Hansard, 1974-03-19

The following Question stood on the Order Paper --

To ask the Minister for Finance what sort of joint training schemes were conducted through joint industrial training centres in 1973; what further activities are being planned; how responsibility for those schemes is distributed between the Government and the private sector; if there is any intention to modify the basis of co-operation; and in what ways his Ministry supports other forms of industrial training.

Mr Conceicao.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Question No. 1. The absence of the Minister for Finance being noted -

Mr Speaker, Sir, may we have it deferred to another day?

Mr Conceicao, I think it would be best for the Minister to give you a written reply.

That would prevent me from asking any supplementary questions, Sir,I would prefer it to be deferred.

So be it.

2.33 p.m. The following Bill stood on the Order Paper - 1. Minister for the Environment: Electrical Workers and Contractors Licensing Bill. In the absence of the Minister for the Environment, introduction of the Bill is deferred to the following day.

Order read for resumed consideration in Committee of Supply [2nd Allotted Day].

2.34 p.m. Head GA --

Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head GA be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead AA 1003*. (*The same amendment also stood in the name of Mr P. Govindaswamy.) Mr Speaker, Sir, the description of Singapore as a pragmatic society seems to be apt, judging from Singapore's hard-headed and no-nonsense approach to various activities, whether social, economic or political. Even in the matter of labour, the Singapore Government has never allowed itself to be discouraged from carrying out its conviction. The unpleasant and unpopular employment legislation of 1968 bears witness to the Government's determination and willingness to strive for what it considers to be objectively desirable for Singapore as a whole. In the Employment Act of 1968, however, provisions were made for the basic legal framework of a comprehensive Employment Exchange. Up to that time the Exchange, then known as the Labour Exchange, was operated by the Ministry of Labour as part of its ancillary services for clerks, labourers and shop assistants. With the passing of the Employment Act, it might have been thought then that a decisive advantage would be taken of the new Employment Exchange to regularise the situation affecting job seekers. To a certain extent the subsequent action of the Ministry of Labour in upgrading the Exchange by having it headed by officers of administrative grade rather than executive grade seemed to justify this hope. Almost six years later, the Employment Exchange which the Ministry prefers to call it the Employment Service seems to have been stunted since birth. True, the Employment Service can now boast of a handful of registrants averaging less than 1 per cent of the total, who are university or college graduates looking for administrative, managerial or executive openings. But the fact remains that no employer is under any obligation to inform the Service of any vacancy in his establishment or to recruit new employees through the Service. Employers in Singapore mostly recruit either directly or through employment agencies. Overshadowing all these agencies and the Employment Service itself is the machinery set up by MINDEF to place ex-national servicemen in civilian employment. Granted that the determination of MINDEF to look after the welfare of ex-national servicemen is commendable, but I think any emplacement of persons in suitable jobs should fall within the scope of the Employment Service. The very fact that MINDEF thought it necessary to duplicate the functions of the Employment Service gives rise to two inferences - either MINDEF is engaged in empire building or the Ministry of Labour is shirking its responsibility. If all employment opportunities are notified to and filled through the Employment Service, the first priority for ex-national servicemen can still be assured, just as MINDEF can arrange for housing priority for reservists in the National Service through the Housing and Development Board, without MINDEF having to set up its own housing scheme. Another pertinent point is that the present underdeveloped form of the Employment Service causes the Government to rule by guesswork in an important area of labour. We have comprehensive data on the total labour force, the distribution of such labour force by occupation, industry or sex and even the number of work permit holders. But we have no reliable statistics on the rate of turnover of workers in the whole of Singapore or in an industry or firm. Not too long ago conditions for the issue of work permits were tightened because of some employers' complaints of the high turnover of work permit holders. If we have authoritative and reliable statistics at hand, we can know whether the rate of turnover for work permit holders in a particular industry or establishment is matched by the rate of turnover for non-permit holders. If the rate of turnover is just as high for work permit holders as for Singapore citizens, then obviously something is wrong in that industry or establishment. The fact that workers are non-citizens does not mean that unscrupulous employers should be allowed to get away with the intolerable working conditions. To me, it is a matter of great regret that the Employment Service has not availed itself of the enlarged scope under Part XI of the Employment Act. The present Service is like putting together a jumbo bus body with the engine of a mini-bus and expecting the ill-assembled vehicle to function effectively.

Sir, since there is a great shortage of manpower both in the Government and the private sectors, it is time the Government relaxed the ruling governing the lower income group and allow them to work after office hours. This could be regulated by imposing conditions, such as controlling the number of extra hours they work, etc. After all, teachers are permitted to work up to six extra hours after their teaching hours, and yet the Government has not relaxed the ruling for the lower income group of Government servants. The cost of living being so high, a relaxation in this ruling will help them to reduce their sufferings; because there is evidence that many people are working on extra jobs as gardeners, cooks and drivers after their office hours and are not detected. I have to bring to the notice of the Minister the exploitation of both our citizens and non-citizens by many employers. There are many factories which employ workers who are below the minimum legal employable age. To make matters worse, many non-citizens are employed illegally at reduced pay and with no benefits whatever. Most of these misdeeds occur during night shift hours when our Labour Ministry sleeps. It is time surprise checks were made at night so as to minimise the exploitation by some employers. Sir, in the past there was a provision in the Employment Act enabling workers to be entitled for domicile leave after certain years of service. But this provision has been gradually withdrawn. This withdrawal has caused many daily-rated workers, who have served many years of dedicated service, to pack up. Their decision was made because many of them had to visit parents and relatives abroad every four or five years. But now with the imposed restrictions they have no other choice but to leave for good. Since Singapore is short of labour now and until such time as we have an optimum labour force, a relaxation of the law would help our labour market to a certain extent. Will the Minister consider the suggestion? Sir, last year it was announced that non-citizens wishing to marry Singapore citizens should get the prior approval of the Commissioner for Employment. What were the reasons behind this? Is it true that in every case the newly-married non-citizens will seek employment here? Can the Minister elaborate on the subject? One more item which I would like to ask is this: what precautionary steps has the Labour Ministry taken against the incidence of silicosis among the sand-blasting workers?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have two amendments* to raise on the Ministry of Labour. With your permission, Sir, may I speak on them now, so that I need not raise them at the proper time?

Yes.

Sir, in regard to inflation and rising cost of production which are threatening to jeopardise the competitiveness of our exports, may I suggest that, since one of the contributing factors of this high cost of production is the present shortage of labour, we reassess the basis upon which our Employment Act rests. Since this is a difficult year it may be desirable to adopt emergency measures to tide us over the present crisis. For example, overtime is now not compulsory, and to meet target dates if employers need the services of some employees for more than 48 hours per week, it is often difficult to ensure that overtime is performed because of the restriction imposed by the existing law. As a consequence, in order to meet the deadline some employers are carrying more staff than they need. This has two adverse effects. Firstly, it will aggravate the labour situation and, secondly, the cost of production will be pushed up, thus making our goods less competitive internationally. 2.45 p.m. Since Singapore has to export in order to survive, it may be worthwhile to consider exploring the need for compulsory overtime in certain essential areas. While this may help ease our labour shortage as well as reduce costs, this, of course, can only be considered after full and exhaustive discussions with the NTUC. I am sure that members of our trade unions, who have the interests of our young nation at heart and who fully appreciate the need for our * The amendments read as follows: (6) That the sum to be allocated for Head GA be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead HA 1111. (10) That the total sum to be allocated for Head GA in respect of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100. survival, may be prepared to accept certain restraints during this crucial year that lies ahead of us. Another issue which I would like to draw the attention of the Minister is the applications of permanent residents to marry Singapore citizens. I would like the Minister to investigate why it is necessary to take two months to process the applications. Once a person, who has been given permanent residence in Singapore, is prepared to renounce whatever citizenship he holds, he should be given permission without undue delay. Sir, I am not suggesting that this permission be granted indiscriminately, but a permanent resident who has stayed in Singapore for more than five years obviously has every intention to make Singapore his home. And if he has regular employment during the last five years, there should not be any undue delay in processing the application. Mr Speaker, Sir, in affairs of the heart, the Government should not take a hard line, otherwise the impression will be given that our Ministers do not know what falling in love means. All our Ministers are successfully married, and they should encourage permanent residents to marry and settle down instead of having permanent affairs with our Singaporeans.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government has all along stressed the point that we have reached a situation of full employment. In recent years, we even have to accept foreign labour into our labour force in order to keep up our production in the various trades and commercial lines. This is a fact. At the moment, many factories or organisations engaged in production find that they lack manpower. From my own observation, I notice that the Ministry of Labour is also trying its best to remedy this shortage of labour. However, I have discovered another fact, and that is there are still many unemployed people, who are mainly youngsters, roaming about the streets, doing nothing. By mentioning this, I do not mean to blame the Government for not having done anything to help them, or to provide them with any employment. My purpose is to find out why there are so many youths still unemployed when there are so many jobs available to them, and that they would rather roam the streets like loafers doing nothing, and complaining to everybody that they are unemployed. Some of them even seek help from Members of Parliament to get jobs for them. When I talk about this, I must avail myself of this opportunity to thank the senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour for having given a lot of help to MPs in this respect. He has been trying his best to get jobs for these job-seekers, but, however, they have not responded well to the job opportunities given by him. Here is a fact which is normal to state, and I believe the Minister will pay attention to it: because we do not have natural resources, therefore, our citizens should be our natural resources. If they are wasting away their time and eat away their assets, I feel that they are a loss to our country. In this respect, we should also encourage savings. We should understand that these youths have been softened by circumstances. They did not work hard in school, so they were dropped out, and they feel that they have no chance to be one-up on others and they fight shy of taking up jobs which they consider lower than what they should take on. On the one hand, they do not want to study all over again to educate themselves. On the other hand, they are not willing to take up jobs which they consider are not suitable, not matching their positions, or below their dignity to accept. Thus in the end they roam the streets. They do not believe in the philosophy that taking on any kind of job is honourable, provided one has asserted one's ability and is earning an honest living out of it. Perhaps this is the sort of philosophy of these people which should be understood first before tackling this problem. Sir, about delinquents or those who are about to become delinquents, the Government should try its best to take immediate measures to save them from becoming delinquents or from degrading themselves further. Otherwise it will lead to a situation which will be beyond remedy. I wonder whether the Ministry of Labour has any plans to help such people. In the past, I seldom heard from the Ministry of anything relating to delinquency. If the Minister had neglected this problem in the past, I would like to take this opportunity to remind him and to urge him to take immediate steps to solve this problem so that the hard-won assets and fruits that we have got through the hard work of our people will not be lost. In my view, to prevent these people from becoming soft, I feel that the Ministry of Labour should adopt harsher measures to get these people into our production lines. In this respect, I suggest that we incorporate this measure in the Employment Act so that every able-bodied person, particularly our youths, would have to take up some kind of job, otherwise they would be dealt with by the law. If we can do this, then we will be able to go one step forward towards the solution of employment problems and be closer to full employment. Then every citizen or youth will have a job and he will not have to waste his time.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the fundamental objective of the Ministry of Labour Employment Service is to facilitate employment process and improve the efficient utilisation of the labour force. It is open to every citizen. On the other hand, the Direction of Employment Department in the Ministry of Defence was set up with the specific task of helping national servicemen, who have completed their full-time national service liabilities, to look for civilian employment. For obvious military reasons, the Ministry of Defence would want to handle this job itself. However, in spite of the difference in objective, the procedures involved in implementing the objectives are somewhat similar. In this connection, there has been close working relations between the two bodies to ensure that no person or establishment is inconvenienced as a result of the setting up of these two bodies to look after employment matters. There is, therefore, no necessity to merge the two to establish a central agency for handling employment matters. The Member for Anson has raised the question of exploitation by employers of workers below the minimum legal employable age. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Ministry is quite aware that there are employers who engage workers below the minimum legal employable age without first obtaining clearance from the Ministry. Labour Officers from the Labour Inspectorate, on their routine or surprise checks on factories, are constantly on the lookout to ensure that no under-aged workers are employed without prior approval from the Ministry and, where permission has been granted, to see to it that the conditions imposed are adhered to. The conditions imposed include disallowing the young person to: (a) work on any service involving management of or attendance on machinery in motion; (b) work on any service involving management of or attendance on or proximity to live apparatus not properly insulated; (c) be employed as a workman during the night; (d) be employed as a workman on a rest day. 3.00 p.m. The Member for Anson may wish to know that last year, 19 employers were convicted for engaging 71 under-aged workers without applying for certificates of registration, and were fined a total sum of over $9,000. As for employment of non-citizens without work permits, I think the Member for Anson should be well aware that constant checks by Labour Officers are being carried out in factories and construction sites. The Ministry is fully aware that there are many industries operating on night shifts and that some employers are engaging non-citizens without work permits to man these shifts. The Member for Anson may be assured that the Ministry does conduct random spot checks at night not only to prevent illegal employment of non-citizens but also to ensure that working conditions are satisfactory during the night. Labour Officers are required to carry out night inspections by rotation. With the recent acquisition of a Ford transit van, the Ministry hopes to step up its night enforcement. For the information of the Member for Anson, an aggregate of 103 employers were prosecuted last year for engaging 229 non-citizens without work permits, and the total fine imposed amounted to about $46,000. The Labour Inspectorate is therefore not sleeping. The Member for Anson also raised the question as to why marriage of non-citizens should seek the approval of the Commissioner for Employment. Presently, a large majority of non-citizens, wishing to contract marriage with Singapore citizens, are work permit holders and are, therefore, already in employment when they apply for approval to contract marriage. It is presumed that most of them are likely to continue working after marriage in order to increase their family income so as to enjoy a higher standard of living. However, this is not of major consideration. The reasons for the need to seek prior approval of the Commissioner for Employment for marriage to be contracted between a citizen and a work permit holder are contained in a Government statement issued on the 25th June, 1973. I presume the Member for Anson has not read the Government's statement and, for his benefit and those like him, I would like to read extracts of the statement: `One significant facet of Singapore's economic growth has been the easy employment situation for young school leavers and others still in their teens. They come into contact with equally young workers on work permit in Singapore. It is natural for these young workers on work permits, having found their bearings, to make friends and mix freely in our society. After a time, many of them may want to marry, settle down and raise families in Singapore. This evolution can result in a healthy infusion of vigorous and hardworking types to Singapore's population, provided they have acquired work skills and are industrious and thrifty. These qualities are essential if these young people are to be integrated successfully into Singapore's society. However, it takes time for such attributes to be proven in regular and successful employment. Unless the work permit worker is adjusted to the different and faster pace of life in a highly disciplined and urbanised society, and to the ethos of small planned families, marriage between a work permit holder and a Singapore citizen can lead to difficulty for themselves and for Singapore. The Ministry of Labour has decided to discourage these young workers on work permits from contracting early marriages until they have shown that they are able to settle down successfully in Singapore and to support a small family. From 1st July, 1973, it will be necessary for a work permit holder to first obtain the approval of the Commissioner for Employment before contracting marriage with a Singapore citizen. A marriage between work permit holders where Singapore citizenship or permanent residence in Singapore is not acquired nor desired will not require prior approval. I hope the Member for Anson will appreciate now the reason why prior approval is necessary before a marriage is contracted between a work permit holder and a Singapore citizen or resident. The Member for Bras Basah mentioned about the delay in getting replies from the Commissioner for Employment in respect of applications for marriages. I hope the Member for Bras Basah will appreciate that because of the importance of personal interest attached to the applications, greater care has to be exercised in processing applications from work permit holders to contract marriage with either Singapore citizens or permanent residents. This is to ensure that there is no slip-up in approving non-deserving cases or rejection of truly deserving ones. Apart from this, processing of some applications may take a longer time than usual because the applicants themselves have not completed their forms correctly or had omitted certain significant particulars. It is because of this that the parties concerned will have to be interviewed to clarify the doubts as well as rectifying the errors where they occur. In certain cases, extra time is involved as investigations have to be carried out to verify documents submitted by applicants in support of their applications. I would like to assure the Member for Bras Basah that the Ministry realises the importance attached to the applications and that these will be processed as quickly as possible to avoid unnecessary delay and inconvenience to the applicants. If the Member could supply me with particulars of the cases where undue delay has been encountered, these would be looked into immediately. The Member for Bras Basah also raised the question whether it is desirable to introduce compulsory overtime to meet the labour shortage in order to reduce the cost of production. Hours of work of employees are regulated by law so that their health and welfare can be adequately safeguarded. The present limit on normal hours of work of eight hours a day or 44 hours a week is considered fair and reasonable. Under normal conditions an employee must be given the choice to accept or reject a request from the employer to work overtime. However, adequate safeguards are provided in the law to ensure that under exceptional circumstances, such as work to be performed by an employee in the essential services, or where urgent work is to be done to machinery or plant, or where interruption of work occurs for which it was impossible to foresee, employees must comply with the employer's request. Making over-time compulsory will not be in the interest of the employees. This is because in certain types of industry or operations prolonged hours of working would expose the workers to hazards which may be injurious to their health. Furthermore, it would be difficult to ensure that employers are justified in asking their employees to work over-time. The problem of labour shortage cannot be solved by forcing workers to work overtime at the whim and fancy of the employers, without due regard to the health and well-being of the workers. The maximum hours of work are specifically laid down in the Employment Act to protect the workers. All over the world the trend is towards a shorter working week. The introduction of a 44-hour working week in 1968 had already taken into account the need of industries as well as the health of the workers. Besides, the Employment Act also provides for a maximum over-time of 72 hours a month and, in exceptional circumstances, permission may be sought to exceed this limit. Instead of compulsion, employers should think of offering better incentives and working conditions to induce the workers to accept overtime work. However, far more important in a labour-tight economy is for the industry itself to be modernised so as to raise productivity by the use of more labour-saving devices and machinery and more efficient management techniques. The labour intensive low technology industries which have low value-added per worker should give serious consideration to switching over to more sophisticated industries employing higher technology which will give a higher GNP return per head. The present provisions in the law, whereby employees may be required to perform overtime under conditions which I have just listed, are considered adequate at the moment. 3.15 p.m.

Sir, the Minister said that the Labour Inspectors are not sleeping and that they are doing their duty. Can the Minister say whether bars and nightclubs are being checked to see whether there are non-citizens working in these establishments?

Sir, the Labour Inspectors do make checks at bars and restaurants at night.

Mr. Speaker, Sir, can the Minister say how many proprietors of bars have been prosecuted?

Sir, I am not able to provide the Member with the actual number of prosecutions. But if he would raise a Question at the next sitting of Parliament, I am quite prepared to supply him with the information.

Sir, I thank the Minister for inviting me to submit particulars of the applicant. I wrote a letter, on behalf of a constituent of mine, and sent it on 16th January, 1974, to the Commissioner for Employment, and to-date, after more than two months, I have still not got a reply nor an acknowledgement. I expect the Work Permit Office to have the courtesy of acknowledging my letter. An hon. Member: Very inefficient!

Mr Speaker, Sir, if the Member for Bras Basah will give me a little bit more detail such as the name of the applicant, I may be able to check it up for him. If, instead of waiting for two months from 16th January till today, he were to take the trouble to make a telephone call to my office I am sure he would get an answer within a day or two. For two months he has not bothered to take that trouble.

Sir, for obvious reasons I do not want to make a telephone call to the Commissioner. The reason why I am annoyed is that this letter was sent two months ago and, before sending it, this man might have already waited for three or four months. All in all, he may have been waiting for six months or a year, but nothing has happened. If the Minister wants me to give him the applicant's name, I have it here.

May I remind the Member for Bras Basah that about 10 more amendments have yet to be dealt with, and guillotine time is 5 o'clock.

In that case, Sir, I will submit the name to the Minister later on.

That is better.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I just make a brief point? Speaking of telephone calls, at the best of time it takes a long time to get through to any Government department.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, some factories have been found to have contravened the Labour regulations by employing non-citizens without work permits. Here I would like to ask the Minister to be fair to some factories. It does not always mean that these factories like to employ non-Citizens. It is just because they cannot find enough workers. In fact, in Jurong I have received a number of complaints from factory operators that their applications for work permits have not been approved. So to keep their production going they have to resort to the employment of non-citizens with work permits. I would like to urge the Minister to consider liberalising the granting of work permits, particularly after the Chinese New Year season. I understand that many foreign workers returned home for the Chinese New Year but have not come back to Singapore to continue with their employment. As a result, there has been an acute shortage of labour in the Jurong factories. Sir, the Member for Bras Basah has also raised the question of marriages. I understand that most of the applications have not been approved. But the rejection of the applications does not mean that the applicants do not get married because the force of love is greater than the approval of their marriages. They get married somehow, legally or otherwise. That will leave us with a great social problem, and a social problem of this nature is very serious because if we have too many illegal marriages, then it will be a very unhealthy development.

How can marriages be illegal, Sir?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I agree with the Member for Jurong that where two persons want to get married, nothing can prevent them from doing so. I am not stopping them. If they want to, they can go ahead. The only thing is that if they do, then they will have to suffer penalties in the form of a withdrawal of certain privileges to the citizens concerned. The House is well aware that the Government, in fact, has been quite liberal in granting work permits to non-citizens. This liberal policy will be continued as long as there is a shortage of labour in Singapore. The Member will be aware that the Government is shifting its emphasis in economic development from labour intensive to high technology and high skilled industries. In the light of this new strategy of industrial promotion, work permits will be issued more freely to skilled workers and those with suitable qualifications. Those who are unskilled and those who are applying for white-collar jobs will not be favourably considered for work permits unless they have special merit. As I have explained just now, it is best for the labour intensive low skilled industries to think seriously now, if they have not done so, to modernise themselves and to introduce as much labour-saving device as possible.

Sir, may I seek a point of clarification from the Minister for Labour? He has just mentioned that applications for work permits for white-collar jobs would not be given favourable consideration. Do I take it that he meant to include those holding blue Singapore identity cards as well?

No, Mr Speaker, Sir. Permanent residents holding Singapore blue identity cards will get work permits almost automatically. In fact, I have not come across cases where their applications have been rejected. When I mentioned that applications for white-collar jobs would not be favourably considered, I did not mean that we would exclude them completely. If the applicants possess good academic qualifications or some professional qualifications, the Ministry is quite prepared to grant work permits to them. In fact in recent months we have approved more work permits for white-collar jobs. But, as I said, they have to have something more than the others.

Mr Speaker, Sir, although I am not entirely happy with the explanation given by the Minister for Labour, I nevertheless beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head GA he reduced by $10 in respect of subhead AA 1105. There is no doubt that the Government's low cost housing programme has achieved impressive results since the Housing and Development Board was established in 1960. One of the most significant features of the housing policy of the Government has been the assistance to the lower income groups to have houses of their own by allowing them to utilise their credit in the Central Provident Fund to pay for the flat or to meet the down payment or part payment. This feature of our public housing in helping our citizens to own their own homes with CPF savings is unique, but there remains the middle and upper-middle groups of employees who are unable to own their own homes because of soaring land prices and building costs which are beyond their means and who are unfortunately not eligible for HDB fiats. Any housing development project to meet the needs of such people who individually may find their resources too meagre to build their own houses or flats at a reasonably economical cost must, therefore, be welcomed. These people are also contributing to the Central Provident Fund but, because of the fact that they are ineligible for HDB flats, they are unable to utilise their CPF savings to purchase their own homes. To help these people, it is imperative that a plan should be formulated to help them to own homes. The HDB's endeavours in the field of housing could be supplemented by endeavours by the labour movement itself to meet the needs of such people. The NTUC's proposal to embark on a housing project is, therefore, a timely one and deserves active encouragement by Government and support by other organisations both of the NTUC and the Government. I would strongly urge that CPF savings be made available to such people to purchase houses which are built through projects organised by the NTUC or other building societies or private companies which are approved by the HDB. To neglect these people would mean their exclusion from a social benefit which they have every right to enjoy as citizens. I would, therefore, call upon the Government to allow these people to utilise their CPF savings to purchase houses built by approved organisations including projects which will be embarked upon by the NTUC. 3.30 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am joining this debate to add emphasis to the need, I think, to assist this group of workers who are increasing in numbers, and some of them reside in my constituency. This group of workers, in my view, comprises professional and commercial workers who make an important contribution in the field of manpower to the country. Caught as they are in this difficulty, they will be that much less motivated and I think it is important, as suggested by Members across, that Government at this juncture should come in to assist this group of workers. If they receive assistance at this point of the phenomenal increase in the cost of living, they will at least get the chance to own a home even if they have to stretch themselves financially. Our wealth, I think, Sir, lies mainly in a motivated manpower, and it is in our interest to keep this group of workers motivated in order that they may continue to make a significant contribution to the country.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Members will recollect that at the Parliament sitting on 29th March, 1971, I had indicated that it was not intended to extend the Central Provident Fund approved housing scheme regulations to allow CPF members from the middle income group to purchase private houses built by housing societies. I also indicated that the policy might be reviewed in five years' time, depending on the housing position then and the HDB building capacity. In view of the present need to encourage domestic savings and marshal them for development purposes, the question of allowing middle income CPF members to utilise their CPF savings to purchase houses built by private developers, statutory boards and housing societies will only be reviewed in 1976. However, I am sure that Members will be glad to know that Government will be building, in the very near future, flats for this middle income group, i.e, the middle income wage earners who do not qualify under the present HDB housing scheme.

Sir, the proposals I made to the Minister of State would give him a stone to kill three birds, instead of two. (1) To make sure that the middle income group who purchase private houses will not be charged exorbitant interests. (2) To make sure that the middle income group will also be allowed to use their CPF contributions to purchase their own houses. (3) If any building society, not necessarily the NTUC or any private company, builds houses and is approved by HDB, we encourage genuine ownership. In other words, the housing developers will not speculate in their developing project.

Sir, first I am very encouraged by the expression of the Minister of State for Labour regarding this new housing scheme that the Government has in store for middle income wage earners. Yes, quite rightly so, but when will that be? Secondly, would ownership of these homes be governed by the same conditions as those recently circulated by the Ministry of Finance; where there is an insistence that whosoever moves into these flats will compulsorily stay on in Government service for the next 10 years?

Sir, in answer to the Member for Boon Teck, I would say that as long as the middle income wage earners use their own money, nobody will quarrel with them. But when they want to use their CPF money, then I am afraid they will have to follow rules and regulations as laid down by the CPF Board. As to when the Government will proceed, I am sure the Member for Kim Seng will realise that in planning to build houses a lot of time and effort is required. First, one has to search for suitable sites, and then to find the necessary funds to build the houses. To say what sort of conditions would govern the middle income wage earners who purchase these flats, I think it is too early to talk about rules and regulations. But if the Members have any suggestions to make, I am sure the relevant authorities will be glad to consider their points of view.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to point out to the Minister of State that the CPF savings are, in fact, the money of the CPF contributors themselves.

Sir, I think I should reply to the statement made by the Minister of State. I do not think it is too early for us to draw up rules and regulations. Usually rules and regulations are first drawn up before moving ahead with any project. Certainly the Ministry of Finance has never been too late to draw up rules and regulations. These have already been enforced. An hon. Member: They are bad rules!

Yes, they are bad rules. This is one of the reasons why there is a lack of demand for accommodations offered by the Ministry of Finance. It is not because the middle income group do not like to move into these fairly good flats, but simply because the imposition of a further 10 years' service does not make it an attractive proposition. If the Minister of State really wants me to help him draw up rules and regulations, then I, and I think not just I alone but all my colleagues here, would be more than willing to volunteer.

Sir, the Minister of State has not answered my question.

Sir, I thought the Member said something about paying exorbitant interest or something like that.

I ask the Minister of State whether it would be to the advantage of the CPF contributor to increase the CPF interest. In other words, he pays a reasonable rate of interest to the CPF. That is the first bird to be killed. Secondly, to make sure that every CPF contributor can make use of his CPF savings. Thirdly, assuming that all the building projects are approved by the HDB, we can check speculation in any housing development programme.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not think the purpose of CPF savings is just to purchase houses. The original intention is for the members to save for old age after retirement, and not really for purchasing houses. To meet the requirement of the lower income wage earners, the decision was made to allow them to make use of their credits in the Central Provident Fund to purchase Housing and Development Board flats only. But if the Member would like the facility to be stretched further, then the matter would have to be considered in greater detail. As for the Member for Kim Seng, I am not suggesting that it is too early to make rules and regulations. I am saying that if he has any particular view-points and if he would like to submit them to the Ministry of Finance - not to me as I have nothing to do with it - then they might be able to take into consideration the various points that he and other Members have to make.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to be more direct. If the NTUC Co-operative were to build houses meant for the middle income group, would Government liberalise the rules and regulations of the CPF, so that people in this income group may purchase the co-operative houses? The Minister of State supports co-operatives, does he not?

Sir, we do not know what the NTUC proposes to do, or what are its rules and regulations governing the houses that are to be built or purchased. So until such matters are in our hands, I do not think I can comment at this stage. I welcome the NTUC to make their application and submit all its rules and regulations regarding such a project, and I am sure we will give it very sympathetic consideration.

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

(In Mandarin): Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head GA be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead BA 1l09.* (* The same amendment also stood in the names of Messrs P. Govindaswamy, Hwang Soo Jin and Ivan Baptist.) Sir, I want to raise two questions. Firstly, industrial accidents, and secondly, the question of insufficient number of staff in the Factory Inspectorate. The question of industrial accidents has attracted our attention every year. The reason is that there are too many industrial accidents causing a tragic effect on the workers and their families. There are people who say that with great industrial development, it is inevitable that industrial accidents will occur. Although this may be so, we cannot say that because industrial accidents will happen, we should allow them to happen. On the contrary, we should try to find out how best we can prevent or reduce the number of industrial accidents. 3.45 p.m. I know that the Minister has often asked our workers to raise their productivity to help our industrial development. This is indeed the right thing to do. In order to achieve this, we have to provide a safer working environment to reduce the number of deaths due to industrial accidents. Last year alone 160 people died from industrial accidents. Although it shows a slight increase as compared with the figure for the year before, this number is still very high. Of this figure of 160, the construction industry accounts for the highest number, 60. Another industry accounts for 46; transport and related industries, 38; and other industries, 16. We can say that the number of people who died from industrial accidents is very high. The number of our factories has grown from year to year because of industrial development. So there is a great need to take positive action and all possible measures to reduce the number of such accidents. On the other hand, there are many cases of deaths in construction sites, including cases of people falling off from scaffoldings. I remember last year the Minister ordered a Commission of Inquiry into the cause of deaths at construction sites so that it could make recommendations on safety standards to be observed in construction sites, and ensure that all workers follow such measures. Why is it that we still have cases of industrial accidents? What is the reason for the continuation of this state of affairs? I would urge the Minister to take early action to find out the real cause of these accidents. Secondly, I would like to refer to the number of staff in the Factory Inspectorate. We have raised this question many times in this House and the Minister himself has agreed that there is an insufficient number of people in this section. The main reason, according to him, is that the Ministry of Finance has not approved additional provisions for the Factory Inspectorate, and therefore they could not increase the number of Factory Inspectors. If that is so, I would like to sympathise with the Minister for Labour. Although he is a man full of sympathy, we cannot expect him to pay out of his own pocket for the additional staff required in the Factory Inspectorate. I think the responsibility lies with the Ministry of Finance. I notice that the Minister for Finance is not here. I would like to urge the Minister for Finance to consider increasing the provision for the Factory Inspectorate immediately. At the moment, the provision is only $365,000, which is an increase of $73,000. This is not a very big sum. But we can prevent more than a hundred people from dying and the consequent tragic effects on their families.

Sir, on many occasions the question of the Factory Inspectorate has been raised, but no satisfactory reply has ever been received. Is it possible for the Minister to look into the matter and give us a definite reply as to the number of inspectors employed, and the type of work they have been doing to uplift the morale of workers and ensure better safety precautions? As late as a year ago, there have been a spate of factory accidents. Sir, I have received complaints that some of the inspectors are biased in their duties. They only check certain factories and find fault with them, whereas numerous other factories committing similar offences were being overlooked. And when the victim draws the attention of the inspector, they get rude remarks that it is not his business. I wonder whether there is any discrimination shown by the factory inspectors.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in the area of industrial safety, it is generally agreed that prevention is better than cure. When an accident occurs, there will, in fact, be no cure. The very mere fact that monetary compensation is awarded for death or injury offers no consolation~ to those who have suffered. In looking at the Labour Ministry's Estimates, one gets the impression that greater emphasis is placed on compensation rather than prevention. I say this because I notice that whilst it is proposed to increase the staff of the Workmen's Compensation Department from the existing strength of 16 to 22, i.e, a very substantial increase of 6 or some 37 per cent, the proposed increase for the Factory Inspectorate is only from 50 to 55, representing an increase of 5, or only 10 per cent. Sir, during past years much tougher rules and regulations had been introduced with a view to reducing the high rate of accidents. But I am sorry to say that, as two hon. Members have also just mentioned, the enforcement seems to be quite inadequate. I am just wondering what the Ministry is proposing to do here. Sir, the Finance Minister in his Budget Statement to the House has called for the cutting down of wastage. Of all forms of wastage, the loss of manpower - human resource - through accidents is one area that we can ill-afford to allow it to continue. I would urge the Minister to give serious consideration to substantially increase the number of staff for the Factory Inspectorate so as to ensure that the relevant laws are adequately enforced.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to refer to Part VII, section 62, of the Factories Act. This part deals with Health, Safety and Welfare (Special Provisions and Regulations). Section 62 empowers the Minister to make regulations for the medical supervision and medical examination of workers employed in factories where cases of illness have occurred or risk of injury to health of the workers employed are present. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would be most grateful if I could be informed whether this section has been utilised by the Minister, as very clearly it should have been, due to the increasing consultations and investigations made by the Industrial Health Unit regarding problems related to chemical hazards and dust. In addition, Mr Speaker, Sir, I am sure that the silica dust hazard faced by sand-blasters and other workers in the vicinity during sand-blasting necessitates regulations for medical supervision and examination of these workers. In rapidly industrialising Singapore, most certainly many health hazards are faced by workers. Two of these, occupational dermatitis and noise-induced deafness, are gaining prominence in industry, although figures are not easily available due to the lack of investigations on them. To ensure that workers are safely guarded against these hazards. Sir, they will have to be incorporated in the Sixth Schedule (section 60) to the Factories Act, as notifiable industrial diseases. In this way, it would be possible for the Government to take the necessary precautions to ensure that workers are safeguarded and for employers to be aware of their responsibility to minimise the occurrence of such diseases.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I share the same concern expressed by the Member for Sembawang that despite the Government's extensive efforts, industrial accidents, particularly in the building and construction sector, are still increasing. However, I would like to stress that there was only a marginal increase of 0.6 per cent, from 2,892 accidents in 1972 to 2,910 in 1973. My Ministry is paying close attention to the building and construction sector where the number of accidents has increased from 463 in 1972 to 487 in 1973. In this connection, the Government has accepted the recommendations of the ad hoc Committee on Wood Scaffoldings, and contractors have been required to comply accordingly. Hon. Members will recall that I have on many occasions stressed the importance of inculcating in our workers and employers alike the need to observe safety rules and regulations. This is still very valid today. Although sound construction of scaffoldings is essential in preventing accidents, it is more important that employees working on these scaffoldings take a keen interest in their own safety by double-checking the safety aspects of the scaffoldings and by using the necessary safety equipment, such as safety belts and life-lines provided for them. With a view to educating workers and employers, certain measures are being taken by the Ministry. A Committee on Safety and Health at Construction Work-sites was set up some time last year to advise on ways and means of curbing the increasing number of accidents. The Committee comprises representatives from contractors, associations, professional bodies, statutory boards and the Ministry of Labour. The Committee has worked out a code of practice on safety and health at construction worksites, and this code will be observed by all building contractors. The various professional bodies represented on this Committee will be signing an undertaking on the 26th of this month to observe these regulations. 4.00 p.m. At the same time, there is a "Dos and Don'ts" booklet in pictorial form, and we are going to distribute this shortly. Members will find that it is very attractive. It will be particularly helpful to the workers because it will be put into their hands. Members can see from the colour drawings in the booklet the various aspects of danger in construction sites. We are also organising a "Safety and Health" campaign for construction workers. The opening ceremony will be on the 27th of this month at the construction site next to the Ministry of Labour's office at Havelock Road, that is, at the Lower Courts complex. The principal attraction of this campaign is a mobile exhibition, which will be displayed at 26 selected work sites throughout the Island to arouse the safety consciousness of all persons concerned with the building and construction industry. Members whose constituencies are chosen for the exhibition will be invited together with the community leaders in the constituencies. Thirdly, we have brought out a new publication entitled "The New Worker" with emphasis on educating the workers and employers on the preventive rather than the curative aspects of industrial accidents. The publication is in English and Chinese. This is the third copy. The first copy was published in August/September last year. It is a bi-monthly publication. Members are welcome to a copy of this publication if they do not already have one. Further, a `Guide to Safety, Health and Welfare in Factories' will be issued in about two months' time. We have also an industrial and health safety expert from the UNDP ILO. He has been with us for over a year now. He advises on all aspects of industrial health and safety and is personally conducting training courses for Factory Inspectors as well as safety officers from the construction industry. The response to the first course for the safety officers from the construction industry was very encouraging. Twenty-six of them completed the course. It is clear, therefore, that my Ministry does not let up in its efforts to reduce the incidence of industrial accidents in the country. We will continue to deal severely with those selfish employers and workers who have no regard for the safety and well-being of others. As to the staffing position of the Factory Inspectorate, I would like to thank the Member for Sembawang for his support. As Members can see, we are very conscious of the need to recruit more personnel to cope with the extremely diversified, complex and arduous tasks facing the Factory Inspectorate and the Industrial Health Unit of the Ministry. A total of 25 professional and field posts were requested for, of which only three posts were approved. On further appeal, the Ministry of Finance agreed to add an additional post of staff nurse to be created by Establishment Warrant in the next financial year. The Member for Anson also raised the question of staffing. We have 47 Factory Inspectors gazetted under the Factories Act. These Factory Inspectors enforce the Factories Act, make periodic visits to factories to advise both the management and the workers on the safe and proper procedure to handle mechanical equipment as well as pointing out unsafe acts and unsafe conditions of the work. They also advise workers and employers on matters relating to industrial health and hygiene. In addition, the Factory Inspectors also ensure that all lifting equipment and pressure vessels are tested to the requisite standard. It is, therefore, clear that the duties of the Factory Inspectors are primarily aimed at ensuring a safe and healthy working environment in the interests of the workers. Recalcitrant employers and selfish workers who have no regard for the safety of their colleagues have been prosecuted and fined in the law court. Besides enforcement, the Factory Inspectors also engage in promotional and educational activities, for instance, contributing to the Ministry's publication, "The New Worker" or compiling the booklet, "Dos and Don'ts" for workers in the building and construction industry, and organising safety campaigns. As regards the complaint that the Factory Inspectors are biased and rude, I wish to stress that the task facing them is, to say the least, onerous and unenviable. They are certainly not popular with all the factory occupiers because in order to carry out their duties efficiently and conscientiously they have to impose legal obligations on the factory occupiers. These legal obligations can be very costly in terms of time and money to the factory occupiers. Under the circumstances, it is understandable that complaints have been made against the Factory Inspectors. My Ministry is aware of this problem, and field officers are constantly reminded that they should be polite, courteous and exercise impartiality in the enforcement of factory laws. However, if the Member for Anson has any specific complaints against any particular officer, appropriate action will be taken against the officer if the complaints are substantiated. I could not agree more with the Member for Jalan Kayu that prevention is better than cure. The last increase in the staff of the Workmen's Compensation Section - at least he seems to imply - indicates a corresponding increase in industrial accidents. Although, as I have said earlier, there was a marginal increase of 0.6 per cent in the number of industrial accidents, the Member's inference is not correct, as the increase in staff was to effect a smoother function of the Workmen's Compensation Section which was then very much understaffed. As a result of the increase in staff, the time taken to settle workmen's compensation claims has been considerably reduced. Moreover, not all accidents resulting in workmen's compensation can be classified as accidents under the Factories Act. Workmen's compensation is payable whenever a workman suffers an injury or death by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. It does not matter whether or not he is working in an establishment which comes under the definition of "factory" in the Factories Act. I would like to draw his attention to the fact that the Factory Inspectorate made a total of 9,995 inspections last year. As a result of these inspections, 1,689 items of non-compliance of the provisions of the Factories Act were spotted and referred to the occupiers of factories for compliance. 128 occupiers and nine employees who, despite advice and warnings from the Ministry, continued to flout the safety laws were successfully prosecuted in the law courts. They were fined a total of $84,990. I can see that there is still room for improvement in the field of enforcement. The Factory Inspectorate and the Industrial Health Unit of the Ministry, with additional posts approved for the next financial year, would definitely make every effort in this direction. However, I wish to state that strict enforcement of the safety laws is not the be-all and end-all of accident prevention. In recognition of this fact, my Ministry has in the last two years channelled considerable time and energy to promotional and educational activities in accident prevention. The Member for Potong Pasir mentioned about section 62, (Part VII) of the Factories Act. It is true that this particular section has not yet been invoked. But I can assure him that it will be invoked soon. We intend to introduce the Factories (Abrasive Blasting) Regulations in due course under this section to control sand-blasting operations in view of the high risk to workers contracting silicosis.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe the second part of my question has not been answered by the Minister of State, i.e, the inclusion of industrial dermatitis and noise-induced deafness as part of the Sixth Schedule (section 60).

Sir, I am sure we will look into that too.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the point raised by the Member for Jalan Kayu has not been adequately answered. I believe what he wanted to know is why has there not been a corresponding increase in staff, percentage-wise at least, in the Factory Inspectorate as compared to the increase in the staff dealing with workmen's compensation. However, in his earlier reply to the Member for Sembawang he has indicated that the reason for this was that the Ministry of Finance had rejected the request of the Labour Ministry for an adequate increase of staff in the Factory Inspectorate. My question is: in view of the concern which Members have shown over the persistently high accident rate in industry, will the Ministry of Labour make another attempt at it, this time expressing the concern and sentiments of Parliament? And we hope that the Ministry of Labour would have greater success in persuading the Ministry of Finance to grant the additional staff.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am just wondering whether the Ministry of Labour has any intention to institutionalise the Safety Committee, which has been set up within the Ministry, and turn it into a national body for accident prevention. All interested parties could be invited to participate in it. I think in other countries they do have such a body to look into all aspects of industrial safety.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am sure we would also consider the point raised by the Member for Jalan Kayu. As to the Member for Moulmein, I would like to thank him and the other Members for their support. He is quite right that I had indicated earlier on that we had asked for 25 professional and field posts but unfortunately we were not able to get all of them. As for the increase in staff for the Workmen's Compensation Section, I have already said that this Section has been very much understaffed for several years and there was a tremendous number of backlog of cases not settled. So it was imperative that we have more bodies to clear up all the claims. It is true that it is better to prevent accidents from happening rather than to pay out compensations later. But once accidents occur, we would like to see the victims' families get compensation as quickly as possible. 4.15 p.m.

Sir, the Minister intimated just now that there is an increase in staff in the Industrial Health Unit. According to the FY 74 Estimates, it is still maintained at 28, as it was last year.

Sir, what I said about the IHU was an additional post of Staff Nurse. That is all.

Sir, it is sad to hear, year after year, everyone speaking about the shortage of personnel in the Factory Inspectorate, and again this year. The Ministry has got one additional post of Factory Inspector for this year. The important thing is not just the addition of one post but the number of Factory Inspectors that remain with the Ministry of Labour. That is the point, Sir. I had an occasion to interview safety officers for a statutory board which is required to employ safety officers as a result of legislation which requires safety officers to be employed among its employees. There were no less than three Inspectors from the Ministry of Labour who applied for this job, and all of them had been in the Ministry for just one year, with practically no experience in the job that they were expected to do. The problem therefore is not just the number of Factory Inspectors in the Ministry. What I want to know is the sort of training that they undergo, and how equipped they are to perform their duties as expected of them. I would be satisfied even with the present number of Inspectors only if they could remain in the Labour Ministry consistently and if they are sufficiently capable of performing their duties.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I fully agree that we should keep the Factory Inspectors in their jobs and increase their efficiency. At the moment, we have something worked out for them, i.e, the day-release for training at the Polytechnic and even in the University of Singapore for technical officers and technicians of the Inspectorate. I hope that with the extra training open to them they would be more contented with their jobs and stay with us. We all realise that there is a demand for certain categories of workers, and I think we cannot rule out the fact that everyone would want to try and get a better post at any time.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, although the question of industrial accidents is causing concern to all of us, however, what we are glad to hear is that the Ministry is taking steps and measures to deal with it. I hope that next year when we debate the Budget, we will not be raising the same question again. I can only hope that in regard to preventive measures against industrial accidents attention is being paid to the co-operation of all parties concerned, namely, the Government, the employers and the employees, in order to achieve better effect. We all realise that at a time when we are short of manpower, the safety of our workers is particularly important and necessary at this juncture because they provide the necessary manpower `for our production lines. I hope that the Ministry of Labour could take immediate and effective measures to promote industrial safety for the benefit of the workers. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head GA be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead DA 1111. A phenomenon that faces the trade union world today is the rapid change that is taking place, and will continue to increasingly take place in the years to come, in the age composition of our labour force. In the light of the changed composition of the labour force, the provisions of section 29 (1) of the Trade Unions Act has become anachronistic. Section 29 (1) stipulates that a person under the age of 21, but above the age of 18, may be a member of a registered trade union. This implies that a person under the age of 18 cannot be a member of a trade union. It would, therefore, be necessary to amend the law to allow membership of a trade union to a person who is below 18. We are now facing a situation in which the vast majority of employees in many establishments are below the age of 21. To meet the changed circumstances, an amendment to section 29 (1) of the Trade Unions Act is an absolute necessity. It would be pertinent to point out that such an amendment would not be inconsistent with other legislation. For instance, in the Employment Act, a person who has completed the age of 16 is not deemed to be, by definition, a young person and who, therefore, may be employed without any restrictions whatsoever in any commercial or industrial undertaking. There seems to be no reason, therefore, to restrict union membership to only those who have attained the age of 18, for if a person under 18 can be employed, then by the same token he can also be allowed to join a trade union. The next and more important point, Sir, is that section 29 (1) of the Trade Unions Act does not allow any person under the age of 21 to hold office in a trade union. Though these young persons may join trade unions, we are very often confronted with the difficulty of forming branch committees because, invariably, in many cases elections to the branch committees will, unavoidably, have to be from amongst the rank-and-file membership who are under 21. If it is not possible to form branch committees in such circumstances, trade union organisation in accordance with the rules of the trade union is inhibited and makes union membership a mockery for on the one hand these persons may become members, but on the other they cannot form themselves into branch committees. This is an untenable situation. In the circumstances, I ask that urgent consideration be given to lower the age for holding office in trade unions to 18 as against 21 now. It would also be pertinent to point out that for workmen's compensation purposes a person who is 18 years of age and above is entitled to the same quantum of compensation as any other adult. The unmistakable inference from this is that for the purposes of workmen's compensation a person above the age of 18 is deemed to have attained the age of majority. It would not also be out of place to mention that in the Factories Act, on the strength of section 62 (c), the fact that the Minister may make regulations for medical supervision for persons below the age of 18 employed in work, which may cause risk or injury to their health, indicates that those who are 18 years of age and above are for the purposes of the Act, considered to have attained the age of majority. All in all, there seems to be no valid reason for having a separate set of principles for admissibility to membership of and to hold office in trade unions. In the circumstances, there are strong and valid reasons to urgently review the position and make the necessary amendments to section 29 (1) of the Trade Unions Act and to reduce the age limit for union membership to 16 as against .18 now and for holding office in trade unions to 18 as against 21 now. Another area which deserves urgent consideration is the development of a policy towards those who benefit from the organised labours of others. I refer to non-unionised employees in establishments which are unionised and represented by trade unions. These non-unionised employees in unionised companies enjoy the same terms and conditions of employment which are obtained by trade unions through collective bargaining with the employers. Indeed, in the collective bargaining process itself, the facilities offered by the NTUC Research Unit are extensively utilised by the workers and their unions whose sweat and toil result in better terms and conditions for workers, but non-unionised employees who enjoy these benefits make no direct contributions. They are the parasites of the right zone. These are people who live in a social vacuum believing that they can survive by living on the efforts of others. They believe that society exists for them. Indeed, to them all State agencies, social organisations and trade unions have only a one-way responsibility. They believe that they have no reciprocal obligations or responsibilities to any social organisations. They are the silent and inactive beneficiaries who are parasitically dependent on the labours of organised labour who contribute consciously and tangibly to general welfare and progress. This is basically unfair and unjust and must be remedied if social justice is to be achieved in an equitable manner. Though a closed-shop policy by trade unions can be advocated to remedy this unsatisfactory state of affairs, such a policy would violate the principles of free and voluntary association of workers in trade unions and, therefore, such a step is not socially desirable. 4.30 p.m. But I suggest that there is nothing undesirable or unethical to make it obligatory for all non-unionised employees in unionised establishments to contribute an equivalent of union subscription and levies to a special Workers Development and Welfare Fund which can be jointly administered by the NTUC and the Ministry of Labour. This fund would not be used for the operating expenses of trade unions or the NTUC but would be utilised wholly to provide a variety of welfare, recreational and educational facilities for our working population as a whole. Indeed, there is an obligation for non-unionised workers to accept a certain measure of responsibility to their fellow workers as a condition for the enjoyment of benefits secured for them by the efforts of organised workers. We cannot afford to continue to carry them as passengers dependent on organised labour. The time has come for serious consideration to be given to this matter, and I would commend that the creation of a special Workers Development and Welfare Fund be given active consideration by the Ministry of Labour and make it obligatory for non-unionised workers in unionised companies to contribute to this Fund.

Mr Speaker, Sir, trade unions are important social institutions and trade union officers have a vital role to play in the development of a healthy trade union movement and the economic development of the country. To discharge their duties as responsible trade union officers, they must have qualities of leadership so as to be able to lead and command the respect of their rank and file. Since they are entrusted with the responsibilities of managing the affairs of their unions and have to negotiate with employers on behalf of their members, they should possess keenness of mind and maturity of outlook. This can only come about with age and with a sufficient period of working experience. It is therefore not proposed to reduce, as a general rule, the minimum age at which trade union members can become officers of trade unions, i.e, from 21 years to 18 years. However, the Ministry is aware that there are instances where there is a high concentration of young workers in certain establishments, such as the garment and electronic industries. If the present law is rigidly adhered to, the union may not be able to find sufficient eligible members to stand for election as office-bearers. In these specific instances, there would appear to be a case for the Ministry to consider granting exemption to those between the ages of 18 and 21 years to enable them to hold office. However, the proposal has other important implications which require further study before a decision can be made. Sir, there is no compelling reason for lowering the minimum age from 18 to 16 years for a person to be eligible for union membership. To begin with, the average age for our youths, especially our young men, to enter the labour force has risen. According to the 1970 Population Census a total of 86,441 persons in the age group 15-19 were working. This represents only about 7 per cent of the total work force. This is because of expansion of our education system, which now provides more opportunities for our youths to pursue secondary and post-secondary education. Consequently, should the new entrant to the labour force be under 18 years of age, it will not be long before he reaches that age. Moreover, young workers are more easily misled by self-seeking and slogan-shouting leaders into supporting undesirable or irrelevant issues which are not in their interests nor in the nation's interests. They are also more susceptible to manipulations by irresponsible trade unions, which will undoubtedly use them to consolidate their base. For these reasons, the existing minimum age of 18 years is considered adequate for the moment. Sir, I can understand the sentiments of trade union leaders against the nonunionised employees of an establishment who pay no union dues but nonetheless enjoy the benefits of trade unionism.

They are social parasites.

Yes. However, my Ministry is not yet convinced that the best way to deal with the problem of "free-riders" or "social parasites", as the Member called them, is to force them to contribute financially to a development and welfare fund, as it would have the effect of forcing non-unionised employees to become union members as they will then have to pay an amount equivalent to trade union subscription and other levies. However, much as we value the positive contribution of responsible democratic trade unionism, in our free society an individual should be able to seek and accept employment with any employer without having to pay tribute to a third party. If non-unionised workers are forced to pay the equivalent of union dues to a development and welfare fund, in effect they are forced to pay for the right to work, a right which they should freely enjoy as citizens. However much we may deplore the actions of "free-riders" who only want the benefits of trade unionism but without paying for them, we should not throw out fundamental rights in any solution to the problem. A more positive solution would be for trade unions to pursue even more vigorously their campaign to increase union membership. If a man can be voluntarily persuaded to become a union member and pay his union dues, he is far more of an asset to the union than an unwilling person who is forced to pay the equivalent of union dues. In recent years, there has been a marked increase in the number of unionised members in the Republic; their number rising from 112,500 in January 1971 to 191,500 in December 1973. With the dynamic growth of co-operatives and other services provided by the NTUC for its members, undoubtedly more workers will find it beneficial to join NTUC unions. That, Mr Speaker, is a better way to solve the problem of the "free-riders" or "social parasites" as the Member called them.

Sir, since the Minister has said that the percentage of workers below the age of 18 years is very small, will he consider a temporary exemption for those companies which have a very big percentage, maybe 20-25 per cent, of workers aged 16-18? And when the minimum working age is increased to 18 years, he may then withdraw this exemption. Will the Minister also consider this fact: that in a unionised establishment the nonunionised workers are getting more than the unionised workers? Assuming a $300 take-home pay, the union member will have to pay $4 union subscription; in other words, minus $4. The unionised worker, therefore, in effect gets less than the employee who is not unionised.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as I have explained just now, at this moment I am not prepared to consider lowering the age of union membership to those who are below 18 years. However, I am prepared to consider granting exemption for those who are above 18 years to hold office in trade unions. I am not quite convinced that the non-unionised workers in a unionised establishment are better off than the unionised members at this time, because with the coming of the National Wages Council, whatever advantages the non-unionised workers have been enjoying in the past will no longer be able to continue any more. In fact, as time goes on, I think the non-unionised employees will find that it will be to their advantage to join the unions.

Point of clarification, Mr Speaker, Sir. The Labour movement in Singapore is vigorously trying to increase its membership. I think we are not doing that badly. In Japan the total percentage of unionised workers is only 34 per cent, as reported in the Japan Labour Movement in 1973. In Canada it is 26 per cent. In West Germany it is 35 per cent. Even in the United States, which is supposed to have the most advanced and powerful labour movement, it is only 25 per cent. In Singapore I would say that it is more than 33 per cent. I think the union has done its part. What I am pointing out, Mr Speaker, Sir, is that non-unionised workers in a unionised establishment purely have the advantage, and this is not fair to the unionised workers.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not think one can right an unfair and unjust act, as the Member for Boon Teck has put it, by another unfair and unjust act. But, as I have pointed out just now, the increase in trade union membership, especially in the last one year or so, has been tremendous. 4.45 p.m. I would say the NTUC has succeeded in a large measure in persuading workers to join their union. In fact, I have been looking at some of the figures of certain unions affiliated to the NTUC, and I have noticed that the percentage of union membership in certain establishments has gone up from about 30-40 per cent in 1971 to 80-90 per cent today. So I think the unions are not doing badly and, given a little bit more time, they would be able to achieve, if not 100 per cent, at least 90 per cent membership. I think that should be a figure that one can hope for.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in the light of the favourable reply to the first part of my question, that is, our union members below the age of 21 can get exemption to be union leaders, I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The following amendment stood in the name of Mr P. Govindaswamy: (5) That the sum to be allocated for Head GA be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead EA 1201.

Mr P. Govindaswamy, amendment (5).

I am not moving, Sir.

In that case, 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 now and shall take the Chair again at 5.15 p.m. Sitting accordingly suspended at 4.47 p.m. until 5.15 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.15 p.m.

Debate in Committee of Supply resumed.

Head GA (cont.) --

Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head GA be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead HA 1111.* (* The same amendment also stood in the names of Messrs Ho See Beng, Hwang Soo Jin and Ho Kah Leong.) Sir, I wish to question the basis upon which work permits are issued to non-citizens. There seems to be a lot of discrimination shown to persons and no reason is given by the officials at the Work Permits Office for rejecting an application. I will quote an example. Two persons of the same age, and coming from the same town, applied for the same type of job. One application was approved while the other was rejected. No reason was given. The present labour shortage is so acute that some employers are prepared to take risks by employing non-citizens without work permits, although their applications have been rejected. Would it not be better for the country to grant more work permits, so that the CPF contributions they make and the taxes they pay would be an indirect earning for us. It is also better to state the reason for the rejection of work permits to relieve heartaches. No doubt, skilled persons should be issued with work permits. But servants are rare nowadays. So a relaxation in this respect would help in the employment of valuable citizens, who have to give up jobs to look after their children at home. It is a gross waste when teachers and lawyers have to resign in order to look after their children at home. Their useful services will be available only if they can get servants to look after their children. Sir, to quote another case, sometime ago a personnel officer of a large factory in Jurong went to the Labour Exchange outside Singapore to recruit 100 male workers to work in Jurong. He hired 100 workers. The youngest was an 18-year old lad, the oldest a 34-year old man, married with a 3-year old child. Each was required to work on weekly rotating shifts. The pay was $4.40 a day for the first and second shifts and $5.20 for the night shift. They were housed in a 12-storey block of 3-room flats. Ten persons were allocated to a flat; four beds in each bedroom and two in the living room, for which each person paid $8 rent a month. Since they are not Singapore citizens, the company applied for work permits for them to work in Singapore. The company did this. Two months later the company received a letter from the Work Permits Office stating that its application for work permits for 79 employees, which included the lad, had been approved and that the application for work permits for the balance of 21 employees was still being considered. Another three months later the company was informed by the Work Permits Office that the application for work permits for the 21 which included the 34-year old married person with a child, was rejected. No reason was given. They were shocked when they were told that the company could no longer employ them. They were given a week to move out of the company's quarters. Mr Speaker, Sir, there are cases in the electronic component factories where there is a grave shortage of daily-rated workers. As a result, non-citizens were recruited off-and-on. However, many of the employees had applied for work permits on behalf of their non-citizen workers and found that some of the applications were rejected without reason being given. So much so, I understand, that some of these factories are employing non-citizens without work permits. Sir, I do not see why all these applications for work permits are being rejected. After all, there is a shortage of labour in these factories. Furthermore, illegal workers in these factories will mean the employers are not contributing any CPF for them. Further, may I also ask why our own Singapore citizens shy away from certain types of work? Can these types of jobs be given to non-citizens by issuing them with work permits? Sometime ago, I came across our citizens receiving welfare aid and not preferring to do certain types of jobs offered to them. It is time that we be strict with such people living at the taxpayers' expense. Unless they are sick, or physically or mentally retarded or aged, I see no reason why the able-bodied cannot work and get out of the habit of living at public expense. Surely at this time, people have no excuse to lay idle and live at the taxpayers' expense.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore is one of the members of ASEAN. Nevertheless, the Labour Ministry's Work Permits Office has practised two standards in regard to the issue of work permits. For instance, a worker coming from Penang, which is about 500 miles away from Singapore, can be issued with a work permit, whilst another person coming from, say, the Rhio Islands in Indonesia, the distance is about two hours' boat ride, cannot be issued with a work permit. They can only be allowed to work on an employment pass. I just want to know the reasons for this double standard.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I note that it is proposed to increase the total strength of staff in the Work Permits Office from 23 to 37. This increase of 14 is quite large. Does this imply that there will be a change in policy regarding the issue of work permits, and that more permits will be issued? Sir, while on the subject of work permits, I would also like to take up a point previously brought up by the Member for Toa Payoh, concerning blue identity card holders. Hitherto, this category of persons who are permanent residents of Singapore, are, in the same way as foreigners, required to apply for permits. Of the large number of blue identity card holders, I am convinced that many of them were born and bred here but, because of insufficient documentary proof, they were unable to obtain citizenship. This is particularly the case with those born during the war years. These people have no family roots elsewhere. Their only roots are here in Singapore. Many of them are married to Singapore citizens and have children who are also citizens. I feel that special consideration should be given to these people. They should be allowed to work freely without requiring them to apply for work permits. By doing so, we will give them a sense of security and assist them to make a better contribution to the country. Sir, there are no more frustrating people than those who feel that they belong to nowhere and are not even allowed the freedom to make their contribution.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the various points raised by the Member for Anson. On the one hand, while there is an acute shortage of workers in our factories, on the other hand, work permits are not easily obtained, so that employers have to employ workers without work permits. And if the Ministry of Labour finds this out, the factories concerned will be fined. I would like to ask the Minister for Labour whether this is the way to increase the national revenue. Another question I would like to direct to the Minister for Labour is this: just now, he said that only those who are skilled will be issued with work permits. However, there are many places, such as barber shops, bakeries, coffee-shops, which have to employ workers. I do not know whether or not they are categorised as skilled workers, but will the Minister issue them with work permits?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have explained earlier that because of the present shift in our economic strategy, from one of promoting labour intensive low technology industries to less labour intensive and higher skilled industries, we will have to be more selective in our intake of foreign labour. Work permits, as 1 have said just now, will continue to be issued liberally to those applicants who possess the skills which Singapore needs, or who can be easily trained to acquire these skills. On the other hand, unskilled applicants and those applying for white-collar jobs will not be favourably considered for work permits unless they have special merits. These unskilled workers include shop assistants, coffee-shop assistants, and so forth, as mentioned by the Member for Jurong. The over-riding basis upon which work permits are considered is the skill and the qualification of the non-citizen worker. There is no discrimination since our policy is based primarily on economic consideration. Certain instances were quoted by the Member for Anson. I am afraid I am not able to give him an informative reply unless he supplies me with the particulars of those cases. I do not think that Budget time is the time for a Member to raise specific cases concerning either his own constituent or his friend. If he wants a reply, he should raise a Question. Sir, the Member for Anson has also stated that with a relaxation of work permit policy, Singapore could gain from CPF contributions and taxes -I presume income taxes - derived from non-citizen workers. I wish to point out that this, in fact, would not necessarily be the case as the majority of unskilled non-citizen workers if allowed to work in Singapore, will be earning salaries of less than $200 a month, in which case income tax would not be payable by them. Similarly, CPF contributions need only be paid by the employer which goes direct into the credit of the non-citizen worker. 5.30 p.m. Government is also aware that some professionally qualified women have been unable to take up gainful employment or have to give up jobs because of the difficulties in obtaining domestic servants. The Ministry had, in fact, been quite liberal in the issue of work permits to domestic servants. In 1971 there were 2,623 non-citizens on work permits working as domestic servants in the Republic. The number increased to 3.369 in 1972, and further increased to 3,964 in 1973. Householders who intend to employ non-citizens as domestic servants would have little difficulty in obtaining work permits if both the husband and wife are in gainful employment or if the husband can satisfy the Commissioner for Employment that his wife would take up employment within a reasonable period of time upon being granted approval to employ a non-citizen domestic servant. However, in view of our current policy to bring down population increase and also marriages of work permit holders, preference will be given to those applicants who are middle-aged or already married in their home country. The Member for Jalan Kayu mentioned about the increase in the staff of the Work Permits Office. I think he is aware that several new measures have been implemented by the Work Permits Office in recent months. In May 1973 the Work Permits Office implemented a scheme whereby skilled workers, technicians and supervisors may have their yearly work permits renewed for a three-year period if they pass trade tests conducted by the Industrial Training Board, or they have acceptable qualifications. This policy was introduced to encourage skilled non-citizen workers to remain in Singapore. The Work Permits Office has received a sizable number of applications for three-year work permits since the implementation of the scheme. Then in June 1973 the Work Permits Office, in a move to discourage excessive job-hopping, introduced measures to disallow work permit holders from changing employment unless there are good reasons to support their applications, for example, changing to a higher skilled job. The implementation of this policy has, to a considerable extent, reduced undesirable labour turnover among work permit holders. However, it has increased the workload of the Work Permits Office. Then in July 1973 the Work Permits Office implemented a policy requiring work permit holders to obtain the prior approval of the Commissioner for Employment in order to contract marriage with Singapore citizens. The implementation of the above measures has resulted in an increase in the workload and responsibilities of the Work Permits Office. It is, therefore, necessary for the staff of the Work Permits Office to be increased. In addition, the Work Permits Office has recently computerised several areas in the Work Permits Office in order to improve the operating efficiency and to enable the speedy compilation of statistical data required for the formulation and assessment of policies. This has also resulted in the need for increased staff. The Member for Jalan Kayu has also asked whether consideration may be given to exempt Singapore blue identity card holders who have no roots elsewhere from the need to obtain work permits. The Ministry of Labour has been issuing work permits freely to applicants holding Singapore blue identity cards. As a rule, Singapore blue identity card holders are given work permits valid for two years, as against one year for other categories of applicants. Further, Singapore blue identity card holders on work permit and who have family roots in Singapore may be granted work permits for a five-year period. A review is now being made of the position of permanent residents holding blue identity cards, with a view to granting them work permits valid for a longer period. Meanwhile, it is proposed not to exempt Singapore blue identity card holders who have no roots elsewhere from having to apply for work permits. The Member will recall that sometime ago the Ministry of Labour announced that permanent residents who passed the appropriate skill tests or who possessed acceptable training qualifications would be eligible for citizenship if they satisfied the ten-year residential qualification. Holders of Singapore blue identity cards who are unskilled should, therefore, strive to upgrade their skills so that they can qualify for citizenship under the scheme. Mr Ho See Beng rose ---

Order. It is guillotine time. I did not hear the bell just now. I am waiting for the Member for Anson.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I understand that the Member for Anson has some urgent matter to attend to. So the Minister need not answer his question. May I request the Minister to answer my question?

Order. The amendment should now be withdrawn, because I have stretched the guillotine time over eight minutes for this amendment.

I believe we have got ample time. We are supposed to carry on until 8 o'clock.

Order. I am afraid the Member for Bras Basah is wrong.

Mr Speaker, Sir, before withdrawing the amendment, I would just like to say this. The Minister has suggested that blue identity card holders should try to upgrade their skills if they want to qualify for citizenship. I think it is easier said than done because a lot of them are quite old. They are married and have children. How can the Minister expect them to upgrade their skills? Nevertheless, in view of the not unsatisfactory answer, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

According to the Standing Order, I have to put the Question if the mover is not here.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived. The time allotted for Head GA having expired, the following amendments were not proceeded with - Dr Ong Leong Boon: Mr Ivan Baptist: (7) That the sum to be allocated for Head GA be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead IA 1109. Mr Ivan Baptist: (8) That the sum to be allocated for Head GA be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead JA 1111. Mr Ho Kah Leong: (9) That the sum to be allocated for Head GA be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead AA 3002. Mr Ho See Beng: Mr Ivan Baptist: (10) That the total sum to be allocated for head GA in respect of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100. The sum of $6,730,170 for Head GA ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $900,000 for Head GA ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head HA --

Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head HA be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead AA 1003*. (* The same amendment also stood in the names of Messrs Teong Eng Siong, Cheong Yuen Chee, P. Govindaswamy, Hwang Soo Jin and Ho Kah Leong.) Sir, in moving this amendment, I have in mind the appalling state of the public transportation system in Singapore.

On a point of order, Sir,I think it would be more appropriate to discuss the public transport system under the head, Registry of Vehicles. Some of us have already tabled amendments under that head and hope to raise this matter under it.

Mr Chin, can you indicate whether you are speaking on policy matters?

Yes, I am speaking on policy matters, Sir.

Yes.

If a network of roads and streets can be likened to an arterial system, then public transport -

Mr Speaker, Sir, we are awaiting your ruling.

Order. Is the Member for Aljunied now debating ministerial policy?

Yes, Sir.

Please carry on then.

Thank you, Sir,If a network of roads and streets can be likened to an arterial system, then public transport may be considered to be the most important element in a country's bloodstream. For the majority of Singaporeans the public passenger transport service is a basic necessity, whether for their own work, their children's schooling or their families' recreation. It is not surprising that the recent increase in bus fares was received with many complaints and grumbles. Only the shareholders of the Singapore Bus Service Ltd. (SBS) would smile. While the Government may be able to justify its decision to permit the increase, the bus commuters also have ample causes for their resentment over the increase. Apart from their, perhaps, exaggerated fear of the inflationary effect of an increase in bus fares, members of the public felt that the increase would not result in any improvement in the bus service.

Mr Speaker, Sir, on a point of order. Sir, at this point, do you still rule that the Member for Aljunied is debating the policy of the Ministry of Communications? Or is he debating the Registry of Vehicles and the bus transport service?

The Member for Aljunied is trying to develop his theme on matters of ministerial policy, and I allow him to do so. However, I shall keep a close watch on his speech. Will the Member now please develop his theme along the proper lines?

Sir, I have another amendment under the head, Registry of Vehicles. But this amendment is on policy matters. Bus commuters in Singapore have, on the whole, been ill-served by the bus companies during the last two decades. The performance of the management of the SBS up to-date seems to be in the grand tradition of mismanagement of Singapore bus companies. 1 would not, however, bore this House by listing out all the defects of the SBS. Let me touch on a few significant points. The SBS is a huge, complex organisation as far as Singapore goes. Yet the SBS is run as a one-man show in the style of a Chinese family business. The 1.7 million passengers carried daily by the SBS, the several thousand employees of the SBS and a few hundred thousand other road-users, tend to direct against one another their frustration over the shortcomings of the SBS. Only if the management of the SBS were to loosen their purse-strings and employ more executives with the professional expertise, the SBS might be able to meet its social obligations. Nothing could be more symptomatic of the SBS's mess than the fact of only one qualified mechanical engineer, employed early this year, with a few assistants and without modern workshop facilities to service a fleet of 2,000 odd buses. The result is for one reason or another that the SBS can put on the roads an average of 1,400 buses during peak hours, when double that number is required. I am reliably told that in one SBS depot of 300 buses, --

Mr Speaker, Sir, on a point of order. I do not see how the management of the SBS has got to do with the policy of the Ministry of Communications.

Will the Member for Aljunied please stop beating about the bush, and get on to policy matters? 5.45 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it may be that the road transportation is a complex and taxing responsibility which may cause the Ministry to overlook some matters and to make rather conflicting decisions. Before I deal with the topic of taxis and taxi-drivers, I should like to touch on a matter which is a sore point with Scheme A bus drivers. I refer to the reserved bus lanes originally for the exclusive use of the SBS buses on certain major roads. Now it seems that Scheme B buses and lorries are also permitted to use these reserved bus lanes. But Scheme A buses bringing office workers to the City are barred from using these lanes. Worse still, some roads, such as Robinson Road, have a reserved bus lane on one side and traffic signs prohibiting parking and stopping during peak hours on the other side, making it impossible for passengers to be set down at any point along the roads. The bus drivers are angry as they are paying the same tax, registration fees and additional registration fees, and performing similar services as those of the Scheme B vehicle owners. I hope the Minister can give serious consideration to the use of the reserved bus lanes by Scheme A buses. Now I shall deal with the topic of taxis. Those Singaporeans who drive taxis and who aspire to own their taxis must find the Government's policy towards them rather puzzling. I refer to the imposition of the additional registration fee (or ARF) on taxis. In streamlining the ARF in October, 1972, the opportunity was taken to increase the ARF to 25 per cent to discourage private car ownership by jacking up the price of each car by about 25 per cent. Omnibuses and goods vehicles, therefore, have been paying a much lower rate of the ARF in line with the Government's policy to promote public transportation. But taxis and mini-buses are not enjoying the same privilege apparently on the ground that they do not form part of the public transportation system. Taxis and mini-buses, however, can rightly claim to form an integral part of the public transportation system in that they supplement the general bus services and cater for persons who are either prepared to pay more for greater comfort and convenience or forced by circumstances to use a faster means of transportation. Moreover, taxis and mini-buses are socially more desirable than private cars in the context of Singapore's congested roads as an average taxi or mini-bus carries more persons than an average private car per trip or per day. In pleading for the reduction of ARF for taxis and mini-buses, I have in mind the difficulty of a taxi-driver to own a taxi. The life span of a taxi is statutorily limited to seven years. With the recent increase of the ARF to a total of 55 per cent and the higher rate of interest on loans, a taxi-driver finds he may have to buy a new taxi as soon as he has completed paying his instalments on his taxi. This is if he is fortunate enough to be a member of NTUC COMFORT. But it is a fact that a yellow-top taxi-driver cannot hope to own his taxi in a lifetime unless he has a lucky windfall. The concept of taxi-drivers beneficially owning the taxis they drive in is socially desirable. For one thing, the drivers tend to take better care of their vehicles, doing their utmost to keep their vehicles clean and in a roadworthy condition. Compare the average SBS bus and the average school-bus, and one can see the difference. For another thing, the plight of taxi-drivers who have to hire a taxi from day to day from unscrupulous owners is most unenviable.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, over the past few days in this House, Members have contributed a great deal of views for the benefit of the Minister. I hope that the Minister will not be bedevilled or puzzled over those views. What I am going to say is not only on a matter of policy but also of reality. I hope they will be of help to the Minister. Sir, in the past few months, the Ministry of Communications has adopted a number of measures and schemes to improve the public transport system. The introduction of bus lanes and the supplementary public transport service are some of the measures that have been taken. The public transport system has aroused public interest, particularly from the working class.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this has nothing to do with the policy of the Ministry.

(In Mandarin): Sir, the public bus service should be improved. I asked an Oral Question in this House a few days ago, and the Minister in reply gave an assurance that the bus service would be improved stage by stage. On the basis of that assurance, I was gratified. But I am still waiting to see an improvement. It is my belief that the Minister will be able to put his plan into practice. I would now like to propose some concrete measures for consideration. Firstly, the possibility of introducing a 14-seater mini-bus service in Singapore. These 14-seater mini-buses can operate within a radius of five miles from the City so as to facilitate speedy travel by commuters in the City area, instead of the use of lorries and omnibuses.

Will the Member for Sembawang come now to the policy of the Ministry? It would be more comforting for the Minister to listen to him along those lines.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank you for your guidance and advice. What follows will be more on policy than on details. Secondly, Sir, at present the buses only display the Service numbers without indicating the routes that they are supposed to run. The destinations are not clearly indicated on the buses for the benefit of the commuters. I hope that an improvement will be made to ensure that no inconvenience is caused to passengers. Thirdly, buses should be properly scheduled. Too many buses are now usually found to congregate in one bus terminus. My proposal is that there should be a board indicating the bus that will be taking off or the first bus that will be leaving the bus terminus, so that passengers do not have to chase after the buses at the terminus which would create a dangerous situation. Fourthly, Sir, I would like to ask the Minister to consider the employment of female bus conductors to relieve the shortage of labour, and possibly to improve the bus services. It has been proved that female workers are equal with the male workers in the performance of work. What the men can do, the women can do too. For example, in the early days of Singapore there were few women police constables. Nowadays we can see many women police constables everywhere, and their good performance has already been acknowledged by the society. Fifthly, I would ask the Minister to consider the introduction of season tickets to relieve the work-load of bus conductors. We can have season tickets at, say, $5 valid for a month or a week, and the bus conductors need only to punch the ticket for each trip.

Mr Speaker, Sir, my speech is fairly long and I hope the Minister will not be angry with me. Many Members have already spoken on public transport and my speech now is also on public transport. Sir, under this subhead I would like to draw the attention of the Minister to two important items, and I hope that he would take action to rectify the deteriorating public transport system and the bad state of the telephone exchange. Though last year many of my comrade Members had much to speak on the subject of public transport, there does not seem to be any results, but it is even worse at the moment. At present, the public transport service is one of the major issues in our country. Whilst the Ministry of Communications is taking steps to alleviate the setbacks by introducing supplementary transport schemes as alternatives, the Minister must make it a point to succeed in having a better transport service in the future. It will be useless to waste much money and sweat on anything that brings adverse results. The people are disgusted in having to read the daily press of the numerous complaints against our public transport system. With the introduction of the new revised bus services recently, the changes have not shown any marked improvement. Instead, some of the commuters experience further hardship in waiting for buses that finally appear but do not bother to pick them up. They have to wait for a considerable time just to get into the right bus. In the mornings and evenings there is a mad rush of office workers and school children to board the buses, and many of them report late for work or school. To aggravate the situation, most of the buses display only the numbers, some of which are small and illegible. The commuter has to strain his eyes to make out the numbers, and he is expected to know where the buses are heading for, just by looking at the numbers. Some of the numbers are even written with marker pens. In other words, the commuter is expected to be a walking `memory book' of bus routes. Let me ask one simple question. Is it going to cost that much more just to include the terminus and the main routes of the buses? How do you expect a poor illiterate person to remember numbers and to take the right bus? Woe betide the traveller who boards the wrong bus. He will be a victim of insults and shouts from bus conductors who have generally acquired a reputation for their uncalled-for remarks and intolerant behaviour. 6.00 p.m. Furthermore, the route numbers appearing in front and sides of the buses should be clearly indicated with luminous paint and the lighting behind the route number should be more effective. At night, many bus drivers switch on the head lights and drive at deadly speed, so that commuters cannot see the bus numbers and thereby cannot signal to stop and board it in time, even though the bus is empty. Therefore, the driver is the wise guy and commuters are left to curse the bus service. How much longer have the people of Singapore to suffer and tolerate under the very poor mass transport system? Some of the bus drivers are very hasty in closing the exit door even before the commuters have alighted. A case in point is the incident of a woman whose arm was caught by the sliding door, thus preventing her from getting down at the correct bus stop. When she finally got down, she had injured her arm. This sort of incident is a daily occurrence, and nothing is being done to penalise the driver to correct his attitude. Sir, last year I spoke on the introduction of a complete ban on smoking in buses. I am indeed glad to note that my suggestion has now been legislated. However, there is much room for further improvement of the buses. There are too many buses with tickets and bits of paper thrown here and there, litter boxes with no bottoms, seats, windows and doors damaged and smoky exhausts. The buses are often very untidy inside and dirty outside. In fact, some of them are so filthy that they are no better than the rubbish trucks. We have been emphasising the need to keep our City clean. Yet cleanliness is certainly not a virtue with the Singapore Bus Service Ltd. There are too many breakdowns and many of them can be seen lying at the roadside during peak periods. Day before yesterday one bus knocked down a tree. Yesterday a bus knocked down a tree and a lamp post, and on the same day another bus knocked down a bus stand at Raffles Quay. I have to bring to the attention of the Minister the problem of re-routing of the bus services recently. Firstly, some of the routing has caused considerable delay in commuters reaching their destination as the buses take a roundabout route. The fare has also been increased by 10 cents for the benefit of the bus company, thus causing further hardship to the people. Since the fares had been raised, the public expect a better service. But then it is just the reverse. As a result of the increase in bus fares, I observe that there has been a sharp drop in the number of people travelling by bus. The routing of buses has still to be revised. I quote an instance. Previously there was a direct service, No. 125, passing through the stretch of Alexandra Road to Keppel Harbour and the commuter had to pay only 20 cents. But today the same commuter has to change service, that is, one service from the Lower Delta Road to the juction of Alexandra/Telok Blangah Road, and from there another service to Keppel Harbour, and every time he changes a bus he has to pay an extra 10 cents. In the bus there is no chart to indicate the fare stages. Many of the commuters and even some conductors themselves do not know the exact amount, and the various fare stages. Just imagine if a commuter has innocently short-paid his fare and is about to get down at an extra stop. If the conductor is not a reasonable person, which happens many a time, the poor commuter has to pay an extra 20 cents for the distance to the next bus stop. How costly is their extra stop! Another major complaint is that the buses are not travelling according to schedule,. What is the point of having a schedule? What is the purpose of having a bus guide, when the commuters have to wait as long as an hour for certain services? And when they do arrive, one will not be surprised to see them coming in twos or threes in a stretch. I would like to know why the three former bus companies had to merge. I sense that due to the amalgamation, there is no competition and therefore this state of affairs has arisen. Sir, greater emphasis and publicity should be extended to the supplementary public transport system. Though a start has been made, there are many teething problems which should be rectified as soon as possible. I would also request that the supplementary public transport service should begin at 6 a.m, for the benefit of the shift workers in the port and in the factories because there is a mad rush for buses in the morning. Can anything be done to bring about a better public transport system, especially when price increases have already caused great hardship to the people? With the recent rise in the price of petrol, can something be done to keep inflation down to a minimum? Sir, the Singapore Telephone Board in the past had declared proudly that its profits ran into several millions. Yet the services provided to the ordinary subscribers are extremely poor. What is the existing policy of the management of the STB? Are they out to make profits from the City area and to ignore the rural areas? New applicants for the installation of telephones find it difficult to get a line. Some have been waiting for years, and yet the Board has plans to introduce telephones in cars. The STB encourages the public to use the digital system and car telephones, though the services provided are quite often appalling. Some of the operators are frequently the most elusive of characters, and if by chance one gets through them to inquire about a certain number, the quick reply would be that the telephone is out of order. That is a very convenient excuse, I must say, but it is done too often. Either the section is under-staffed or something is wrong with the operators.

Mr Govindaswamy, your ten minutes are up. Mr Hwang.

Mr Speaker, Sir, my speech is a sort of border-line case, as it is sometimes difficult to differentiate between policy and departmental administrative matter. So I promise to be short. Some two years ago when the bus services were first reorganised, the Citizens' Consultative Committee of Jalan Kayu at my request set up a study group to look into the needs of commuters in Jalan Kayu. A memorandum was subsequently submitted to the Minister and he was kind enough to agree and to direct a new route, 73/73A, which provided a direct link between Jalan Kayu and the City area. Unfortunately, at the recent reorganisation of bus routes, Service 73/73A was unilaterally withdrawn from us without any prior notice. I would like to take the opportunity of enquiring from the Minister whether he would consider directing SBS to reinstate the service to us. If the route was considered necessary two years' ago, I fail to see why it is no longer necessary because in the meantime the population in my area has expanded quite considerably. I would also like to take the opportunity of enquiring from the Minister what factors are taken into consideration in deciding upon whether a route should be extended, maintained, or withdrawn. Is the decision based just on the profitability of that particular route, and whether or not prior approval has been obtained from the Government? 6.10 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Sir, food, clothes, accommodation and transportation are the main problems of living. The problem of transportation is the most important that affects our citizens. The need to improve the bus services is, therefore, very great. Up to today we have not seen very definite results from the efforts to improve our bus services as pointed out by the various Members of Parliament. The main aim of the bus service is to provide efficient and timely service. I am afraid that the present bus service is departing further and further away from this principle of cheap, fast and good form of transport. I would like to ask the Minister a few questions. The first one is the upward revision of bus fares which has unfortunately increased the burden of our people in the midst of the inflation, in particular, the lower income groups who usually travel over a distance of less than four bus stops. Everyday they have to incur an increase of 20 cents in bus fares. I would like to ask the Minister whether he is prepared to consider a reduction in bus fares for distances of less than four bus stops to restore the old price structure. The present rates for the other number of bus stops may remain the same. The second point has already been brought up by the Member for Jalan Kayu, that services for certain routes in the old schedule are actually necessary. Unfortunately, after the revision, these routes have disappeared. The result is that those who used to travel in one direct service now have to travel on more than one service in order to reach their destination. This would mean an increase of 40 Cents in bus fares. I would like to ask the Minister whether he is prepared to reconsider this problem of minimising the need to take a second service to reach the same destination, or the commuters be charged according to old rates when they have to take a second service. The third question is related to the question of bus lanes. Some people say that the small pirate taxis have been eliminated but the big pirate taxis have emerged in their place, and these are the big buses. Even before the introduction of bus lanes, the bus drivers behaved as though they were the only users of the roads. Now, we have allocated up to one-quarter of the width of the road for the exclusive use of the buses. We must remember that the construction of roads comes from the taxpayers' money. Is it fair to reserve this space for the exclusive use of buses? Another point is that I understand the Ministry will confiscate vehicles that violate bus lanes for more than three times. Is the Ministry prepared to reconsider this point? The fourth question is this. From the press we learn that since the introduction of the supplementary transport service, the SBS immediately sent out a great number of inspectors to assist commuters at the various bus stops. Before the introduction of the supplementary transport service, we did not see any form of such assistance. It is only after the introduction of the supplementary transport service that we see this improvement in service. The SBS sends out these people in order to get more bus commuters. Is this not an example of better service resulting from competition? 6.15 p.m. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Member for Anson has asked the question: was the amalgamation of the three bus companies really necessary? That is a valid question. The fifth question is related to a point brought up by the Member for Sembawang as to whether the Minister is prepared to introduce the 14-seater mini buses in Singapore. As we all know, Singapore is embarking on a "Conserve Energy" drive at the moment, and the public transport system is inefficient. The introduction of these mini-buses would, I think, improve the services provided and also conserve some of our energy as a mini bus carries more people than a taxi. The sixth question: I would like to ask the Minister whether he has noticed that roads in the vicinity of bus terminus, whether or not white lines or yellow lines are drawn are flooded with SBS buses at night. This creates traffic hazards to some extent. I would like to ask whether this would not be an infringement of the rights of other road users. The seventh question is in regard to Jurong. In Jurong we have about 50,000 people. At least 20,000 of them work in the factories. There are not enough buses which ply between the various residential areas in Jurong and the factories. The number of buses operating in Jurong is rather small. The buses that come to Jurong from the City are usually full when they reach Jurong. So the residents in Jurong cannot board these buses. I would like to ask whether the Minister is prepared to introduce internal bus services within the Jurong area to facilitate travel between various areas in Jurong. The eigth question is this: We know from the announcement of the Ministry of Communications that the management of SBS is based on a clannish and family-type of business. Is this modern management? Should we not help it to update and modernise the various styles and techniques of management? Perhaps our National Productivity Board could lend a helping hand. The ninth question is: has the Ministry audited or examined the accounts of SBS monthly to see whether there is any irregularity in the accounts? The last question is: If the SBS cannot carry out the instructions given by the Ministry of Communications, for example, to increase the number of buses, will the Ministry withdraw its licence?

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, since previous speakers have taken their "bus rides" under the Head of the Minister, I wonder whether I may be allowed to join the "bus ride" as a passenger.

Yes, carry on.

Thank you, Sir,In the past few days, I have listened with great interest to the spirited exchanges of views in the diatribe between the Minister for Communications and the Member for Kallang over the pros and cons of nationalisation of the SBS. To my mind, the problem of providing an efficient bus service does not hinge on the fact whether it is run as a private monopoly or a public concern. Running a complex operation to meet the increasing demand and higher expectations of service by commuters calls for (1) well-qualified management personnel, (2) well-paid and contented bus drivers, conductors, mechanics, and so on, and (3) sufficient number of well-maintained buses and a host of other things, to ensure the most efficient running of the bus service. All these must mean additional cost. The question is: what kind of service do we want, and how much are we willing to pay for the efficient service and comfort that we expect? And the important question is: how is this additional cost to be met -by the commuters or by a subsidy from the Government? The Government has already made known that it will not subsidise the running of the bus service. The Member for Kallang has promised the Prime Minister yesterday that he will move a motion on the public transport system in Singapore. I will therefore reserve my comments on whether the Government should or should not subsidise public transport when Parliament meets to discuss the motion that the Member for Kallang intends to table before this House. In the meantime, let me add my bit of confusion to the already confused state of affairs in the public transport system. The former STC collapsed simply because of poor management. The SBS might also collapse one of these days simply because of lack of management expertise. The present management of the SBS, which is nothing more than an unholy alliance of three parties drawn from three former bus companies is accustomed to running small operations and is not used to running a bus transport service on a scale of the SBS. What worries me is that, with all the public criticisms levelled against the SBS and the inability of SBS to run a viable business and to provide at the same time a cheap and comfortable service demanded by the travelling public, we may just witness the collapse of another bus company in Singapore. The present management personnel of SBS are just ordinary businessmen whose motive is to make money. Most businessmen like to do business with good profit returns and without being subjected to public criticisms and Government constraints. The management of SBS is subjected to Government constraints such as the rate of profit returns, etc., as well as public criticisms. It may not survive under such hostile conditions and may decide to fold up. The wish of the Member for Kallang to attend the funeral rites of SBS may just come true. As the lyrics of a popular song go: "What then, my love?", I wish to ask the Minister, "What then, Mr Minister?", when the present SBS management gives up the ghost, so to speak. There will be a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth at the Communications Ministry, and also at the Labour Ministry because the bus workers will be concerned over their jobs. I would therefore earnestly urge the Minister to treat, as a matter of priority, the question of developing the necessary management expertise and personnel in his Ministry as well as assisting in the development of such expertise and personnel in SBS, as a necessary precaution to abort any possibility of a total breakdown of the transport service. The development of management expertise, from the long-term point of view, is a necessary adjunct to an efficient transport service. Public confidence, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, over the handling of the bus problems in Singapore has been shaken simply because there have been frequent changes and shifting of policies. Commuters, being human, do not like to find themselves having to adjust and re-adjust to frequent changes of timetables and bus routes. I would therefore urge the Minister to minimise the changes in bus routes, time-tables, etc., and to make such changes only after very careful planning and assessment of the impact of such changes. To be fair to the Minister, since the introduction of the supplementary transport scheme, the bus service has improved. As a matter of fact, a letter was published in the man-in-the-street column of a local paper yesterday expressing satisfaction over the new arrangement.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have been waiting at the "Registry of Vehicles" all this while to get into the bus. Everybody else has got into the bus. It is about time I got in. Sir, as the Member for Moulmein has pointed out, in the past few days we have heard so much about the inefficient public transport services. Complaints were made against the SBS, the Ministry of Communications, and even the commuters and bus employees. I am not going to touch on similar issues. The Minister for Communications, Sir, has categorically stated that the Government has no intention of taking over the bus transport service. I am not going to pursue the matter as I too am not in favour of the Government taking over the SBS. However, Sir, the Minister admitted that public transport is a public utility, and as such it is the intention of the Government to see that we have a reasonable public transport service in Singapore. Sir, I fear that from what we know of the financial position of SBS, I have no doubt that the SBS will not be able to introduce the required number of new buses into the service in the foreseeable future. In this respect, I welcome the supplementary lorry-bus service which utilises school buses and goods vehicles for public transport. I also agree with the Member for Moulmein that the commuter transport system has been a relief somewhat as a result of the introduction of the supplementary service. Sir, in the heated argument about public transport in the last few days, we have forgotten to consider the difficulties faced by the bus drivers in Singapore. We were busy accusing everybody. Sir, since the reorganisation of the bus services, the distance between terminals has been lengthened. As a result, the bus driver now has to drive a longer distance than he was used to. This is not easy for him. Nobody would dispute with me if I say that driving in Singapore, with road congestions, is no welcome proposition. Those of us who drive to office would testify to that fact. What makes it worse for the bus driver is driving an old rickety bus over long distances, with frequent stops, going into and steering out of bus bays, changing gears hundreds of times during a journey. This can be killing for the bus drivers. Can we really blame the driver if at times he loses his temper? I lose my temper hundreds of times driving in our congested roads, and I do not drive as often as the bus driver. He is on the road for as much as 10 hours a day. It is about time that we replaced new buses equipped with automatic transmission and power steering. Let me hasten to add, Sir, that this is going to cost the SBS more, and it is not going to be well-received, considering the additional finance required. But at the same time, I am glad to hear, Sir, that the jumbo buses introduced recently are equipped with power steering. 6.30 p.m. Sir, we accept that public transport is a public utility, and we are satisfied that SBS does not have sufficient capital to provide reasonable commuter transport services, and they need improvement. I would therefore suggest that the Government look into the possibility of either providing tax relief to the SBS in order that additional funds may be made available for the purchase of new buses. Or if this is not accepted, then the Government should look into the possibility of providing soft loans for the purchase of new vehicles.

Does the Member want the Government to support the SBS?

I am sure the Member for Katong will have his time, if he wants. Sir, as I was about to say before I was rudely interrupted, soft loans should be provided with sufficient safeguards to see that Government-nominated officials sit on the directorate of the SBS to make sure that the loans given are properly utilised. Another area, Sir, that has to be looked into is the management of the SBS. We have been told time and time again by the Minister that the SBS is the only one that has the expertise in public transport in Singapore. Sir, I beg to disagree. From what we have seen of its expertise, that is, the expertise of the SBS, it is only vested in the Managing Director, if at all we can call him an expert. It is commonly known that the SBS is a one-man show. Sir, is it true that whenever there is any problem between the SBS and the workers, the management threatens to throw in the towel? If this is true, then I fear we are in for more difficult times in respect of public transport in Singapore.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to jump on the buses too? Sir, much has been said about the public transport system in Singapore, especially over the last two weeks and this evening by many Members. However, the discussions were centred around the improvement of the public transport system in relation to the provision of more buses on the road, less breakdown of buses, Government takeover, etc. The Minister has given answers to all these. Sir, there are also other aspects which have a cumulative effect in the deterioration of the public transport system. I would like with your permission, Sir, to elaborate on them, and I ask the Minister whether he intends to adopt some of my suggestions or give reasons as to why they cannot be adopted or utilised. Firstly, there is this business of commuter discipline. I would not go into the sordid details of the law of the jungle that persists at bus stops during the rush-hour. Unless some commuter discipline is introduced, it will be utterly impossible for the public transport system to improve. I would like to know what plans the Minister has to introduce this commuter discipline, and when will it be introduced? Next is the matter of strengthening worker discipline. The workers on the public buses sometimes adopt a devil-may-care attitude. Some conductors treat commuters rather shabbily and some drivers skid along the roads at breakneck speeds emulating grand -prix drivers, causing grave danger to the bus commuters, pedestrians and other motor vehicles. On more than one occasion, I have noticed buses moving off bus stops when all the passengers have yet to alight. I have even seen many a passenger with hardly a toe-hold on the bus hanging on precariously for dear life because to hang on is the lesser evil than to jump off as the bus rockets from the bus stop ignoring commuters' safety. Time and again the buses do not use the special lanes constructed for them at some bus stops. This not only causes great danger on the road but also sparks off a race among commuters who dash towards the bus in forlorn hope that they may get a place on the bus, and be early for work or an appointment. I am sure the Minister is working closely with SILO to strengthen this worker discipline, and I would like to know of the plans which are afoot to obtain a satisfactory solution. The third point is also tied up with the workers and plans to improve their working conditions. Working conditions are tied up with occupational health and safety, and I am wondering if the Minister is taking into consideration that fatigue and boredom can be potent causes of accidents. One of the disadvantages of modern driving is the boredom produced in many drivers. Fatigue can accentuate boredom and boredom can feed `fatigue. Is there any plan by the Minister to ensure that the workers are adequately protected from this? I must stress that particular attention should be paid to general working conditions to ensure that bus drivers do not suffer from fatigue and boredom. Some of the things to be looked for would be to have controls readily accessible and dials of instruments in constant view without the driver having to change his position. The driver's seat must be comfortable and adjustable backwards and forwards, and upwards and downwards, to provide for individual variation of the length of the driver's legs and body height. Furthermore, the back of the seat must be shaped to provide adequate support to the lumbar region. Automatic gears, and power-assisted brakes and steering assist the reduction of physical fatigue in drivers. Attention should also be paid to the necessity to limit total driving time for each shift and to ensure that individual spells of duty are not too long. Furthermore short breaks should be allowed within each spell of duty. In order to combat boredom the morale of drivers must be kept high by providing sources of pride in their jobs. I would also like to stress that drivers should receive pre-employment medical examination and should also be examined routinely at regular intervals, with increasing frequency as age advances. Fourthly, the display boards on buses are too small. One can see many a commuter squinting his eyes as he tries to discern the number on these display boards to ensure that he flags down the right bus. At night, due to the dimunitive size of the board, the darkness and the blinding headlights of the bus, it is impossible to flag down the right bus. Many a commuter flags down every bus until he gets lucky. This irritates the bus drivers and causes unnecessary time loss. I will just leave it to your imagination, Sir, the unmentionable words these irritated drivers use. Is the Minister taking steps to increase the size of these boards and the size of the numbers on them? Will the Minister also consider making it obligatory for all buses to display, in words, their exact destinations? Finally, I would like to urge the Minister to give more publicity to the monthly tickets that can be obtained by commuters from the SBS. At present, these monthly tickets can be obtained only at the SBS office in Changi. There should be provision for these monthly tickets to be obtained from all bus terminals. These monthly tickets will cut down to a certain extent both commuter and conductor inconvenience.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, since some Members have taken pre-emptive steps to discuss whether SBS should or should not be nationalised, I wish to join in at this juncture just to make my stand quite clear. I have questioned the wisdom of Government's policy in allowing a private monopoly to control a public service. It is my conviction that to achieve a desirable social objective public transportation must be in the hands of the Government either in its own hands or jointly with private individuals or groups. Pragmatism should not go beyond the point where it counters achieving a desirable socialist objective. Carry on supervising and improving the present service as much as possible, but what I am interested is whether or not public transportation will finally be in public hands and, if not now, will it be later or never at all? I will always disagree with the Government if nationalisation never comes at all. The formation of a strong Government-backed corporation will ensure the job security of drivers and conductors. They will always be needed. There is no fear that they will be jobless. I am sure the interest of the public will be taken into account. That is what the Government is for. Public transportation is a public utility and must be run as a service. The administration and operation of the service will be directly accountable to Parliament. Now we are debating the administration and operation of a private company. Fortunately, the Ministry of Communications, at least through the ROV, had gone to the extent of supervising the administration and operation of the SBS, made policy statements, authorised the increase of bus fares, so much so that it has given us the opportunity to attack the SBS in Parliament. If it had not been so, I would have found it most difficult to discuss the affairs of SBS. I have never proposed that as a firm condition the bus service should be directly subsidised. The point I have taken up is: should the SBS be nationalised? That is, should the Government take over the rights and interests of the SBS? Subsidy is another thing. If you have to subsidise a public service, if there is a necessity to bring about reasonable standards and efficiency, it is up to the Government, the Parliament, and the public to decide. Taking the rights and interests of SBS is the point I wish to make at this moment. Whether or not we will debate on public transport at great length, and whether or not it should be nationalised, I think we all look forward to that day, if it is all the more necessary. 6.45 p.m.

Sir, even if we go on debating until the cows come home, I do not believe that we can really force the issue asking the Government to nationalise or to take over the SBS. We are all very satisfied with the Government's reply that it has got no intention of taking over nor is it backing the SBS. The only way we can put the issue to a test is to hold a referendum to see whether the bus service should be run by the Government or whether it should be in the hands of a private organisation.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, just a few points. I hope this would not be the straw that would break the camel's back. I want to refer to a point that was raised previously regarding the operations of the supplementary bus service and the competition that this supplementary bus service is affording in a very small way to the Singapore Bus Service Ltd. There has been a very appreciative reaction to the service provided by the supplementary bus service. People talk about the comfort in which they travel, the smooth ride, the politeness that they are met with when they board the buses, the consideration they are shown. This stands in rather violent contrast to the experience that people have had and are still having when they travel on the SBS. The improvement has really come from this competition, and commuters now have a chance of choosing and the choice is an indication of a vote against the SBS, so to speak. Now they have the ability of saying: "We do not want to travel by the SBS if we have a chance. We prefer another service." So the point that I raised yesterday was: why do we not try and encourage some more competition? Perhaps the response has not been adequate so far because the incentives for people to come in and compete are not adequate. So why do we not provide some more incentives? I am sure the Minister for Communications will not be hard put to, to think of such incentives, if he is thinking along this direction.

Any suggestions?

One way would be to try and allow them to pick up passengers all along the route. This is one of the suggestions. It is up to the Minister to consider it and see whether it is feasible. He has asked me for suggestions and I have given one as an example. An hon. Member: Then we would be going back to the days of the pirate taxis!

Well, we have already gone back to those days as I pointed out when we had mosquito buses, each being owned by an individual entrepreneur picking up passengers along the way. There is not very much difference, going back to the days of the pirate taxis. Sir, may I just point out to the Minister that I am not suggesting that we go back to the days of the pirate taxis, knowing how sensitive he is about this particular subject. In any case, why worry about the competition that' this poses to the present SBS? In any case, again, I wonder whether the 8 per cent which we have been hearing so much about is an adequate incentive to hard-headed businessmen who might be able to get the same amount of return by just putting the money in fixed deposits. Since this is so and since we cannot expect too much of a service from the SBS, as has already been indicated by several comments in the House, what we want to do is already being done by the Minister monitor very carefully the operations with our own staff and with our own managers, and train their managers in as thorough a way as possible so that, should we be faced with the eventuality, we can run the bus services ourselves. I think the problem of training our own managers, as well as managers in the SBS, if we trust them that far, is one that we have to look into very, very seriously. We have talked about improvement on the general situation and people feeling a little bit more relieved, but that is not because as I said of the SBS. Only today we have had, in the very short time that I was in the Members' Room, one of the Members complaining about the behaviour of a driver along a certain road resulting in the niece of a Minister being now in hospital. The allegation is that she fell from the bus as the bus was moving, prematurely. One swallow does not make a summer, but there have been many swallows! This just dramatises the point that there is still a lot to correct where the present service is concerned.

Sir, I would like to make a statement. In fact, I would go along with the Member for Telok Blangah and I disagree with the Government that it has no expertise at all to operate the bus service. I will also go along with the Member for Katong on this. What we like to know is: is the Government going to nationalise the SBS now or later? If we cannot do it now for some good obvious reasons, I will be more patient. That is the point we like to know. But if the Government says never, I will always disagree.

Sir, it was my intention to raise a question concerning the setting up of the Motor Insurers Bureau when we come to the Head, Registry of Vehicles. However, since previous speakers have already touched on this subhead, I might as well do it now. Sir, the matter of setting up the Motor Insurers Bureau was raised in this House sometime ago. I remember the Minister of State giving his promise that the matter will be looked into. I just wonder when will this Bureau become a reality.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I think it would be a failure on my part as a trade unionist if I do not make a few comments. I should say that the slight improvement of the bus service, after the introduction of the supplementary bus service Scheme B, could coincide with the improvement of the working conditions of the workers.

Hear, hear!

Each bus worker is getting an increase of about $42 since the formation of SBS, and the incentive payment could have induced the workers to work harder. That may coincide with the introduction of the supplementary bus service. I say that: to be kind, we have got to be cruel. If the minority of the bus workers are not discharging their duty as expected, may I request the Minister for Communications to make legislation to punish the bus workers if they fail to go into the bus lanes. I think that if we want to be kind, we have got to be cruel. But, at the same time, if commuters want to jump down at a road junction, i.e, if they want to kill themselves, I think legislation has also got to be made to punish them so that they are disciplined. The improvement has got to be all round. It is not fair to apportion most of the blame on the bus workers. But I do agree that it is a minority affair.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is a field day for MPs on the Ministry of Communications. As there is a guillotine, and since most of the questions should really come under the Head. Registry of Vehicles, if I am not in a position to answer all of them now I shall endeavour to do so when we come to debate on the Registry of Vehicles tomorrow. I shall however try to cover as much ground as is possible on matters of policy, which is really what is expected in a Budget debate and not questions of detail for answer. Firstly, may I answer the few comments by the Member for Anson in respect of the Singapore Telephone Board. It is not correct to say that the Singapore Telephone Board is not giving enough attention to the rural areas because a very large number of underground cable schemes and exchanges have been implemented and more have been planned to serve the rural areas. Sembawang Exchange will have 2,000 lines, and Woodlands Exchange, 2,000 lines. Others that will be planned are Ama Keng Exchange, which will initially have 1,000 lines and is planned to be in operation in mid-1975; Yio Chu Kang Exchange with a capacity of 4,000 lines will be operational in mid-1976; Ang Mo Kio Exchange with a capacity of 10,000 lines will be in operation by mid-1976; and Changi Exchange is currently being expanded to provide 3,000 lines, in addition to 2,000 lines already in operation. Therefore, the rural areas are not being neglected. As I said, Sir, I would like today to touch on one aspect mentioned by the Member for Anson. He mentioned "some of the SBS buses are no better than refuse trucks". May I give an explanation on the sad state of these buses, which I would call "hippie buses" of Singapore? In November, 1973, the Registrar of Vehicles was instructed to hold discussions with the Public Utilities Board (PUB) on the possibility of SBS being allowed to use hosed water from PUB mains to wash buses. The PUB stated that it is its general policy that washing of motor vehicles with hosed water from PUB mains should not be allowed. However, it was observed that refuse vehicles of the Ministry of the Environment were hosed down with water from PUB mains in the Government Transport Centres, at Mackenzie Road, Henderson Road and Tannery Lane. It was explained that if these refuse vehicles were not hosed down daily, they would be too dirty and evil-smelling to go on the roads. A request was made to PUB for a similar exception in the case of the public bus fleet, as the man-hours and operational cost of washing public buses, by hand from buckets of water, for a fleet of 1,400 operational buses would be high, besides being ineffective in view of oil and grease. This request was again rejected by PUB. 7.00 p.m. The PUB, however, agreed to consider allowing mechanical washing of public buses using constant amounts of PUB water per bus, provided the amount of water used for each bus would be acceptable. The Bus Services Reorganisation Committee has accordingly directed SBS to install mechanical washing plants for the cleaning of its buses. These automatic washing equipment would be more efficient and economical in the use of water than high pressure hosing from PUB mains. Studies are also being conducted to install water reclamation systems in these plants to recycle the water used in the washing to reduce the amount of water used. The cost of mechanical washing equipment would be about $40,000 for each washing bay and about 10 of these would be required at various depots. In other words, a sum of $400,000 would be needed. SBS has also commissioned its architects to put up plans for a washing depot at Jurong where industrial water is available. But it would not be operationally feasible to set up a centralised washing depot at Jurong for the entire fleet of 1,400 or more buses. Depots for washing buses would also have to be located in areas not served by industrial water. If industrial water is to be used at these other depots, the water would have to be transported in bowsers, each of which would cost $40,000 to $50,000. Storage tanks for the water would also have to be built at each depot. The use of equipment for cleaning the passenger compartments is also being studied, besides just getting people to clean up with brooms and so on. When the washing and cleaning of buses is fully mechanised and the present inefficient and laborious system of washing buses with buckets of water is dispensed with, the fleet of public buses will certainly not do injustice to our clean city. But until then would Members of the House please tolerate our "hippie buses" on the road? Sir, much criticism has been voiced by bus commuters and now even by my colleagues, Members of this House, over the present state of our public bus service. I do not deny that quite a number of the criticisms over the inadequacy of SBS, especially during peak hours, are justified. But to be fair some of the outburst arises from other causes, namely, grievances which our people have been subjected to over the past year, especially in the rising cost of living mainly due to imported inflation and the public bus service happens to be a convenient scapegoat to give vent to their frustrations and bruised feelings as it has to serve the transportation needs of as high as 1.75 million trips for a population of 2.2 million people. Even had there been no upward revision of the bus fares on 10th February last month, Members of Parliament would be voicing their grievances during Budget time. This is not the first occasion that I have had to face criticisms voiced by hon. Members of this House on the state of the public bus service, and the Member for Katong had occasion to refer to remarks made by me in May 1968 and concluded with the words "it is unfortunate that things should have come to an even sorrier pass today, six years later". It would be useful to refer to relevant sections of Hansard as to what I said and the context in which it was made to get a proper perspective. The Member was referring to the debate on the President's Address on 14th May, 1968, and cols. 235-6 of Hansard go as follows: `Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: Mr Speaker, Sir, as the Member for Ulu Pandan (then MP was Mr Lee Teck Him] has raised two important issues during the current debate on the President's Speech which fall within the scope of my new portfolio, the Ministry of Communications, may I be permitted to inform the House, as well as members of the public, of my views on these subjects? I have arrived at these views in the short period of four weeks since assuming my portfolio. Is nationalisation of bus companies in Singapore the answer to our transport problem as proposed by the Member for Ulu Pandan? Is this the panacea to our transport problem? This was, in fact, one of the recommendations of the Commission of Enquiry set up by the former Labour Front Government in 1955, under the chairmanship of Mr L C Hawkins, a member of the London Transport Executive. Even if the former Labour Front Government had wanted to implement this proposal, it could not have done so because Singapore's reserves had been run down to such a low level, and there was no second Christmas Island to be sold to Australia to find the tens of millions of dollars which would have been needed to nationalise the bus companies then operating in Singapore. When the People's Action Party assumed the government of Singapore in 1959, nationalisation of bus companies was not one of its platforms and rightly so, even to this day!' Then, may I repeat, in the year 1974, 15 years later, it is also not its policy. May I then move on to column 238? I quote, Sir: `The Member for Ulu Pandan next suggested that as "pirate taxis" are providing service to the public which the bus services are not able to cope with, therefore such pirate taxis should be allowed to operate legally as "express taxis" and that pirate taxi operators should, at most, be subject only to a fine when caught and that their motor vehicles should not be confiscated. In my view, the pirate-taxi problem came into being for two reasons: (1) the growing problem of unemployment in Singapore so that those who do not wish to go on the dole -that is, to seek Social Welfare assistance - turn to hawking or become pirate taxi operators. (2) the inability of the bus companies to provide an efficient, regular and adequate service for bus travellers. Unless the above two problems are resolved, the pirate taxi problem will remain with us for some time to come, as both the problems of unemployment and a better organised bus transport system will need considerable time and effort even to prevent the situation from worsening still further before attempting to resolve the problems.' May I proceed to col. 240? I quote, Sir: `In conclusion, Sir, may I say that I shall be guided by three general principles in the discharge of my duties in the Ministry of Communications: First, to ensure dependability of transport service, i.e., to provide a regular, efficient, clean and courteous service to the public; Second, speed of service, i.e., as quickly as possible consistent with safety for passengers and goods; and Lastly, lower cost to the paying public, subject however to both workers and management maintaining high productivity and ensuring a reasonable return for the capital invested.' May I add that these same principles still hold good? It took two long years of patient observation and study before a three-year (July 1970/June 1973) White Paper plan for Reorganisation of the Motor Transport Service of Singapore (Paper Cmd. 21 of 1970) was produced and tabled in this House. May I now quote two relevant sections from the draft Final Report dated June 1973 on the Singapore Mass Transit Study Phase 1 drawn up by Wilbur Smith and Associates, Consultants, appointed by the World Bank on what they thought of the White Paper (page 1-5):- `Reorganisation of Motor Transport Service, 1970 In recognition of the fact that a critical review of public transport services was long overdue, the Minister for Communications tabled a White Paper on the Reorganisation of the Motor Transport Service of Singapore to Parliament in 1970. The Paper identified the problems in relation to various forms of road transport and made recommendations for the alleviation of these problems, particularly for the redevelopment of public transport. The main recommendations for the improvement of public transport services were: (a) To increase the bus fleet with 600 new additional buses over a three-year period, giving a total fleet of 2,000. (b) Pirate taxis to be eradicated. (c) Ten Chinese bus companies to be amalgamated into three Regional Companies by August 1970. The other bus company, Singapore Traction Company, was to be reorganised. (d) To appoint a transport consultant to make a study as to how the bus services could be co-ordinated and rationalised for maximum efficiency. (e) To encourage the expansion of the school bus fleet by granting of road tax concessions. (f) To increase taxi licences from 3,800 to 5,000. The reorganisation was seen to be a comprehensive plan which was to be implemented over a three-year period and which, if implemented with sufficient imagination and vigour, would bring about a much improved public transport service for Singapore by 1973.' May I turn to page 2-21? `Public Transport Development Since 1968 The 1970 Government White Paper on Reorganisation of Motor Transport Service provided the much needed impetus for the improvement of public transport service in Singapore. For the first time in many years, a detailed and comprehensive examination was made of the many problems confronting the variety of public transport systems. For each of these problems, appropriate remedial action was recommended and problems which had seemed insurmountable began to appear less formidable. An important factor in making the reorganisation possible was the great reduction in unemployment in Singapore over recent years. The pirate taxi problem which threatened to cripple the bus operators is a case in point. If this problem had been eliminated simply by strict enforcement of existing laws, a large number of owner-drivers would have become unemployed and a popular service would have been lost~ If allowed to grow unchecked, it would have led to the eventual collapse of the privately-owned bus companies.' 7.15 p.m. 'Bus Services - Having been assured of Government's intention to remove pirate taxis from the road, the operating companies were encouraged to expand their bus fleets. The ten Chinese bus companies merged into three groups: Associated Bus Services (Pte) Ltd, United. Bus Company (Pte) Ltd and Amalgamated Bus Company Ltd. Together with the Singapore Traction Company, they ran the scheduled bus services from the time the new routings became effective in April 1971 until the end of the year, when operational difficulties forced the STC to cease operations and its vehicles and services were taken over by the three remaining companies. In 1968 there were less than 1,200 buses in scheduled service; of these 60 per cent were more than ten years old, and 28 per cent were more than 16 years old. The goal of 2,000 buses, set in the reorganisation for 1973, was reached in April 1972. Only one quarter of the fleet was then more than 10 years old, and less than ten per cent had been in service longer than 16 years. They were operating on 141 routes, as shown for each company in Figure 2-10, at headways varying from four minutes to one hour. Bus fares, which were made uniform among companies at the time of reorganisation, are distance-based;...' Sir, two main targets were achieved under the White Paper plan for 1970/73: -

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we are very grateful to the Minister for having put the words that he had uttered in May, 1968, in the right perspective, and we are certainly impressed by the assertion that he has made in his apologia just now. Sir, I would like to take this opportunity to put my own words in their correct perspective. I did say that the Minister had referred to the problem of transport at that time, in the words I quoted. And I would like to use my own particular words if I may, Sir, and I am sure they are in Hansard (Hansard, 15th March, 1974 (cols. 192-3) by this time. These were the words I said: `We have to look to the improvement of the SBS. We hope the Minister for Communications will eventually be able to contrive for us "a regular, efficient, clean and courteous service". [I have no doubt about that. But let me go on.] These words were the words the Minister for Communications used in May 1968, when he spoke of what he would set out to do in respect of the dependability of the transport service. [Now I do not think I have in any way distorted what has actually been said.] Even at that time [I continued during the debate on the Budget Statement] the Minister was already answering queries regarding the inefficient and poor service of our bus companies. It is unfortunate [and this is what I added; these are my own words] that things should have come to an even sorrier pass today, six years later.' I think that is a referential description of the state of things. But let me continue to quote what I actually said, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. `Having said this, one must also admit that it is no use wasting time over laments and heated argument.' Constructive criticism, as the Minister has asked, yes, but it is no use wasting time over laments and heated argument. And I hope the boys up there will note this too. `The Minister for Communications is himself most acutely and painfully aware of our bus situation. [Aren't you, Sir?] I have no doubt that, if it is necessary and feasible for the Government to take over the bus service, then this will be done [and I am not seeking any headlines when I make that particular remark.] The Minister has shown his determination to maintain a course of action he deems best under the circumstances. [Is that not correct, Sir?] Surely this conclusion has not been reached without a total assessment of choices. [That is correct also, Sir.] I do not see any alternative to giving the Minister and his aides a chance to vindicate their judgements [that is correct, too. And, of course, we shall all be judges, and the public will be judges as to whether the Minister and his aides vindicate their judgement, Sir.] At the same time I would like to be assured that, while every attempt is being made to whip up the necessary hardware - buses, repair facilities, and so on - to meet the situation, the matter of training of relevant management both inside and outside the SBS is also being pursued vigorously.' I think I have put my words in their correct perspective, Sir.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, like the Member for Katong, I am also impressed by the rebuttal given by the Minister to criticisms by Members of this House concerning the bus service. It is difficult to take him on a debate because of his considerable ability and his eloquence in putting across his point of view. I think we accept the fact that in this spirit of reorganisation, teething problems are bound to arise and therefore time must be given to see the successful fruition of whatever reorganisational plans there are in this bus transport system. But I wonder if I could get some kind of indication from the Minister as to the period of time that we have got to wait. I did say in my remarks that there are already signs showing the success of the introduction of this supplementary transport scheme. These are good signs. Will he be able to roughly guess the period of time that we have got to wait before we see a vast improvement in all the reorganisational plans?

Mr Speaker, Sir, sitting here in the last few days and hearing Members speak on the bus service issues, there appears to have been many useful suggestions. But at the same time we seem to be repeating ourselves all the time. I feel that it is beginning to look like the `Watergate Affair' - plenty of noise. Where are we going to? I think, in all fairness, the Minister has just given a very strong assurance that there is a determination to make good and the union has given their promise. I mean, let us be fair. If we go on harping the same old point, we are going to demoralise the whole lot. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

I think what we should do now is this. Now that the Minister has given us his assurance, we should all sit back and watch carefully. But if in another year's time it has still not improved, then that is the time when we will make noise again. That is all I want to say. 6.30 p.m.

Sir, arising from the statements made by the Member for Moulmein and the Member for Jalan Kayu, I can assure them that this time next year it will not be necessary for further comments to be made. I shall make another statement of policy tomorrow when we debate the Registry of Vehicles.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in view of the satisfactory explanation given by the Minister for Communications, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head HA be reduced by $10 in respect of item (b) of subhead AA 2730. Sir, the Post Office Savings Bank is a statutory board in banking business, and it should be in a position to lend money to others and to make more money. I have no doubt that the POSB is just doing that and is in a very sound financial position. That being the case, Sir, my query is, why is this $20,000-contribution from public funds made to encourage students to save money in the POSB? I am sure the POSB can well afford this as well as think of other incentives to encourage savings not only from our students but also from the people of Singapore as a whole. In view of the fact that the interest in the bank rate and fixed deposits has increased, would the Post Office Savings Bank consider increasing its interest rates to depositors? Income tax exemption for POSB interest is not a sufficient incentive for deposits in the POSB as the bulk of its depositors are in an income group that does not pay income tax in any case.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in 1968 the Post Office Savings Bank Advisory Committee was set up to examine ways and means of improving the Post Office Savings Bank. One of the recommendations of the Committee was the introduction of the Students' Gift Account scheme. The scheme was accepted, and it was introduced to Secondary I students in 1969. Under this scheme, any student entering Secondary I classes for the first time will be eligible to apply for a gift of $5 from the Government provided he has a minimum of $5 in his POSB account. However, the sum of $10 can only be withdrawn after a period of five years from the date of Government's contribution. If the Member for Telok Blangah is interested, I will mention the various amounts provided. For the year 1971, although $60,000 was provided, $11,905 was actually paid out. In 1972 $50,000 was provided, and only $10,625 was used. Last year $20,000 was provided and $14,505 was actually paid out. The amount provided for 1974 was $20,000. This is the amount referred to by the Member. The Government's contribution is rather small and it is actually a worthwhile expenditure to encourage the saving habit among our young citizens. The need to save is even more important in the present inflationary situation. However, the question whether the Government should cease to make the contribution is a matter which has to be considered between the Ministry of Finance and the POSB. Regarding the suggestion that the interest on deposits with the POSB be increased, Members of the House will recall that this same question was raised with the Minister for Finance during the Budget debate, and the Minister had already mentioned the reason for the present rate and, if necessary, the matter might be reconsidered.

Sir, I have no quarrel at all with the incentives. Let us have further incentives, if necessary. But the POSB is a money-making statutory board. Use the money from the POSB to give the incentives - but why public funds?

As I have mentioned just now, this is a matter to be discussed between the POSB and the Ministry of Finance. The contribution comes from the Ministry of Finance. If it is willing to assist the POSB to promote savings among the young citizens, I think all the more the encouragement should be given.

It is my sincere hope that the Ministry of Communications would take this matter up with the Ministry of Finance and perhaps advise that the POSB is in a sound financial footing and that the POSB can afford to pay the incentives, if necessary. I hope next year this provision will not appear under this Head. On that note, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The following amendment stood in the name of Mr N. Govindasamy -

Mr N. Govindasamy, amendment No. (3).

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in view of the fact that guillotine time is approaching, I am not moving my amendment.

It is all right. The Member may carry on.

No, Sir,I would rather not move this amendment, but I prefer to speak on my next amendment which I consider much more important.

Very well. The sum of $1,257,150 for Head HA ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $1,129,000 for Head HA ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head HB --

Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head HB be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead AA 1107. Sir, under this Head, I am again going to speak on "flag of convenience" vessels. Singapore has been listed internationally as a country that welcomes "flag of convenience" registration. Sir, I submit once again that in return for all the incentives that Singapore offers to "flag of convenience" ships, such registration brings no benefit to Singapore at all other than perhaps the dubious prestige of having its name appearing in the Lloyd's Register as a country with a sizable shipping tonnage. I do not think that we should get into the Register at the cost of getting ourselves associated and lumped together with countries such as Panama, Liberia, Somalia and Honduras, which are our notorious predecessors in allowing their flags to be lightly used by shipowners. As I have mentioned during the Budget debate, ships registered under the flag of a country need not have to call at a port of the country of their nominal flag, not even for the initial registration at all. Many of the ships registered under "flag of convenience" may continue to sail the seven seas but without ever touching the shores of the country whose flag the ships are flying. The foreign ship-owners of vessels presently registered under the Singapore flag are birds of passage, who would not have the slightest hesitation of changing to another flag of registration if there arc better pickings to be made under the new flag. I mentioned this, and I repeat, that Singapore's good name and its flag are being tarnished if we continue to tolerate the practice of "flag of convenience" registration. For the registration of foreign vessels under Singapore flag, the owners only need to hire a desk-space and the use of an office address. They need not employ Singapore crew. Many of them do not. They employ crew which is known as "crew of convenience." In other words, they register ships here which need not come to Singapore shores and need not employ local crew. Even if the ships call at Singapore regularly, the ship-owners can still employ foreign crew openly and with the blessing of the Director of Marine. It may be claimed that the "flag of convenience" has the same effect on organised seamen just as a red rag is commonly supposed to incite a bull. I do not deny that trade unions, particularly of seamen, have very strong views on and are very firmly opposed to the "flag of convenience" registration. 7.45 p.m. But let us look at the problem in as an objective manner as we can. On the one hand we have the following disadvantages: -

If the Member for Telok Blangah wants an answer from the Minister, could he please make his speech short?

Sir, that is why I did not move my previous amendment. (2) Flag of convenience ships do not have to employ Singapore seamen, irrespective of whether they are union members or not. And if such ships take on foreign seamen there i5 no assurance that the ships will observe Singapore's provisions governing safety of ships. The odium associated with the loss of life, of property in the sinking of a "coffin" ship registered under the Singapore flag may outweigh whatever the benefit of allowing flag of convenience registration to Singapore. If most flag of convenience ships do not call at Singapore there is no means for Singapore to ensure that they observe certain safety provisions. (3) Having a large fleet of flag of convenience vessels does not mean our exporters and importers would be able to obtain concessions on the freight of goods to and from Singapore as these vessels would be either tied to one of the shipping conferences or be interested in making as much profit as they possibly can. (4) Our Port may not even benefit from the flag of convenience ships which may never have called at Singapore at all. Against all these disadvantages, we have (1) the dubious prestige of a nation with a substantial mercantile navy whose individual ship-owners and masters may not even know where Singapore is, and (2) the revenue from the taxation on the earnings of the vessels. If the skill of land-based enterprises in avoiding taxation is any indication, the revenue from this source can hardly amount to much.

Order. We have passed guillotine time. But if the Member will stop now, I will give the Minister two minutes to reply.

All right, Sir,I will just tell the Minister this: if we want to have locally-registered ships, let us have genuine locally-registered ships and not ships registered under the "flag of convenience".

Sir, Members have heard what the Member for Telok Blangah has said about the disadvantages, and that there are no advantages to be gained in the various aspects of this "flag of convenience", as he termed it, ship registry of Singapore. In 1969, an open registry of ships was established under which non-Singapore citizens and companies could register their ships in Singapore. It was decided at that time that incentives similar to those offered to the pioneer industries should be introduced to encourage registration of ships in Singapore, and the major incentive was the exemption from Singapore income tax of earnings from the operation of Singapore-registered ships and low registration fees. The success of our Registry can be seen from the tonnage figures.

What for?

Just to tell the Member that we do derive benefits from it by knowing what has happened in a short period. In 1968, we had on our register 253,000 tons and on 28th February this year, we have more than 2.85 million gross tons registered in our Registry. What does this mean in terms of benefits to us? First, we come to the actual revenue which the Member mentioned was not much. In 1971, the revenue was $885,000. In 1972, it was $2.33 million. That is in terms of the actual revenue. What about other advantages that we have derived from this registry of ships? We must remember that we have a port which is the fourth largest in the world serving ships of many nations and equipped with facilities for cellular container ships. Then we have shipping and ship-repair industry which is a very substantial industry. We also have the national shipping line providing liner and other shipping services. In addition, we have local shipping companies, some of them are owning substantial fleets. Then we have a whole range of associated activities from ship-breaking to ship-chandlering, ship insurance, financing, legal services, inland transport services, and so on. All these are various aspects of the shipping industry and the registry of ships is part of this system. Viewed in this broader context, the Registry can be seen to play a role in helping to promote Singapore as a shipping centre. The fact that the earnings of Singapore-registered ships are exempt `from Singapore income tax may make financial institutions more willing to provide credit facilities particularly against the security of firm period charters since the possibility of changes in tax level is removed. Owners of Singapore flag ships may then find it easier to get access to financing from local financial institutions. All these will help in the development of Singapore as a financial centre.

Dr Ang, I must interrupt you now. Does the Member for Telok Blangah wish to withdraw his amendment, or does he want to put it to a vote?

I do not wish to withdraw, Sir.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived. The time allotted for Head HB having expired, the following amendment, standing in the name of Mr N. Govindasamy, was not proceeded with -

(In Mandarin): Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head HC be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead AA 1106*. (* The same amendment also stood in the name of Mr P. Govindaswamy.) Under this Head, I would like to ask the Minister of State two questions. The first question is on the taxi service at the Paya Lebar Airport. Many years ago, the Airport had a system of permits which were issued to taxis to ply between the airport and the city. Only those with permits could enter the precincts of the airport to pick up passengers. The number of taxis which were given permits were selected from a few thousand applications. Selection was done by the Civil Aviation Department, the Registry of Vehicles, the Traffic Police and so on. With this system of permits, I am afraid there is quite a lot of confusion at the airport at present. The reason is that there is inadequate control. However, there are also some taxis plying between the airport and the city without permits. This defeats the purpose of issuing permits. I would like the Minister to investigate into this matter.

If the Member for Sembawang wants an answer from the Minister, he will have to stop now.

Sir, I need only half a minute more. The second question i5 on taxi stands at the airport which are inadequate. I understand that there are more than 200 taxis operating at the airport. But there are taxi stands for only about 20-odd taxis at the airport precincts. I think this number is not enough. I would like the Minister to consider whether the number of taxi stands could be increased at Paya Lebar Airport in order to improve the service provided by the taxis.

Mr P. Govindaswamy is not here. Dr Ang.

Sir, at the moment, there are 308 taxis having this special permit to operate at the Singapore Airport. The number is determined by the needs and, if required, more taxis will be allowed to operate there. Taxis without permits are not allowed to pick up passengers at the airport. They are only allowed to pick up passengers going to the airport and not from the airport to the city. As regards the taxi stands, the situation is constantly under review, and if there is actual shortage I am sure the Airport authorities will provide the necessary space to see that there are sufficient taxi stands to cater for the various taxi drivers. Concerning the control of the taxi traffic at the airport, we have the Airport police which makes periodic checks to ensure that only taxi drivers who have been registered are allowed to operate. 8.00 p.m.

Order. Moment of interruption. Mr Teong, would you like to withdraw your amendment?

(In Mandarin): Sir, I thank the Minister of State for his reply to my questions. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $11,745,760 for Head HC ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $50,848,400 for Head HC ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Thereupon Mr Deputy Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House.

Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply has made further progress on the Main and Development Estimates for the financial year 1st April, 1974 to 31st March, 1975, and ask leave to sit again tomorrow.

So be it.

Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn."-[Mr Jek Yeun Thong]. Adjourned accordingly at Two minutes past Eight o'clock p.m.