a democratic society, and anybody who wants to enjoy the protection of his rights and interests should also take upon himself the responsibilities and duties towards society. In this respect, professional engineers are not an exception. We have expressed this basic principle in introducing this Bill, I hope that after it is passed. It will be able to bring about a better spiritual liberation and a liberation of their minds so that in their own way they may also make their contribution towards the livelihood of our people. I think you will agree with me, Mr Speaker, Sir, that there are many professional people in our country who in the past have paid too much attention to their own occupations and neglected the demands and the requirements of the general masses. At the same time, some of them have also forgotten the general interest of the country. They only look after their own interest and the salvation of their own existence. They form a retarding force in our society. If we do not take steps to remedy this situation, we will be disappointing our people. Let professional engineers take this Bill as a beginning, and rectify this situation by earnestly discharging their responsibilities towards the people. They will understand that in the new society they have certain obligations towards the people. This should be the basis and correct emphasis of the Bill. The Select Committee benefited from the various views expressed in the representations. It received representations from professional bodies, individuals and members of the public. This showed that they were interested and had faith in our system. I believe that the Professional Engineers Board to be set up under the Bill will not have an easy task, for example, in the investigation into the qualifications of professional engineers and classifying them. I hope the members of the Board will be able to carry out the provisions of the Bill smoothly and efficiently, though their task is difficult. I hope they will also take into consideration the representations which were made to the Select Committee in the course of their work. I am sure their duties are not easy but I trust that with extra care they will be successful in their task. I remember a professional engineer expressed certain views on the Bill. He said that the penalties for certain people who infringed the provisions of the Bill should be increased. Legislation has been made to increase the penalties to deal with offenders, Of course, I do not deny the necessity for penalties. But what I would like to say is that, although it might be necessary to legislate in order to provide for penalties, legislation to penalise the offenders of the law should be such as to aim at helping them to distinguish between right and wrong so that they will be able to do the right thing in the future. Mr Speaker, Sir, allow me, finally, to quote something which was said in the press recently. We, as legislators and as Members of Parliament, are not like Tse Ker Liang, a sage in ancient Chinese history, and, at the same time, the people are not simpletons. Our legislation should always aim at safeguarding society, and not only the interest of a certain group of people. Since this group of people is given the protection of the law, it is their bounden duty to contribute their services towards the people. Otherwise, when finally the people deliver their judgment on us, we will have been marked as failures.

Sir, I have nothing further to add except to thank the Member for Crawford for his contribution in the Select Committee and his support.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Third time and passed.

Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed." - [Mr Barker]. Adjourned accordingly at Four o'clock p.m. to a date to be fixed.