Hansard, 1978-03-15

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

32 p.m. Head M (cont.) - Resumption of Debate on Question [14th March, 1978], "That the sum to be allocated for Head M be reduced by $10 in respect of item 1100 of Subhead Code MA-01 of the Main Estimates." - [Mr Tan Cheng San] Question again proposed.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Member for Paya Lebar was talking about the merit and demerit scheme yesterday. Members will recall that in July last year the NWC recommendations on performance and payment clearly set out the rationale for the merit and demerit schemes. It is not in the interest of management to emphasise on demerit schemes only. Due recognition for production performance through merit schemes should be given equal emphasis. The Member for Paya Lebar may be interested to know that the Ministry of Labour recently conducted a study on the collective agreements received by the Industrial Arbitration Court for certification during the period 1st August, 1977 to the end of January this year. Of the total of 149 collective agreements received, 12 have provisions for productivity incentive schemes; 37 make general provisions for withholding, deferment, or stoppage of annual increments; nine provide for the granting of merit increments at the discretion of management and 15 other agreements provide for both withholding, deferment, or stoppage of annual increments and the granting of merit increments at the discretion of management. Of these 149 agreements, 69 do not contain any provision for productivity incentive schemes, merit or demerit schemes or productivity committees. However, 12 of the 69 establishments, including Government and statutory boards, are known to be operating some form of merit or demerit schemes although these have not been spelt out in their collective agreements. Of the remaining 57 establishments, 42 indicate that the question of productivity incentive schemes was not raised at the collective agreement negotiations. Members may also wish to know that presently four establishments are engaged in negotiations with unions at the Ministry on the introduction of merit and demerit schemes. We have held a series of discussions with the Singapore Employers' Federation and the National Employers' Council with a view to seeking their cooperation in getting their member firms to introduce some form of productivity incentive schemes. To further propagate the concept and practice of merit and demerit schemes, the National Productivitv Board will be convening a tripartite seminar in three months' time. In addition, conciliation officers in the Ministry of Labour have been impressing upon parties during conciliation sessions to provide merit and demerit clauses in their collective agreements. The Ministry has also compiled the merit and demerit schemes from concluded collective agreements for the general guidance of both unions and managements. With due respect to the Member for Anson, may I point out to him that it is not the practice of the Work Permit Department to ask permanent residents to obtain a re-entry permit from the Immigration Depart- ment. Confirmation of the permanent residential status is done directly between the Work Permit Department and the Immigration Department. However, if the Member has any particular case in mind where an applicant has been inconvenienced unnecessarily by the Work Permit Department, I would be grateful if he could provide me with the necessary details of the case so as to facilitate investigation into this matter. The Member has also mentioned that permanent residents applying for renewal of their work permits have also been asked by the Work Permit Department to obtain re-entry permits from the Immigration Depart- ment before their applications for renewal can be considered. May I point out here that in a renewal case the Work Permit Department has advised applicants to get confirma- tion from the Immigration Department of their permanent residential status only in cases where there is a doubt as to whether applicants are still permanent residents. For example, if an applicant whose passport indicates that he has travelled out of Singapore and has returned on a social visit pass, the Work Permit Department needs to know whether he has lost his permanent residential status. While it may be possible for the Work Permit Department to ascertain the permanent residential status of the applicant directly with the Immigration Department, the applicant is however advised to confirm his residential status personally with the Immigration Department as this would expedite the procedure in the interest of the applicant, for the Immigration Department will still require him to appear personally at the Immigration Department in order to check on his residential status. The Member for Anson is just in time to listen to my second topic which he raised last evening. He was talking about the exodus of workers from this country to the Middle East and elsewhere. From the records of the Immigration Department, it is estimated that less than 1,000 skilled and unskilled Singaporeans left for the Middle East last year for employment purposes. We are aware of the problems raised by the Member for Anson. We have advised and warned the local and foreign contractors that it is illegal under the Employment Agency Act to recruit any kind of workers for overseas employment without a licence. Those who breach the Act are punishable with a $500 fine for the first offence and $1,000 or six months' gaol for a subsequent offence or both fine and imprisonment. Currently we are keeping a very close watch on the recruitment of workers for foreign employment. Advertisements as well as correspondence or complaints are scrutinised and checked for such illegal activities. We are also working out steps to tighten abuses of unscrupulous local and overseas recruiting agents and to take strict action against them. We will ensure that recruiting agents have a properly established office registered in Singapore so that they can be held responsible should our workers in foreign lands suffer undue hardship. I would strongly advise our workers seeking employment abroad to ensure that their contracts are equitable and not loaded against them. Such workers should seek the advice of the Ministry of Labour before signing on. This will also enable us to determine if such contracts are enforceable in Singapore. Coming to his third topic on the question of a worker taking on a second job or part-time work outside his normal work, I would say that it is not illegal to undertake part-time jobs. However, undertaking part-time work is prohibited in most employment contracts unless sanctioned by the employers. The Civil Service is just one example. The Member for Anson quoted the case of teachers. It is true that teachers do give part-time tuition but then they must get permission. They must get official approval before they can do that. The approval has conditions attached to it. For example, teachers cannot take on part-time work exceeding six hours a week or the part-time work should not adversely affect the performance of his official duties. Even the preparation of such part-time work should not be done during normal office hours. The Member for Potong Pasir talked about the benefits or the advantages or disadvantages of remaining as a member of the International Labour Organisation. I think many people share his doubt whether we really benefit by remaining a member of the ILO because we are paying a 100% increase in subscription, as was stated yesterday. So some people are beginning to wonder whether there is any advantage to be gained by continuing our membership. But in the past, and even very recently, we do benefit by being invited to international seminars and various conferences and meetings. I think some members of the Civil Service were sent to attend them. For example, the recent one was the International Symposium on the Control of Air Pollution in the Working Environment held in Stockholm. The other one was the Tripartite Technical Meeting for Civil Aviation held in Geneva.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in the Minister of State's reply to the Member for Anson, I gained the impression that the Government or his Ministry is not in favour or, in fact, discouraging local workers from going out of this country to the Middle East. I just do not understand why we are discouraging our workers from working in other countries. For example, I think South Korea has about 100,000 workers in the Middle East and that labour force is earning foreign currency for the country.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am sorry if I had given the wrong impression that we are discouraging our people from working abroad and bringing in hard currency back to Singapore. I am afraid that was not my intention whatsoever. What I was trying to stress was that our workers should keep their eyes open when they put their signatures on the dotted line. We have read a lot about swindling cases and that when our people were sent abroad they were not given proper board and lodging. They had to suffer and even come back before they really had a chance to fulfil their contract. What I am advocating is that before our workers take on jobs abroad they should first check and make sure that the contract is not loaded against them and that the provisions in the contract are enforceable in Singapore, so that if there is anything wrong then we can always get hold of the recruiting agents or contractors and bring them to book.

( In Mandarin): Sir, in view of the explanation of the Minister of State, I beg to withdraw my amendment. Amendment by leave, withdrawn. 2.45 p.m.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head M be reduced by the whole sum in respect of Subhead Code MB-02 of the Main Estimates. Sir, during last year's budget session, I brought up the question of the need to check abuses in any retrenchment exercise. We still find some employers resorting to retrenchment of workers under one pretext or other. We were then assured that the Ministry of Labour would closely monitor the situation to prevent,such abuses. It is sad to say that the purported monitoring has little effect at all. A case in point is the recent retrenchment exercise carried out by stockbrokers' firms. This happened at a time when workers from these firms decided to join a union. This provided a convenient loophole for employers to exploit in getting rid of active unionists. Retrenchment was carried out as soon as the union won recognition to represent the workers in these firms. Unions are not opposed to retrenchment if there is a genuine reason, such as adverse trading conditions and so on. However, unions cannot accept blatant abuses because of loopholes in the law. I would therefore request the Ministry of Labour to take necessary steps to ensure that employers do not take undue advantage of the labour laws. The Ministry should make employers provide information like reasons for retrenchment, savings in wage bills and ensure that such cost-cuttings are not squandered on expenditures like buying of cars and other perks for management personnel. The 1976 NWC recommendations provide penalties for job-hopping but nothing is done to curb employers from encouraging job-hopping. Employers including some statutory boards blatantly encourage job-hopping. These can be found in the classified advertisement columns of newspapers. Blandishments like applicants should preferably have two to three years' experience in similar positions cajole workers into job-hopping. If the Ministry is really serious about the problems of job-hopping, steps should be taken to penalise employers who encourage job-hopping. Sir, the other point I would like to raise is an article in the New Nation on the 4th of March. It was stated that the Ministry of Labour will be sending more officers specialising in labour affairs for overseas training. It was also stated that such officers can after their training put their knowledge and experience to better use. In the past, the Ministry had sent several officers overseas for training on industrial relations. On their return, none of them was posted to the Industrial Relations Division of the Ministry to put their knowledge to good use. This is surely a waste of funds and talent. Can the Hon. Minister give an assurance to the House that this state of affairs will not happen again. Can the Minister also enlighten the House whether officers presently serving in the Industrial Relations Division will be given the opportunity to be sent overseas for training under the proposed programme? This should benefit the officers concerned by broadening their knowledge.

Sir, I recall that the Member for Toa Payoh did raise this subject of unjustified retrenchment last year. By and large, the reasons for retrenchment are to trim labour costs or to enhance productivity through reorganisation so as to sustain and improve the company's viability and competitiveness. The Labour Ministry's records show that 66 companies retrenched 3,447 employees in 1977 due to a decline in business, closing down of companies, termination of contracts or reorganisation. In the same year, 56 disputes over retrenchment benefits which involved unionised workers were referred to the Ministry for conciliation. Most of these disputes were settled amicably. A few of the unsettled disputes were referred to the Industrial Arbitration Court by the disputants for determination of the quantum of retrenchment benefits. Some of the cases are still under conciliation. In these 56 disputes, the unions concerned did not seriously question the justification of the retrenchment. However, in six other alleged victimisation cases filed with the Ministry during the year, the unions concerned claimed that retrenchment was used as a pretext to get rid of union members. Two of these cases were thoroughly investigated and it was found that there were valid grounds for retrenchment. In another three cases, the unions and management concerned subsequently reached an amicable settlement. The last case went to the Industrial Arbitration Court but the parties were able to reach an out-of-court settlement. In addition, the unions lodged a formal complaint to the NTUC alleging that a certain company resorted to unjustified retrenchment as a means of getting rid of long service employees who were on the top of their salary scales and replacing them with new employees with low salaries. After exhaustive investigations by the Ministry, the allegations were found to be unsubstantiated. We must realise that, for us to remain competitive, it is inevitable that redundancy will arise as the modernisation of our industries gains momentum. Be that as it may, the Ministry's guidelines on retrenchment with which the Member for Toa Payoh is well acquainted lay emphasis on the need to carry out retrenchment as a last resort. The Member is also fully aware that the Ministry closely monitors all retrenchment exercises to guard against abuse of the provisions of the Industrial Relations Act by unscrupulous employers. As for the holding of formal inquiries, although the Member did not mention it, I take it that what we do not want is a court room type of proceedings where submissions of the case are made by both unions and employers and followed by cross-examination of witnesses. But what we have been able to achieve so far is that both parties concerned in the dispute are able to reach complete understanding and the case amicably settled. I think that should achieve the objective. But I am quite sure that the Ministry will give full support to the unions if a case can be made out that the management is abusing its right to reorganise and retrench. On the question of poaching of staff by management, I fully agree that we should not encourage it. In fact, we should actively discourage such practice. But very often it is the workers themselves who fall to this kind of bait as we see in the newspaper advertisements as quoted by the Member for Toa Payoh. All are agreed that job-hopping or poaching of employees is an undesirable practice, both in the long-term and short-term. It does not promote skill development and, worse, it escalates wage costs. Certain employers, particularly small establishments who do not plan their manpower requirements, are inclined to secure their needs in this way. To a certain extent, I would say that such practices are unavoidable because the long-term solution would be for management to actively plan its own manpower requirements and upgrade the skills of their workers, either on their own or jointly with the Industrial Training Board and the EDB through comprehensive apprenticeship programmes. Poaching of employees can be further curbed if management pays greater attention to career development prospects and thus ensure greater job satisfaction. But employees on their part must realise that craftsmen and technicians master their skills through years of endeavour and not through constant job changes. As I have said earlier, it would appear inevitable that a certain amount of poaching of staff, especially by small or even newly established companies, has been going on. Everyone concerned in this matter is not happy about it. The Economic Development Board is closely monitoring the situation. And I am sure employer's organisations, like the Singapore Employers' Federation or the Employers' Council, do not like to see their members indulge in this undesirable practice. But I am afraid there is no foolproof solution. At least I have not come across any foolproof solution to this matter. On the suggestion of taking punitive measures against managements for this undesirable practice, I am not so sure if the time is ripe for that. As regards overseas training courses for staff in the Ministry of Labour, particularly those in the conciliation section, it is true that in the past quite a number of officers were sent abroad on labour courses of one kind or another and invariably when they returned they did not really do the work for which they have been specially sent out to be trained. I do not think this is peculiar to the Ministry of Labour. I think other Ministries also have the same experience, I do not know who is to blame. I am sure the proper department or Ministry would take note. I do not think the people responsible to carry out the job will be happy with this kind of situation. But I can assure the Member for Toa Payoh that, with the introduction of the Labour Service, we would not have the same kind of situation again. If officers who opt to join the Labour Service am sent abroad for training, they will remain in the Labour Ministry when they come back. And I can assure him that certainly we would not want to see talents and the ability of the officers wasted on something which they were not trained for. 3.00 p.m.

Sir, the Minister has replied that there is no evidence to show that there have been abuses in the retrenchment exercise. In one instance, as he has quoted, a complaint was lodged through the NTUC to the Minister for Labour that a certain company had retrenched more than 100 employees and recruited about 80 new employees over a period of six months. But the employer did it in a very careful manner that he left very little ground for the Ministry to investigate. But, as the Minister has said, there is insufficient proof on the part of the union against the employer concerned. This gives rise to the question whether any monitoring or investigation conducted by the Ministry of Labour without holding a formal inquiry is effective enough to prevent such abuses. Holding an inquiry will be a first step in deterring employers who want to take advantage of the labour laws. Another complaint I would like to raise is about a motor firm that retrenched more than 100 employees during a certain year. The company paid out $1.7 million in retrenchment benefits to these 100-plus workers. They made a $2.6 million net profit in the same year. And in the following year, after the retrenchment exercises were carried out, they made a profit of $10.8 million. But in their notice of retrenchment to the workers concerned, the company pleaded that due to adverse business conditions they were compelled to retrench the workers. Surely this is a blatant abuse on the part of the employer concerned. It is not a loss in business at all. The next point I would like to touch on is job-hopping, again. The Minister has said that there is nothing the Ministry can do to prevent such abuses and he says that most of the poaching comes from the smaller companies. This is not true. If Members will look at the classified advertisements on job vacancies in today's and yesterday's newspapers, they will find that man# of these advertisements were put in by big companies. Surely there must be some way to deter such employers from poaching at the expense of employers who provide career prospects and on-the-job training for their workers.

Sir, as I said earlier, if a formal inquiry is necessary, a lot of time will be required. I would agree that if a case is bad enough and that normal conciliation procedures are not effective, then by all means let us have a formal inquiry. I would say that the union can always request for one if it can make out a good case for it. As regards the motor firm retrenching its workers, I have not got the details of the particular incident. But I would say that the avenues for appeal and complaint are always open. I would strongly urge the trade union leaders to make full use of them. Do not forget that we are there to assist, particularly the workers. They can rest assured that our duty is clear. In fact, we have been accused on many occasions of being biased, that we are always for the workers. That is the complaint from the management side. But we have also heard from the trade union side that we sided the management. So we are right in the centre, being hammered by both sides. But we survive. And we will certainly continue to do our best. As to job-hopping, I do hot exclude big companies. But I think in most cases of poaching of staff, it is always done by newly established industries and by the smaller ones. The really big international companies, I think would not like their names to be tarnished. They would not like to be accused of poaching staff from some other reputable firms. As I say, there is nothing really that we can do to stop them from doing so, unless our workers themselves realise that they would not be able to achieve higher skills if they continue to change jobs. But if the Member for Toa Payoh has got some good ideas to put forward, we shall be glad to have them.

In view of the not very satisfactory reply, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment, Sir. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head M be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead Code MC-01 of the Main Estimates. Sir, abortion and sterilisation of consenting adults is legal in Singapore. This is indeed as it should be in keeping with our Government's policy on birth control. We have also proved that our birth control campaign is most successful in this part of the world. Yet, the labour legislation that provides for confinement benefits for female workers does not accord leave benefits for those seeking abortion or sterilisation in the case of male workers. Consequently, the employers exclude these from medical benefits thus making it a disincentive for workers to adhere to the call for family planning in Singapore. It can hardly be refuted that abortion requires hospitalisation in some cases and in most cases require rest and recuperation. Why then can it not be recognised as an ailment just like any other requiring minor surgical treatment? In some countries, they even offer incentives in the form of gifts or cash rates to persuade workers to undergo abortion or sterilisation. In Singapore workers are very reasonable and responsible. We do not ask for this. Here we are only asking this to be treated as a medical or surgical requirement for a national purpose, on qualified advice. It is hoped the Hon. Minister would give it serious thought and introduce the necessary amendments in Part X of the Employment Act.

Sir, the Employment Act provides that an employee who has served an employer for a period of not less than 12 months is entitled to paid sick leave not exceeding 14 days in each year, if he is certified to be sick or unfit for work by a duly registered medical practitioner, be he a private medical practitioner or Government medical officer. The Act does not specify the type of sickness in respect of which an employee is entitled to paid sick leave. So it depends on the production of a medical certificate. The sterilisation of males, I am told, is a very simple operation from the medical point of view. No hospitalisation is necessary. In fact, male employees from the private sector who avail themselves of the Government sterilisation services are normally operated on on Wednesdays and return the following Monday for a check-up. The intervening period is treated as sick leave. On the question of stating specifically that the leave is an abortion leave, I personally think there seems to be justification to treat it as. hospitalisation leave. However, the medical aspects of this matter are now being considered by the Ministry of Health. When views from all parties concerned are received, a definite decision will then be made.

Is the Minister of State aware that abortion leave is not granted by employers? Similarly, male workers who have undergone sterilisation are also not given leave by employers?

Sir, I said at the beginning that the question of medical leave depends on the production of a medical certificate. Once a doctor issues a medical certificate, stating that a particular individual is sick and that he is to have a few days off-work, surely that should be enough. I do not see how an employer can say no, once the doctor has given a medical certificate.

( In Mandarin): Sir, some employers adopt the attitude that this sickness is not a natural sickness, but an artificial one, and will not give them sick leave. So can the Minister of State assure us that this sort of sickness comes within the interpretation of the labour law?

In reply to the Member for Paya Lebar, the best way out of the situation is for the employee to tell the doctor to certify that he is sick or will be unfit for duty for so many days. And that is that. He only needs to produce just that certificate. I do not think the employer can then question him. "What sort of leave is this? or "What is wrong with you?" I do not think the employer can ask that kind of question.

( In Mandarin): Sir, there have been cases where a worker obtained a medical certificate indicating that he could not work. However, the employer says that the sickness ii not a natural sickness and therefore the worker is not entitled to sick leave.

Sir, this question of treating abortion as hospitalisation leave is being looked into. If the Member has in mind a particular case where the medical certificate simply says that such a person is ill and the employer says, "No, you cannot take medical leave" he could bring this up and we will look into the matter.

Sir, I would like to make a point of clarification. I have mentioned that the doctor simply puts down "abortion leave" or "sterilisation leave". It is unethical for a worker to ask the doctor to change it to "casual sick leave" or "other sick leave". Definitely the Labour Minister cannot pass this responsibility to the doctor. He should come out with a ruling to say whether this kind of leave can be granted or not. Is the Minister aware that most of the employers do not recognise the Government's medical officer's sick certificate?

Sir, the point here is whether the employer would grant leave for abortion or sterilisation. Let us remember that the Government is trying to encourage, in fact very strongly, people to abort if they can help it and to sterilise whenever possible. Let us remember that sterilisation is a once-over affair. One does not sterilise every year. That being so, I think it will be well in order that the Government should, in fact, encourage additional leave just for the purpose of sterilisation. Here we have this problem of the Labour Minister appearing rather reluctantly to endorse the view that it should, in fact, be considered medical leave. 3.15 p.m. As for passing the responsibility to the doctor to say, "This is sick leave", I think everybody knows what is sickness and what is sterilisation, as sterilisation is somewhat different from a sick situation. It does happen quite often where employers do request doctors for a medical report and I think doctors cannot falsify what is true.

Sir, of course, coming from a medical specialist I cannot quarrel with his statement. As I said in my answer, personally I think there is every justification for sick leave when a person goes for sterilisation or abortion. But to spell it out in the law, I am afraid, it takes a bit more time and I can assure the Member that we shall look into the matter and have it settled once and for all.

Sir, I am not happy with the explanation. However, since the Minister of State has given an assurance, I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head M be reduced by $10 in respect of item 1210 of Subhead Code MC-02 of the Main Estimates. Sir, the amendment to the Workmen's Compensation Act in 1975 promised quick settlement of compensation to disabled workers or their families. Have the settlement of claims actually been expedited? The amendment Act also included increases in quantum of compensation. With the increases in compensation, are there less resorts to common law action which is long, tedious and sometimes very difficult to finally resolve? With the quantum of compensation increased, is it not possible for the Ministry to consider payment by an annuity or a monthly payment instead of a lump sum payment? This will serve the injured worker or his family more meaningfully, especially if the sum of compensation is large. In addition to that, it will also enable the Ministry at a later stage to amend the Workmen's Compensation Act to tie in with the constant rise in the consumer price index so that in real terms the compensation paid over the years will most certainly be something that the workman himself or his family can rely upon, because in real terms the value of money drops over the years and if compensation is paid over, say, a period of 10 or 20 years to the injured worker or his family it would be more realistic to do it in the form of an annuity or a monthly payment. It would not be human to cease being responsible for an injured worker once compensation is paid. The disabled worker should be given a job once he is capable of working again, either the same job, if he is capable of performing it, or another job which he can be retrained to perform. How many, if any, of the disabled workers are taken back by their former employers? How many are retrained? If not, why are they not retrained? If so, is it in a new skill comparable with his old one in terms of salary payments? Rehabilitation of sick and injured workers is a social responsibility of the society. If a man cannot work, he cannot live. Has the Government any plans to rehabilitate sick and injured workers on a large scale? This could take the form of a rehabilitation insurance programme which could be tied in with more amendments to the Workmen's Compensation Act.

Amendment (5) is also on the subject of Workman's Compensation. Mr Phey, you might as well speak on it now.

Yes, Sir. The trade union movement is grateful to the Minister for Labour and his Ministry for taking initiative in amending the Workmen's Com- pensation Act on a number of occasions for the benefit of the injured workers. However, since its operation, experience shows that there are areas which need further review and there are areas which need further improvements. Under the Act, compensation is awarded for permanent incapacity or permanent disability to certain parts of the body. For example, if an employee has lost a tip of his finger, he is entitled to compensation. But he is not entitled to any compensation if he has completely lost his ear or teeth. Teeth can be replaced by denture, but it will cost him money. The loss of an ear may not affect his hearing but it is a loss which is visible and affect his appearance. Similarly, there is no compensation for a scar caused through an injury. In one instance, some chemicals fell on the arm of a young pretty girl. This accident left her with a long scar on her arm. This scar frequently grows and therefore she had to undergo surgery twice to graft the scar. She has to wear long sleeve blouse to cover the ugly scar for life. One can just imagine what would have been the fate if the chemical had splashed on her face leaving such an ugly scar. In this case, the Commissioner for Labour awarded $650 as compensation for pain and not a cent for the scar. However, the company concerned entertained the Union's plea on her behalf and paid $5,000. The fact is that the employer could rightly reject any claim for compensation for a scar. What is important is that the scar could be on the face through burns. What would be the fate of a young unmarried girl or boy having an ugly scar on his or her face? It is therefore my sincere hope that the Minister will further review the need to correct such deficiencies in the Act. Another difficulty experienced by injured workers is that under the Act, they are entitled to 14 days' full pay and one-third of the monthly pay up to a maximum of $195 for the remaining period. This restrictive provision causes undue hardship for injured workers. It will take months or even years for an employee to receive compensation if he is lucky. There are occasions when an employee is hospitalised or on injured leave at home for months, but his permanent disability may be zero percent. Under such circumstances, the loss of income of an employee who receives one-third month's salary for every 15 days is considerable without any hope of compensation. I wonder whether the Minister can consider making suitable changes in the Act to qualify the employee to the entitlement of full pay for 60 days at least, as in the case of hospitalisation leave for natural sickness. Another experience is that the number of cases involving disputes by insurance companies over the quantum of compensation awarded by the Labour Ministry has also increased. The employers rely on the opinions of the experts appointed by the insurance companies whilst the trade unions representing the employees rely on the opinions of the Government doctors, Such disputes result in litigations and hence hardship for the injured workers. It is therefore suggested that in the event of any conflict of opinions, the opinions of the Government consultant should prevail so that the workmen would not have to incur extra expenses nor be inconvenienced through arbitration proceedings, particularly in some cases where the quantum of compensation is small, of not more than a few thousand dollars. Moreover, it is quite obvious that whilst the medical experts assigned by the insurance companies may have vested interests, Government medical consultants are impartial because they have neither vested interests for nor against the insurance company or the employee concerned. Under the circumstances, where there is conflict of medical opinion on the degree of permanent disability between Government specialist and the insurance company appointed specialist, the Government specialist's opinion should prevail.

Sir, last year I highlighted certain areas in the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1975, for discussion and improvement, in the hope that the Ministry of Labour would look into them. To be fair to the Ministry of Labour, we are quite aware that the Workmen's Compensation Act had gone through various stages of revision. There was an amendment Act of 1971 and there is this Workmen's Compensation Act of 1975. But even with the Workmen's Compensation Act of 1975, a very cursory glance through the First Schedule would reveal gross inadequacies. These were the points which I raised last year and I would like to mention them once again: (1) The need for more comprehensive guidelines in the First Schedule. Presently, several aspects of trauma and the results of treatment of injuries and fractures, such as joint stiffness, muscle wasting and nerve injuries, are not covered in the First Schedule. Earlier on, similar views were expressed regarding the non-coverage of injuries like scars, the loss of the external ear, the loss of a tooth or teeth where no compensation award was provided. I say, Sir, for areas which have not been covered, the quantum of compensation awarded are left very largely to the attending physician who again gropes around in the dark to offer a percentage award. 3.30 p.m. (2) I feel that there is a need to establish a more permanent and expert Compensation Medical Board for awarding the quantum of compensation. An earlier speaker, had great faith in the doctors in Government service. But I am sure he would be appalled to hear that presently all and sundry within the medical profession, ranging from experts to novices, are called upon individually and only occasionally, collectively, to attend to workmen's compensation - resulting sometimes in less than equitable or, in fact, blatantly unfair awards. This had led to disputes and the need for arbitration to the extent that we find Government doctors versus private practitioners employed by insurance companies, and lawyers polarising into conflicting parties. I therefore feel that if it is not possible for all cases to be discussed and considered by a Medical Board, then perhaps those cases which are challenged should be submitted to such a board of experts for a fair and equitable assessment. (3) The problem of injured workmen's self-induced complications by defaulting medical treatment and resorting to Chinese sin-sehs, bomohs and quacks. Last year the Senior Parliamentary Secretary gave very fair comments on some of the points raised, particularly with regard to point (3) which I raised. He had also promised to look into the other aspects of my views on these matters. I would like this year to take this opportunity to invite his comments and perhaps to elaborate on actions which he has taken.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I take it that we will take amendments (4) and (5) together since the Members for Boon Teck and Kim Seng have spoken on the same subject. May I first be allowed to comment on the observations made by the Member for Potong Pasir. The Member for Potong Pasir has been extremely vocal over the years. In fact, he raised generally the same points last year and previous year, and the year previous to that, and previous to that and still previous to that! It all remains for me now to update him with the information in this annual exercise. I will begin with a brief roundup of the situation regarding the Workmen's Compensation Act. Sir, under the new Workmen's Compensation Act, 1975, which came into operation in October 1975, the system of administration and enforcement has been streamlined to ensure a more expeditious payment of compensation to the injured workers or their dependants. The long delays in the past were caused by many factors, such as the need to sign the memorandum of agreement, the need to ascertain the status of dependency of the injured workers as well as their economic dependency. There were also delays caused by the insurance companies disputing or repudiating the claims, a point which the Member for Boon Teck also raised. Under the new Act, the dependants of a deceased worker are assured full compensation as assessed by the Com- missioner for Labour, without having to establish their economic dependency on the deceased worker. Of course, the question of the status of dependency, relationship or kinship to the workers will have to be determined as a matter of legal procedure. Once a notice of assessment of compensation is served on the employer, the employer has to pay the compensation within 21 days from the service of the notice. Of course, this assumes that the employer does not dispute the quantum. But if he has any objection, he must lodge his objection within 14 days from the date of service of the notice. The new law also provides a penalty on the employers if payment of compensation is delayed. This is in the form of interest charged at the rate of 1 1/2% per month. The interest charged is credited to the Workers Fund. The Member for Potong Pasir may wish to know that one of the objectives of the Workers Fund, established under the Workmen's Compensation Act is to finance rehabilitation schemes for injured workers, much like the Workers Foundation. I believe the Member for Potong Pasir is also a champion of that scheme. The rate of compensation payable under the new Workmen's Compensation Act has been substantially increased. The Member for Potong Pasir has also mentioned the question of inflation, loss of monetary value over the years, the escalation of prices, and so on. In the case of permanent total incapacity, the workman is entitled to a maximum compensation of $45,000 as against only $28,000 under the old Act. And in a fatal case, Sir, the maximum compensation payable is $35,000 as compared with $21,600 under the old Act. In revising upwards the rate of compensation payable, the Minister had taken into consideration the very point raised by the Member for Potong Pasir, that is, the rise in the cost of living over the past few years as a result of inflation. Although the pain and suffering of the workman or the sorrow and anguish of his family and his next-of-kin can never be adequately measured in monetary terms, the present rate of compensation is at least sufficient to give financial relief to the injured workman or his family. May I at this stage also touch on the point raised by the Member for Boon Teck as well as the Member for Kim Seng regarding the compensation for such injury as disfiguration or permanent scars left behind as a result of injury. I am afraid one must understand the spirit of the Workmen's Compensation Act. The Act caters only for compensation for loss of earnings. It does not cover pain suffered as a result of injury or inconveniences or permanent scars left behind. Such matters should be taken up under the common law. I do not think the Workmen's Compensation Act should be all embracing as to include compensation for such matters so as to exclude common law claim. I think the common law should also be safeguarded by not making the Workmen's Compensation Act all too embracing. If a worker feels that he should be compensated for, say, a permanent scar, then he can contest under the common law, where he can engage a lawyer or seek assistance of the Legal Aid Bureau or the legal service of his union, if it has any, and submit his claim under the common law. In a common law action, all these factors can be considered. May I at this stage give a caution. Under the Workmen's Compensation Act the liability or mistake made either by the employer or the worker is not a point to be considered. Even if the injured worker concerned is found to be wrong - I would not say blatantly wrong - he would still get his compensation. But in a litigation under common law the worker will have to prove in open court that there has been negligence on the part of the other party. If a worker is found to be also partly responsible for the accident, this fact will affect the quantum of compensation if he is successful in the litigation. Such a worker may either stand to gain very much more or he might not gain anything at all under the common law. Of course, he can have recourse to the Workmen's Compensation Act. I do not wish to go into the details at this stage. In view of the substantial increase in the quantum of compensation payable, the Ministry has noted that there has been some reduction in the number of cases which proceeded under the common law. This was a point mentioned by the Member for Potong Pasir. The reduction is not very significant. For his information, I should perhaps let him have the figures for the years, 1975, 1976 and 1977. They are 352, 368 and 286 respectively. To safeguard the worker or his family from frittering away the lump sum compensation, a point which was also raised by the Member for Boon Teck, the Ministry has implemented the POSB Workmen's Compensation Scheme which came into operation on 1st January, 1977. Under this scheme the beneficiaries who are in receipt of a substantial sum or a lump sum compensation, say, in excess of $5,000, will not be given the whole lump sum. Instead they will be paid an initial sum of $5,000. This is sufficient to tide them over immediate expenses, particularly in fatal cases where funeral expenses have to be incurred and also to ease any possible hardship that might arise. The balance is deposited in a POSB account opened in their name. This account operates like any other POSB savings account except that the account holder is only allowed a monthly withdrawal of a sum to be determined by the Commissioner for Labour. For the dependants of a deceased worker, the monthly sum that can be withdrawn is equivalent to the last drawn monthly earnings of the deceased worker. In the case of savings accounts of the injured workmen themselves, they are allowed to withdraw during the first year a monthly sum equivalent to twice their monthly earnings at the time of the accident, and for subsequent years a sum equivalent to their monthly earnings. This is to ensure that the workmen or their families have more than sufficient money to spend on better food, medicine as well as other things to build up their strength and to look after their family. Prior to the implementation of the POSB Workmen's Compensation Scheme, the Ministry only holds in trust the compensation payable to the widows and minors and it disburses the compensation in monthly instalments. The amount of disbursementis mainly determined by their needs. The amount is not fixed, as in a schedule. The Member for Potong Pasir raised the question of the need to retrain injured workers. I do not know exactly what he meant. Does he mean a large scale retraining or rehabilitation?

Large scale.

In other words, retraining on a large scale. I do not know whether I should comment on this, Sir, but I will state the situation, and perhaps the Member for Potong Pasir can come to a better conclusion. The Ministry realises that injured workers who are permanently incapacitated may require further assistance than mere compensation. I think the assistance given to the workers should not just end there. The Ministry has since 1976 informed such workmen of the availability of a disablement resettlement scheme which is being run by the Employment Service for the purposes of retraining and placement of disabled persons in the job market. During the period June 1976 to March 1977 information pamphlets on the scheme were sent out to 713 workmen who had suffered permanent partial incapacity. However, the response was very poor. Out of 713, only two responded and both declined to register under the scheme. 3.45 p.m. In view of this lack of response the Ministry undertook a more active approach. In May 1977, we interviewed such workmen at the time when they came to collect their compensation. We wanted to know whether or not they required any assistance in securing jobs. During the period from May to December 1977, 150 injured workmen who suffered permanent and partial incapacity were interviewed. Of this total, 129 cases did not require employment assistance. Most of them continued to be employed, whilst a few had their own means of finding employment or they were not interested in looking for employment. The remaining 21 cases which required employment assistance were referred to the Employment Service for placement under the scheme. Of the 21 cases referred, 10 have found employment. Two of the cases referred did not respond to the call letter sent out by the Disablement Resettlement Officer asking them to come for interview for job placement. Three cases withdrew from the scheme to apply for a hawker or taxi licence, and six are pending job placements. Generally, I think the majority of the injured workmen are continuing with their own employment. In view of this, I really do not know whether we should at this stage embark upon large scale rehabilitation or retraining as suggested by the Member for Potong Pasir. I think the Labour Foundation under the auspices of the NTUC has as its declared objective a scheme for rehabilitation training. Maybe these workers can come under their scheme if they can find sufficient numbers to warrant it. As regards the problem raised by the Member for Boon Teck, I have already enlightened the House earlier on the spirit of the Workmen's Compensation Act as well as the spirit of the common law. I do not think I should go back to it again. On the question of temporary incapacity benefits, the entitlement of full wages up to 14 days is given in cases involving no hospitalisation. I think it is more than adequate as the injury sustained in such cases is not serious and the majority are fit to return to work in less than 14 days. For the more serious cases where the workman is hospitalised, he is entitled to full wages for the period of hospitalisation, not exceeding 60 days. This is exactly what the Member for Boon Teck asked for - at least 60 days. The workman is already entitled to it. If his incapacity exceeds this period he is entitled to half monthly payment at the rate of one-third his monthly earnings up to a maximum of $195. Perhaps with that assurance on the existing provision in the law, the Member for Boon Teck should be satisfied. If he has any specific case or any point which he wishes to raise, we will consider it. The Member for Boon Teck has been very concerned about workers' welfare, and he also mentioned the question of insurance dispute, delays in the claims as well as who should certify the quantum. In 1977, there were about 300 cases under dispute. The total number of compensable accidents reported under the Workmen's Compensation Act was 30,086. Therefore, the 300 cases under dispute represent about 1.5% of the accidents reported. The majority of cases under dispute are those where the injury sustained results in a partial dysfunction of the limb. Except for these injuries, the Workmen's Compensation Act provides sufficient guidelines for doctors to make an assessment for award for permanent or temporary disability suffered by the workmen. The First Schedule to the Act clearly sets out a list of injuries which result in the complete loss of limbs or part of the limbs and the corresponding award for percentage loss in earning capacity. The Member for Kim Seng also raised the same point. I wish to record a note of appreciation to the Member for Kim Seng in particular, and also to the Member for Boon Teck. As for the Member for Kim Seng, we are grateful to him for initiating the discussion in the House in the last budget session when he voiced his concern on the matter. Action was taken by my Ministry as a result of his observation and a study was made with a view to designing a system which is fair and equitable. I am pleased to report to the House that the guidelines have been prepared, tested by the specialists both in the Government Hospitals and in the University and they are found to be workable. These guidelines are now being printed and when they are ready they will be supplied free of charge to all Government doctors only. I am afraid the private practitioners may have to pay for them. It is a matter of principle. I have some doubts about the feasibility of the Member for Kim Seng's suggestion for the establishment of a panel or a board to reassess the quantum or percentage of the incapacity. Although it is a good suggestion, I have some doubts about its feasibility. This might encourage the injured workers first to make an objection to each and every assess- ment and requiring the board to convene a meeting to make the reassessment, in which case the board will be landed with such unwieldy amounts of work that it just cannot function. The specialist involved will also be so burdened with these meetings and reassessment that we think it might interfere with his professional duties. I do not think this is a healthy situation. But it is a good suggestion. We will leave it open and when the need arises, we will reconsider the matter. Sir, I believe that I have covered all the points raised by Members. If I have missed any points, will Members please remind me?

Sir, I am indeed surprised that the Senior Parliamentary Secretary, being in a Ministry that is tied up very closely with the National Productivity Board, is unproductive. If I had raised the same questions previously, why did he not just flip over Hansard and quote and unquote and maybe distribute it to all Members in the House? I have got a copy of Hansard here and I find that I raised entirely different questions. Unproductive as he is, he is still doing his job. Unfortunately, the Hon. Minister for Labour is not around to see him do it. However, there are still complaints of delays although the Senior Parliamentary Secretary says that he is trying to do something for the people who are being compensated. The delays are mainly due to the medical assessments. I do not know whether he can do something to hasten the assessments. I suppose the Senior Parliamentary Secretary has not read the Economic Survey. I have a copy. Would he like to borrow it? The Minister for Finance did say that the consumer price index has increased by 3% and the Workmen's Compensation Act was amended in 1975. On the increases in quantum of compensation, I also did mention that we have to take into consideration the compensation that is paid over the number of years, 10 years, 20 years. By then, will the dollar be worth the same? Can it buy the same quantity of rice, sugar or any other commodity that is essential for the consumer? I feel that his Ministry should look into this matter rather closely and come up with the possibility of introducing a monthly payment of an annuity. There was another point that I wanted to raise. Can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary also consider amending the Workmen's Compensation Act to raise the ceiling for non manual workers from $750 to $800? Taking into consideration the 1976 and 1977 NWC salary raises, this is mathematically sound. We could work it out. I could lend you my calculator. I have it here.

Order. Mr Baptist, when you say "you", are you referring to me or are you referring to the Senior Parliamentary Secretary?

I am sorry, Sir. I was referring to the Senior Parliamentary Secretary.

Sir, I quite appreciate the annoyance of the Member because I just forgot to pay him the compliment which he expected. It is not too late, Sir. By the way, I do not carry such a thick volume of the Hansard. I just photostat them. It is more sensible. As to the payment of compensation, I can assure the House that there is no delay. The delay appears to be in the communication between the Ministry of Labour and the hospital. Sometimes it is not possible for the doctor to come to a decision as to the percentage of permanent or temporary incapacity because he has to take some time to assess the injury. Sometimes he might take months. The doctor might have to subject the injured worker to physiotherapy before making his final assessment. Meanwhile, it is the normal practice to give an interim award and this amount is paid to the worker. Really, it is not an administrative delay. It is a question of expertise of the doctor. We have to allow the doctor time to give his medical opinion. I am afraid that the Minister for Labour is not competent to determine the competence of the medical skill of a doctor. We will liaise with the hospital with a view to speeding up these matters if we can. As to the suggestion to raise the quantum of compensation, I think this is quite an exercise. If we agree to this suggestion, we have to do it annually. In fact, every year there is a different inflation rate. I do not think this is a very healthy or neat arrangement. We will observe the situation over a period of time. It is just like the consolidation of the NWC allowances which was carried out after a period of five years. We waited five years for that consolidation. After a period of time, perhaps we can consider revising the quantum of payment. As to raising the ceiling from $750 to $800 as a result of the recent consolidation and so on. It is a good suggestion. We will look into this matter. There is some merit in this observation. I hope my belated compliments to the Member should at least appease him.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary enlighten the House on two points? Just now I mentioned that the Commissioner for Labour awards compensation to any worker who has lost a finger. a thumb or a toe. For a worker to lose a toe is not as serious as losing an ear. But if a ballet dancer has lost his toe, the Ministry of Labour should definitely award him some compensation. If a worker has lost a toe, he can hide its ugly appearance in his shoes, but if he has lost an ear he cannot hide it. So my request is: will the Labour Ministry review this question of compensation to make it fairer to the workers? This is the first point. The second point is in regard to hospitalisation. If an injured worker is serious enough to be hospitalised for 60 days in a hospital, there is no doubt that he will be paid 60 days' medical leave. But due to the efficient medical treatment in the hospitals, even some of the workers who are sick enough to be hospitalised are not hospitalised. The reason is that perhaps there is no bed available or the doctor thinks that the injured worker can rest at home. But he is not fit enough to work and he has to stay at home for 60 days. Yet he is not compensated for this period of absence. 4.00 p.m.

Sir, I have explained quite clearly the spirit of the Workmen's Compensation Act and the spirit of the common law. I do not think that at this stage it is advisable for us to make inroads into the area of common law. The Workmen's Compensation Act only pays for the loss of earnings. As to scars or suffering of pain, it is a very difficult matter to determine the degree of pain or area of scar that will affect that worker. Standards of beauty is a personal matter. For ballet dancers, it is quite safe to say that they are not. subjected to workmen's compensation. In any case, their income is much too high to be considered under the Act. Sir, the course for redress is still open. It is still possible for the workers to take it up under the common law. If legal expenses are the anxiety of the worker, then the Legal Aid Bureau can be of help or the union's legal service, as I have mentioned earlier, can come to the rescue. As to the question of hospitalisation, the Member for Boon Teck said that there are not enough beds in the hospital. But we heard from the Minister for Health yesterday that the occupancy rate was about 75%. So until I find out the validity of these two statements, I am not able to comment on it. I do not know which statement is true. A doctor may decide that the worker can rest at home - perhaps it is more comfortable for him. But the Member for Boon Teck said that if, instead of hospitalisation, he is given leave to stay at home, then he should be given an additional medical full pay leave in addition to what he is entitled to, as distinct from hospitalisation leave. We will look into this matter. In this case we have to enlist the help of the doctor again. The doctor may write, "You should go to hospital." But if there are no beds in the hospital, then we may take up the case. We are trying to avoid as much as possible all this paper work for the doctor. But, if need be, we may have to enlist his help.

Sir, I believe the Senior Parliamentary Secretary has given some balanced answers, despite the fact that the factory accident rates are going up. He is doing his job, and he has passed many pleasant comments about me. That is great. So I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment by leave, withdrawn.

Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head M be reduced by $10 in respect of item 1210 of Subhead Code MC-03 of the Main Estimates. Sir, the number of registered factories increased by about 0.85% in 1977 when compared with 1976. The number of industrial accidents, however, increased by approximately 7.6% in 1977 over 1976. Why is this rising trend of accidents at workplaces still not being contained? Why has there been an increase of 15.8% in contraventions and related regulations of the Factories Act in 1977 over 1976? What further measures are being planned to lower accident frequency rates? Workers can be effective in policing their own workplaces. Through statutory safety committees, much can be done. How effective has worker-policing been? What has been done to ensure that this policing is effective, especially through safety committees? Are the reports, minutes, recommendations, etc. of statutory safety committees being submitted regularly to the Factory Inspectorate? I hear that many of them do not submit these reports. Just giving us a copy of one report, as the Senior Parliamentary Secretary attempted to do last year, would not suffice this time. How effective are these committees, judging from their reports, minutes, recommendations, etc? Does the lnspectorate advise safety committees on how to improve their work to lower accident frequency rates? How does the Inspectorate reach unorganised workers and safety committees in unorganised workplaces to educate them and get their assistance in the many attempts to reduce the number of accidents at workplaces? Are there any peculiar problems with regard to unorganised workers and their workplaces? What is being done to iron this out? The cost of providing job safety can sometimes be very high. The Factories Act requires that a safe and healthy work environment be provided by employers. Does the Inspectorate make a choice between a safe working environment and the cost of providing it?

Mr Lim, would you like to speak on your amendment (7) now?

Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. Sir, the number of industrial accidents, including those at factory sites, does not do much to reassure parents of the desirability of encouraging their children to take up blue collar jobs. As we all know, the Government and the unions have spared no efforts in encouraging the younger members of our labour force to take up jobs in the industrial and manufacturing sectors. Unfortunately, the industrial accidents that hit the headline! now and again only serve to negate all oui efforts. In fact, it will harden the resistance towards blue collar work. Despite the assurance given by the Ministry that measures have been taken to improve the industrial safety and health, the figures on industrial accidents are far from reassuring. The total number of accidents over the past three years did not abate in spite of efforts by the Factory lnspectorate and Industrial Health Department. The number of industrial accidents rose from 3,827 in 1975 to 4,252 in 1976 and 4,575 in 1977. It is little consolation that the number of fatalities decreased by five each year; from 67 fatalities in 1975 to 62 and 57 in 1976 and 1977 respectively. Sir, there were 5,849 factories registered by the end of January 1978. This is an increase of 3.3% over the 5,662 factories in January 1977. More factories will be set up as we accelerate our industrialisation programme. Unless greater efforts are made to promote safe work practices among new entrants to the labour market and to advise employers on safety requirements, it will be just wishful thinking to hope that the number of industrial accidents will fall. I note from the establishment list under the Industrial Safety Programme that there is no change in the number of posts for Technical Officers, despite the fact that the number of factory inspections increased substantially from 828 inspections in January 1977 to over 1,000 in January 1978. The Ministry ought to be congratulated for taking on this greater load without any increase in staff. My hope is that this was not done at the expense of thoroughness in the inspections carried out. With higher standards of safety, especially with the requirements stipulated in the Factories (Amendment) Bill now before Parliament, more technical personnel with better training will be needed to advise employers on these requirements and, just as important, to enforce these industrial safety laws. The availability of better trained officers is made that much more important by the fact that manufacturing and industrial processes in our factories are becoming more sophisticated and complicated, especially in industries which use chemicals and heavy machinery in their manufacturing processes. While the unions will do all they can to educate and to inform our workers of the importance of complying with safety rules and regulations and cultivating good work habits, this alone will not suffice. Could the Minister inform the House what plans his Ministry has to ensure that there will be no let-up in its efforts to promote industrial safety, especially in the newer types of industry, so as to reduce the number of industrial accidents? I am particularly interested in the plans to train and develop the technical staff involved with the implementation of the Ministry's industrial safety and industrial health programmes.

Sir, I would like to take this opportunity to reinforce what has been said earlier by my two colleagues here. Most of the points have been covered, except that I would like to draw the attention of the Minister for Labour to the fact that under the establishment list for Industrial Safety, the number apparently has decreased from 77 to 76 posts, the one-less being due to "one Technical supernumerary post abolished." One would have thought that with the increasing number of factories coming up in Singapore and with the increased emphasis on industrial safety the number of posts in the establishment list should increase rather than decrease. We know that as at the present moment there are some 6,000 factories in Singapore. With a small technical staff, I question the thoroughness of inspection of factories and the safety precaution enforced in these factories. We realise that we continue to have accidents and industrial mishaps with loss of limbs and lives. Of course, we can easily classify these into two causes: either through the carelessness of the workers or through the lack of safety measures. We are, of course, conducting lots of education programmes to inculcate good industrial habits and safety precaution on the part of the workers. But in terms of the installation of safety measures by the employers, I think much has to be left to the Ministry to ensure that these safety measures are installed. I would like to seek the Ministry's views as to whether it is satisfied with the present level of industrial safety and whether the incidents, in terms of industrial accidents and the degree of severity today, is on the rise or on the decline; and how these figures would compare with similar figures in other industrialised countries.

Sir, the Ministry generally shares the views expressed by the three Members. We are grateful for their concern on the industrial and health situation in Singapore. May I first deal with the Member for Potong Pasir. As I said, we share his concern in the increased number of accidents in industry. May I at this stage also touch on the point raised by the Member for Bukit Merah. I think he has hit the nail on the right spot. With industrial accidents unabated, it might be a source of anxiety for parents and for young workers entering the industrial sector or refusing to take up the blue collar jobs. I can assure Members in this House as well as all workers that the Ministry will not relent in its effort to push through our safety programmes. This is a very important matter and we will do our best. The increase in the total number of accidents for last year was about 7.5%. This increase was attributed mainly to the minor accidents. The total number of fatality and permanent disablement cases dropped by about 8.6% and 4.2% respectively. 4.15 p.m. My Ministry is concerned over this increase and although they are minor ones they should not be used to gauge accidents reported to the Ministry. There are many near-misses which can be major disasters but since they did not happen they were not reported. Even in this area, the Ministry is also making investigations. So the situation cannot be really gauged by plain statistics alone. Among the measures taken is a proposed amendment to the Factories Act, which was first read in this House on 17th February and it will be taken through its Second and Third Readings at the conclusion of this Budget session. A new Building Operations and Works of Engineering Construction Regulations, 1977, was introduced recently and came into effect in January this year. With the introduction of these two pieces of legislation, together with the extensive educational and promotional programmes, the situation should improve in the coming year. The Member for Potong Pasir is concerned about the effectiveness of safety committees. I think the safety committees are effective means in improving safety and health conditions in factories. Regular checks by the Factory Inspectors are made and, where necessary, our Factory Inspectors will sit as observers on the safety committees. I do not normally read the minutes of the safety committee meetings because I do not think there is a need to do so, as I have full confidence in my staff. I made a mistake last year by bringing one copy. I rectified this mistake this year by bringing none. The Factory Safety Regulations do not require the compulsory submission of their minutes of meetings to the Ministry or the Chief Inspector of Factories because we would not be able to work. However, they are required to keep these minutes and have them available for inspection by my inspectors on their rounds. The Factory Inspector, in reviewing the minutes of the safety committees, will also be able to gauge the effectiveness of these committees. Where the safety committees are found to be wanting in effectiveness, the Factory Inspector will render whatever assistance possible, like sitting in at committee meetings or giving them suggestions or ideas, to ensure that these committees actually perform their functions effectively. It is, in fact, part and parcel of the duty of the Factory Inspector to give advice to these safety committees on preventive measures to reduce accidents. A short training course has been scheduled in April this year for training of safety committee members on the fundamentals of safety and health requirements so as to help them to function effectively. The Member for Potong Pasir seems to imply that job safety and productivity are incompatible and thus a choice need to be made between the two. There were certain initial misgivings, particularly on the part of employers who harbour the fear that the implementation of safety rules and measures would impede productivity. It is now generally accepted that job safety or a safety system properly interwoven and fitted into production methods would not only save time and money through the elimination of accidents but also contribute towards productivity. Any accident must result in a loss in both life and property and hence productivity is affected. The Factory (Safety Committees) Regulations do not make a distinction between unionised and non-unionised workers. I think the Member for Potong Pasir raised that point. The Member also questioned the effectiveness of the Ministry in reaching the non-unionised workers. In this respect, Sir, may I say that the Ministry's handicap appears to be less than that of the handicap of the Occupational Safety and Health Committee under the NTUC which the Member for Potong Pasir has the distinction of being its Chairman.

Secretary.

I thought you should have reached the Chairman level by now. I am sorry. I look forward to the day you become the Chairman and we can then have a more useful dialogue. The Ministry does not distinguish between unionised and non-unionised workers. We reach all. So we are able to reach the factory whether the workers are unionised or not. On the service on the safety committee, we do not make a distinction on the eligibility of whether or not he is a member of the union. This is not a problem for us because we do not make any differentiation as far as safety is concerned. The Member for Potong Pasir can rest assured that if we do have any handicap, we may be facing a smaller problem than he now has in the NTUC. May I come to the Member for Bukit Merah. As I said, he hit the nail on the right spot. We are really concerned about the rise in industrial accidents. May I first enlighten the Member with what we have done and what we intend to do, since he has asked for statistics and details of our programme to improve the safety situation. Firstly, a comprehensive programme has been drawn up for the inspection of shipyards, worksites and other factories. This programme is based on the degree of hazards or the hazardous nature of the various industrial sectors. A total of 10,663 inspections and follow-up visits were made in 1977. To complement our enforcement effort, several educational activities am being conducted to educate supervisors and workers on industrial safety. Many training courses are run. These courses include Safety Officers' Course, Safety Orientation Course for shipyard workers, Safety Supervisors Course for construction and the wood-working industry, Safety Training Course for forklift drivers and training course, for signals men and crane drivers. In addition to the running of these safety courses, many promotional activities were organised. For the shipyards, a workshop for safety officers was held in April 1977 and a management workshop was held in December 1977. A safety seminar-cum-workshop entitled "The Machine and You" was organised in July 1977 to highlight the importance on the safe use of machinery in accident prevention. This is exactly the point raised by the Member for Bukit Merah that more and more sophisticated machineries have been introduced. For chemicals also, there is a need to upgrade the skill in handling of these materials by our workers. October 1977 was declared as a Safety Month for the woodworking industry and December was declared as a Safety Month for the metal-working industry. During these safety months, mobile exhibitions were prepared by the Factory Inspectorate. They visited many factories in these two industries. An industrial health and safety seminar was also organised for the medium and small industries to help them overcome difficulties in the implementation of industrial safety and health requirements in their factories. In order to increase safety consciousness and to disseminate safety information, the Inspectorate also published many publications. I do not wish to list them here. I think there are about 24 of them. To any Member who is interested in them, I shall be pleased to supply him. With regard to statistics on accidents in factories, there were 32 fatal cases in the construction industry and 25 in the non-construction sector as compared to 32 and 30 respectively in 1976. We can see a small drop of five fatalities for the whole industry in 1977. For the serious accidents, there was a drop of 4.2%, from 141 in 1976 to 135 in 1977. Unfortunately, Sir, minor accidents increased by 8.2% from 4,053 in 1976 to 4,387 in 1977. The Member for Kim Seng also queried on the degree of severity rate. In terms of frequency and severity rate, there was a drop of frequency rate from 6.4 accidents per million man-hours worked in 1976 to 5.3 in 1977. On severity rate, there was also a drop from 683 man-days loss per million man-hours worked in 1976 to 501 in 1977. Unless the Member for Potong Pasir insists, I do not intend to go into the formula on how we arrived at these figures. It is highly technical, I have got the formula here. With regard to the observation that there is one post less in the Factory lnspectorate, it is a supernumerary post which has been abolished for the year 1978. Perhaps I may inform the House that for the years 1971, 1972 and 1973 the number of technical manpower under the Factory Inspectorate remained stagnant and stood at 36 only. But since 1974 there was an increase of three posts and for 1975, 1976 and 1977 the technical manpower in the Factory lnspectorate increased from 36 to 55. We would welcome more manpower; however, in view of the restriction from Treasury, we are not able to achieve our target of having more manpower to ensure a wider coverage. However, this handicap is being looked after by a better system of deployment to cover the inspections or visits to the factories, and in so doing our staff have been stretched to the limit.

Sir, the Senior Parliamentary Secretary does not realise the whack of Secretaries. I leave that to his own imagination whether he consults the Chairman or the Secretary. Anyway, there is one point that worries me a little. I notice that the last time the Ministry organised a safety officers course they had more applications than places and yet this year it appears as if they are not going to organise a safety officers course. The first course has ended and I believe a good percentage of them have passed. I am just wondering whether the Ministry is interested in lowering the accident frequency and severity rates. Would it not be better for them to upgrade the present quality of safety officers by organising an additional course for the many who have been queueing up?

I would like to request the Senior Parliamentary Secretary to clarify the point regarding the number of posts in the Industrial Safety Department. He has mentioned that the number of posts has remained stagnant. Could I seek clarification as to whether all the posts are filled?

Sir, may I answer the second question first? Perhaps I went too fast. I am talking about the technical manpower, the field officers on inspection, minus the supporting clerical staff. The number of technical manpower is as follows: Increase/ Year Number Decrease 1971/72/73 36 1974 39 +3 1975 45 +6 1976 55 +10 1977 55 0 1978 54 -1 (one post being abolished) There has been quite an increase in technical manpower since 1972. 4.30 p.m. Regarding the safety officers course mentioned by the Member for Potong Pasir, I am afraid the Ministry does not organise safety officers course. We do so through our agent in the National Productivity Board. They have their own schedule and commitments. They are working in close liaison with us. As and when there is a need for another course or for a more advanced course for the safety officers, we will be most glad to have them. I believe the courses are still on. They may not be as frequent as at the beginning. I acknowledge that there is a need to upgrade the skill or the knowledge of the present batch of safety officers, but we will have to consider the priorities. First, we have to churn out the safety officers before we can think of upgrading the skill of the existing ones.

Sir, I believe the figures quoted by the Senior Parliamentary Secretary refer to the number of posts. The point I wish to clarify is whether all the posts are filled. The reason why I am asking is this. If there are underlying causes as to why these technical posts are not filled, I think the Ministry should look into them fairly urgently.

At one stage not all the posts were filled. That was a source of anxiety on my part. That was about two years ago. But since then we have been very active in our discussions with the Treasury and the PSC to fill the posts. I have been informed that there was an improvement but I cannot inform the House whether the entire establishment has been filled. I believe there are only a few vacancies, if at all. I am not so sure about that. I do not wish to mislead the House. I will supply the information later to the Member, if he so desires.

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

Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head M be reduced by $1Oin respect of item 1210 of Subhead code MC-04 of the Main Estimates. Sir, the Industrial Health Department is concerned with the investigation, control and prevention of occupational diseases. The estimated expenditure for FY 1978 is 5.72% more than FY 1977. The increase in expenditure is to cater mainly for incremental salary increases, CPF contributions and allowances for staff. Has the department enough in numbers of well trained personnel in the health field? Do the majority of staff dealing with field work possess Master's degrees in industrial hygiene or their equivalent so they can understand toxicology and the analytical method? It must be realised that the field officers will not be arbitrary if they are more scientifically secure. When making inspections they will be able to exercise some judgement instead of just going by the exact letter of the law. I would also like to find out if the Department is actively involved in gathering information about diseases and health in workplaces? How do they go about this? Does the Department have statistics to show the percentage of workplaces that comply with an occupational health standard? Does the Department have an occupational health standard? If so, what would this be? Industrial dermatitis, a skin disease, which is quite debilitating and causes a great deal of discomfort to workers contracting it, is a serious problem in Singapore from the figures from the Ministry of Labour. I would like to know which industry in Singapore contributes towards the greatest percentage of dermatitis sufferers? How many man-hours are lost through this industrial disease? What proposals are at hand to protect workers against industrial dermatitis? On known or suspected toxic substances that workers come in contact with, including those that are cancer-causing, are there any educational material or codes of practice to ensure that workers can handle these substances safely? Are there any codes of practice for occupational diseases with high incidence rates like silicosis, for instance? Do we have a definite policy for identifying and classifying cancer-causing substances? What are the programmes in connection with these substances? In the Addendum to the Presidential Address, 8th February, 1977, I quote from Hansard, Part 1, Volume 36, column 24, "The Industrial Health Department will take measures to protect workers from cancer-causing substances used in industry." I am sure, by now, these measures must have been implemented. What are these measures? Workers have a fundamental right to know when they are working with toxic or cancer-causing substances. Are Singapore workers told by their employers when they are working with dangerous substances? It is only fair that there be mandatory regulations requiring employers to inform workers about hazardous substances they work with. Specific names of these substances should also be given and medical monitoring of workers who come in contact with these substances must be provided. I would be interested to know how the Department comes into contact with unorganised workers to educate them because industrial health needs a lot of education. What programmes does the Department have for organised workers? Does the Department find that workers can be effective in policing their own workplaces and alerting the Department with regard to occupational health problems or violations of legislation? Does the Department have in mind more effective policing by workers of their own workplaces? Noise is regarded as being one of the most important factors contributing towards the pollution of the work environment and having a detrimental effect on workers' health and comfort. Many workers are temporarily or even permanently eliminated from the workforce by noise-induced deafness or accidents caused by noise. What alleviation programmes had the Industrial Health Department in this field? How successful has audiometric screening been? Were there any abnormal and pathological findings requiring more detailed medical examination? How successful has the Department been in reducing worker-exposure to high noise and in implementing the use of personal protective equipment?

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Industrial Health Department has a total of 24 professional and technical supporting staff. They are made up of five medical doctors, one industrial hygiene engineer, one industrial hygienist, seven industrial nurses, eight industrial health inspectors and two technicians. Now, of the five doctors, four have specialist qualifications in industrial health, and one is a medical officer who has just joined the service and is under training. The industrial hygiene engineer has a Ph.D. in Chemical engineering from the Manchester University. He has been in the Department for nearly five years. During this period he has had on-the-job training with two ILO experts in industrial hygiene. He has also had a three-month training course in safety and hygiene in Japan. The industrial hygienist has a Master of Science degree in radiation physics from the Rochester University in the United States. He has been in the Department for about 11 months and is still under training. When he has gathered enough practical experience after two years, it is proposed to send him abroad for a course leading to a Master of Science degree in industrial hygiene. The five doctors and the two scientific officers doing industrial hygiene are qualified and can definitely understand toxicology and also analytical methods to the level required for the proper functioning of the Department. The 17 industrial nurses, industrial health inspectors and technicians have, in their basic training and practical experience, knowledge of toxicology and analytical methods, though perhaps obviously not to the same extent as the graduate professional staff. Qualified industrial hygienists are a special category of scientific officers whose number is scarce the world over, even in the highly developed countries like the United Kingdom and the United States. Hence, to claim that in Singapore we have sufficient people trained in industrial hygiene will be an overstatement. The Department can do with two, three or even more industrial hygienists, but this will entirely depend on what the Treasury allows for in the Budget. According to the WHO expert in industrial hygiene who made a study of the situation in Singapore in 1972, he recommended that five industrial hygienists would be the optimum number required when the Department reaches a stage of development where it would be functioning at a fairly good level. If we base our requirements on this recommendation, then it can be said that there is insufficient qualified and trained industrial hygienists at the moment. But I must point out that there is no norm in determining the number of industrial hygienists against the number of workers, bearing in mind also the level and nature of our industrial development. The Member has sought information about diseases in workplaces. The Industrial Health Department carries out medical surveillance of workers who are exposed to some known risks of industrial diseases, on a priority basis. Some of these workplaces are also periodically monitored for concentrations of toxic substances in the air. There are altogether about 200 factories with about 300 workers under our medical surveillance. From these medical and environmental monitoring activities, we are able to gather information on diseases and health conditions in these workplaces. We do not have statistics to show the percentage of workplaces that comply with our occupational health standards. These high-risk factories under our surveillance are accorded priority attention. The results of the monitoring will indicate the state of health of the workers. If the results are unsatisfactory or suspicious, the factories are inspected and, where necessary, remedial measures are prescribed for strict compliance. In addition to surveillance activities, the Industrial Health Department carries out surveys from time to time to identify and assess the extent of industrial health programmes in Singapore. To give just a few examples, raw cotton dust diseases, industrial dermatitis and survey of noise-induced deafness caused, for instance, among other things by pneumatic drills. We are well informed in this House of the state of industrial dermatitis. In 1975 I think only nine cases were notified and, in 1976, 187 cases were notified. In 1977 there was a slight drop to 177 cases notified. The majority of cases in 1977 were due to the following: Engineering oil .. 44.1% Solvents .. 13.6% Resins .. 12.4% Allergenic wood .. 6.8% Fibre glass .. 6.2% Cement .. 2.8% Paint .. 1.7% Others .. 12.4% 4.45 p.m. As for the man-hours lost from those who have suffered from industrial dermatitis which the Member has asked for,[ am afraid it is difficult to compile the figures. However, in a study of the 187 cases notified in 1976, it was found that approximately 483 man-days were lost from these cases. Figures for 1977 are still not available. They are now being compiled. If this was compared with the number of man-days lost through industrial accidents, it could be seen that this is very small and insignificant. However, there may be many cases which have not been notified either because of wrong diagnosis or that they are very mild. The actual situation could then be much more than what has been obtained through the cases that have been notified. The control of industrial dermatitis is more difficult largely because of the wide variety and large number of chemicals and other irritating substances being handled daily by workers in our industries. Many workers and even management personnel are not conversant with the properties of these substances that can cause skin diseases. The Member was concerned about cancer-causing materials or carcinogenic substances. We do not have any code of practice at the moment for either toxic or cancer-causing substances. As for educational materials, we have compiled three pamphlets on silicosis, industrial skin diseases and cyanide poisoning. If the Member for Potong Pasir has been closely following our monthly newspaper called The New Worker, he would readily admit that there are articles galore on many toxic and carcinogenic substances for the education of our workers. In 1975, the Industrial Health Department carried out a study which confirms that several of the cancer-causing agents are present in certain industries in Singapore. Quite rightly, as pointed out by the Member for Potong Pasir, my Ministry has made it a part of its policy to take measures to protect workers from cancer-causing substances used in industries and announced this in the Addendum to the President's Address on 8th February, 1977, which the Member quoted. In fact, my Ministry has already drawn up a blueprint for the occupational cancer prevention programme for which we are now asking for a provision in the budget. This is the second attempt. The first attempt was not approved by the Treasury. We hope to succeed this time. Sir, I just want to give some facts. There are about 350 establishments in Singapore using one or more of the various types of carcinogenic substances with an estimated 2,500 persons exposed to the risk. I think a general statement will suffice. To save time, I do not propose to classify them under the various headings. I have the information here anyway. The control is there and if an occupational cancer prevention programme can be fully implemented, it will certainly help the situation. The activities of this programme will involve the following: (a) Drawing up the codes of practice as a guide to industries and health education of the workers and management against the hazards; (b) Environmental monitoring and control of work places with carcinogenic hazards: (c) Medical surveillance of workers and those exposed to these hazards; and (d) The setting up of an informal occupational cancer registry. The programme is very detailed. We are also getting examples from overseas. But it suffices to note that section 54 (4) of the Factories Act, 1973, provides that: The occupier of a factory shall place warning notices in places where there are special risks to which the persons employed are exposed and the precautions to be taken to obviate such risks.' There are sufficient powers under the Factories Act for us to maintain this surveillance. With our other promotional campaigns, educational activities and training courses, we should be able to check the situation.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the debate between the Member for Potong Pasir and the Senior Parliamentary Secretary is getting very interesting and it will be well reported in the press. The Member for Potong Pasir has used two words, "toxicology" and "carcinogenic". These words will be reported in the newspapers tomorrow and probably a lot of readers will have difficulty in trying to understand these medical terms. Perhaps the Member would like to put these words in layman's language. But if he cannot, probably I can help him.

Sir, there is no problem really.

Mr Baptist, could you please not waste time and carry on?

Yes, Sir. The Senior Parliamentary Secretary has not answered an important point - that the workers should be informed of the exact substance they are working with, especially if it is going to cause cancer. Is his Ministry thinking of coming up with some mandatory regulations in this regard? Another point is this. The Senior Parliamentary Secretary is well aware that yesterday the Minister for Health mentioned that cancer is the main cause of deaths in Singapore. So armed with this information, he most certainly can get the Budget Division to formulate and implement the measures that he has in mind, the long programme that he refuses to read out but will pass to me when I am in the Members' Room at a later stage.

Sir, to save time I will pass the information to the Member.

Sir, I think I should congratulate the Industrial Health Department. They have done a good job. I suppose the only thing they need is more money and that is a very important vitamin. I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment by leave, withdrawn.

I think this is an appropriate time to take a Suspension and I propose to do so now. Thereupon Mr Deputy Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House.

Order. I suspend the Sitting now and shall take the Chair again at 5.20 p.m. Sitting accordingly suspended at 4.53 p.m until 5.20 p.m Sitting resumed at 5.20 p.m.

Debate in Committee of Supply resumed.

Head M (cont) -

Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head M be reduced by $10 in respect of item 1210 of Subhead Code MD-01 of the Main Estimates. Sir, job placement and resettlement of disabled and handicapped persons are some of the functions of the Employment Service. What are the main problems encountered by the Employment Service with regard to job placement? Have the reasons for registrants being choosy about jobs been determined? What measures have been implemented to solve this problem? How adequately have the disabled been placed in employment? In the Addendum to the Presidential Address [Hansard, Vol. 36, col. 23], I quote: "The present Disablement Resettlement Scheme for the training and subsequent employment of disabled persons will be extended to industrially disabled workers." Has this been implemented? How many industrially disabled persons have been trained? How many have been subsequently employed? Is there close coordination with the Ministries of Health, Social Affairs and Education and the Singapore Council of Social Service and voluntary bodies with regard to identifying, registering and training of congenitally and industrially disabled persons? If so, what sort of coordination exists?

Sir, the main problem facing the Employment Service is that there is a scarcity of jobs of the registrants' choice, which is usually soft and cosy indoor jobs with good pay. Although there are large numbers of vacancies in the building construction, shipbuilding and repairing sectors, they remain unfilled because our registrants either do not possess the required qualifications or skills or are reluctant to take up these occupations. The Employment Service experiences difficulties in placing the following categories of registrants: (1) The middle-aged female registrants who insist on a specific job in a specific establishment. For example, post of school servant in a particular school or a health servant's job in a particular hospital; (2) Young school leavers who are interested only in white collar jobs with good pay and good working conditions; and (3) Registrants with working experience who have high expectations and insist on being paid salaries comparable to what they were drawing in their last jobs. The choosiness of the registrants and the difficulties experienced by employers in getting workers create an undesirable situation and leads employers to opt for the easier alternative, i.e. recruitment of foreign workers who are prepared to fill the vacancies which our workers shun. The reason for our workers opting for certain jobs is rather obvious. They are essentially a secondary worker in the family and therefore their parents can provide them with subsistence while they remain unemployed or while they are actively seeking jobs. One of the measures aimed at correcting the undesirable attitude of our youths towards blue collar occupations is to promote vocational training. In addition, the young school leavers are given guidance under the Junior Trainee Scheme to take up jobs in industries. Furthermore, the Employment Service actively counsels the registrants to consider job alternatives to those originally requested by them. In 1977, there were 332 disabled persons registered with the Employment Service for employment assistance. These are separate from the industrially disabled persons which I have touched on earlier. During the year, a total of 123 disabled registrants were directly placed in employment without the need for training; 40 were successfully placed after an initial training period and 24 are still undergoing training under the Disablement Resettlement Scheme. These statistics show that the placement of disabled persons registered for employment assistance with the Service has been fairly successful, considering the general reluctance of employers in engaging disabled persons and the difficulties in assessing their vocational abilities. The Employment Service does not have training facilities for the disabled. However, the organisers have especially designed training programmes for disabled persons whose disability resulted from road accidents and so on, diseases or congenital defects within the employable age group. The objective of the scheme is to assist in the employment of disabled persons to gain economic independence through on-the-job training which is quite similar to apprenticeships in the light industrial establishments or formal commercial training in private, commercial or secretarial schools. A disabled trainee is provided with financial aid and other supportive assistance during the period of training. In implementing the disabled resettlement scheme, very close liaison is main- tained with the various government agencies, namely, the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Education, the Social Welfare Department and other voluntary organisations where they have the training establishments. The prospective employers too in this case ensure that the training given to the disabled person would enable him or her to be gainfully employed on completion of the training. The Employment Service is aware of the establishment of a rehabilitation centre by the NTUC and we welcome this as it is a complementary measure to our efforts.

Sir, due to the shortage of time, I will discuss a number of other points with the Senior Parliamentary Secretary in the Members' Room at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment by leave, withdrawn.

Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head M be reduced by $10 in respect of item 1210 of Subhead Code MD-02 of the Main Estimates. There are many jobs available in Singapore. Unfortunately, many of these jobs are considered too menial and tough by Singaporeans. As such, we have many guest workers in Singapore. There are, however, certain categories of jobs that do not merit a work permit according to the Work Permits Office. What are these jobs? Why must we curtail the issue of work permits in these job categories when we are fully aware that Singaporeans will not accept these jobs? The economy and our citizens are adversely affected as coffee-shop assistants, sundry shop assistants, domestic servants and so on are almost impossible to come by unless they are guest workers. When will the Work Permits Office liberalise its work permit policy?

Mr Teong, amendment (11).

( In Mandarin): Sir, at present, owners of shops and small factories are still having a problem when applying for work permits for their employees. It is particularly difficult to get workers for coffee-shops, grocery stores and Chinese medicine shops. Many people do not understand why the Government should limit applications for work permits. Actually, it is difficult to get workers for these small establishments and that is why the employers have to employ foreign workers. 5.30 p.m. I have received representations that they had to apply for these work permits, otherwise it would be very difficult for them to carry on their business. They also said that they will be contributing to the revenue of the country. For example, they will have to pay CPF for their workers, thus increasing our nation's tax revenue. The smaller shops would have enough helping hands and so they would be able to do their business better; thus in turn giving more income tax to our country. This, of course, is something our Minister for Finance would welcome. Therefore, by giving these work permits, it not only helps to solve the difficulties of these shops but also at the same time increases the Government's tax revenue. I would therefore request the Minister concerned to be more liberal in the issue of work permits to these shop assistants. Actually there are many reasons for such a move. For example, our Minister for Finance has all along encouraged the diversification of our economy. That is to say, other than developing our industries we must at the same time encourage our trading activities. There should be no differentiation of commercial activities whether big or small, or whether they are multi-national corporations or medium-sized shopping centres or even retail shops. The Government also has all along been treating them equally. Why should the Work Permits Department not follow Government policy? Another point is that in recent years the Government has been emphasising the need to raise productivity. This, of course, refers to all kinds of industrial and commercial activities. But if a certain activity is short-handed, how can it increase productivity? Furthermore, our country has been able to maintain a considerable economic growth rate in the midst of world-wide recession. The credit should go to our Minister for Finance for his very healthy taxation policy. He has effectively collected taxes and thus increased our revenue each year. But the people working in the Work Permits Department do not seem to consider the revenue as important. Both the work permit holders and the employers have to pay a maximum CPF contribution of 15 1/2% which is quite high. Now, according to what I know, in many HDB car parks the collection time for parking has been extended from 7 a.m. to 11 p.m. instead of from 9 a.m. to 10 p.m. This is very clever. This will increase income collection and also increase productivity, and I believe, will receive the commendation of the Finance Minister.

Mr Teong, we are now on work permit regulations.

( In Mandarin): Sir, I am talking about the increase in revenue. So the HDB has done well in collecting this additional revenue. I hope the Work Permits Department will also be able to follow suit by relaxing the issue of work permits to those who need them to enable a bigger collection of CPF contributions. Next point, I received some complaints that some staff in the Work Permits Department have very bad attitude in dealing with the people. They are rather rude and would not explain things courteously to the applicants. Their bureaucratism has left a very bad impression on the people. I will give more details to the Minister later. I hope the Minister will pay heed and take action against these haughty civil servants. The third point is that I have received complaints from some factory operators that they have applied for work permits but after more than a month they still have not received any favourable reply. This would affect their work adversely. I hope the Minister will investigate it and take measures to improve on this. Lastly, some people complained that the Department has been giving unequal treatment to applicants. The big factories get their applications approved quickly and the small factories have to wait. If this is the way they do things, it is very unreasonable. I would ask the Minister to investigate into this. And if there is truth in the complaint, I hope he will take measures to correct the position.

Dr Ong, we have 10 minutes left to guillotine time.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. As we are aware, Singapore today still depends heavily on non-citizen work permit holders to supplement the manpower for various industries in Singapore. The construction industry is particularly heavily dependent on these workers. Arising from the presence of these workers in our country certain social repercussions are inevitable ranging from bad habits and influences, the lack of social discipline, the disregard for a clean, green and gracious environment - much play was given to this negative aspect of immigrant labour before. Further the presence of such workers, many of whom are young, single and marriageable has led to courtships between locals and foreigners. Under normal circumstances, a love affair should be a pleasurable experience, but in respect of love between locals and work permit holders it is only pleasurable, I think, if marriage is not considered. Our society is fortunately not hedonistic enough to accept "cohabitation" as an acceptable alternative to marriage. During our meet-the-people sessions, as Members of Parliament we share the unhappy experience of trying to help these couples proceed to wedlock. I do not envy the Commissioner for Employment for the powers he holds to say yes or no to applications to contract marriage. The requirement for a minimum of five years' employment here for a work permit holder before the issue of a permit to marry has resulted in a lot of hardship - physical and emotional for such couples and their families. I would be most grateful if the Hon. Minister for Labour would enlighten this House -

Sir, I would just reply in general to the Member for Potong Pasir, because to go into details would be very time consuming and it would not be helpful at all. If there is any particular type of worker that he is interested in, I think that could be taken up as a separate issue. As Members are aware, the work permit policy as stated in this House on many occasions has always been geared towards fulfilling the manpower needs of our industry. Work permits are issued liberally to foreign workers who want a job in the manufacturing and construction industries and in all other areas where the pool of indigenous workers are insufficient and where the employment of foreign workers are desirable. This is very important. The employment of foreign workers is desirable from the point of view of our economic development. I think that generally could answer the Member for Sembawang too. The review of the work permit policy has to take place from time to time in the light of our changing manpower needs in order that our continued economic development will not be stifled by the lack of the necessary manpower. It is true that the Ministry is currently undertaking a review of the work permit policy. I am sure Members will agree that it will be premature for me at this stage to disclose any details on the subject. As to the Member for Sembawang, as I said, a general reply has already been given. He has quoted one or two cases of coffee shop assistants, which is the same story year after year. An hon. Member: There should be self-service for coffee!

Yes, we had a word about it in the Members Room just now. The Members for Potong Pasir and Khe Bong were very agreeable to my suggestion that self-service in coffee shops should be a good idea. In the Western industrialised countries, self-service in restaurants and things like that are a very common sight. Even in the United Nations Office in Geneva, we find politicians, ministers, members, Speakers and so on, go and help themselves; self-service. If coffee shop owners would provide a reduction of five cents per cup and say, "Come, help yourself', I am sure our workers will be very happy to save five cents a cup. The shop operator could save on wages too. So there is no problem about employing coffee shop assistants. That is one way out. Perhaps the Member for Sembawang would like to tell his principals about it. Of greater importance is the problem posed by the Member for Kim Seng: the question of how can we attract skilled foreign workers to Singapore and how are we going to train our own people so that we are not so dependent on foreign workers. The plans to meet the demands are essentially in the form of educational programmes and training schemes so that the desired number and the type of workers required will be produced in time. The revised primary education system introducing the Junior Trainee Scheme is one such plan and serves to satisfy the manpower for the less skilled workers. The demand for skilled industrial workers will be met by the output from the various vocational institutes and the Industrial Training Board. The supply of skilled workers will also be complemented from the Economic Development Board Joint-Government Training Scheme and the various Industrial Training Board apprenticeship schemes. At the technician level, the ITB will ensure that the output from its various training institutions is sufficient to meet the demand of the industry. Likewise, the output of technicians from the Singapore Polytechnic and the Ngee Ann Technical College will be regulated by the Ministry of Science and Technology accordingly. Despite the plans worked out by the various Government bodies in anticipation of the manpower needs of our industry, the shortfall of manpower resources, vis-a-vis requirements of the industry, would invariably occur from time to time. There is also the wastage of manpower due to job choosiness among our own people. In the final analysis, so long as our own manpower resources are not adequate to meet the needs of our industries, we will still have to depend on the recruitment of foreign workers to make up for this shortfall. We all share the concern of the Member for Kim Seng over the continued dependence on foreign workers by our industries. So the measures I have outlined earlier will in some measure go towards meeting that need.

Sir, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $10,337,650 for Head M ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. 5.45 p.m. Head N -

Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head N be reduced by $10 in respect of item 1100 of Subhead NA-01 of the Main Estimates. Sir, in moving this amendment, I would like to ask the Minister concerned whether small business proprietors, who have lost their shophouses owing to urban redevelopment, will be given the option to purchase shophouses from the Housing and Development Board. These affected persons are allowed to buy only flats for residence and not shops to do business. They can only rent shops from the HDB. Although they have been compensated by the HDB for acquiring their shophouses, the amount of compensation received was not enough to purchase shophouses from private developers. Since the HDB has a Home Ownership Scheme, I would like to know whether this Home Ownership Scheme could be extended to them. If it could, they would be better off in the long run and, if it could not be extended to them, these people would be very much worse off.

( In Mandarin): Sir, I would also like to take this opportunity to mention some of the problems that have arisen in the Housing Board's estates. There is no doubt that the Housing Board and the URA, of which the Senior Minister of State is the Chairman, have done a good job in Singapore by building a lot of flats and shophouses for our people. But I also realise that in spite of the many problems that exist in such a large organisation, I can see that members of the staff in the Area Offices in my constituency have managed to improve their performance. So even if they cannot improve on it any more, I hope they will at least maintain their present standards of performance. 5.48 p.m.

But, in respect of implementation of policy, as the Member for Khe Bong has mentioned, there are certain problems involving shophouses. The business of shop-houses in the housing estates is so poor that some of them have closed down for a whole year through, without any subsequent takers. The reason is that the rentals and overhead expenses are too high. I would like to ask the Minister whether any thought has been given to the original planning of the estate with regard to the need for more shophouses. The purpose of the shophouses is to provide basic services for the residents, like barber shops, laundry, coffeeshops, Chinese medicine shops, bakeries, stationery shops, grocery stores, photo saloons, etc. But some of the shops have already closed down because of the high rentals. So if the Board will thinks that such shophouses are necessary so as to provide the basic services for the residents, then it should review the whole rental situation and to lower the rentals so as to attract occupants. But as it is, the shop-owners could not make ends meet and have to close down their business and approach the MPs to help them get hawker stall licences as they had not been able to get licences on their own. I would like to deal with another problem. Recently civic organisations have been encouraged by the Government to look after the old people. So some old folks homes have been set up in the Housing Board estates. These organisations have raised funds for this purpose but the rentals for such premises remain as high as for normal residential flats. So the little money that they have raised is used to pay for the rentals of the premises rented from the Housing Board. This is the situation in my constituency and so we negotiated with the HDB for the rentals to be reduced, but have so far not been successful. Therefore, the Government, while encouraging these civic organisations to do charitable work at their own expense, does not grant concessionary rentals for such welfare services. The Government seems to have adopted the policy of "money in command": I hold the money, you do the job. We do not want just words from the Government but we want deeds. As it is, it amounts to just paying lip service to community welfare work. Sir, I now come to the next point. New housing estates are constructed differently from old housing estates. In the new housing estates, the ground floor area is void whereas in the old estates the ground floor consists of either shophouses or residential flats. In such cases, there are some problems. As there are no awnings over the ground floor flats, whenever it rains water will splash in, or whenever somebody on the upper floor throws something down, the people below can be hit and get into trouble. So they complain to the CCC. I personally had occasion to receive a complaint that a meat chopper was thrown out from a window from an upper floor, and the complainant almost had his head chopped off. This kind of problem was brought up with the Housing Board and permission was asked to put up awnings at the expense of the owners. After a lot of correspondence they have not given any favourable reply. So the matter was brought up with the CCC, and they wrote in but the reply came in just two lines with a terse negative answer. I think the whole situation should be reviewed. No doubt with more and more houses and flats being built, we ought to be very strict about building control but circumstances have changed. In the old days, the flats were smaller and the area was congested. But now the situation has changed, so we should adopt a different attitude and a more flexible approach to adapt and apply the rules to the new situation. Only then can we solve the problems of the HDB and the HUDC gradually. Otherwise, we will be faced with more and more of these problems and the Minister will get into more trouble.

Sir, last year I raised in Parliament the confusion that members of the public had as to which department was actually involved with planning matters. I regret to have to bring this matter up again, as the people, I mean particularly the man-in-the-street and not the professionals, are still unaware of the setup of the Planning Authority, that is, which department deals with Government and statutory board projects and which department deals with projects tom the private sector. Sir, ever since the Planning Department has been split into two divisions, i.e. the Development Control Division comes under the PWD, and the Planning Department operates on its own, more confusion has arisen among members of the public. I still get complaints from members of the public, some of whom are illiterate, that when they approach the officers of the Planning Department for advice on change of use of premises, they are told that the Planning Department does not deal with members of the public. They should have been advised that the Planning Department does not deal with private applications and they should also rightly be directed by the officers to go to the Development Control Division. I have known of some cases where members of the public have wandered round to three or four Government departments, and finally ended up in the Planning Department only to find that they are still in the wrong department. They should have, in the first place, been directed to go straight to the Development Control Division. Even many Government departments do not know about the Planning Authority's setup. Surprisingly, last year's annual report of the Ministry did not mention anything about the Development Control Division, but there was a full write-up about the Planning Department. Not enough publicity has been given about the planning setup there. Logically, I am of the view that the sooner both these departments are integrated and restructured under one department, there will be better co-ordination and better streamlining of planning procedures. The next point I would like to raise is the developments in my constituency. Sir, along Jalan Bukit Merah, near Chiang Teck School, there is a squatter settlement. There are some 120 to 150 attap houses accommodating about a few hundred families. They are living in an extremely unhygienic and dangerous environment. A large number of the attap houses are without proper roofs. So when they sleep they can see the sky. These houses are partially covered with polythene materials, canvas and with odd patches. The Department does not allow them to repair the roofs because the owners were not allowed to sign. About 1/5th of the attap houses are very poorly constructed. Their roofs are leaking, and the wooden partitions used for rooms are damaged pieces of timber. More than 50% of the attap houses do not have proper living facilities and sanitation. Them are about five to eight bucket-type toilets in the vicinity giving a very unhealthy environment. The stench pervades the whole area which becomes an excellent breeding ground for pests because of the rubbish heap all over the place. The area is also a fire hazard. There are five houses with tree trunks within their premises and the houses are in a very bad shape. Some may even collapse any time. I understand that attempts were made by the residents to repair the houses, but it was rejected by some inspectors who had gone there to investigate. Could something be done to improve the living conditions around the locality? I request that immediate action be taken, otherwise the houses will collapse. Bukit Merah is in a central area. The Department has to take immediate action to either give alternative accommodation to the residents or ask them to repair the houses. They should not ignore the problems of the tenants.

Sir, last year, it will be recalled, I complained in this House that Bedok New Town Neighbourhood 1, lacked recreational facilities. It is with much happiness that I stand here today to report that practically all my requests have been met - except one. Unfortunately, this one wish that has not been fulfilled is a very important one. It refers to a playing field for children. I am told, however, that an effort is being made to look for a suitable open space large enough to be converted into a football field. It is desirable that this playing field be constructed quickly. My main concern is for the younger children. They are being pushed out of the basketball court, the sepak takraw court, etc., by the bigger and older ones. So they play in car parks, on roads, along sidewalks, on five-foot ways, etc. The Minister for National Development will agree that this situation is not only undesirable and a source of annoyance to residents, but also dangerous for the children. The more timid idle themselves away, thus opening themselves to all kinds of doubtful influences and making themselves vulnerable to moments of mischief. These would not happen - at least probably not - if they were engaged in proper recreational and sporting activities. Proper recreational and sporting activities could only be conducted in proper play areas such as a playing field. 6.00 p.m. May I therefore, once more, urge the urgent construction of a suitable playing field in Bedok New Town. Such a facility would be of immense benefit to all concerned. Parents would heave a great sigh of relief, for their children would then be able to play in a safe area instead of at car parks, along the road or five-foot ways. Another point which I would like to raise, Sir, is with regard to the problem of urinating in the lifts. Earlier this year, in January, I raised a very pressing point with the Minister for National Development. I asked him if the HDB would consider the construction of public toilets in selected sites in HDB housing estates or even on the void decks of flats. I was then told that they were not necessary since there were many public toilets in the markets, at hawker centres and at the various commercial premises. I call it a pressing problem because it is. The problem has not improved. If anything, it has got worse. I am raising it again because people in these housing estates are continuously complaining that children are urinating in lifts. They do so simply because there are no toilet facilities near where they normally play. When they get the urgent call of nature, they go to the most convenient private place - lifts! The result needs no elaboration. I would, therefore, once again like to urgently suggest that urinals be built near children's play areas. Such public toilets need not be an eyesore. They could be tastefully designed and if looked after properly, would not cause any unpleasant consequences to the environment. Children would not normally go all the way to hawker centres, markets or enter commercial premises to answer the call of nature. The suggested public urinals would thus be a great service not only to the children but also to all residents who would enjoy using cleaner lifts, without any unsightly mess or stench. This is indeed a real problem encountered daily in many housing estates. It is a very pressing problem. Under the present policy of the Housing and Development Board, families with a combined income exceeding $1,500 per month are today ineligible to purchase HDB flats. This ceiling poses a problem to many a family wishing to acquire such a flat. People do seem to earn a little more these days. The ceiling of $1,500 does, therefore, prevent many families who genuinely need flats from applying for them. I would therefore like to suggest that this ceiling be raised to $2,000 per month. If this is done, it would enable many families which would otherwise be barred from getting much needed accommodation to purchase these HDB flats. I am making this suggestion because there is, as everybody knows, a vast difference between the cost of an HDB flat and an HUDC apartment. The wide gap makes it extremely difficult, if not almost impossible, for such families to purchase an HUDC flat. At the same time they are barred from applying for an HDB flat. So they are caught between the devil and the deep sea, as the saying goes. Their dilemma has no solution at the moment. But if the current ceiling of $1,500 is raised to $2,000 some solution to the problem would be found. It would make many families eligible to apply for HDB flats. It would make many people happy. It would curb people from resorting to all kinds of devious ways and means in an attempt to bring down their total family income to $1,500 per month in order to make themselves eligible for an HDB flat. Another point I like to raise refers to owners of 3-room HDB flats but who would now like to purchase 5-room flats after a period of five years, when they are allowed to sell their flats, not because of a desire for luxury but out of sheer necessity. The children have grown. More space is needed. Some may have started to earn a living, thereby contributing to the family income. Thus, the same problem recurs. Because of the $1,500 ceiling, such families are ineligible to re-register for a bigger flat. This would in many ways defeat the basic purpose of providing the people with HDB housing which is to provide better accommodation, a better environment, less overcrowding, a happier life. I would therefore strongly suggest that the present policy be changed to accommodate the needs of the category of families outlined above, to enable them to purchase bigger flats.

Sir, the growth of our new towns and Housing and Development Board blocks of flats is a credit to Singapore and is a feature which is much admired and studied both at home and abroad. The apartments being built by the Housing and Urban Development Company also meet the need for middle income housing and large numbers of these new home owners undertake quite extensive renovations to further improve on their flats. In the course of making these improvements there is considerable waste of time, labour resources and materials as many people hack out their bathroom and kitchen tiles and replace them with new ones. There is also much hacking of the screeded floors in flats in order to lay marble, terrazzo or tile finishes. In the HUDC flats too, a high percentage of owners reject such items as the kitchen cabinet and servery which are included with the price of the flat and these costly items are also wasted. All this and other waste is expensive, especially as the materials used are imported and represent foreign exchange. Our labour resources too are limited and much time is wasted in ripping, removing and making good the damage to walls, floors etc. and unblocking pipes and drains which become clogged as a result of the hacking and cement mixing. May I suggest that the Hon. Minister seek ways to minimise this wastage perhaps by allowing for more options to be offered to buyers. A basic plan could be prepared to include perhaps one or two choices of flooring, bathroom and kitchen wall and floor tiles. The buyer could then be given the option of accepting these or of taking over the flat without these finishes at a reduced price. He would then either supply and fit such finishes through his own contractor or could supply them to be fitted by the HDB or HUDC contractor on payment of a service charge. A cut-off date for exercising such an option could be set and anyone who has not made his selection by that date will be supplied with finishes from the basic plan and will be charged accordingly. Many of the owners of 5- and 4-room HDB flats too spend quite large sums of money on renovations and incur similar waste. The pressure to produce low-cost housing in the minimum time is now being reduced. There are 49,000 people on the waiting list and 30,000 units are being built per year. It would therefore seem feasible to consider making more allowance for individual taste and desires of new HDB and HUDC flat owners. Here is a point which goes a step further than what the Member for Bedok has just said. At the present time and for some years to come, there is a group of citizens who are encountering difficulty in becoming owners of HDB flats because of the income ceiling rules. I am referring to those who are now middle aged and whose families were born before our current family planning programme came into effect. These people often have five, six or even more children. The husband and wife together may earn a monthly income of only $500 - $600 but their children are also working and earning good incomes. Nowadays daughters as well as the sons hold good jobs and the present practice of including the children's income with that of the parents means that either such parents are forced to apply for HUDC housing or if their combined income is less than $1,500 but more than $1,200 they must take a larger flat than the parents can really afford or want. When their children subsequently marry the flat is not large enough to hold all the members of the family and, given current trends, many young married couples move into their own homes soon after marriage. This eventually leaves the parents with a larger flat than they can actually afford to pay for on their incomes alone and they encounter difficulty in maintaining their payments as they approach retirement. Whilst we must encourage young people to care for and help to support their parents in their old age, they cannot be expected to make payments on their own flats and continue to help their parents meet their liabilities which they were committed to at a time when they were living with their parents. If the children's income had not been included in the initial application, then chances are that the parents would have qualified for a smaller, less expensive flat which they would have a good chance of completely paying for before retirement. Even if one child stays behind in the family home, the drop in income for the household in a larger flat would be great and would create an unnecessary financial r burden on the one remaining behind with the parents. May I suggest that in such cases the income should be calculated solely on the basis of the income of the breadwinner and his wife. This problem will lessen on its own in time to come as the two-child family becomes the norm, but for the present may I suggest that this matter be given urgent consideration.

Sir, the HDB allocates flats based on combined gross income of the family. Those whose total family gross income is $501 to $800 can only rent a three-room apartment. Those whose total family gross income is less than $500 and $400 are only eligible for a two-room flat and 1-room flat respectively. According to the HDB. gross income includes overtime pay and allowances. For wage-earners, overtime and other allowances are not fixed income. Thus, a young married couple whose combined gross income at the time of application for rental flat is $501 or slightly above would be forced to rent a three-room flat. But the HDB does not realise that it is quite difficult for a young couple to make both ends meet by renting a three-room flat. In Boon Teck Constituency, I have cases of young workers who sought my advice and assistance. One young industrial worker has just completed his national service and earns a monthly salary of $510 including overtime pay and other allowances. He has to support his parents and he is planning to settle down. He is not allowed to apply for a two-room flat because his gross salary is more than $501 but his actual take-home pay is $430.95 after deduction of 15 1/2% CPF which he has to pay. His overtime pay and shift allowance are not fixed. If the employer withdraws his allowance and overtime pay, his actual income is about $320. Definitely, HDB is forcing him to live beyond his means. Last Friday, another young married couple came to seek my assistance because the HDB has arbitrarily decided to transfer his application for a two-room flat to a three-room flat as his total family income is $605. His wife is an electronic operator drawing a salary of only $205 including overtime and shift allowance and her husband's salary is $400. His actual take-home pay is not more than $500. His wife is expecting a baby. Similarly, this young couple will find it very difficult to rent a three-room flat if they have to pay about $130 for rent and PUB bill. I am only making a very safe estimate that the rent is $90 and the PUB bill is $40. It could be more. 6.15 p.m. There is another case of a young couple whose combined gross income at the time of marriage and application for rental flat was $600 and was forced to rent a three-room flat. But for reasons beyond their control, one of them was retrenched and their combined income has come down to $300. In this case, hardship follows when a sizable part of the family income goes to meet the rent and PUB bill. Sir, in the case of the self-employed, like small contractors, provision shopowners, petty traders, taxi drivers and some prosperous hawkers, their income is not assessed. Thus even if they earn more than $500 or more than $800, all they have to do is to make a statutory declaration to the effect that their income is less than $400 or $500 and they are eligible for a 1-room flat or a 2-room flat as the case may be. This strikes one as a most unfair rule against workers who form the majority of those making significant contributions to the growth of the Republic's economy. On the one hand, we want our workers to be thrifty and put aside something for a rainy day. On the other hand, the HDB is bent on syphoning most of a worker's earnings by imposing the burden of a larger flat on him much against his will. We cannot agree with the HDB's contention that this is done to minimise over-saturation of smaller flats which may not be needed in the future. There will always be a need for smaller flats particularly amongst the younger workers in the early years of their marriage. As they begin to have children and when these children reach school -going age, the need for bigger flats like 3-room flats would become a necessity. By this time, savings in the CPF and the income of the worker would have progressively increased to enable him to purchase an apartment or meet the necessary expenses for rental and other costs. The HDB rules governing acceptance of application for renting flats should be reviewed. It is high time the HDB came out with a more rational rule which will not impose hardship on the working class as opposed to the self-employed.

Sir, the system of tendering for HDB shophouses has brought forth various arguments on the pros and cons of this system. As the biggest land-lord in the country, the HDB should seriously consider reviewing the present method of letting out shophouses by tender. The tender system tends to create an inflationary trend. High rentals lead to high prices. Some shop-keepers after successfully tendering for a shophouse finds it difficult to survive due to the high rentals paid. They therefore resort to change of trade, inclusion of partners and introducing additional items for sale. Although this is allowed by the Board, the shopkeepers are required to pay a higher rental based on market rates which is as high as 300% over the existing rental. I would like to give one example which I took up with the Housing Board a year ago. A shop tenant was affected by resettlement. At that time, she was underaged. She was aged 19 and therefore the tenancy could not be given to her. By mutual arrangement, the tenancy was made out in the name of her aunt. So later on after she got married and reached the age of 21, she applied to the Housing Board to have the tenancy transferred to her name. The Board agreed to this but then she was asked to pay a rental of $1,500 as opposed to $350 she had been paying. This matter dragged on for more than a year. But fortunately it was amicably resolved and the tenant is now required to pay only $750. Sir, I must repeat that it took more than a year for me to negotiate and come to an amicable settlement with the Housing Board. Recently, a major departmental store suffered losses in its Marine Parade operations due to high rental. Apparently, the store gave notice to terminate the tenancy. During the period of notice, the store launched a closing down sale campaign. At the same time, the Board advertised to fill the vacancy. The same departmental store retendered at a very much lower rental and was successful. In this way, the store not only managed to have the rental reduced substantially but took advantage of the notice period to make profits through a sales gimmick. Probably the Minister will say that shopkeepers should take the same risk of terminating their tenancies and retendering for the same shophouse again. We must differentiate between big business operations and small scale business operations. We just cannot tell the shopkeeper who has been in business for many years, "Either you pay up or close shop." Coming back to the question of retendering, could the Hon. Minister enlighten the House on how this departmental store managed to successfully retender for the same premises in such a short time and at what rental? The next point I would like to raise, Sir, is on the development of new estates in various parts of the island. Many hawkers who reside in one- or two-room rented properties have bought larger flats under the Home Ownership Scheme in other estates. As a result, they have to travel some distance to their place of business. This problem is further compounded by the fact that these hawkers have to transport their stock-in-trade from one place to another daily. Could the Housing Board give priority to these hawkers' applications for transfer to stalls nearer their homes? Another point I hope the Hon. Minister could consider is the question of waiving the income limitation on the purchase of flats for existing tenants of one- and two-room flats. Over the years, the size of the families residing in these flats has increased and for want of larger and better accommodation, they wish to purchase three-, four- or five-room flats but could not do so because of the income restrictions. Furthermore, they could not apply for transfer to flats larger than two rooms as there is a limited number of these flats and most of them are "sold" properties. It seems absurd that despite their increased total family income, they are allowed to continue to reside in rented properties but prohibited from buying a larger flat. Since the Board has a scheme for sale of flats to sitting tenants, I see no reason why this privilege could not be extended to tenants of rented properties. The last point I would like to raise, Sir, is on the large number of flats sold under the Home Ownership Scheme, and the problem of inheritance by next-of-kin. Present regulatons permit transfers of leases through inheritance if the inheritors are eligible under the current regulations. This creates a problem for the next-of-kin who does not meet with the requirements.

Sir, what I actually intend to touch on are matters relating to the Housing and Development Board. I notice there is another amendment to consider the HDB's allocation. It is on amendment (10) under this Head. I propose to speak when that amendment comes up for debate.

Mr Ch'ng, your name is not included under amendment (10).

No, my name is not there.

Would you like to speak now?

May I reserve the right to speak on amendment (10)?

All right. Mr Yeo Choo Kok is not here. Mr Baptist.

Sir, I would like to raise a few matters that require the attention of the Minister. The maintenance of the market and hawker centre at Lorong 8 Toa Payoh leaves much to be desired. I believe that maintenance and upkeep is a difficult matter because of poor construction in the first instance. Drains within the hawker centre are narrow and shallow, subjecting the whole area to flooding during business hours and also when the area is cleaned, as the capacity of these drains is small. In addition to this, poor foundation before building has resulted in the floor not only cracking badly but also caving in to such an extent that it appears to have suffered the aftermath of an earth- quake. The floor areas of Blocks 213, 214, 215 and the PUB substation in Lorong 8 have also suffered in like manner. It is not only unsightly but also a cause of worry for the residents, market stallholders and customers. The condition could worsen. Is the Hon. Minister aware of the situation? When will corrective measures be taken? The market and hawker centre and the drains in Lorong 8 area are extremely dirty and emit offensive odours. The drain at market stall No. 209 for instance -

Sir, the amendment is on item 1100, Political Appointments, under which there should be a discussion of policy. But if Members go on to specific subjects, it will be impossible for me to reply to all the points raised.

Yes. I do seem to think that, instead of speaking on broad policy matters, Members have been talking more on administrative matters, which rightly should have been raised under various other subheads. However, perhaps the Minister would like to answer some of the points that have been raised up to now.

Thank you, Sir. After having listened to quite a number of Members who have spoken, I would like to reply generally on matters of policy so that Members could perhaps be clearer in their minds as to what the policies are. If they still have any doubts about certain specific items which they have raised, then if the opportunity should arise, they could probably raise them later on. But 1st me inform Members that I am confining my reply to policy matters only.

Mr Baptist, are you speaking on policy or on administrative matters?

Sir, I crave your indulgence. We were given to understand that we could raise these problems under this particular item 1100 because the Minister is in charge of the HDB, and I suppose he is well aware of the problems that we have raised. 6.30 p.m.

If you are speaking on policy, then I think it is fair enough. But if you are talking of the administrative aspects of HDB, then a more appropriate Subhead will be Code NE-01 under amendment (10) or (11) on the Order Paper Supplement.

Sir, in the meantime I am wondering if I could touch on the HUDC. This is a matter of policy I believe, because there have been many complaints against the HUDC.

If the Member is talking on maintenance in general, I think it is all right. But if he talks specifically about Lorong 8, it will be very difficult for me to answer him. There are hundreds of Lorongs in each new town. And if all the Members are going to talk on Lorong 1, Lorong 3, Lorong 8 and so on, then I am lost! Some hon. Members: You are right.

Sir, I believe I am quoting this just as a matter of illustration. It is on general policy really: the pollution-free environment that should be maintained in HDB areas. This Lorong 8 was just an illustration to strengthen my point that this is not being done. I believe this problem concerns policy, Sir.

Point of clarification, Sir. I did not interrupt until the Member had posed the question: When will this be done, or is this being done? It was only then that I interrupted. If he had just said, "Lorong 8 is dirty and there is poor maintenance". then I would tell him that the policy is to keep the place as clean as possible.

Sir, I will avoid specific questions on specific areas. Will that please the Minister, Sir?

You may proceed, Mr Baptist. As has been pointed out, please do confine your illustration to illustrations.

Corrective measures should be taken to ensure that Lorong 8 is kept clean. The bin centre close to the market and hawker stalls at Lorong 8 (an illustration again) is always polluted. The bin centre is not cleaned after rubbish is cleared daily by the Ministry of the Environment. The doors to the bin centre are on their last legs. Poor maintenance and filth are safety and health hazards to people. Can the Minister assure the House that measures to improve conditions will be carried out speedily? The HDB seems to lack the knack of looking into details. I would like to illustrate a particular detail, just to point out that HDB lacks this knack. During the days when Lorong 8 was a farm land (an illustration, Sir) wooden lamp posts provided carriage for electrical wires, telephone wires and light bulbs. Most of these lamp posts were removed, and rightly so because they do not serve any purpose now. However, one solitary wooden lamp post still stands, smack in the middle of 14 blocks of flats. Is it meant to be a memento of the past, a reminder to residents that standards in the area had risen now that the lamp posts in the area are made of metals? Or is it an indication of lack of aesthetic value of the HDB? Most certainly the lone wooden lamp post is incongruous in that locality? Is the HDB considering leaving wooden lamp posts in all areas as mementoes of the past? Sometime ago the HDB had three bridges, at intervals, spanning 600 metres of canal dividing the blocks of flats in the Lorong 8 area.

Sir, I think we are being inundated with details about Lorong 8. I am not aware that all bin centres and all lamp posts suffer the same fate as those in Lorong 8.

Sir, could I seek your indulgence to continue illustrating?

For goodness sake, please do quote some other lorongs!

These bridges were conveniently located and of great assistance to the residents and their children. I will move to other lorongs in the estate at a later stage, Sir. Incidentally, there are two primary schools in the area with a total school population close to 3,000. Strangely enough, after providing this service for many months, the HDB decided to move the centre bridge, the one in front of Block 219 -

Sir, why did the HDB move this particular bridge? It is impossible for me to keep track of all the bridges that the HDB is moving or the PWD is building.

Sir, I did not ask the Minister to give me an answer to that. I was just illustrating, Sir, the lack of human understanding on the part of the HDB authorities, which leaves much to be imagined. The convenience enjoyed has been turned into an inconvenience. Generally in HDB estates, motorcycles are allowed to park in special lots provided. They are mostly owned by workers who have taken pains to save enough money to buy these machines for transport to and from work, especially if they have great distances to travel from home. Moreover many of the workers perform shift duties and public transport is not too readily available early in the morning and late at night or in the wee hours of the morning. Motorcycles, therefore, are of immense assistance to these people who want to ensure that they need to spend less on transport and also save time. However, due to exposure to the elements, maintenance costs rise and deterioration sets in more quickly. Metal fatigue in the form of rusty metal parts and deterioration of mechanical and electrical parts are frustrating and costly. Could the Minister consider building shelters over motorcycle parks in HDB estates? I would like now to turn my attention to; the HUDC. There have been many complaints against the HUDC, ranging from high-handedness in management to gross inaccuracies in brochures which tend to be misleading and confusing to purchasers. Claims have been made that grievances brought to the attention of the management were either ignored or there was delay in replying. Complaints prevalent also include delay in rectifying building defects. Would the Hon. Minister look closely into the dissatisfaction of HUDC flat owners or would-be flat owners? Could the Minister also improve HUDC public relations, and correct the present adverse image the HUDC has gained?

Sir, I hope I will be able to lead Members out of the lorongs that they have been led into! Sir, I would like to raise a couple of points relating to the issue of strata titles to purchasers of commercial property. Purchasers of residential property have a certain measure of protection under the Housing Developers (Licensing and Control) Act. Under the Act, developers are required to give an undertaking of the date by which purchasers will be given a registrable title to the properties. Furthermore, developers have to obtain release of any mortgage or charge on units in the development on which the purchaser has paid 80% of the purchase price. For purchasers of commercial property, however, there is no such protection. There are, for example, several development projects undertaken on sites leased from the Urban Renewal Authority and designated as URA projects, where developers have not produced strata titles although eight to ten years have lapsed since the purchasers have paid the full purchase price. This is a highly unsatisfactory state of affairs, and there is no reason why developers should not be able to produce strata titles on time if they had acted appropriately and promptly. Developers often heavily mortgage their land on which the project is being built in order to finance the development. In the case of URA projects, it is done with the consent of the URA. Some of the developers of URA sites who have collected all the monies or a substantial part of the monies from the purchasers are not in a position to redeem their existing mortgage on the land on which the project has been erected. To compound matters, some of the developers have even further mortgaged the land after the completion of the development, despite the fact that all or a substantial number of units in the development have been sold and the full purchase price paid. During this period of delay, purchasers do not have any registrable title, although they have paid the full purchase price. The purchasers' rights are only covered by caveats lodged with the Registrar of Titles, but how good this protection is and for how long, and against what type of mortgages, are all matters which are still not very clear. In the case of URA projects, the URA administers the flow of funds from the purchasers to the developer. But this is done primarily to ensure that work has physically progressed before payment is made and nothing is done to ensure that encumbrances on the title are removed when purchasers have paid a certain percentage of the purchase price. Many purchasers of units of URA projects have assumed that because the development is done under the auspices of the URA, their interests are automatically safeguarded. In many cases the developers complain that the delay in issuing titles is due to the time taken by the Registry of Titles to issue strata titles. This is merely an excuse because, if the developers had paid off the mortgage in time and complied with the requirements of the Planning Department and Survey Office, strata titles can be applied for and obtained quite easily. Would the Minister, therefore, consider the introduction of a law, similar to the law on housing, to cover commercial properties? Would he consider, as an interim and partial measure, the imposition of conditions in URA sales that would require developers to deliver registrable titles to purchasers within a stipulated time, and also to make such conditions as to protect the interests of the purchasers by controlling the creation of encumbrances on the title?

Sir, in fact, I wanted to raise this matter under amendment (11) but I was directed to move my amendment under "Political Appointments". Sir, what I wish to ask of the Minister concerns a number of points on this overall strategy of Housing and Development Board estates. One that concerns me most is the question of the rural centre that is being built at Punggol. I am given to understand that there are some 328 units, comprising one-room, three-room new generation and four-room new generation types. I do not seem to see any shops or market being provided for this rural centre, bearing in mind the fact that the adjoining area is also under acquisition. In fact, Sir, I do not follow the concept of the development of this rural centre. Although it has got 300-odd units, I am told that the demand is very favourable. But I have a question to pose to the Minister here. Some of the farming families are large, and I have received requests as to whether these farming families could have some form of priority in applying for such flats. 6.45 p.m. Secondly, and this is a point raised by the Member for Bedok on the question of open spaces. The type of open space that I have in mind is the playing field, not an open space as "lungs" in this massive concrete jungle of high-rise flats but a playing field to serve the younger age groups who form the major part of our population. There is a need to channel the enthusiasm and energy of our youths. In this respect, would the Housing and Development Board consider providing playing fields in its planning of setting sites for community centres in the Housing Board estates? As I understand it, the present provision of a community centre would mean the standard type with facilities like a basketball court. But, in fact, Sir, this type of basketball court is more a multi-purpose court where one can also play badminton and volley ball. As pointed out by the Member for Bedok, the younger children are edged out by the bigger ones in the use of the basketball court. I do not think that providing a small playing field will solve the problem of recreational space for children. I earnestly hope that in setting aside land for new community centres a playing field will be sited next to it. 6.48 p.m.

The other point is the planning of Au Kang New Town. Apart from the provision of shops, markets and other related facilities, would there be flatted factories in the overall planning of this area? The reason is that many families who have to be resettled there will have to give up their farming or "minimal farming" activities from which they derive some form of income, supplementary or otherwise and these factories will enable members of these families to obtain some means of supplementary income. In other words, it is a change of occupation for these people. I think it is only fair to the resettled families in the rural areas because in switching from a farming life to life in Housing Board flats they are denied the means of supplementary income. Therefore, I earnestly hope that the Hon. Minister would consider providing flatted factories in the overall planning of Au Kang New Town.

Dr Ong Leong Boon is not here. Mr Lim.

Sir, I shall comment on the observation made by the hon. Member for Khe Bong first. He proposes that the H D B should sell shops to the resettled shop-keepers. This is a question of major policy. We sell houses to the citizens in the pursuit of a house-owning democracy. Are we going a step further and sell shophouses to shop-keepers? As it is, we are building flats on a massive scale to provide housing for the lower income group. In addition, the HUDC is building better class housing for our executives and the middle income group. As a result private entrepreneurs are now discouraged from undertaking residential development. Should we now go a step further and allow HDB to develop and sell commercial properties? To do so is a major change in policy. And if we do, we will kill all private development for commercial and industrial housing. My view is that the Government on its own should not and could not undertake all the property development that is required. The policy now is not to sell shophouses. We only sell residential flats. I come now to the Member for Anson and the Member for Toa Payoh, I am grateful to them for giving me the opportunity to expand a bit on the tender system for the HDB shops. There has been a lot of misunderstanding of the tender system. On the whole, two main points of criticism have been directed at the HDB shop tender system. One is that the competitive tender system does not permit the smaller service trades, like tailoring, hair-dressing, pharmacy and electrical services, a chance of obtaining shops in the housing estates. The tender system is said to have destroyed the small businessmen. The other undesirable effect of the tender system is the allegation that it leads to shopkeepers charging higher prices. The tender system has been in existence for a long, long time. But because of the recurring criticisms levelled at the HDB, a thorough analysis of the tender system was made. Although the system is not perfect, it is not guilty of the shortcomings mentioned above. In the allocation of shops in HDB estates, the Shops Committee takes into consideration the needs of the residents and selects tenders to provide as wide a range of trades as possible. It is the objective of the HDB to make each housing estate or new town as self-contained as possible, with a comprehensive range of service. Tenders are called according to trade categories and allocations are made to the highest bidder in each trade category. In other words, a hairdresser will compete among hairdressers, and a tailor will compete among tailors. He does not compete against other trades such as coffee shop when tendering. Hon. Members have noticed that certain trades such as plumbers and electrical maintenance and repair shops are missing in some HDB estates. This has led some Members into believing that the tender system has prevented these traders from establishing themselves in HDB estates. This is not so. The main reason is that the HDB has a maintenance unit which does repair jobs very cheaply and therefore these tradesmen find that it is not worth their while to have shops in HDB estates. It has also been incorrectly assumed that lower rentals will bring about lower prices. Some people believe that if the rent is low, the goods and services will cost less. In actual fact, there is no such guarantee. The benefits of lower rentals in most cases are not passed on to consumers. For instance, in Alexandra estate, there is a row of shop-houses which was completed almost 20 years ago. The rent is $150 per month. Nearby there is a similar row of shophouses with rent four times as high. Traders who occupy shops at the rental of $150 per month are not selling goods any cheaper than those paying four times as much. I can give another illustration. The hawkers in the PUB canteen are paying between $100 and $200 per stall per month. Close-by, at Somerset House, as well as the building opposite, there are hawkers paying eight times as much rent, i.e. as high as $800 per month. The hawkers at the Orchard Road car park are paying only about $50 per stall. The car park hawkers and the PUB hawkers are not charging cheaper prices than the hawkers who are paying rent about five to ten times more. [Interruption] The shops in town which are under rent control are not selling goods cheaper than shops in the shopping areas.

Sir, I think there is a question of competition here.

Dr Tan, are you seeking clarification?

Yes, Sir, it is on a point of clarification.

Would the Minister give way?

Yes.

Sir, I think the reason why the shopkeepers who are paying lower rentals have not lowered their prices is that there are lots of shopkeepers who are paying very much higher rentals. In other words, it is a question of proportion. How many shop-keepers in Singapore are paying low rentals in general and how many are paying high rentals in general? If the competition is such that it is profitable for those paying lower rentals to charge prices which are charged by those paying higher rentals, then they will do so. But if the policy is such that rentals are low in general, the competition will bring down prices in general. I do not think the Minister can generalise from the limited example.

I am not generalising, Sir, but the hon. Member is. What I am stating is a statement of fact. What he is stating is theory, that if prices are lowered there will be competition and every hawker will sell at lower prices. This is only theory.

Sir, on a point of clarification.

Dr Tan, you will have an opportunity to speak after the Minister has finished his speech.

Another illustration is that the resettled shopkeepers along the same row of shops in the same estate who are doing the same business are paying 50% of the rent which the others are paying. Their prices are not much lower. As the Member has said, it may be because a larger proportion of the hawkers are charging higher prices. So these shopkeepers say, "Why do we not charge more?" That is a theory. But what I am telling him is a fact.

It is a theory because he has a policy which makes it a theory.

Order. 7.00 p.m.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we have heard from the Member for Henderson that a large number of shops are empty because of high rentals. The HDB has under its management 8,000 shops. Only 3% ,move out from time to time because of old age or because of migration as in the case of doctors. In Rochore estate, of the 172 shops occupied five have terminated their tenancy. That is about 3%. Strangely enough, those who terminated their tenancy are not those who pay rents ranging from $2,000 to $4,300 but those who pay rents ranging from $800 to $1,400. So termination of tenancy is not due to the high rent but sheer inefficiency or bad business management on the part of the shopkeeper. Until another system is found, the present tender system will continue. It is not perfect, but we have not yet found a suitable substitute. With regard to the question of assisting old folks, the Member for Henderson wants deeds, not words. The rentals for the one-room flats are already subsidised. Yet for the old folks' homes, the rentals are lower than the normal rents. Here is concrete proof that we are already helping them. I think it is a good policy to involve members of the community in assisting to look after old people. Now, regarding the question of allowing tenants in old Housing Board estates to construct awnings to shelter them from the rain and sun, my information is that they were once allowed to do so. But what happened? The awnings became an eye-sore as they were badly maintained. That is why residents are not permitted to put up their own awnings now. The Member for Anson, my good friend, has raised the question of people not understanding the functions of the Planning Department and the Development Control Division. He seems to know quite a lot of the workings of these departments. I think he must know where these departments are. Any one who knows where these two departments are, will not get lost. Even if he does not know, he will not get lost because DCD is on the fourth floor of the National Development Building and the Planning Department is on the fifth floor. If a person were to go to the Planning Department when he should go to the DCD, he will be directed to the proper place. So it is either one floor up or one floor down. There is no question of getting lost. I think on the whole people do understand the different functions of these two departments. I will not waste the time of this House by saying exactly the same things which I had said the last time. The hon. Member knows that we have been trying to clear the slums. There are many slum areas in Singapore. We have cleared many of them but there are some left. One of them is the area which the Member has referred to. Very soon a road will be constructed through that area. I do not know yet how soon it will be. In the meanwhile, housing inspectors are discouraging tenants from spending too much money on renovations because later on they would have to move out. When that happens, the hon. Member will come here and complain loudly to the House. But if the repairs are minor, I see no reason why they should not be allowed to do so. But where the repairs to be undertaken require the signature of approval of the owner, then the DCD has no control. That is the law. If you own a piece of land and someone wants to build a house on it, he has to ask your permission.

On a point of clarification, Sir, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, my point is this. In the case of these attap houses, either the owner or the tenants must undertake the repairs. Permission was not given by the Building Control Division because the owner did not sign. The owners want to chase the tenants out, and that is why they did not want to sign. That is the trouble. Therefore, the owners must be instructed to do the repairs.

That is exactly the trouble, Sir. The owners would not sign. We cannot do anything. That is the legal position. But I cannot tell the tenants, "You sign, and I will allow you to carry out the repairs." That is against the law.

On a point of clarification, Sir. The Minister should look after the people of Singapore. He knows the conditions of living there, and should give them alternative accommodation. The slum areas should be removed.

We will remove the slum areas in good time. There are priorities. We have removed a lot of them. We will be removing many more. When the time comes to remove the slum areas in his constituency, we will do so. The Member for Bedok is most happy that all his requests have been met except the one on playing fields. There must be some very good reasons for not providing his constituency with a playing field. I am not able to remember why every little lorong is dirty, a bridge removed, or a playing field not provided. But there must be very good reasons for this. As I have said, it is the policy of the Housing Board to make every town self-contained, and with its own playing field if possible. So, in reply to the Member for Punggol, if there is space we will build the playing field when the time comes. Regarding the question of urinals, a survey has been made. In the planning of a town or a neighbourhood, sufficient urinals are provided for in the markets, shops and other public places. Even if we were to provide urinals next to the lifts, we will still find children urinating in the lifts if their attitude and behaviour remain unchanged. This can only be corrected through education and through the inculcation of good habits. As far as the planners are concerned, they are quite satisfied that enough toilet facilities are being provided in each neighbourhood and each town. There is also the question of those who want to buy HDB flats but are unable to do so because of the income ceiling. We have found that the average monthly household income of a HDB flat purchaser is about $845. There is, therefore, still a wide gap between that figure and the ceiling of $1,500. It is therefore not true to say that because of the income ceiling of $1,500 many people are not eligible to buy a HDB flat. We also found that more than 50% of those who purchase HDB flats are families with a total income of under $2,000 per month. Another survey was made to find out how many of those people with an income of $1,500 or just above $1,500 wanted to purchase flats. We found that it was only 5%. Members will agree with me that rules are made to cater for the majority and not the minority of the people. Perhaps with the present proposal to upgrade the quality and standard of Housing Board flats, which surely will cost more, we may have to raise the income ceiling slightly above $1,500. This is under consideration. I am not making any commitment just now. The Member for Telok Blangah made the suggestion that purchasers should be allowed the option to choose the kind of finishings they want, instead of breaking up the standard finishings. Members must understand that we are building flats on a very large scale. Administratively it will be difficult to cater to individual tastes. We have not made a study yet, but I think we should make a study to find out what percentage of the owners do really break up the floors to have finishings of their own choice. But it does mean that a lot of administrative work is involved if we are to cater to individual tastes. Even in the costly private housing development, most of the finishings for flooring and kitchen are done by the developers. So the Member's suggestion is quite a departure from normal practice. Considering that the HDB is building 30,000 units a year. to allow 30,000 families to choose finishings of their own choice will mean a massive operation requiring very careful planning and thinking. However, we will give the matter some consideration. The Member for Boon Teck has given us some illustrations of real hardship or borderline cases of hardship. The Member need not worry. Although we have rules, we are flexible. There is an Allocations Committee to consider cases of hardship such as those mentioned by the Member, and, if necessary the rules can be waived. Rules are made for men, and not the other way round. 7.15 p.m. The Member for Toa Payoh has made some comments regarding the tender system and high rentals. I believe he had Metro in mind. He wanted to know how Metro was able to retender and get it again very quickly. He knows very well that it was a risk which Metro took. They gave the usual notice of termination. The HDB did not waste time. A month's delay in getting a tenant means a loss of $20,000 or so. The HDB advertised the moment it received notice of termination, so that by the time Metro vacated the premises HDB would have a new tenant. That is the reason why it was done so quickly. I think the Member should congratulate the HDB for its efficiency. As regards the previous and present rentals, these are details which I cannot now recall. I do not look into these details.

You can give it to him tomorrow!

If the Member asks for it. As regards transfer to bigger flats, it is always possible for those who rent or own small flats to transfer to bigger flats. For purchased flats, they must have occupied the flat for at least five years and for rented flats, they must have occupied the flat for at least two years. That is roughly the rule that I can remember and I do not think there has been any change. Stallholders will be permitted to transfer to stalls nearer their new homes if the stalls am available. Those who find that their business is not profitable after six months may be allowed a transfer if stalls in the desired location are available. As regards the difficulty in inheriting Housing Board properties from parents who die, I think this is something which the Housing Board cannot expedite because they have to conform to certain legal technicalities. If beneficiaries can comply with legal requirements there would then be no problem. With regard to raising the rent of shop-houses on transfer, I think it is fair. Out of the 8,000-odd shops under the management of the HDB, more than half were rented out at relatively low rents. They were rented out before stagflation. Some were rented a few years ago and some recently. We have not raised the rents of all these shophouses, which are very cheap compared to the present rates. So if a now partner were to come in, or should there be a transfer, I think it is fair to raise the rent. Applicants for new HDB shops have to tender at ruling rentals. New partners or transferees are new tenants of HDB shops and even if the rent is raised for them, it is unlikely to be as much or more than those paid by the successful tenderers of new HDB shops. Coming to the Member for Potong Pasir. As I said, I am not going to bring up the matter of Lorong 8. In general, I do not think one can expect the dustbin centre to be as clean as Lorong 8 itself. I regret to say that I do not know why the HDB leaves a solitary wooden lamp post at Lorong 8. If the Member wants to know, he should submit a question for oral answer. We will consider the request to build shelters for parking of motorcycles. As regards public relations between the HUDC and members of the public, it has always been the policy of every Ministry to improve its relationship with members of the public. I do not know what incident the Member has in mind. It could possibly be letters about repairs or dissatisfaction with HUDC flats which came after the matters have been discussed with the complainant. I do not know what are the actual incidents. But let me say categorically that it is the policy of every Ministry and I think it is the policy of hon. Members to encourage better public relations between Government departments and the public. We will continue to stress on better public relations. The Member for Kallang stated very clearly why the Housing Developers (Control and Licensing) Act was promulgated and what were the salient features. I think it is desirable to allow things to carry on without Government interference if possible. But where control is necessary, we will exercise it as in the case of the housing developers. In enforcing this Act, we are running into a lot of teething problems. I do not think we should rush in again without first learning more from the experience of enforcing the Housing Developers (Control and Licensing) Act. We should not rush in and enact a new Act to control development of commercial and industrial properties. We should first learn from the experience we have gained. If it is still necessary, then we may pass an Act to control development of commercial and industrial properties. However, we will take up the suggestion made that probably some son of control could be enforced through urban renewal. The Member for Punggol wants to know why his constituency has what he calls a rural centre. Sir, I have not been to the rural centre. I think it is a now project. The shops are not there just yet probably because there are already shops nearby. As I said, it is the policy for a centre to be self-contained. There must be very good reasons why shops have not been built in this farming area. Offhand I would not be able to tell the reasons why shops have not yet been established or built in this estate. However, if the Member could submit a question for oral answer, I may be able to satisfy him on this matter. These are details in planning. I would expect that by the time the development of the whole area is completed there would be the usual facilities, shops etc. Members have ranged over quite a large number of subjects. I hope I have replied satisfactorily to them. I may have left some out. If I had, could Members please bring them to my attention and I shall try and answer them.

Sir, the Hon. Minister referred to the matter of awnings in HDB flats. He said that from past experience they were found to be badly maintained and an eyesore and, therefore, the HDB now has a policy not to let anybody install awnings. I say that the HDB could always lay down the size, the shape, and even the colour of these awnings. They have done so in the case of some terrace houses which were formerly owned by the HDB in St. Michael's Estate, and I believe in other estates as well, which were subsequently sold. I had occasion to intervene some years ago on the matter of installation of awnings because the HDB architect was so insistent upon even a particular hue of colour; I never knew until that time that there were so many shades of green and so many shades of orange, yellow and so forth. In any case, the awnings were allowed to be installed in the terrace houses. Over the last few years, residents in my area who are living in the flats above the shop-houses at St. Michael's Market concourse made a similar request to be allowed to install awnings at the back of their flats. But these requests have been turned down. There seems therefore to be a double standard. Would the Minister please explain?

( In Mandarin): Sir, I completely support the views of the Member for Whampoa. We should give further consideration to the point. I would like to touch on the point brought up by the Minister. If he thinks that it is very ugly or unsightly to have different shapes and types of awnings, then we can standardise them and allow only the same type of awnings to be put up; then it should look better. Maybe the householders can be asked to make a little adjustment this way or that way so that the awnings can be uniform or standardised. Then would it not be all right? There is another more important point in the matter of construction. The building structure may be affected and collapse after a few years, according to some people, if structural adjustments are not made. I do not know how far this is true. I hope the Minister will look into the matter Another matter I would like to raise is rather important to me. Just now the Minister said that the HDB allows homes for the aged to be set up in the HDB estates and this is already one of helping them. But I say that this is a kind of investment by the Government, because if the old folks' centre is not set up in the HDB estate, then the Government would have to set it up elsewhere, whether in the rural area or in the town. After all, one of the Government Departments will have to subsidise the centre. After the investment is made in the centre, then of course the Government cannot expect members of the public to donate funds to pay back the Government in the form of paying the high rentals of the premises in the HDB estates. Members of the public have donated money to look after more aged people, including some Ministers who are getting old, and now the Government is asking them to donate their hard-earned money to pay the rentals. 7.30 p.m.

Sir, I am not satisfied with the answer given by the Minister con- cerned when he said that the HDB is not going to build shophouses as it might kill the private developers. On this point, I am afraid he is shedding crocodile tears. There is a Chinese saying mau ko lau su chia chi peh. On the one hand, he is saying that we should not kill the private developers by competing with them. We must let them have some business. On the other hand, he is saying that shops can be tendered. If the HDB allows shops to be tendered, what is the difference if we sell them to people who have been affected by urban redevelopment? I am not asking the HDB to build shops especially for these people. I am only asking the HDB to give those people who have been affected by redevelopment a chance to buy HDB shop- houses. I do not see the logic of the Minister's argument.

Sir, I would like to know whether the Minister would react to badly cracked and caving-in floorings in HDB markets and hawker stall centres and ground floor void areas of blocks of flats, which are not only dangerous but also unsightly and the condition could worsen? Would the HDB take action to carry out repairs, which could be major repairs?

Sir, I am happy to note that the Minister proposes to make a survey on the renovation of flats by owners. What I am saying is, before the HDB puts in the finishes like tiles and flooring, it should give the people who intend to do their own renovation the option to say, "No, we do not want your finishes. We will do it ourselves." In this way, the HDB will not waste money in doing the flooring and the tiling, which may have to be hacked out if renovation work is done by the owner. Another matter is the income ceiling which I do not think the Minister has answered. One Member mentioned about people living in one-room flats could not move to a bigger flat, because their total family income has exceeded the income limit of $1,500 per month. The situation is that the head of the family is in the middle age and the children are grown up. If they were to buy a house that is more expensive than they can really afford, then when the children got married and move out they will have difficulty in paying the instalments for the house. What they really need is a three-room flat. But under the rules they are forced to buy a five-room flat or a HUDC flat. So when the children move out, they would be left with the flat and in their old age they may find it too expensive to maintain the five-room flat. They cannot really afford to hold the flat because when they retire they will have no money in the CPF as all of it would have been used to pay up for the flat. What I am saying is that only the income of the head of the family and his wife should be considered in the purchase of an HDB flat. Otherwise we will get people buying bigger flats when they do not really need it or cannot really afford it.

Sir, I have just two points to clarify. First, I thought the Minister was referring to matters of policy. When I first posed him the question of the Punggol rural centre which has 328 units of flats comprising 96 one-room improved flats, 128 three-room now generation flats and 108 four-room new generation flats, what struck me is that the rural centre is to be built without shophouses. (i have the reply from the Parliamentary Secretary that these flats at the rural centre will be completed in March this year.) Therefore, if the flats are to be completed this year, why are there no shops? The other matter which the Minister has not yet answered is: in considering applicadons for flats in the rural centre, will some form of priority be given to large farming families?

Sir, first, I would like to thank the Minister for confirming that applications for transfer of hawker stalls can be accepted by the Housing Board. Apparently, some Area Offices thought otherwise. As for the income limit, the Member fc)r Telok Blangah has partly clarified the position. But the Minister has not replied to my question quite fully. I am not referring to a sitting tenant who has offered to buy over his existing flat. I am referring to those who are staying in one- or two-room flats. Over the years the size of the family has increased and the income level raised beyond the current limit even for a rented flat. They are still allowed to stay in a rented flat and yet not allowed to buy a flat. This creates a lot of difficulties. For example, in the old part of Toa Payoh there are a number of one-room and two-room flat dwellers who want to apply for larger accommodation, but they cannot do so because of the income limitation. But basing on the same regulation, they are allowed to reside in a rented property despite the fact that their income level has exceeded the limit. On the question of inheritance, the Minister has not answered the point raised. I am not referring to those who are eligible. With them, there is no problem at all because when the parent dies, the son is eligible. Probably it takes six months for the letter of administration to be formalised and the transfer of lease made. But I am referring to those who are not eligible under the present rules to purchase a HDB flat. For instance, a non-citizen cannot inherit the flat and he has to move out upon the death of either parent.

Sir, I do entirely agree that at the rate in which HDB is building flats, 30,000 a year, it is impossible to provide all the different kinds of finishes that purchasers would normally want. From my observation in my visits to the purchased flats in my constituency, I notice that at least 70 to 80% of the flats have floor finishes quite different from what was originally provided. I was wondering whether the HDB could, in the case of flats which are sold, provide only rough screed floors which will be much cheaper (it has to be sold probably at a cheaper price) and leave it to the purchaser to finish the floors, instead of providing smooth floors as at present.

Sir, may I seek your indulgence on one small point?

Yes, Mr Baptist.

Thank you, Sir. What action will the Minister take if he saw in a HDB Estate a lone wooden lamp post, a remnant of resettlement days, serving absolutely no purpose whatsoever?

It is quite simple, Sir. I will pull it down myself! I have done that. Years ago in the ulu I saw someone cleaning his car with water from a hose. That was before the days of water rationing and "Save Water" campaigns. I went up to him and just snatched the hose off his hands. In this instance, if the Member likes, he can pull it down. But he must be very careful to make sure it does not support any electric cables, otherwise we would lose a Member! Sir, I am glad that the Member for Whampoa, in his contact with the HDB, has found something educational, even though it is a matter of colour.

Point of clarification, Sir. The Minister does not understand the sarcasm. The colours were laid down so specifically that the actual greens, yellows and blues which were utilised were said to be contrary to those prescribed by the Housing Board architects. I was trying to say that they were being petty and unreasonable.

Sir, I never understood sarcasm. I always take it that hon. Members are very straightforward in their dealings with me. But, Sir, I will take up the matter of awnings with the HDB again. I do not understand the Member for Khe Bong. I never said that we are out to kill private developers. I said that if we were to have a policy of selling shophouses, this will discourage further private development. That is my contention. That is why we have not changed the policy at all. Members will notice that we do sell residential flats. But when the HDB sells residential flats, it sells the units in a whole block. This is for the convenience of management. For instance, it will be difficult from the management point of view to sell only part of a block of shop-houses to resettled cases. Anyway, this is a major policy matter and the policy now is not to sell the shophouses. If the Member for Potong Pasir really feels that Lorong 8 is in such a bad state, he should write a letter to the H D B, drawing the Board's attention to it. I am sure it is always wiser to maintain a property than to let it deteriorate and to have to undertake major maintenance later on. As to the Members for Telok Blangah and Toa Payoh, the rules are quite flexible with regard to the question of income limitation. Where a case can be made about hardship or desirability, then the Allocations Committee will consider whether an exception can be made. There are no contradictions here with regard to tenants who have grown in affluence and are allowed to stay in HDB flats. Just because their monthly income exceeds the income limit, they are not allowed to purchase the flats. Here, I think that it is because they are sitting tenants that we do not evict them. If they have grown affluent during their tenancy, good luck to them. But when it comes to applying for purchase or rental of HDB flats subsequently, then the general rule applies. So there is no contradiction here. The Member for Punggol requests that large farming families be given priority in applying for HDB flats. They have already been given priority when they are resettled. They are given farms.

Yes, but not enough space to live in.

They are given farms. And our policy is not to encourage large families. Therefore, there is no reason why large families should be given additional priority for HDB flats. The general policy here is not to encourage large families. In fact, heads of large families should be penalised for having large families, I understand what he means. They already have large families. They are staying in farms and have been given priority on resettlement. They cannot be given further priority. That is the end of it.

Sir, what I am trying to point out is that when they are resettled from another part of Singapore to Punggol, some come with large families and they are given certain plots of land, ranging from half an acre to two acres. For those given half an acre, the whole family of three generations live together. How could the Minister expect them to rear a large number of pigs on half an acre of land, from which they have to set aside a part of this small plot of land to house the large family? 7.45 p.m.

Sir, I said that they should not be given further priority in their application, but I did not say that they are not allowed to apply for Housing Board flats.

That is a different matter altogether.

Yes, of course, they are allowed to apply. I never said that they are not allowed to apply.

I said it discouraged them.

I have not yet replied to the Member for Kallang. The Member said that from his observation about 70% of the flat owners want to re-do their flats. I am not sure, and I do not know. But if 70% of them want to re-do their flats, which means 21,000 units, the question is which unit must we finish and which unit must we leave uncompleted with regard to flooring and tiling. How long will it take before they reply? What son of questionnaire have we got to send out? Mr Dhanabalan rose -

Is the Minister prepared to give way?

Yes.

Sir, I did not suggest that we should finish the flats. The flats could be sold with rough screeds and the purchaser could finish it in any way he likes. Since the finish has to be hacked out, I am saying: why not sell the flats with rough floors and let them finish in any way they want? But the price must be cheaper.

As I said, I do not know how many of them do want to finish their flats. Here again, if we were to agree to that there is every chance that some hon. Members will say, "Why could we not even complete the flats? Why must the finishing be done by us? We pay and so we expect to walk in and see a completed flat. But here we are given jagged rocks as the floor!" There are many views to it. As there are 30,000 units of flats there will be 30,000 different views.

Yes, there is a complaint.

There is a complaint about everything.

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 N be reduced by $10 in respect of item 8101 of Subhead Code NA-01 of the Development Estimates. Sir, the amount allocated for the Urban and Rural Services this year is $3.25 million, almost the same as for last year. This shows that our Government is continuing to look after the people in the rural areas. In fact, the URSC has done a lot in the past 15 years for the rural people. This is praiseworthy. As a Member of Parliament for a rural constituency for the past 15 years I have noticed a lot of development there. Many roads in the rural areas have been metalled. All villages have been supplied with electricity, including all the roads where there are street lightings. As for water, 95% of the villages are supplied with piped water. There is only a small area where there is no water supply yet. In view of these achievements, I would like to congratulate the Minister on behalf of my constituents. I also want to ask the Minister if he could consider allocating some portion of the provision of $250,000 for this year for the benefit of Jalan Ulu Sembawang village, part of which is in Bukit Panjang, by providing water supply which is lacking there. I am sure the fund is sufficient and I hope the Minister will consider this request sympathetically.

Sir, I rise to make one small request. In fact, this request was made last year. It concerns the pig farms in Punggol. All the farmways are not metalled. Last year I was given to understand that some form of metalling would be done this year. In fact, there are also no street lightings in the area except for certain intersections or junctions of these farmways. I notice there is an increase of $300,000 in the provision for Agricultural and Kampong Roads. Whilst there is a reduction of $100,000 for Minor Works, there is an overall increase of $320,000. I earnestly hope that the Senior Minister of State and his Parliamentary Secretary, who is the Chairman of the Urban and Rural Services Committee, would look with much kindness on these farming areas and hasten to provide metalled roads and better street lighting.

Sir, let me first deal with the problem raised by the Member for Sembawang. Water mains will be extended to rural areas if there is an express need for them. Since the Member for Sembawang has made a request for such facilities in the Jalan Ulu Sembawang area, the matter will be looked into by the Urban and Rural Services Committee. The URSC has and will always continue to pay special attention to the rural constituencies to improve the basic facilities like road improvements, street lighting and other amenities for the rural people. As regards the provision and improvement of public facilities, as mentioned by the Member for Punggol, street lighting for the farmways in the Punggol pig farm will amount to about $751,000, and the URSC will try to implement as many projects as possible but these will have to be carried out in stages. For FY 78 the Member may wish to note that a sum of $300,000 will be set aside to cater for improvements of existing roads and installation of street lighting and other amenities in the Punggol and Jalan Kayu pig farm resettlement areas.

( In Mandarin): Sir, I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for his reply, and beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir, I hold the distinction of having to speak in the last five minutes of both Sittings of yesterday and today. I really do not know where to begin and where to end because I do not expect a reply in so short a time. Could I continue with it tomorrow, Sir?

You can say what you want to say now and the reply can be given tomorrow.

Yes, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head N be reduced by $10 in respect of item 8301 of Subhead Code NA-01 of the Development Estimates. Sir, yesterday while discussing the Ministry of Health I mentioned the subject of Kent Ridge Teaching Hospital and I am told that it concerns the development of the building of Kent Ridge Hospital through all its initial phases of planning, and the building comes under the Ministry of National Development. Looking at the Development Estimates of Kent Ridge Hospital, the total original estimated expenditure is in the region of $11 million and the actual expenditure up to the end of FY 76 is already $3 1/2 million. The expenditure for FY 77 is $3 million and the estimated expenditure for FY 78 is $10.2 million. Sir, I do not really know what is the total estimated cost of building Kent Ridge Teaching Hospital. We know for a fact that the Singapore General Hospital will cost the Government something in the region of nearly $200 million, and that is to replace the present Singapore General Hospital. It does not provide for any fancy stuff, but that alone would come to $200 million. But for Kent Ridge Hospital, which is supposedly a teaching hospital and at the same time to serve as a service general hospital for Jurong and Clementi Estates, I wonder if the actual expenditure would be as projected which is a rather minute sum of money. Would this sum be sufficient to build a hospital of any calibre, let alone a teaching hospital? I do not know if it is for that reason that the planning comes under the Ministry of National Development, because this Ministry is well known for its very special calculation when it comes to building. And will this new hospital end up like some HDB flats with curves in and out and lumps here and there? This might end up with a rather interesting hospital of ill-repute. Sir, I raise this subject primarily to seek information because it would appear that so much money has been sunk in and I have yet to see a piece of land being dug or earth moved. It is of great interest to people in the University and also of great interest to people in the Jurong and Clementi areas, for which it is supposedly designed to subserve, as to what this hospital will be, the beds, the teaching facilities, and when the hospital is supposed to be built. I would also like to know when the University Teaching School is supposed to move over to Kent Ridge Hospital. I would like to seek the Hon. Minister's explanation and reveal the plans for this teaching hospital, because to-date very little is known and, from what I have heard from the Planning committee, plans seem to change tom one week to another because it is some sort of a ministerial prerogative. We are not quite sure what shape or design it should take.

Order. Moment of Interruption. 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, 1978 to 31st March, 1979 and ask leave to sit again tomorrow.

So be it.

Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn." -[Dr Tan Eng Liang]. Adjourned accordingly at Eight o'clock p.m.