Hansard, 1978-03-23

Under the provisions of clause 2(d) of Article 30 of the Constitution of Singapore, I have granted permission to the following Members to be or to remain absent from sittings of Parliament (or any Committee of Parliament to which they have been appointed) for the periods stated:- Mr Lai Tha Chai (Henderson) - from 29th March to 20th April, 1978. Mr Lee Khoon Choy (Braddell Heights), Senior Minister of State, Ministry of Foreign Affairs - from 1st to 3rd April, 1978. YEOH GHIM SENG Speaker, Parliament of Singapore

asked the Minister for National Development and Communications (a) how many units of shophouses in Sembawang are affected by road-widening; (b) whether the shop owners who are affected will be given alternative shop premises; and (c) in order to assist the affected shop owners to overcome their resettlement problems, if they will be granted concessionary rates of rentals for their new premises.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there are 105 shop cases in 91 units of shophouses affected by the proposed widening of Sembawang Road - Stage III from Jalan Sembawang Kechil to Admiralty Road). Shopkeepers affected by the clearance will be offered alternative premises in accordance with the present resettlement policy. Resettled shopkeepers who are Singapore citizens and not sharing premises are entitled to rental concession spread over a period of five years. They pay 50% of the rental in the first year. This is increased by 10% each year and it is only in the sixth year that they will pay the full rent.

asked the Minister for National Development and Communications whether consideration would be given to provide a zebra crossing at Blocks 17 and 18, Marsiling.

Mr Speaker, Sir, recent pedestrian traffic counts showed that there is no justification for providing a pedestrian crossing across Marsiling Lane at Apartment Blocks 17 and 18. Pedestrians will have little difficulty in crossing the road as there are sufficient gaps in the traffic flow to allow for it. However, it was found that a pedestrian crossing is required across Marsiling Road near its junction with Marsiling Lane. A suitable crossing, either zebra or push button crossing, would be provided at this location.

asked the Minister for Home Affairs and Education whether he will consider granting permanent residence to a Special Pass holder whose family includes permanent residents or Singapore citizens.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Special Pass holders are normally persons who are unable to prove their lawful presence in Singapore but are allowed to remain here on purely compassionate grounds. Where the grant of permanent residence is concerned, they are treated on the same basis as others who are staying here lawfully on other types of immigration passes. Special Pass holders cannot claim special privilege over these other people who may also have family ties in Singapore. The grant of permanent residence is governed by the provisions of the Immigration (Prohibition of Entry) Order, 1973. Family roots is only one factor when considering applications for permanent residence. Much will depend on whether the applicant has special skill and can contribute or have contributed to the well-being of the country. Generally, a Special Pass holder who is a professional or skilled person, the wife of a Singapore citizen, or a child under the age of six of a Singapore citizen, is eligible for the grant of permanent resident status. Alternatively, if he is a male of national service age, he can also be considered for permanent residence provided he signs up for regular service in the SAF. During the last five years, 400 persons who were previously on Special Passes were granted permanent residence. They included those whose families are made up of Singapore citizens or permanent residents.

( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, in his reply the Minister says that those with special skills or technical skills or those who sign up for national service will be given consideration for permanent residence. I would like to ask the Minister whether those who are, say, above 30 years want to join national service or any uniformed organisation, will be considered for permanent residence.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if the Member for Sembawang had listened to the answer carefully, he would have noticed that what I said was that consideration would be given on joining the SAF regular service, and not doing national service. If a male person is over 30 years old and if he is accepted as a regular of the SAF, then of course, he will be considered for the grant of permanent residence. But there is a difference between doing national service and being in the service of the SAF. I hope this clarifies the mind of the Member for Sembawang.

2.37 p.m. Accident & Emergency Fees

Mr Speaker, Sir, during the debate on the budget of the Ministry of Health the Member for Anson mentioned of rumours on my Ministry's intention to increase the attendance fee at Accident & Emergency (A&E) departments in the hospitals. I am using this opportunity to inform the House that the Member for Anson is a good fortune teller and he has made the rumours come true. During a press conference last year I mentioned misutilisation of A&E departments. Of the attendances at A&E departments in a 4-month period, 72.8% were self-referrals, 9.4% by general practitioners, 5.1% by the Ministry's Outpatient Dispensaries (OPD's), 3.8% by the Police and 8.9% by others. Only 17.8% of patients were considered serious for admission into hospital and 16.7% were referred to specialist clinics. On the other hand, as high as 61.9% of patients were discharged after examination and the remaining 3.5% were asked to go back to their OPD's. The Member for Kim Seng told the House last week of his own personal experiences with National Service patients referred to the Singapore General Hospital. Most of the referrals according to him had minor ailments which could and should be treated by Army doctors in their camps but are not. This is confirmatory evidence that the hospitals are being misused. In A&E departments doctors assume that the patients who turn up are serious or emergency cases. To be fair to such genuine patients, doctors require a longer time to examine them. It is important that doctors in A&E departments should know when a stomach ache is due to acute appendicitis which requires surgery and do not dismiss it as gastritis or a stomach upset from eating contaminated food. But if doctors in A&E departments are faced with large numbers of patients with minor ailments, their mental alertness becomes dulled and mistakes can be made. Patients, who go to A&E departments or visit specialist clinics should now understand why they have long waiting times before being examined or admitted into a ward. I have circulated to Members figures (Cols. 1471 - 1472) showing an increasing trend in A&E attendances for the last four years. Something must be done now if the services at A&E departments are not to break down. Having discussed this problem with Medical Superintendents of hospitals and Heads of A&E departments, we have come to the conclusion that because the existing attendance fee of $4 is too low patients with minor complaints or who have a cough and running nose are crowding into A&E departments. In order to protect the efficiency of A&E departments, the Ministry has therefore decided to raise the A&E attendance fee to $10. If patients deserve admission into hospital for treatment, the $10 will be credited to the minimum deposit of $20 which Class C patients have to pay on admission. figures - ATTENDANCES AT A & E DEPARTMENTS FOR PERIOD 1974 - 1977, COMPARISON OF A & E ATTENDANCES FOR OCTOBER-DECEMBER 1976 and 1977 (Cols. 1471 - 1472) Victims in public disasters such as those who were caught in the stampede at the National Stadium last year will be treated free. Currently, blood donors do not pay fees at OPD's. But I am prepared to extend this concession at A&E departments to regular blood donors, i.e. those who have in the year made two donations. Discretion already exists in A&E departments to waive charges in the case of destitute patients. That discretion remains and patients who are really poor will continue to be treated without payment. Outpatient Dispensary Fees Now let me come to the Outpatient Dispensaries. Patient attendances have increased by 13% from 2.45 million in 1975 to 2.77 million in 1977. At the same time, a 3-day supply of medicine is given to OPD patients. Some industries may have collapsed during the current recession and inflation but the pharmaceutical industry continues to flourish because of continuing demand for medicinal products. What it means is that expenditure on drugs will always be upwards. The Ministry has therefore decided to increase the attendance fee at OPD's by 50 cents during weekdays which is less than the price of two cups of coffee. The increase will be $1 during Sundays and public holidays. The existing attendance fee of 50 cents for children and students on weekdays and $1 for Psychiatric Outpatient Clinics remain unchanged. In spite of this revision the Government will continue to subsidise 60% of the cost per patient attendance. Dental Service Charges Now, let me come to the revision of dental service charges. At the opening of the Institute of Dental Health in September last year, I warned that there should be a review of the present system of dental service charges. The cost per patient attendance was $8.60 while the amount recovered was only 90 cents. The review has been completed and Members have been given a comparative table (Cols. 1473 - 1478) showing the present system and the proposed revised charges. table - PRESENT AND PROPOSED NEW SCHEME OF DENTAL TREATMENT CHARGES, LIST OF ORAL SURGICAL OPERATIONS (Cols. 1473 - 1478) The means test based on monthly family income to distinguish between full-paying and part-paying patients cannot be effectively enforced. Family incomes are invariably understated to avoid paying higher dental charges. Patients obviously do not believe that honesty is the best policy. By the time the Minister for Finance admitted at this Sitting that there are at least 150,000 persons who are earning incomes that are chargeable for income tax but he has found no way to make them pay, it is naive to expect the Ministry of Health to operate a system of full-paying patients and part-paying patients based on a means test. In truth less than 1% of patients seeking dental treatment have been full-paying patients. A general medical practitioner takes on the average 2-4 minutes to examine a patient but a dentist takes much more time to treat a patient. In some cases more than one visit is necessary. However, the present dental fees are not related to time and labour and are low compared to the costs of medical outpatient treatment. The revised scheme of dental treatment charges replaces the present system of an attendance fee plus additional treatment charges by a single fee related to the treatment required. This reflects no more than what is being practised by dentists in the private sector. However, there will be two scales of charges. Singapore residents, including those who hold work permits or employment passes, will pay lower Scale B fees while non-residents and consultation cases will pay Scale A rates. Under the present system children who go to hospital or an outpatient dental clinic have to pay fees while those who have been given comprehensive dental care at the school dental clinics are not charged. Under the revised scheme, children and students will pay 20% of Scale B rates in order to remove the anomaly. This means that students and children who pay an average fee of 50 cents per attendance will now pay an average fee of 88 cents. For adults where the average attendance fee is $3.51 it will now be $4.

50. In spite of the revision, Government subsidy on dental services will be 80% of annual recurrent costs excluding capital expenditure. This heavy subsidy is due to the fact that the majority of those receiving treatment are children and students.

Order for Second and Third Readings read. 2.46 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." In accordance with Article 85 of the Constitution of Singapore, heads of expenditure to be met from the Consolidated Fund other than statutory expenditure have to be included in a Bill to be known as the Supply Bill. The purpose of the Supply Bill before Members is therefore to give legislative approval for the appropriations from the Consolidated Fund to meet expenditure in the financial year 1st April, 1978 to 31st March, 1979. The heads of expenditure and the sums that may be incurred in respect of each head are shown in the Schedule to the Bill. These have been approved by the House in the Main Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 1st April, 1978 to 31st March, 1979, and appear on page 25 of Command Paper No. 2 of 1978. The Supply Bill, when approved, will empower me to issue warrants authorising expenditure up to the amount for each head as shown in the Bill to be paid out from the Consolidated Fund. Sir, I beg to move.

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

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

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

Order for Second and Third Readings read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The purpose of this Bill is to make provision in accordance with Clause 2 of Article 85 and Clause 2 of Article 87 of the Constitution of Singapore for additional expenditure in excess of the provision authorised by the Supply Act, 1977. The additional sum has been scheduled as a Supplementary Estimate which has been considered and approved by the House as Command Paper No. 1 of 1978. Sir, I beg to move.

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

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

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

Order for Second Reading read. 2.50 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." At present, people who are enlisted for national service are liable to render full-time service in the Singapore Armed Forces for two years. However, those who are selected for officer training or who have been promoted above the rank of Lance Corporal are liable to serve 2 1/2 years. For equity purposes, it is necessary to extend the same liability of 2 1/2 years to those full-time national servicemen in the Police Force, the Vigilante Corps, the Singapore Fire Brigade and the Aerodrome Fire Service who are trained to hold a rank equivalent to that of an officer in the Singapore Armed Forces or who are promoted to a rank equal to that of Corporal and above in the SAF. We have noted that employers in the past were generally reluctant to give temporary employment to persons who are liable for national service call-up because, under the law now in force, these employers are obliged to reinstate the servicemen after they have completed their national service. So legislation which is intended to assist young men has in practice worked out to their detriment and this is a clear case of counter-productive legislation. To rectify this situation and to encourage employers to give temporary employment to young persons, awaiting national service call-up, the obligation of reinstatement is now removed. Employers are no longer prohibited from terminating the service of temporary employees in their employment by reason of their liability to be called up to perform national service. This will make it easier for school leavers to get paid employment while waiting for their NSF call-up. Under the present law, employers are required to pay their employees who are performing reserve, voluntary or mobilised service the difference between the employees' civilian pay and service pay. Employers are then allowed to obtain reimbursement of this amount by deducting from their payroll tax or by claiming reimbursement from the designated authority. This cumbersome procedure is to be replaced by a simple one whereby the Ministry of Defence pays directly to the employees doing reservist or other forms of training the difference between their civilian pay and service pay. This new procedure will also apply to the Ministry of Home Affairs which looks after the Special Constabulary, Vigilante Corps, Singapore Fire Brigade and the Singapore Aerodrome Fire Service. Under the new procedure when the employees are called up for service or training, their employers will have to submit to the relevant units details in prescribed forms of the employees' civilian pay. The make-up pay will then be computed by the paymasters of units and be added to their service pay where civilian pay exceeds service pay. Sir, I beg to move.

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

Order for Second Reading read. 2.56 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." There is always the possibility that ex-servicemen, whether regular or national service, may divulge protected defence information. As such persons have ceased to be subject to military law except during the time they are actually performing reservist training and they cannot be tried by a military court for such offences. It is now intended that a subordinate military court will have jurisdiction to try such persons for the offence of divulging protected information. For this purpose, such persons are to be regarded as continuing to be subject to military law in respect of unauthorised disclosure of protected defence information. The provisions of the Act relating to the arrest, detention in custody, investigation of offences, trial and punishment by the subordinate military court in connection with such offences and execution of any sentence passed shall apply to them. Presently, persons subject to military law who are accused of murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder or with an offence under section 121 and 121A of the Penal Code may be tried by a subordinate military court, the President of which must be a Judge of the Supreme Court appointed by the Chief Justice. Where an accused is to be found guilty of a charge for which the punishment is death, the decision of the subordinate military court must be unanimous. Other than those presently listed in the Act, there are offences carrying the death penalty; for example, certain offences under the Misuse of Drugs Act, 1973, which may be committed by persons subject to military law and be tried by the subordinate military court. It is necessary that the Act be amended to provide for the President of the court martial trying such other offences carrying the death penalty to be a Supreme Court Judge appointed by the Chief Justice and for a decision of such a court martial to be unanimous. Under the Misuse of Drugs Act, 1973, a certificate relating to a controlled drug signed by a Government Chemist is admissible as evidence in proceedings. He need not appear in court to testify to his signature. It will be considered as prima facie evidence of all matters contained in it. A provision is now made to give a Singapore Armed Forces Pharmacist or Chemist the same legal standing. Under the Misuse of Drugs Act, 1973, a person who has been required to provide a specimen of his urine for a urine test has the right to apply for a second test of his urine specimen. This is to ensure that the accused is not convicted due to any error in the handling or analysis of his urine sample. It is intended that the right to apply for a second urine test should also be accorded to SAF personnel and power is given to the Armed Forces Council to set aside the conviction and sentence if, as a result of the second test, it is found that there is no controlled drug in the urine specimen. The power to set aside a conviction and sentence is necessary as drug offences in the SAF are dealt with and concluded very swiftly. This is in the interest of soldiers who otherwise would have to remain in detention for weeks or months on end. When a person subject to military law is convicted of a non-military offence other than murder, culpable homicide, rape and the Penal Code offence under section 121 (Waging War Against The Government) or section 121A (Offences Against The President's Person), a subordinate military court is given the power to pass the sentence provided for the non-military offence. In addition to or in lieu of such punishment, the court may impose military punishment, for example, discharge with ignominy, reduction in rank or forfeiture of military decoration or military award. Such an additional power of punishment is necessary when dealing with military personnel in the context of the Singapore Armed Forces. In the civil court, when a person is officially informed that he may be prosecuted for an offence, he is requested to mention any fact that he intends to rely in his defence so that it may be written down. This procedure is also to be made available to a person subject to military law. The law also provides that adverse inferences may be drawn if he fails to mention any such fact. This is similarly to be incorporated. The authority to write-off any public stores and public monies is conferred on the Minister for Finance and accordingly all cases relating to public stores or public monies have to be referred to the Ministry of Finance. In the Singapore Armed Forces, cases of loss, damage or destruction of public property may be dealt with by way of summary trial, court martial or Boards of Inquiry. Under these procedures, the Armed Forces Council may issue an order to recover total or part value of the lost, damaged or destroyed property. When part recovery of the value is made, the unrecovered portion has to be written off and the matter has to be referred to the Ministry of Finance for its authority for the write-off. As the request for the authority to write off is made on the basis of a decision of the Armed Forces Council, the authority is given as a matter of formality. Accordingly for administrative expediency and to relieve the Ministry of Finance of the responsibility in authorising write-off in respect of matters on which they have very little say, the power is now to be given to the Armed Forces Council to write off the value of public stores and public monies under the charge of the SAF which are lost, damaged or destroyed. Pensions, gratuities or other allowances granted to military personnel are paid out of the Consolidated Fund and, except for the purpose of satisfying a debt due to the Government or a court order for the payment of maintenance of the serviceman's wife or children, they are not assignable or transferable or liable to be attached to satisfy. a debt or claim. The provisions appear in the Singapore Army Pensions Scheme Regulations, 1971 which have since been revoked and replaced by the Singapore Armed Forces Pensions Regulations, 1978. It is more appropriate for these provisions to appear in the Act and therefore a new section has been introduced. Sir, I beg to move.

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

Order for Third Reading read. 3.06 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Third time." Members of the House would have read the Official Report of the Select Committee and the reasons for the proposed amendments. The President of the Republic of Singapore will now only be the Patron of the Society and the Society will be headed by a Chairman who will be appointed by the President of the Republic of Singapore. However, the Honourary Treasurer will no longer be appointed. Members of the Society felt that it was necessary to enlarge the powers of the Council to enable it to recruit and train volunteers, in addition to full-time staff to carry out the functions of the Society. Accordingly the Committee has made an amendment to section 9 of the Act enlarging the powers of the Council. Under section 9 of the principal Act, the President of the Society approves the rules of the Council. With the abolition of the post of the President of the Society, it is necessary to amend section 9 so that the Director of Medical Services will approve the rules of the Council. The Society has no objections to the amendment to section 5(A) of the principal Act on Objects of the Society. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.

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

Order for Second Reading read. 3.10 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Hon. Members will recall that the House in February 1973 passed the Bill which was enacted as the Factories Act 1973. Introduced by the Government then as a result of its concern over the trend of the increasing number of industrial accidents, the Act sought to improve safety, health and welfare provisions as well as to ensure a more stringent observance of safety standards. Sir, in the five years since the House dealt with the matter, the industrial safety situation has improved. It is gratifying to note that hon. Members have also been as vocal as they are concerned with the well-being of our workers as evidenced by the lively discussions in this House in the Budget debates over the years. Some of their pertinent observations and suggestions which the Minister found to be feasible have also been incorporated in this Amendment Bill. Based on the criteria used by the American National Standards Institute, the accident frequency and severity rates in 1973 were 6.8 accidents per million man-hours worked and 1,282 man-days lost per million man-hours worked. In 1977, the accident frequency and severity rates recorded a decline to 5.3 and 501 respectively. In absolute numbers, however, there were in 1973, 2,910 industrial accidents involving 73 fatalities as compared to 4,575 accidents with 57 fatalities in 1977. Nevertheless, the number of industrial accidents remains high. It is a matter of continuing concern on the part of the Government. The economic cost of these accidents is large. With manpower as our only dependable resource, we cannot afford to see our workers maimed or killed. More importantly, the social cost is high and cannot be measured by plain statistics. There is the pain, misery and anguish of the worker and his family in every accident. We must avoid this human suffering especially as they are caused by accidents which often need not have happened at all. The safety and health situation in industrial establishments should be further improved. The administration of the Factories Act since its enactment in 1973 shows that the law needs to be further strengthened to meet with the increasing sophistication in our technological advancement and it is for this purpose that this Amendment Bill is before the House. The proposed Amendments seek to provide for safer working conditions as well as better enforcement of the Factories Act to ensure that its provisions are complied with. The proposed amendments to the Factories Act are described in the Explanatory Statement to the Bill. I should like, however, to highlight some of the more salient features. Sir, our experience shows that the knowledge in safety standards in the use and operation of machinery is found to be wanting. Accident statistics in the past two years have shown that there were more than 2,000 accidents involving the use of machinery. Analysis made on the causes of these accidents revealed a combination of several factors - lack of awareness on the part of the workers on the danger associated with the machinery they handle, poor maintenance of machinery and the absence of adequate training to provide the operators with a thorough knowledge of the machines' peculiarities or potential hazards. To meet with this situation, a number of amendments have been proposed. Clause 7 of the Bill which amends section 24 proVides for the proper maintenance of machinery and plant installed in factories. This new provision will minimise the danger of injury to which the workers are exposed or to more nasty consequences as a result of machinery or plant breaking down. Clause 8 of the Bill which amends section 28 of the principal Act requires notices to be put up instructing workers in the safe operation of a machine or process which is likely to cause bodily injury. With the introduction of this new provision, neither the worker, the safety personnel or supervisor, nor the employer can plead ignorance, a common tactic frequently employed when accidents occur. It will facilitate more effective and speedier inspection by the enforcement officers. Clause 20 of the Bill seeks to amend section 61 of the principal Act by empowering the Minister to make regulations to prescribe the qualifications and training of persons who are employed at any machine or plant. This is an important provision, particularly for construction worksites where accidents involving mobile cranes, excavators and bulldozers are caused mainly by operators who are not sufficiently trained in the handling of such heavy mobile machinery and plant. Another area where similar upgrading of safety measures is most expedient is the shipbuilding and repairing industry, where working in confined spaces and in explosive or inflammable environment is common. Hon. Members are well aware that deficiency of oxygen is a hazard ever-present in confined spaces, particularly where a number of workers are deployed in one confined space, and if the oxygen depletion process is quickened it may result in multiple fatalities. While the existing Act requires a responsible person to test and certify that a confined space is safe before allowing workers to work in it, the tester is not required to keep records of such tests. This has resulted in poor documentation of such records which frustrates safety management and impedes enforcement. To rectify this defect, clause 11 is introduced to amend section 34 requiring records of such tests to be kept. Further, clause 12 of the Bill which amends section 35 of the Act introduces a new requirement for plants, tanks or vessels which have previously contained explosives or inflammable substances to be inspected before hot work is allowed to be carried out. Stringent adherence to this procedure by Safety Personnel in the factories will certainly ensure the elimination of the presence of explosive or inflammable substances which can cause fire and explosions. The Bill also includes amendments providing for better observance of safety standards. Under the present Act, the maximum penalty for infringements of safety provisions which are likely to cause death or bodily injury to any person and other offences for which no expressed penalty has been provided for is a $2,000 fine or an imprisonment not exceeding three months, or both. The seriousness of infringements of this nature need not be further emphasised. The present penalties are in our view not sufficiently adequate to deter persons from committing such infringements. Clause 26, therefore, seeks to amend section 82 of the principal Act by providing for enhanced penalties of a maximum fine of $10,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or both. As can be seen from the statistics provided to hon. Members in this and previous Sittings, minor accidents do not seem to have abated. They cannot obviously be treated lightly and appropriate action must be taken. However, it is a time-consuming exercise to bring every case before the court. The preparation for legal proceedings has in the past immobilised a good number of my officers who should be on the field undertaking enforcement work. Hence, it is proposed in clause 29 to make provision to empower the Chief Inspector of Factories to compound minor offences under the Act by accepting from the person reasonably suspected of committing an offence a sum of money not exceeding $200. Existing provisions in the principal Act in relation to accident investigation have been found to be inadequate. This hampers proper investigation. Two amendments are therefore introduced to give the Factory Inspectorate the necessary power to overcome this handicap. Clause 15 of the Bill intends to vest in the Chief Inspector additional powers to prohibit any alteration or addition to the site of any fatal accident or to any machinery, equipment, plant or articles which may have contributed to the cause of the fatal accident, without his prior consent. Similar powers have been given to the Chief Inspector of Factories under the present Act for dangerous occurrence. This clause extends the power to cover fatal accidents. This additional power will prevent wilful tampering of evidence which can frustrate investigations. Clause 24 of the Bill grants additional powers to the Inspector of Factories to seize any article found in the factory for purposes of conducting an investigation or inquiry. It also provides the Inspectors with the power to require any person found in the factory to produce his identity card so as to establish his identity. These powers are not excessive but are necessary and reasonable if proper investigations are to be conducted. Hitherto, the investigating officer has to depend on the police to effect any seizure of articles. Further, he is frequently helpless in trying to establish the identities of persons whom he believes to be able to help in the investigation. With the endorsement of the House on this Bill, I trust that our workers will enjoy a safer and healthier working environment. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 3.22 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is opportune to read for a Second time the Factories (Amendment) Bill which seeks to amend the Factories Act, 1973 (No. 6 of 1973), so soon after the debate on the Budget in Committee of Supply on the Main and Development Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 1st April, 1978, to 31st March, 1979, on Head M, Ministry of Labour, which took place in this House on Tuesday, 15th March, 1978. It was then, Sir, that a total estimated expenditure of $10,337,650 was voted. With the estimated sum of $1,811,460 for FY 78, industrial safety and health is to be improved and the hope is that accident frequency and severity rates will be reduced appreciably during the course of FY 78. A promise to that effect was made in Parliament during the Budget debate. So it is expected that the safety and health of workers at workplaces would be adequately safeguarded. The Hon. Minister, however, believes that this cannot be achieved satisfactorily without more stringent legislation and greater enforcement powers. So, the Factories (Amendment) Bill is being read in the House for the Second time. I would like, Sir, with your kind indulgence to make a number of pertinent comments on the Bill. Clause 4 of the Bill attempts to ensure a more healthy and comfortable work environment. However, the fundamental principle of positive approach in health and safety legislation is strangely ignored by the proposed section 14(2). Whilst the proposed section 14(1) states: "Effective and suitable provision shall be made for securing and maintaining by the circulation of fresh air in each workplace, adequate ventilation of the workplace and for rendering harmless, so far as practicable, all such fumes, dust and other impurities generated in the course of any process or work carried out in the factory as may be injurious to health". The proposed section 14(2) nullifies it by saying: "The provisions of subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to any workplace where it is impracticable to make provision for adequate ventilation and where breathing apparatus is used by persons working in the workplace". Sir, "so far as practicable" in the proposed section 14(1) surely covers quite clearly the intention of the Bill and any disputes arising out of the practicability of implementing the legislative requirements of section 14(1) can be determined by the competent authority or, if necessary, an arbiter. But proposing section 14(2), which I quoted a moment ago, is not only redundant and negative but also gives occupiers of factories leeway in a most serious matter which could result in accidents, sickness or death of workers. In keeping with the redundancy and negation of the proposed section 14(2) and its mollification of occupiers of factories, clause 5(a), the proposed section 22(2), takes the similar stand of the proposed section 14(2) I mentioned. Note, Mr Speaker, Sir, the proposed section 22(1) safeguards the workers in: "Every dangerous pan of any machinery, other than prime movers and transmission machinery, shall be securely fenced unless it is in such a position or of such construction as to be safe to every person employed or working on the premises as it would be if securely fenced." But the proposed section 22(2) says that: "Subsection (1) of this section shall not apply where the dangerous part of any machinery is made safe for persons employed or working on the premises by other equally effective means." Why is the Hon. Minister giving such leeway to occupiers of factories? Lives and limbs of workers are involved and such leeway could be disastrous. This consistency is maintained with the inclusion, in clause 16 of the Bill of the proposed section 54(5), and I quote: "The requirements of subsections (1) and (3) of this section shall not apply to any workplace where it is impracticable to comply with such requirements and where breathing apparatus is used by a person working thereat." The positive nature of section 54(1) and (3) of the principal Act can be well imagined, Sir, and I will not go into the details by quoting them. I fail to understand why the Hon. Minister, on the one hand, in wanting a tighter law is, on the other hand, encouraging laxity. Let me now turn my attention to clauses 8 and 17 of the Bill on the proposed sections 28 (2) and 54A (2). These deal with notices which have to be "in languages understood by the persons employed". To illustrate my point while dealing with these clauses, Sir, let me give a hypothetical case of a factory employing at one point of time all workers who understand English. As such, the notices required by law would be in English. If the situation should change, as change it would in Singapore, with the labour turnover problems we are experiencing, and some workers who understand Malay are recruited, an additional notice would have to be put up in Malay. The same would happen if a worker understood only Chinese or Tamil. The situation would be more complex if the recruitment exercise yielded Malay, Chinese and Indian workers who only could read their respective languages. It takes time for notices to be fashioned and during that time one cannot send 'accidents' on a vacation. Accidents do not happen, they are caused and here the cause could be a notice that was not understood. Is it not a fact that in Singapore there are four official languages and many workers can read at least one of them and some even two? So I fail to follow why a detail such as this was completely ignored in the drafting of the Bill especially when both proposed sections deal with health and safety measures and if ignored, misunderstood or not understood could lead to death, and permanent or temporary disablement. So would it not be prudent for these notices to be in the four official languages of Singapore? Again, Sir, in clause 17, the proposed section 54A (4) states: "Labels easily understood by persons employed in the factory shall be affixed to containers of poisonous substances to warn them of the hazards involved." I will not say more on this, lest I be guilty of repeating myself. Sir, I do not believe it is wise to include clause 29 of the Bill which amends the principal Act by including section 88A which states: "The Chief Inspector may compound any offence under this Act by accepting from the person reasonably suspected of committing such offence a sum of money not exceeding two hundred dollars." For the entrepreneur a composition of that quantum would amount to a licence to infringe. Whilst not casting slurs at the Factory Inspectorate, how can we be sure that serious infringements which, when taken to court, could penalise offenders with not only heavy fines but also imprisonment, will not end up being offered a composition of $200 or even less? I feel that this proposed section should not become part of the law. Sir, I spoke at length during the Budget debate on the fundamental rights of workers to know what they are working with and their potential hazards. Sir, I will not repeat myself, but suffice it to say that workers must be provided with information, instruction, training and supervision by their employers to ensure health and safety at work. Sir, I would therefore propose to the Hon. Minister that the following section be included in the principal Act as "General duties of employers to their employees". It should read this way: (1) It shall be the duty of every employer to ensure, so far as is practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all his employees. (2) The matters to which that duty extends shall include in particular the provision of such information, instruction, training and supervision as is necessary to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health and safety at work of his employees. Whilst section 28 of the principal Act provides for training and adequate supervision, it does not sufficiently cover the fundamental rights of workers. In addition, the provision of information is inadequately covered. Part IV, Health (General Provisions), Part VI, Welfare (General Provisions) and Part VII Health, Safety and Welfare (Special Provisions and Regulations) in the principal Act have no provisions whatsoever bearing even a trace of my proposal. Mr Speaker, Sir, I am sure that the objectives of the Hon. Minister are akin to mine. The safety and health of our workers cannot and will not be sacrificed. With modern technology, more efficient and powerful machines are being built, more lethal substances are also being introduced to hasten processes and fashion aids to better and more comfortable living. But in the wake of it all, the untold human suffering in loss of life and mangled and bloody limbs is a high price to pay. Fortunately all this trauma can be avoided in sound legislation and active enforcement and cooperation by employers and workers alike in ensuring a safe and healthy work environment. After all, is not accident prevention simply the control of men, machines and work methods? The problem arises when the control is inefficient or ineffective. So, as in all matters but especially so in accident prevention, exceptional care must be given to the details especially in the drafting of legislation. Just another point, Mr Speaker, Sir, in clause 10, on page 5 of the Bill: 'Section 33 of the principal Act is hereby amended - "(1) All places of work, floors, steps, stairs, passages, gangways and means of access shall -".' It is strange that the term "places of work" is being used when in an amendment to section 54 of the principal Act (clause 16), "workroom" and "working room" have been substituted in each case by "workplace". I would therefore recommend to the Minister to substitute "workplaces" for "places of work".

Mr Speaker, Sir, we must thank the Member for Potong Pasir for treating us to a lecture on the importance of industrial safety. While looking at the Explanatory Statement attached to the Bill, I have my doubts as to whether it is really the intention of the Ministry to go ahead and enforce the various measures proposed with a view to improving the standard of industrial safety. According to the note, it is stated that "this Bill will not involve Government in any extra financial expenditure". If I remember correctly, looking at the staffing strength of the Factory Inspectorate as contained in the Estimates for the year 1978, if anything, it shows a reduction in the number of inspectors. With all these additional measures, how is the Ministry going to raise the standards? There is therefore no point in talking about safety in principle when they do not have the intention to enforce it.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I must thank both Members for their observations. May I first deal with the Member for Potong Pasir. He has made some relevant observations, but I should like to enlighten him as to the spirit and reasons behind the amendments. The Member for Potong Pasir has raised doubts, in clauses 4 and 5, as to whether the Ministry intends to exempt certain employers from their liability by providing exemption in another clause if other means of safety apparatus are available in places where it is not possible to implement the regulations. In our working experience we have discovered that in certain workplaces the working environment is peculiar - in that ventilation is not at all possible. So if we were to insist upon the observance of section 14 of the principal Act, most employers would be committing a technical offence. In the absence of the provisions as stipulated in the principal Act, they have instituted equally effective safeguards such as the provision of breathing apparatus, masks and so on, which are equally effective in preventing accidents. This amendment is to give the Ministry the same amount of leeway which the employers now enjoy, and it enables us to be more enlightened in our enforcement. If an employer can provide equally effective safeguards to the workers when the original provisions cannot be complied with due to a peculiar situation, then we should appreciate the employer's problem and not impede the management of the factories, so long as the welfare and health of the workers are safeguarded. It is in this spirit that clauses 4 and 5 have been included in the Bill. May I touch lightly on clause 5(b)? The principal Act provides for the safeguards regarding moving parts - flywheels and other moving machinery where protection is needed. With technological advances and new devices being discovered in the protection of workers, some of the devices are built into certain machinery, such as the electronic eye where the machine will automatically shut down in case of a sudden irregularity, or that a worker will not be able to activate or operate a particular machine unless he uses both hands. These devices will eliminate the possibility of negligence or carelessness by putting one hand in the wrong place while the other hand is activating the machine. Such devices are available. Many of them have been incorporated in the machinery. Without the amendment as provided for in the Bill now, these effective alternative safety devices will be illegal. We ought to give these devices a legal standing where such effective safety devices have been incorporated in the machinery. With that explanation, I hope the Member will understand the spirit behind these two particular clauses. On the question of putting up notices in the four official languages, I do not think we should legislate the obvious. The four official languages in Singapore are well known. They are Chinese, Malay, Tamil and English. I do not think we need to specify in the Bill the language to be used because the employer should understand it. If an employer employs Tamil workers and he puts up a notice in Chinese it is a clear case of ignorance on his part. We have sufficient powers under the law to compel an employer to do what is right and proper. We do not need to stipulate exactly what language should be used. Be it Italian or Russian. The new section 88A in clause 29 of the Bill gives the Chief Inspector power to compound offences. Sir, this amendment is not intended to give the Chief Inspector of Factories unlimited powers to compound any offence. Serious offences will be taken to court and the court will be asked to decide on the matter. But in our working experience we have found that it is highly impossible for us to bring each and every case to the court. The offence may be a minor one involving technical details and the fine may come to a very small sum. But the Member for Jalan Kayu will perhaps appreciate that, with the manpower that we have, if we were to involve our inspectors, most of whom are engineers or technical officers, in the preparation of court cases and attending court in addition to their time spent on investigations, interviewing witnesses and so on and, in cases of fatal accidents, having to attend the Coroner's inquiry, a lot of their time will be committed in these proceedings. We, therefore, feel that it is necessary to include this amendment to give the Chief Inspector powers to compound minor offences. The Member for Potong Pasir may have doubts as to the intelligent application of this clause because the Chief Inspector might abuse his powers and compound each and every offence even though it is of a serious nature. I assure the Member that this is not the intention. It is certainly not the spirit of this amendment. We shall see to it through administrative means that each case will be accorded a fair treatment, whether it should be a court case or it should be compounded. In the absence of this power to compound, we will either have to let the employer off because of a lack of opportunity to bring the case to court through a shortage of staff or we will have to bring every case to court. Both situations are not acceptable. I think we have found a good solution by providing this power to compound. The Member has also raised certain general principles and I am grateful for his observations. It is good to have general principles. But these alone are not enough. If there are certain aspects which are feasible and practicable, and we think we can deal with them more effectively, they should be spelt out clearly in the Bill. Members are aware that the Minister has the power to make regulations and if there is no material change in the spirit of the law, regulations can be made under section 61 of the Act to regulate certain processes or even to prescribe certain standards. I suppose that covers the point raised. The Member raised the question about work rooms and work places. Sir, in fact, I intend to seek your consent and the general assent of Members to make an amendment to clause 16 when we come to the Committee stage. Members will note that clause 10 says: "All places of work, floors, steps, stairs, passages, gangways and means of access shall -". If we follow the description given, such as floors, steps, stairs, etc., then these descriptions are necessary to define workplaces. In the construction industry particularly, it is very difficult to define the place of work. Because on the way to a workplace on a certain floor in a construction site, very often we find that the access to the place of work is so hazardous due to poor housekeeping. Therefore, we have to specify what we mean by "place of work". Hence clause 10 which is an amendment to section 33 of the Act. Sir, I have the privilege of discussing with the Member for Jalan Kayu outside the House very frequently and have benefited from his wisdom. He raised a pertinent point. He is concerned about whether the Ministry is effective in its enforcement work. Particularly, he observed that in the budget provision this year there is a reduction in the number of staff in the Factory Inspectorate. Sir, there is a reduction of only one staff. It is due to the abolition of a supernumerary post. As I stated in the Budget debate, since 1975 there has been an increase in staff from 36 to 55. I also stated that the Inspectorate has been able to conduct its activities quite well although it had to stretch its staff to the limit. Of course, I would welcome more staff for the Factory Inspectorate. But we must have effective legislation to back them up. Hence this amendment Bill to provide more effective enforcement of the various provisions and to give the staff reasonable powers to enable them to carry out their work. I assure the House that the reduction of one staff would not impair or impede the enforcement work of the Inspectorate. Certainly, Sir, this Bill will not involve the Government in extra financial expenditure. It is only meant to tighten up and streamline certain provisions with a few amendments to provide better coverage. Sir, I hope that my explanation will satisfy the Members.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not believe that I can be satisfied. The way I look at it is that the Bill has got a number of very good points. I do not think we should stop it from going through the Second and Third Readings. But I believe there are certain details that need to be examined, and I am wondering if the Hon. Senior Parliamentary Secretary will assure me and the House that we re-examine the Bill, have a look at all these weak points and develop them further into strong points so that our workers could enjoy a healthy and a safe working environment. If he could give me that assurance, then most certainly, Mr Speaker, Sir, with the good points in the Bill, it should be approved.

Sir, I am most happy to give the assurance. In fact, I wish to inform the Member that we are constantly monitoring the situation. Hon. Members may wish to know that the suggestions, observations and other utterances in every sitting of Parliament are referred to the departments concerned to take note of. The suggestions that are found feasible, as I said, have been incorporated in this amendment Bill. I do not think we would deviate from our usual diligence on this matter.

Sir, could the Hon. Senior Parliamentary Secretary also ensure that he forwards it to the NTUC so that we could look at it and maybe make what little contribution we can.

Sir, we are aware of the "little contribution" from the NTUC. We will seek that little contribution in future.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Mr Fong Sip Chee] Bill considered in the Committee.

3.52 p.m. Clauses 1 to 15 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 16 -

Sir, may I seek your consent and the general assent of Members to move an amendment to this clause?

I give my consent. Is it the pleasure of hon. Members that the amendment be moved? Hon. Members indicated assent

Sir, I beg to move, In page 12, after line 11, to insert - '(b) by deleting the word "workroom" appearing in the first line of subsection (3) thereof and substituting therefor the word "workplace";'. Sir, the intention of this amendment is to streamline the two amendments as listed in clause 16 (a) and (b). It appears to be a minor drafting oversight. Amendment agreed to.

Consequential amendments will have to be made in page 12 to reletter paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) as paragraphs (c), (d) and (e) respectively. This will be done. Clause 16, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 17 to 24 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 25 - Question, "That clause 25 stand part of the Bill", put and negatived Clause 25 accordingly disagreed to. Clauses 26 to 30 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. New Clause -

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary intends to introduce a new clause, of which he has given inadequate notice. Again, under the provisions of Standing Order 33, the new clause is subject to the Speaker's consent and the general assent of the Members present. I give my consent. Is it the pleasure of hon. Members that the new clause be introduced? Hon. Members indicated assent "Repeal Section 63 of the principal Act is and re- hereby repealed and the following enactment substituted therefor:- of section 63. "Power 63. (1) An inspector may, at to take any time after informing the samples. occupier or, if the occupier is not readily available, a foreman or other respon- sible person in the factory, take for analysis sufficient samples of any substance used or intended to be used in a factory, or any substance required for the purposes of an investiga- tion or inquiry under this Act or which is a substance in respect of which he suspects a contravention of the provisions of this Act, or which in his opinion is likely or may prove on analysis to be likely to cause bodily injury to the persons employed. (2) The occupier or the foreman or other responsible person may, at the time when a sample is taken under this section, and on providing the necessary appliances, require the inspector to divide the sample into three parts, to mark and seal or fasten up each part in such manner as its nature permits, and -

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the clause be read a Second time." Sir, earlier on, Members negatived clause 25. Under this new clause, the provisions of clause 25 as negatived earlier, have been included in this new clause with slight modifications. Sir, the intention is to rectify a drafting oversight so as to streamline the legislation.

Sir, I am a little worried. Why do we have so many drafting oversights? Could the Hon Senior Parliamentary Secretary tell us what went wrong?

Sir, I am not competent to comment on the competence of the Attorney-General's Chambers.

Question put, and agreed to. Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

This new clause is to be inserted immediately after clause 20. This will be done. Existing clauses 21 to 24 will be renumbered as clauses 22 to 25 respectively. Bill reported with amendments, read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 3.59 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Under the existing provisions of the Pensions Act, a Government officer who has been allowed to retire before the minimum age of retirement to contest Parliamentary elections will qualify for pension benefits in respect of his past service in the Civil Service only when he attains the minimum age of retirement. His dependants will not be eligible for a gratuity if he dies before reaching the minimum retirement age. However, dependants of a Government officer who has been allowed to retire under section 7(2) (j) of the Act, that is, after completing fifteen years of service in special circumstances, and who dies before reaching the minimum age of retirement, will receive a death gratuity. Besides, the Act also provides that where such an officer becomes physically or mentally incapacitated to such an extent that he is incapable of continuing in any employment before he has attained the minimum age of retirement, he may be paid his pension benefits with effect from the date he is deemed to be so physically or mentally incapacitated. Therefore, the officer who retires to contest Parliamentary elections is at a disadvantage compared with an officer who is allowed to retire under the special circumstances of section 7(2) (j). The purpose of the Bill is to amend the Pensions Act so that in the case of a Government officer who is permitted to retire to contest Parliamentary elections -

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

Order for Second Reading read. 4.03 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." For the domiciled deceased person, estate duty is imposed on his total assets in Singapore as well as on his movable assets elsewhere. In the case of a non-domiciled person, estate duty is levied on his movable and immovable properties situate in Singapore only. The rates of estate duty existing before 1st April 1977 ranged between 5% and 60% for estates exceeding $50,000 in value. Estates below $50,000 in value were exempted from duty. Duty was also remitted at a declining rate of 10% of the duty payable for every $20,000 in excess of $50,000. The remission limit was $23,000. In my 1977 annual Budget Statement, I announced that, to encourage home ownership and a more stable society comprising home owners, the rates of estate duty would be revised from 1st April 1977. The exemption limit would be raised from $50,000 to $100,000. The rate of remission would remain the same, i.e. at a declining rate of 10% of the duty payable for every $20,000 in excess of $100,000 in value of the estate. The remission limit would be increased to $280,000. The Estate Duty (Amendment) Bill seeks to amend the Estate Duty Act accordingly. Clause 2 of the Amendment Bill levies the new rates of estate duty on the property of any person dying on or after 1st April 1977. Clause 3 sets out the remissions including those provided under the Estate Duty (Remission) Order, 1974. Clause 4 of the Bill exempts bequests to statutory institutions as specified in the Twelfth Schedule to the Act from estate duty. In a corresponding Bill, which I am taking through the House today, the Statutes of the Republic of Singapore (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill, I shall be seeking to delete the estate duty exemption provisions in the various Statutes. These are now more appropriately incorporated in the amendments made by the Bill to the Estate Duty Act. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, clause 4 of the Bill exempts bequests to certain institutions from estate duty. On referring to the Twelfth Schedule, I see that at present only four institutions are in the privileged position of being able to receive bequests which are not subjected to estate duty. These four institutions are (1) University of Singapore, (2) Singapore Society of Accountants, (3) Board of Legal Education, and (4) The Law Society of Singapore. Sir, while I can understand the justification for treating the University of Singapore in a special position, I do not really see any justification for giving this privilege to the legal and the accountancy professions. I would say that these two professions have done much better than any other profession over the last few years. They are in a very good financial position. I do not see why we should give them special treatment as such. In the last few days we have heard so much about the need to pay a bit more attention to cultural activities. Why cannot we include in the list institutions such as the National Museum, the Science Council and various other statutory bodies? I am sure they deserve our support much more than those two professional bodies.

Sir, I will take note of the observations of the Member. All I am doing here is just to change the law relating to these institutions and incorporate the present exemption given to them under those laws in an Act which is more appropriate, that is, relating to the estate duty, so that I am neither adding nor subtracting from the exemptions given. I have no doubt that in a further examination of bodies which are worthy of exemption and bodies which are not worthy of exemption, there could be changes and I will no doubt in the course of the next year or so give further attention to them.

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

Order for Second Reading read. 4.09 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, in the Estate Duty (Amendment) Bill which has now been passed by the House, certain amendments were made to the Estate Duty Act to exempt from duty bequests made to certain institutions. These exemptions were previously conferred on the institutions in the relevant Acts relating to these institutions. It is now considered more appropriate that any exemptions from duty should be covered by the Act relating to such duty. Accordingly this Bill seeks to delete the provisions in the separate Acts, since the exemptions are now given in the Estate Duty Act. Sir, I beg to move.

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

4.12 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move the Motion* standing in my name as it appears on the Order Paper. *The Motion reads as follows: That this Parliament, in accordance with section 4 of the Foreshores Act (Chapter 270), approves the reclamation by Government of that portion of the foreshore and seabed off Tuas, Jurong, containing an area of approximately 34.64 hectares as shown coloured blue on the plan marked "LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLAN NO. 1/78" which is deposited in the Land Office, Singapore. Sir, in June 1972, this House approved the reclamation of approximately 332 hectares of the foreshore and seabed off Tuas as shown coloured green on the inset plan of the plan marked as "LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLAN NO. 1/78", a copy of which is displayed in the Library of this House for the information of Members. The reclamation, undertaken by the Jurong Town Corporation as agents of the Government, was for industrial, housing, institutional and recreational purposes. A section of this reclamation, as shown coloured green on the plan, is still in progress. To provide more land for future industrial use, the Corporation now proposes to reclaim a further area of approximately 34.64 hectares of the foreshore and seabed as shown coloured blue on the plan. The proposed reclamation will also provide a more regular coastline and boundary (as shown in broken black lines on the plan) which will link up with the dyke at Tengeh Reservoir, north of the reclamation site, being constructed by the Public Utilities Board. The reclamation project, which will be completed in about ten months' time, is estimated to cost the Corporation about $2 million. Fill for the reclamation will be obtained by levelling the existing hills in the Jurong Industrial Estate. On the completion of the reclamation, the reclaimed land will be proclaimed as State land and alienated to the Corporation on terms and conditions to be agreed with the Commissioner of Lands. Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Parliament, in accordance with section 4 of the Foreshores Act (Chapter 270), approves the reclamation by Government of that portion of the foreshore and seabed off Tuas, Jurong, containing an area of approximately 34.64 hectares as shown coloured blue on the plan marked "LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLAN NO. 1/78" which is deposited in the Land Office, Singapore.

4.15 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That this Parliament, pursuant to paragraph (c) of subsection (1) of section 3 of the Bretton Woods Agreements Act (Chapter 61), resolves that the Minister for Finance be authorised to increase, on behalf of the Government, the total subscription of Singapore in the International Monetary Fund to a sum equivalent to 49 million Special Drawing Rights. Sir, the Board of Governors of the International Monetary Fund has adopted a Resolution on Increases in Quota of Fund members - Sixth General Review, under which there will be an overall increase in the Fund's quotas not exceeding 32.5% of the total quotas as of 19th February 1976. Quota reviews are conducted by the International Monetary Fund at intervals of approximately five years so that adjustments can be made in members' quotas to reflect changes in their relative economic strength. An important feature of a member's quota is that it determines the scope of a member's access to the resources of the Fund when in balance of payments difficulties and a member's obligations to lend to the Fund on concessionary terms when its balance of payments position is strong. At present Singapore's quota in the International Monetary Fund is 37 million Special Drawing Rights. This is equivalent to US$45.4 million, based on exchange rates at the end of February 1978. Parliament is requested to authorise the Government to increase Singapore's quota in the International Monetary Fund by a sum of twelve million Special Drawing Rights, equivalent to US$14.7 million, based on exchange rates at the end of February 1978, to a sum not exceeding forty-nine million Special Drawing Rights (SDR 49 million). Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, sometime ago we read in the newspapers that we had some dispute with the International Monetary Fund in respect of the gold which we had contributed earlier to the Fund. The gold had been sold by the IMF which intends to use the profits for distribution to the poorer countries as a form of economic aid. May I ask the Hon. Minister whether the matter has now been resolved and in what direction? I have also a further question in regard to the Special Drawing Rights scheme of the International Monetary Fund. As I understand it, Singapore has not become a member of this scheme. May I ask the Hon. Minister whether the matter has been reconsidered and if we are still not a member, why not?

Sir, in answer to the Member's first question on Singapore's share of the gold profits which IMF has made in disposing of part of the gold which they hold, the matter has not yet been resolved. We have had a visit from the IMF team to study the conditions of Singapore's economy, the expatriate element in our economy and therefore the national element in our gross national product, as to whether we fall below the criteria which have been suggested by the IMF. I think the visit has been fruitful. I think we have been able to convince the team that we fall below the dividing line between what they consider would be developing countries and developed countries. We are hopeful that when the matter is reported to the Board of the International Monetary Fund we shall succeed in establishing that we should be entitled to our share of the gold profits. In regard to the question on Special Drawing Rights, the position is still the same, that is, Singapore has not subscribed to that scheme and there is still no intention of subscribing to the scheme.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we are a member of the IMF but it seems to me rather curious that we are staying out of this scheme of the IMF, which hon. Members may be aware, is a scheme to increase international liquidity by the issue of this so-called Special Drawing Rights, that is, from time to time the members of the scheme get together and the IMF decides to issue so many millions of Special Drawing Rights in accordance with some formula related to trade and size of GNP and so forth. It seems to me that this kind of allocation has a cumulative effect and that by staying out of the scheme we may be losing out in terms of access to international liquidity or credit which may be useful in the future in case we do get into some balance of payments difficulties. I do realise that there is a cost involved in joining the scheme. The cost is in respect of two factors. One is that the interest payable on the scheme has been low in relation to the market rates of interest so that any fund diverted from, say, normal holdings of foreign exchange reserves to the IMF for the purpose of use by other members under the scheme would incur a loss of interest. The other factor is that since we are a surplus country in respect of balance of payments position we would be designated as contributor to the SDR scheme in respect of hard currencies for the use of members who are in a deficit position. Perhaps the Hon. Minister might want to inform the House what his calculations are in this respect.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not think this is the appropriate time to go into the whole question of the Special Drawing Rights. The Ministry of Finance has a very thick file on this. We have had the benefit of consultations with a number of people. We have not been convinced of the benefits of joining the SDR scheme. It is not to be regarded in the same way as other currencies. In fact, it is quite clear that the interest rate, which the Member has mentioned, which is paid on the SDR's which are borrowed, is rather too low. There is a proposal to increase such interest rate but until the SDR is very much improved I think our position should remain the same. There is no reason why we should join that scheme until we are in danger of being faced with balance of payments problems. I hope we will never come to that situation. The conclusion which we have come to and which we still maintain is that there is no benefit to Singapore in joining the Special Drawing Rights scheme. But if he would like to have more information on this, perhaps he could ask a Question and I would be prepared to make a fairly lengthy statement on this matter which I do not think would be of the same interest to non-economist Members of the House.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Parliament, pursuant to paragraph (c) of subsection (1) of section 3 of the Bretton Woods Agreements Act (Chapter 61), resolves that the Minister for Finance be authorised to increase, on behalf of the Government, the total subscription of Singapore in the International Monetary Fund to a sum equivalent to 49 million Special Drawing Rights.

Sir, we have come to the end of a long session. May I thank all Members for their contributions, some valuable and some not so valuable, a few irrelevant on occasions but many made pertinent points. But each did his best. I am glad that Members spoke freely and without restraint. I ask Members to continue to do so. Mr Speaker, Sir, it remains for Members of this House to join me in thanking you, Sir, the Deputy Speaker, and the hon. Member for Jalan Kayu for listening to us so patiently during the last nine days.

Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn to Friday, 7th April, 1978 " - [Mr Barker]. Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-six minutes past Four o'clock p.m. to Friday, 7th April, 1978. figures - ATTENDANCES AT A & E DEPARTMENTS FOR PERIOD 1974 - 1977, COMPARISON OF A & E ATTENDANCES FOR OCTOBER-DECEMBER 1976 and 1977 (Cols. 1471 - 1472) table - PRESENT AND PROPOSED NEW SCHEME OF DENTAL TREATMENT CHARGES, LIST OF ORAL SURGICAL OPERATIONS (Cols. 1473 - 1478)