Hansard, 1978-04-07

Under the provisions of clause 2(d) of Article 30 of the Constitution of Singapore, the following Members have been granted permission 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 Lee Kuan Yew (Tanjong Pagar), Prime Minister - from 2nd to 9th April, 1978. Dr Yeoh Ghim Seng, B.B.M., J.P. (Joo Chiat), Speaker - from 2nd to 9th April, 1978. Mr Lim Kim San, D.U.T. (Cairnhill), Minister for National Development and Communications - from 2nd to 9th April, 1978. Mr Ho See Beng, B.B.M. (Khe Bong) - from 3rd to 17th April, 1978. Mr Bernard Chen (Radin Mas), Minister of State, Ministry of Defence - from 4th to 9th April, and from 12th to 16th April, 1978. Mr Lim Chee Onn (Bukit Merah) - from 6th to 21st April, 1978. Mr S. Rajaratnam (Kampong Glam), Minister for Foreign Affairs - on 7th April, 1978. Mr Chor Yeok Eng (Bukit Timah), Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment - from 10th to 29th April, 1978. Mr Sia Kah Hui (Upper Serangoon), Minister of State, Ministry of Labour and Government Whip - from 11th to 20th April, 1978. TANG SEE CHIM Deputy Speaker, Parliament of Singapore

The following Bills were assented to by the President of the Republic of Singapore on the date stated: 29th March, 1978:-

asked the Minister for National Development and Communications whether there are plans to build pedestrian overhead bridges across Mountbatten Road near the Singapore School for the Deaf, for the school children, and across Nicoll Highway near the National Stadium, for football fans.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, plans for the construction of a pedestrian overhead bridge at Mountbatten Road near the School for the Deaf have been finalised. Work is expected to start in June this year and will be completed in October this year. Plans for the construction of an overhead pedestrian bridge across Nicoll Highway near the National Stadium are also being finalised. Construction is expected to start in July/August this year and is expected to be completed by January 1979.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, will the Senior Minister of State enlighten the House as to the approximate cost of these overhead bridges?

Sir, the approximate cost of the first project, that is, the overhead bridge across Mountbatten Road, is estimated to be about $95,000. The approximate cost of the second overhead bridge across Nicoll Highway is $490,000.

Sir, will the overhead bridge be of a special design to ensure that it is beautiful and blend well with the surroundings of the National Stadium?

Sir, the approximate cost given of almost half a million dollars must surely indicate to the hon. Member that it is no ordinary overhead bridge. I can assure him that it will be done as tastefully and as aesthetically as possible.

asked the Minister for National Development and Communications whether a zebra crossing for pedestrians will be provided at the Old Airport Road near the Old Airport Road Emporium and Hawker Centre as the two existing pedestrian overhead bridges along that road are quite far apart from each other.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the two existing pedestrian overhead bridges along that stretch of Old Airport Road are less than 400 metres apart. Therefore, there is no justification to provide another zebra crossing in between. Besides, a zebra crossing will adversely affect the heavy traffic flow along Old Airport Road.

asked the Minister for National Development and Communications if he will request the Housing and Development Board to include shops in the small estate at 13 1/2 km, Punggol Road, which is nearing completion.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the small estate at the 13 1/2 km Punggol Road will initially have only 328 housing units. When it is expanded to its full development size by a further 222 units, consideration will then be given to providing shophouses and eating houses. Until such time, the needs of residents can be met by the existing shopping facilities at the 14 1/2 km Punggol Road.

asked the Minister for National Development and Communications whether Punggol Estate will be extended; how many additional housing units will be built and when construction will commence.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the present Punggol Estate with 3,091 units of flats will be extended to form part of the future New Town in Au Kang which will eventually have 12,000 units of flats. The expansion programme will commence in the latter part of this year.

asked the Minister for National Development and Communications whether he is aware that farmways in the Lorong Buang Kok and Lorong Cheng Lim farming areas are not metalled and most of them are without street lights and when those farmways will be metalled and provided with street lights.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, there are plans in the current financial year to metal some of the roads and to install necessary street lights at Lorong Buang Kok and Lorong Cheng Lim Farmways. It has been estimated that the total cost of street lighting and metalling of 15 roads at these farmways would come to $770,000. As this is a substantial amount, the works will be carried out in stages, over a period of two to three years.

asked the Minister for National Development and Communications whether a new Mails and Parcels Centre will be built to replace the present one at Nelson Road which is temporarily accommodated in a Port of Singapore Authority godown and has inadequate facilities.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Postal Services Department is planning to construct a new Postal Complex to handle all the mail processing operations which are presently being carried out at the Mails and Parcels Centre in the rented PSA godown premises at Nelson Road. The new Postal Complex will be equipped with a postal vehicle maintenance workshop as well as modern mechanised mail handling and sorting system to cater for the anticipated increase in the volume of mails over the next two decades. The proposed mechanised mail processing system will replace the existing manual operation methods in use. The proposed Postal Complex will be built on a 2.81 hectare site in the Jalan Eunos HDB Industrial Estate. The project which is scheduled for completion in 1981-82 is presently being evaluated by the Ministry of Finance.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, does the Hon. Senior Minister of State realise that at the present moment there are many occupational health and safety hazards at the Nelson Road Mails and Parcels Centre? I had occasion to visit it sometime ago and I have since made recommendations to alleviate these hazards, but nothing seems to have been done. Could the Senior Minister of State hasten the new Postal Complex project, and in the meantime ensure that the hazards at Nelson Road are alleviated?

Sir, on a point of order. We are now talking about a new Postal Complex at Jalan Eunos, and not about the present Sorting Centre at Nelson Road.

On a point of clarification, Sir. The Senior minister of State did mention Nelson Road Mails and Parcels Centre in his answer. He did say that things were being done there, and so I am following up with a supplementary question on what he has actually mentioned.

The point at issue is "whether a new Mails and Parcels Centre will be built". The Senior Minister of State is therefore quite right in not answering the Member's question.

Sir, I do agree that a new Postal Complex is being built. But he has said that this new Postal Complex is being built in place of the old one, and at the present moment the old one is posing a lot of hazards. So I want to know what he is doing about the old one.

The question is whether a new Mails and Parcels Centre will be built, and the Senior Minister of State has answered.

asked the Minister for Home Affairs and Education if the Government has any plan to build a large modern air-conditioned building for the Immigration Department so that the Department may more adequately cope with the increasing number of persons who call there.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Immigration Head Office on the first floor of the Empress Place Building has a total floor area of 2,312 square metres. This is not adequate to cater for the number of persons visiting the Office. The Immigration Department has recently taken over 540 square metres of office space on the ground floor of the Empress Place Building which was vacated by the Currency Board. The Department plans to renovate the additional space. Public waiting areas will be extended. Air-conditioning will be provided for the office and public areas of the Building if approved by the Ministry of Finance. With this additional area, the Immigration Head Office will be able to meet its requirements in the next few years. On a longer term the Department is developing a conceptual plan to construct a new building for its Head Office.

asked the Minister for Finance if the Government will set up a Central Foreign Exchange market to reduce the risk taken by manufacturers in Singapore, who buy raw materials from Japan and West Germany and export their finished products to dollar areas, of incurring losses in the event of sharp rises or falls in currencies.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, most banks in Singapore have foreign exchange departments to serve the foreign exchange needs of customers. Foreign exchange risk can be insured against by what is known as forward cover in the foreign exchange market. The bank providing such cover guarantees an exchange rate for foreign currency receipts or payments due in the future. We thus already have a foreign exchange market in Singapore which provides facilities for manufacturers and traders to insure foreign exchange risk. Manufacturers and others, whose business involves the receipts and payments of foreign currencies, should consult their banks as to how foreign exchange risks can be minimised.

asked the Minister for Social Affairs whether his Ministry will assist charitable organisations, which intend to set up homes for the aged, to obtain land for the purpose.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the present thinking of my Ministry is not to isolate the aged in large institutions away from the main stream of activity but to help them lead meaningful lives within the community. It is thus our policy to discourage charitable organisations to use our limited land resources in setting up homes for the aged. The Social Welfare Department of my Ministry has drawn up a scheme for charitable organisations and other interested groups to set up small community homes for the aged using Housing and Development Board premises. A copy of the scheme has recently been sent to all Members of Parliament for their information. Community homes set up under the scheme are much cheaper than if the homes were built on acquired land and also have the advantage of enabling the residents to intermingle with the rest of the community. I am glad to say that the response to the scheme has been most encouraging. So far two community homes are already in operation and seven more are being planned. In addition, several voluntary organisations have also expressed interest and are studying the scheme. My Ministry, however, is prepared to consider any request from charitable organisations seeking our assistance in obtaining land to build homes provided that such proposed homes cater for the aged sick who cannot be adequately cared for in community homes.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, is the present thinking or the future thinking of the Minister and his Ministry involved in considering the actual subsidy for the running of these community homes? As I recall it when looking at the plan, it is a sensible plan no doubt but the expenditure has to come from the local community. That means the Government is not putting up anything at all.

Sir, the present and the future thinking is that there would not be any subsidy.

Sir, land in Singapore is scarce and valuable. It is, therefore, vital for us that all land be put to maximum use. The needs and pace of development have necessitated the acquisition of private lands (including a number of private cemeteries) for various public projects. Out of the 58,678 hectares of land in Singapore, 2,146 hectares are occupied by 213 burial grounds. 172 of these burial grounds covering 862 hectares (about 1.5% of the total area of our Island) have been closed for burial and will thus remain sterilised until redevelopment takes place. Over the next few years, all private cemeteries, including Chinese clan or privately owned cemeteries and Muslim cemeteries on wakaff lands, which have been closed for burials, will be acquired as and when required for development. A number of cemetery sites which are required for development by 1980 will shortly be gazetted for acquisition. The remaining burial grounds will be gazetted nearer the date of redevelopment. In all, a total of 324.55 hectares of cemetery lands will be acquired for public purposes - 294.32 hectares (90.69%) are Chinese cemeteries; 24.25 hectares (7.47%) are Muslim cemeteries; whilst 5.98 hectares (1.84%) are cemeteries belonging to other denominational groups. Redevelopment of the Chinese burial grounds, which account for more than 90% of the total area, involves not only the exhumation of graves, but also, in some cases, the clearance of temples and squatter houses. Clearance of those affected by the acquisitions will be undertaken by the Resettlement Department in accordance with its current policy. Compensation to owners of the land will be based on specific provisions in the Land Acquisition Act, which provides that the market value of the land shall be computed on the basis that the land is a burial ground, disregarding any potential value of the land for more intensive use. The Government will continue to give time to those directly affected by these acquisitions especially to the relatives of those whose graves have to be exhumed, so that their wishes after exhumation of the remains can be met. The needs of Singapore's young population must require the use of sterilised land, for the economic and social good of all citizens of Singapore.

Sir, whilst I agree with the Ministerial Statement of the Hon. Minister for Law, the Environment and Science and Technology, I have just one small question. Will his Ministry look into the question of assisting in the exhumation of these graves and finding proper places to keep the remains of the dead?

Sir, I can certainly give that assurance.

Thank you.

Sir, how soon will the Government start acquiring these lands? I hope it is not too soon because Cheng Beng rites are on at the present moment.

The lands will not be acquired immediately. I mentioned just now that a number of cemetery sites which are required for development by 1980 will shortly be gazetted for acquisition and the rest thereafter. But there is no immediate hurry. In fact, we have delayed this statement for some time already.

"to amend the Customs Act (Chapter 133 of the Revised Edition)", presented by the Senior Minister of State, Ministry of Finance (Mr Goh Chok Tong); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament and to be printed.

Order for Second Reading read. 2.52 p.m.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The decision to convert Singapore Bus Service into a public company, the Singapore Bus Service (1978) Limited, has been announced in a joint press statement issued by the Ministry of Communications and the Ministry of Finance on 20th March 1978. Hon. Members will no doubt recall that in August 1974 the Government moved a team in to manage the Company when SBS was on the point of collapse. Experience has shown that, with sound management and motivated staff, SBS can provide a reliable and efficient service and, at the same time, make a fair return on capital so long as bus fares are not fixed at unreasonable levels. However, for SBS to offer the high standard of service required by the public, more and better buses will have to be purchased while depot and workshop facilities will have to be improved. The Government decided that it was necessary to float SBS as a public company and to have its shares listed in the Stock Exchange so as to provide capital to enable the company to invest in improved equipment and facilities. Sir, this decision is also to enable ownership of SBS to be transferred to the general public, especially bus commuters and bus employees. SBS operates an essential service serving the large majority of the 2.3 million population who do not own private cars. It is vital to improve and to maintain an efficient and reasonably cheap means of public transport to commute half a million school children and another three-quarter million workers to and from schools and places of work. This is especially needed now that ownership of private cars is being discouraged by a series of taxes and levies. The Government feels that it is in the public interest that the large commuting public and bus employees should take a direct interest in the policy and management of the public transport system. This means that they must be enabled to participate in the ownership of SBS. Recognising that the large majority of commuters as well as the more than 10,000 SBS workers lack the financial means to do so, the Government proposes that CPF savings be used for the purchase of shares of SBS (1978) Ltd. The rationale for this decision has been explained by the Minister for Finance at the last Budget session. It is true that with the Government's assurance of an annual dividend of 7 1/2%, the additional capital of $20 million can be easily raised without the use of CPF. But then the ownership of SBS will fall into the hands of the wealthy few. This will defeat the objective of spreading ownership of our bus service among as wide a spectrum of the population as possible. It will also deprive bus commuters and workers of having a stake in SBS to ensure its efficient operation to their benefit. The present Bill therefore seeks to amend section 29 of the Central Provident Fund Act to enable members of the Fund to use their balances to purchase stocks and shares of SBS (1978) Ltd. Regulations will be made consequent on approval of the amendment to limit the use of CPF balances to $5,000. Let me assure the House that the proposal to allow CPF monies to be used for the purchase of shares of SBS (1978) was agreed to by the Government only after much careful consideration and as the Minister for Finance said during the Budget session "reluctantly". There is no other way if we want to give our bus commuters and workers a stake in the public transport system. SBS (1978) will be a secure investment for bus commuters and workers. The House was assured by the Minister for Finance at the last sitting that it is Government's intention to ensure that SBS (1978) remains a viable company and pay an annual dividend of 7 1/2%. Regulations will be made to require CPF funds withdrawn to be returned to the CPF account of the members concerned when the shares are sold. This will ensure that the purpose of CPF savings as provision for old age is preserved. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 3.00 p.m.

Sir, the purchase of SBS shares should not be made compulsory. It should be voluntary. If a poor man were to use all his $5,000 CPF savings to buy SBS shares, he will not know what will happen to his shares in one or two years' time. It is all right for him to use only a small portion of his savings to buy SBS shares but not all of the $5,000 on offer.

Sir, I support the idea of spreading the ownership of the shares of the SBS so that the commuting public and the bus workers will have a stake in the bus company. This is a good move as it will help to ensure that the company is efficiently run. But at the same time I have certain misgivings because it is not just the workers who can ensure the efficiency of SBS, but management itself. So much hinges on the efficiency of management. While I can agree that the special Government Team of Officials has done a good job in the SBS, especially when there has been no fare increase over the last few years we cannot have this assurance that the future management will always be as efficient, because there is no criterion or yardstick by which we can measure this efficiency. If SBS were to turn to the Government or the Ministry of Communications and request for a fare increase, by what measure would the Government judge that it is fair and reasonable for the company to increase its fare? The company will simply say, "Our costs have gone up. Therefore, we must have this fare increase." Added to this is the guaranteed return of 7 1/2% which will make it easy for management to turn to Government and say, "Look, if you do not allow us this fare increase, we cannot give the 7 1/2% rate of return." So how do we go about monitoring and ensuring that the management is really efficient and that we do not have continual increases in bus fares on account of this guarantee? Sir, the other matter concerns the principle behind the use of CPF funds. Up to now we have only allowed such funds to be used to buy houses or flats. That is all to the good because that gives the workers a stake in society and increases productivity and stability. But it is another thing to get the CPF itself to invest in shares like the SBS, because the CPF itself is so big that it can absorb or spread whatever risks there are of buying any particular share or any particular security. No contributor will be penalised in the event a share price goes down. But in this particular event, the proposal will therefore throw the burden of risk on the commuter or the bus worker who makes use of his CPF funds, to buy these shares. Sir, so long as the PAP Government is here, I am sure this Government will always make sure that the management of SBS, and indeed of all the statutory boards and all those hundreds of Government enterprises, are being run by capable and efficient management personnel. But there is no assurance that this Government will always be here. If you get a government which is incompetent and which also appoints incompetent people to run things, then you can imagine the problems that can emerge in the future. If the concern is that we do not want the share ownership of SBS to be concentrated in a few hands, i.e. the rich buying up the shares, we can always have a law, like the Newspapers Act, which restricts ownership of shares to no more than 3% (I believe the figure is 3%). If we are concerned that the workers should have a particular stake in the SBS, why do we not get the NTUC to utilise its surplus funds to buy these shares on behalf of the workers, and eventually distribute these shares among the workers themselves on an instalment basis, rather than make them use their CPF funds for this particular purpose? Even SBS itself could have an incentive scheme for the workers; for example, if they have worked for a certain number of years they will be given so many shares. In that way they will participate in the ownership of the company and have a stake in the particular company. Sir, I raise these few points because these are my personal misgivings about this particular proposal. I see the extension of the use of CPF funds in this direction as being an unhealthy one.

Sir, can we get an assurance from the Minister for Labour that bus fares will not be increased, at least for a period of three years, with the exception of an increase in the price of oil?

Sir, I rise in support of the amendment to the Central Provident Fund Act. The 10,000 bus workers and SILO which represents these employees of SBS welcome the announcement by the Government to turn SBS into a public company. We are glad to learn that a percentage of shares will be set aside for our bus workers. I would like to find out from the Minister what is the percentage of the 20 million shares to be set aside for the bus workers? If we want our bus workers as well as the commuters to have a stake in the company, I think the stake for the bus workers should be big enough to create an impact. I am sure that the bus workers welcome this move because we are given a chance to have this equity participation in the company.

Sir, the purchase of SBS shares is voluntary. The Government is not compelling anybody to use their CPF to buy SBS shares. So the concern of the Member for Anson really does not arise. In as far as the efficient management of the SBS is concerned, my colleague in charge of Communications will be answering those points raised by the Member for Whampoa when we come to the next Bill. The Member for Bukit Ho Swee sought an assurance that bus fares will not be increased in the next three years. I am afraid I cannot give him that assurance. As for the percentage of SBS shares to be set aside for the bus workers, that has not yet been settled because we have no idea as to the number of people who will be interested in SBS shares.

Sir, can the Minister convince the Minister for Communications that each bus worker, assuming that every bus worker has sufficient CPF savings will be given at least $1,000 shares or an amount equivalent to the public or any other commuter?

Sir, as I said, the question of percentage to be set aside for the bus workers has not yet been settled. But if the proposal made by the Member for Boon Teck that each bus worker be allowed to buy $1.000 shares is taken. it will mean that more than half of the 20 million shares will go to the bus workers and there will be very little left for the bus commuters. Anyway, Sir, the question will be decided when the time comes.

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 Ong Pang Boon]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 3.14 p.m. The Acting Minister for Culture and Senior Minister of State for Communications (Mr Ong Teng Cheong): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Ministries of Communications and Finance have announced recently that the new bus company SBS (1978) will soon go public and have its shares listed on the local stock exchange. A widespread ownership of SBS (1978) by the public particularly the bus company's employees and bus commuters is encouraged. With the public flotation of SBS (1978), Government intends to ensure through the Bus Services Licensing Authority (BSLA) that SBS (1978) will be managed well enough to enable it to pay an annual dividend of not less than 7 1/2%. To put this into force the proposed amendments to the Bus Services Licensing Authority Act are therefore needed. Presently, the Authority has six members who are from the Ministries of Communications, National Development and Defence. With the additional responsibility for the Authority to see to the proper management of SBS (1978), clause 2 seeks to enlarge the Authority's membership from six to seven with the appointment of a representative from the Ministry of Finance. Although Government will continue to provide management assistance to SBS (1978) through the Government Team of Officials (GTO), as it had done for the old SBS since August 1974, this arrangement cannot go on indefinitely. The GTO will run the bus company until such time when a new management team is able to take over. To be certain that SBS (1978) is properly managed at all times, clause 3 seeks to give the Authority the power to ensure that bus company licensees like SBS (1978) shall appoint directors who are approved by the Authority. In this way, company affairs of SBS (1978) will come under the direct control of a board of directors consisting of persons approved by the Authority. The opportunity is also taken to repeal section 11 of the Act and substitute it with that described in clause 4. The new section 11 will give the Authority greater flexibility in the imposition of penalties in cases of violation by licensees, and enable the Authority to delegate its powers under this section to the Registrar of Vehicles or the Deputy Registrar of Vehicles. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to make a couple of points on SBS (1978). The first point is that when SBS (1978) is formed there will be no increase in bus fares, I believe there are rumours and, strangely enough, these rumours turn into facts faster than a lot of facts that we Members have been able to get from time to time. I remember the last time when we were talking about rumours on increases in A & E charges during the Budget debate, it was fantastic the way the Hon. Minister turned that rumour into fact. I am just hoping that the present rumour will not turn into fact because at the moment commuters are already paying a high price for bus fares to and from work. Longer distances make it more difficult and more expensive. This is especially true if there has been a movement of population from their former abodes to new Housing Board estates. The Hon. Senior Minister of State for National Development, who is not here at the present moment, may be able to tell us that there are so many vacant flats in Woodlands because very few people want to take them as they are very far away from their place of work. If bus fares go up and they are forced to take flats in Woodlands, it will be a tremendous drain on their pockets. The other point on which I would like to seek clarification is which organisations or individuals will be represented on the board of directors, because we need people who know how commuters feel and organisations which are actually involved in running a commuter service. This would, of course, involve consumers, trade unions and business enterprises that have the acumen and the capacity to run a good SBS (1978).

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the experience of SBS in the past, especially since the Government Team of Officials moved into SBS in August 1974, has shown that with a sound management and motivated staff, SBS can provide a reliable and efficient service and, at the same time make a fair return on capital so long as the bus fares are not fixed at an unrealistic level. When the Minister for Finance made the announcement earlier he touched on this point. The Minister for Labour has also said earlier on that he is unable to assure the Member that the fares will not be increased or the fares will remain as they are forever. It is a question of time. As to who will sit on the board of directors, this is being looked into and is being finalised. I myself do not know who will be on the board at this stage but I suspect that officials from the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Labour will be invited. It is too early for me to say who will sit on the board at this stage. A proper announcement will be made at the appropriate time.

Sir, could I ask a direct question then? Would trade unions and consumers be represented? That is very important. An hon. Member: You will be represented.

In addition to that, could the Hon. Senior Minister of State give us an assurance that bus fares will remain as they are for at least three years?

Sir, as I said earlier, the announcement on the formation of the board of directors will be made at the appropriate time. I am not in a position to advise him at this stage.

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 Ong Teng Cheong]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

3.25 p.m.

Mr Deputy 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 approves the Statutes of the ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Organisation (AIPO) made on the 2nd day of September, 1977, at the Third ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Organisation Conference at Manila, as set out in Paper Misc. 3 of 1978. Sir, the Statutes of the ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Organisation were finalised and signed at the Third ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Organisation Conference held in Manila from 29th August to 2nd September 1977. The Senior Minister of State for Communications signed on behalf of Singapore. The Joint Communique issued at the end of the Manila Conference states, inter alia, that it was agreed that the Statutes shall take effect upon acceptance by the competent authority of each member country of ASEAN. Indonesia and Thailand have already accepted the Statutes. In the case of Singapore, the competent authority to accept the Statutes is this House. Hence, the Motion before this House. Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Parliament approves the Statutes of the ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Organisation (AIPO) made on the 2nd day of September, 1977, at the Third ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Organisation Conference at Manila, as set out in Paper Misc. 3 of 1978.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I seek your consent and the general assent of hon. Members present to move a Motion to exempt the proceedings on the matter to be raised on the Motion for the Adjournment today from the time limits laid down in Standing Order 1 (8) (b). Sir, normally a debate on the Adjournment Motion lasts for half an hour, usually from 7.30 p.m. to 8.00 p.m. Since it is only 3.30 p.m. now, and I understand that many Backbenchers wish to speak on a matter which touches their hearts, I seek your consent, Sir, and the general assent of Members present to move the Motion.

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

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, "That the proceedings on the matter to be raised on the motion for the adjournment of Parliament this day be exempted from the time limits laid down in paragraph (8) (b) of Standing Order 1." - [Mr Barker].

Resolved, "That at its rising today Parliament do stand adjourned to a date to be fixed." - [Mr Barker].

Sir, I beg to move, That Parliament do now adjourn. Question proposed.

3.29 p.m.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am most grateful to you for giving me this opportunity to raise this matter which is of grave concern and has caused much anxiety to Singaporeans. In this House that ill-fated day, 23rd March last, the Hon. Minister saw fit in his Ministerial Statement to unfairly and to the detriment of Singaporeans revise upwards attendance fees at Accident and Emergency Departments and Outpatient Dispensaries and Dental Service charges. That was an unwarranted revision which has left a most sour taste in everyone's mouth. On the 1st, April fool's day, Singaporeans had to pay more at A & E, OPD and for Dental Services and this, Sir, was no joke. 604,492 employed persons in Singapore earn $399 and under, of the 870,442 employed, according to the Ministry of Labour's "Report on the Labour Force Survey of Singapore 1976". So, some 69% of employed persons are now faced with the possibility of scraping the bottom of an already empty pot if they or their families should have the misfortune of being ill or having teeth problems. That April 1st, staff at A & E and OPD, especially the nurses, and dental nurses, not the Hon. Minister, came under severe and heavy fire from patients or their parents for the most inconsiderate hikes in rates. This still carries on. Is the Hon. Minister aware of the buffers that protect him from the public wrath? Let us examine the hike in A & E charges closely. It shot up from $4 to $10, a 150% increase. For whatever reason, a hike of that extent is profiteering. But the Minister will contend that A & E Departments are heavily subsidised. What would the subsidy be and should accidents and emergencies not be subsidised? Accidents are unplanned events leading to injuries or damages. No sane person would want to be involved in an accident and it could be caused at any time or place. So treatment, if necessary, is as essential as food or drink. But the prohibitive charges will most certainly force many who need treatment to keep away, much to their immediate and long-term detriment. Those who are poor are so because they earn less. They have lesser skilled jobs due to lesser education and educational achievements. Most of them, therefore, due to lack of knowledge in matters pertaining to health either panic when the ailment is slight or seek no treatment until it is too late. The introduction of this excessive charge at A & E Departments will most certainly result in their taking the latter recourse. And this I am sure is not what the Hon. Minister wants. Or is it? For those who can afford, raising fees would only inhibit them for a short period of time or if they have cash to spare, not at all. Has the Minister any figures to show the success of his sieving method introduced on 1st April to cut down on unnecessary visits to the A & E Departments? Has he also figures to show the income brackets of those who visited the A & E Departments these lest seven days? In his Ministerial Statement on the 23rd March, he mentioned that 61.9% of patients were discharged after treatment, but he did not mention what portion of these deserved treatment as accident and emergency cases. Are we to understand that only those warded are termed by him bona fide accident and emergency cases? He has allowed them to be credited with the $10 deposit which patients have to pay on admission. How does he propose to implement the waiver of charges for destitute patients? Does he expect patients presenting themselves at the A & E Departments to produce documentary evidence of their destitution? How many patients have obtained this waiver since the implementation of that unfeeling rate? Is the Hon. Minister aware that some of the nurses and staff at the A & E Departments have contributed towards the payment of attendance fees for patients who had just no money to pay for emergency treatment? Is there really a criterion to determine who indiscriminately utilises the A & E Departments? Who can actually determine whether patients turning up are serious or emergency cases? The Hon. Minister did mention that doctors require longer time to examine patients to determine whether a stomachache is due to acute appendicitis. How much time does a layman therefore require to determine whether he should consult a doctor immediately when he suffers from an unbearable stomachache in the middle of the night? Does he wait for it to subside or should he proceed to the A & E Departments? Until the Hon. Minister can come up with a sensible sieving method to prevent the indiscriminate use of the A & E Departments, he should revert to the status quo which prevailed before 1st April. Is it not his objective to stop this indiscriminate use of the A & E Departments? Or is it his objective to prevent those who cannot afford to pay from visiting the A & E Departments? Allow me now, Sir, to turn to the increases in dental service charges. For 21 years the scheme for the fluoridation of the water supply of Singapore has been an excellent preventive measure for the control of dental decay among the Singapore population. The Public and School Dental Services have been developed over the years and dental care is now afforded to practically every Singaporean, especially primary school children in more than 110 school dental clinics. Campaigns, publicity and the like have achieved much over the years and the difficulties faced by the dental nurses who worked hard to convince parents of the necessity of dental care for their children, and to break down the psychological fears, were bearing much fruit. The turn around is now beginning with the infinite percentage increase in dental services charges for primary school children. Treatment used to be free but now an extraction costs 60 cents. a simple filling, scaling, polishing, repair of denture each costs $1, a single root canal treatment, $3, a partial upper or lower denture, $5, and a space maintainer. $15. For other treatments, various charges have also been revised upwards. Does the Hon. Minister realise that this is a retrogressive step towards enhancing dental care among the young? The role of the dental nurses has been reversed. They were responsible for promoting good dental habits, the brushing of teeth, regular visits to the dental clinics and so on. But now they have to stand with outstretched hands collecting money first and then treating the patients later, I believe, since the imposition of fees for dental services in primary schools, some children have even absented themselves from school on their dental appointment days. This rarely happened before. I also believe that few pupils are responding to the treatment, which used to be free, offered by the Institute of Dental Health. Prior to 1st April, the vans sent by the Institute to schools returned with sufficient numbers for the student dental nurses to treat. The experience gained by the student dental nurses enhanced their skills for their future stints in school dental clinics. With the lack of pupils to sharpen their skills, the Institute might run foul of their main objective of producing skilled dental nurses. A student dental nurse would require some five patients to work on a day and there are some 40 student dental nurses being trained at present. A pupil visits on average the school dental clinic ten times a year if he needs treatment. This would at the present rates cost between $6 to $10 yearly at the minimum. At this cost, which most certainly would revive the impression in most parents, especially those in the lower income groups, that dental treatment is not essential. There would consequently be a dwindling of numbers visiting the school dental clinics. Has the Hon. Minister mustered enough figures to show that this imposition of his has not caused a reduction in visits to school dental clinics and the Institute of Dental Health? As extractions are cheaper than fillings and as most parents feel that milk teeth would come off after a time anyway, preference would be for extractions and this could be detrimental to the permanent set of teeth. School Dental Nurses now wear badges sporting the cliche "Sedia Berkhidmat", which when translated means "Ready to Serve". When the service was free this could have applied, but now we would need to redo the badges to read "Pay and we will be ready to serve". I believe, Sir, I must inform the Minister for Education that charges should now be levied on the Ministry of Health for the utility services, space and so on that were previously supplied free-of-charge by the Ministry of Education to the Ministry of Health. When a free service was provided by the Ministry of Health to pupils, levies would be unfair. But now that the Health Ministry is doing business in schools, should they receive gratis all these facilities? I believe the NTUC and the AUPE will also need to come into the picture now that School Dental Nurses, skilled persons who deal with oral cavities, have been imposed the additional task of administration and accounts. They have to collect monies, issue receipts, bank in monies and so on. The added responsibilities and hazards merit salary, insurance and escort coverage. Is the Hon. Minister considering these? I could, however, offer a much better suggestion - rescind the dental service charges and all will be well. There is also the question of waste of material. Where before a phial of anaesthetic could be used to extract two teeth and a batch of amalgam for filling in two teeth, half of each of these are being wasted as most children, the ones that can afford, want to pay for only one extraction or one filling at a time. The introduction of school dental service charges has, therefore, increased costs for the Ministry in the form of wastage. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, much hardship has been caused to many Singaporeans by the Hon. Minister over the last seven days and much greater hardship will be caused if he fails to rescind the charges he has levied for attendance at the A & E Departments and school dental clinics. I hope the Hon. Minister truly realises this. The question, therefore, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, is that the Hon. Minister should now consider rescinding the Ministerial Statement made on that ill-fated day of 23rd March.

Sir, I rise to support the Member for Potong Pasir in his bid to oppose the increase of fees at the Accident and Emergency Departments which was made known by the Health Minister in this Chamber on the 23rd of last month. Sir, Members of this House will recollect that during the debate in the Committee of Supply on the estimates for the Health Ministry on the 14th of last month, I did raise the point on the speculations of an intended increase of fees at the Accident and Emergency Departments. I gave my humble opposing views on the subject and I had wanted the Minister to give me an assurance that the fees would not be increased. However, my question was not answered satisfactorily by the Health Minister during the debate. Instead an official announcement on the increase of fees was made by the Health Minister on the 23rd of last month in this House. The majority of the people were taken by surprise and were dumbfounded by this drastic move. Apparently the lower income-group has been hit below the belt. Since the announcement, public opinion has not been favourable and the majority of the people have been complaining silently among themselves, and some have written to the press. Sir, when the Minister first hinted on the move during the Budget debate to back his argument he gave the flimsy reason that some people had been misusing the Accident and Emergency Departments, resulting in congestion, and that this increase of fees would deter many non-emergency cases from going to this unit. But as laymen, the general public would not know exactly what really constitutes an emergency and what is not. In the past, I had supported various increases of taxes on non-essential items which could be done without. But on this particular measure, I strongly oppose this increase of the fees at the A & E Departments. Nobody would like to be referred to a hospital, and it is not a pleasant place to visit either.

I see the Member there so often!

Sir, if the Minister thinks that there has been an abuse of this department, it would be wiser to educate the public as to what constitutes an emergency case and what is not, instead of suddenly imposing this drastic measure that digs into the pockets of the lower income group. I say this because it is the lower income group that usually patronises the Government hospitals. The rich in most cases get their medical attention from private hospitals or private family doctors, and therefore they are not in the least affected by the move. Even if they should go to Government hospitals, this increased fee means nothing to them. But what about the plight of the poorer group of people? Where are they going to get emergency medical attention when they cannot afford to pay the fees? Do we expect them to commit crime in order to raise money to pay for their medical treatment? I wonder whether the Minister is aware of the consequences and the social problems that may arise later on as a result of this drastic move. If anyone in genuine need of emergency medical treatment should postpone such treatment his condition would deteriorate from bad to worse. Sir, usually, those cases that are referred to the A & E Departments are not without reason. They are accident cases brought about by unforeseen circumstances. So why blame the innocent people and penalise them just because of a few black sheep whom the Minister thought had abused the facilities at the A & E Departments? Most private medical clinics are closed at night and when a person is injured and requires stitching of his wounds, where can he go to for emergency treatment other than the A & E Departments? I wonder whether it is fair to penalise this kind of a case that needs immediate medical attention. I am told that since the fees have been increased from the beginning of this month, the number of cases referred to the A & E Departments has not dropped. Is this proposal therefore really a practical one? What I have gathered is that there have been numerous complaints and confusion at the A & E Departments over the past one week, because many people were unaware of the increased charges. I know of a case that happened a few days ago when a schoolboy during a drill in the school collapsed. He was transported home by the school bus. His mother, who was then alone in the house, panicked on seeing the condition of the boy and she decided to rush him to the hospital. At the hospital she was taken by surprise at having to pay $10 attendance fee and she had not brought enough money to pay. Fortunately, there was a relative around to help in paying the required fee. This poor lady is in the lower income group and the $10 fee is rather stiff to her. She had no choice but to pay and become indebted. How are these poor people really going to survive if we go on raising fees at this rate? I even heard that many people had no transport fare to go back home after visiting the A & E Departments. Sir, if I may quote a further case. To a layman if he is in pain as a result of a perforation of the appendix which requires an emergency operation, he might decide to delay seeking treatment because of the increased charges at the A & E Departments. He is also likely to postpone a visit to the doctor to the next day thinking that much of it is a simple abdominal pain which could be attended to at the Outpatient clinic. By that time he will realise that many valuable hours have been lost and it may cost him his life. Cases of cuts too cannot be postponed because they have to be attended to immediately for cleansing and stitching. Such injuries cannot wait for treatment as they will not be properly healed if medical attention is delayed. Again, many asthmatic patients too require treatment immediately and because of the chronic nature of the sickness they may get an attack every other day. Most of these patients come mainly from the lower income group and the increased charges will hit these people very badly. Besides losing out on their monthly pay, an injured worker may be forced to take more medical leave owing to the frequent attacks of asthma. Sir, this increased fee too would in a way give the private doctors a reason to jack up their consultation fees immediately or gradually. For instance, if their fee was $6 previously they may gradually increase to about $8 which is still below the fees charged at the A & E Departments. Though private doctors have made the statement that they will not increase their consultation fees, what guarantee is there that they will not revise their rates? This move will also lead to a further brain drain of doctors in the civil service. Some doctors may go into private practice because there is much profit to make because of the extra earnings from increased fees. Sir, I would suggest, like my good friend the Minister for Home Affairs when he introduced the Pedestrian (Crossing Rules) Act that we should educate the public first before taking any action. Indeed, this is a wise and practical move. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

But in the case of the present increase of fees at the A & E Departments, there was nothing of this sort. Instead all of a sudden an official announcement was made and everybody was taken by surprise. Even many Government doctors do not give their blessing to this move. They say that this increase of fees is not the right solution to cut down the workload at the A & E Departments or to deter those who abuse the A & E Departments. I am sure there are better ways of solving the problem at the A & E Departments. I therefore urge the Minister to reconsider his decision on the increased fee at the A & E Departments. I therefore strongly support the views of the Member for Potong Pasir and oppose the increased fees introduced by the Health Minister for the A & E Departments. Sir, the A & E Department has just been rebuilt. So the Minister increased the fees for the building of the Department. But the Dental Unit has not been demolished or rebuilt. So why the increase in the dental charges? Recently, they have spent millions of dollars on the new building. Most probably the Minister for Finance had instructed the Minister for Health to increase the fees for the A & E Departments in order to recover the cost for the new building. Is this logical? We have a surplus of millions of dollars. Why do we have to tax the poor people? The Hon. Minister for Finance should tell the Hon. Minister for Health not to increase the fees for the A & E Departments. This is a socialist government. We are only paying lip service to socialism. This is very bad. The people will say, "This is a very bad Government." We must get the blessing of the people. Therefore, the Minister for Health should consider reducing the fees. The Minister for Finance should also support and subsidise the Health Ministry.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, from the constant punctuation of laughter, one would think we are discussing a very humorous subject. But I can assure you that to the poor low-income workers outside, this is no joke. It is important to consider and understand the reasons why people go to the A & E Departments, especially in the evenings. Many working parents can only take their sick or injured children for medical treatment in the evening hours after their work. In fact, it is active Government policy to encourage wives and mothers to go to work and this situation is likely to arise more and more in the future. Others who are not so ill as to stay away from work seek medical attention after work. This again is something that should be encouraged. It is better to go to work in the day and seek medical treatment in the evening. The OPD closes at 4.30 p.m. and these people have the choice of either seeking treatment at high cost from the few private clinics which open in the evenings or of going to the A & E Departments in the hospitals. Most of the poor choose to go to the A & E Departments. Such people will now have to pay $10 per visit which is more than a day's wages for most workers. I am sure many private practitioners will follow the cue from the Government and also increase their charges, making private practice even more lucrative thereby attracting more officers from the Government service into private practice and making the situation even worse in the Government service. For much the same reasons of circumstances and convenience, people seek medical treatment on Sundays and public holidays. No sane person enjoys spending a holiday in an OPD and it is quite unreasonable to charge a higher rate on such days. Service in the A & E Departments is not so efficient, pleasant and quick that people find pleasure in going there for minor ailments, if they are aware that they have only minor ailments. The patient or those who bring the patient must be convinced in their own minds, however mistakenly, that the illness is serious enough to go through the harrowing experience of treatment at the A & E Department. How is the patient or the parents or others who bring the patient to know that the ailment is minor? They are laymen with no medical knowledge. In addition, a parent, for example, is emotionally involved with his child and quite naturally fears the worst. To a doctor, treating a child with a cut requiring some stitches or a child with high fever is a run of the mill affair. To a child or the parents it is a traumatic experience and one which cannot wait for treatment till the next day when the OPD is open. To only consider cases deserving hospitalisation as cases that should not be penalised with the $10 fee is most unreasonable. There must be many cases which are serious enough to warrant immediate attention but not hospitalisation. In fact, it may be precisely because the patient comes for treatment in the very early stages of the illness that he avoids hospitalisation. For this he is going to be punished under the new system. In fact, it is a good sign that people in Singapore are keen to seek modern medical treatment in the very early stages of their illness instead of trying self-medication or going to some quack medicine man or waiting until their condition becomes very serious. Instead of adapting to meet this change resulting from increased health consciousness, we are trying to set the clock back. To tackle the problem in the A & E Departments, consideration should be given to opening the OPDs for longer hours or beefing up the staff in the A & E Departments. These are measures which we can well afford as the present taxes and Government revenues can easily withstand the relatively small increase in costs of such upgrading of medical services. Consideration should also be given to using para medical personnel such as nurses and medical orderlies, to screen, advise and even treat minor ailments so that the doctors would only treat the more serious cases. One of the implications of the present policy is that the patient should be able to determine what is a minor and what is a major ailment. Surely the para medical personnel would be in a better position to determine this. I sincerely feel that the Minister should reconsider the increase in charges that he has announced in Parliament.

Sir, I rise in support of the Member for Potong Pasir. I think the Minister said that the reason for the increase in charges of the A & E Departments was the congestion at these departments. May I say that increasing the fees is really not the right way to decrease congestion. After all, in the evenings and weekends many people who are ill do not really know where to go. So the logical place to go is the hospital. Many people do not even know that it is an A & E Department. All they are concerned with is to go to the hospital to seek treatment. They cannot tell whether or not their illness is serious. If we increase the fees they will think that the best way is to go to the quack doctors or seek self-medication which, in the long run, will cost more to this country because their illnesses will get more serious and will require hospitalisation. We will, therefore, need more beds to accommodate these people. So instead of doing that why do we not have one outpatient dispensary open for 24 hours a day on a rota basis? It can be published by the mass media - the press, radio and television - that such and such an outpatient dispensary will be open 24 hours a day. Anybody who is ill but not serious can go to this outpatient dispensary for treatment if he or she wishes. In this way congestion at the A & E Departments will be lessened. There are others who normally do not go to the outpatient dispensary but go to private doctors. However, in an emergency in the evenings or during the weekends they find that their own doctors are not available. They may not know the doctor's home telephone number and they do not know where to go. They too turn to the A & E Departments for treatment. Perhaps the Ministry of Health could also help in getting the mass media to publicise where doctors and drug stores are available in the evenings and weekends so that people need not go to the A & E Departments. In this way, they can have a choice of either going to the outpatient dispensary or to the clinic which is open in the evenings and weekends. In this way, congestion at the A & E Departments will be lessened and there is no need to increase the fees. I hope the Minister will reconsider this point.

( In Mandarin): Sir, according to the revision of charges for Government medical services made by the Minister for Health in this House on the 2 3rd of last month, the attendance fee at the OPDs will be increased by 50 cents, that is, from $2.50 to $3 on working days and by $1 on Sundays and public holidays. The attendance fee at the A & E Departments in the General Hospital will also be increased from $4 to $10 and there will be great increases for dental charges for adults, students and children. Everybody knows that when a person is ill, he will generally look for medical treatment in order to get well and continue with his work to maintain the livelihood of his family. The medical facilities in our country are very advanced in this region. This is a fact which everybody recognises. Because of this, our people have been able to live in peace and remain in good health for the past many years. There have been few outbreaks of dangerous and infectious diseases in our country. In any case, the situation was quickly put under control and the disease did not spread. All this could be attributed to the diligence and the high degree of vigilance of the Ministry of Health and its staff at all times. Now, the increase in public medical charges this time will undoubtedly increase the burden of our workers and people of all strata. The increase of attendance fees at the A & E Department at the General Hospital is as high as 150%. This is really shocking. Of course, I am convinced of the evidence produced by the Minister for Health. I do not doubt that there has been an excessive utilisation of medical services. But I must point out that the large majority of our workers and people do not have a good understanding of medical matters. A sudden symptom of illness in the still of night or pain and suffering occurring in the small hours of the morning very often causes them to lose their head. So they are taken to the hospital. And perhaps after medical examination, it turns out that they are not seriously ill. But this is not their fault, and they should not be penalised for this, because nobody will trouble himself to go to the hospital for an injection and to take medicine without any reason. As regards the increase of 50 cents in the attendance fee at the OPD, this will undoubtedly increase the burden of the broad masses of our workers. In fact, everybody may fall ill at any time. The Government has the duty to look after the health and hygiene of the people. Therefore, the increase of medical charges this time is entirely unreasonable. Since this increase will not curb the number of people going to the Government's OPDs for treatment the motive is obviously to increase Government's revenue at the expense of our citizens who fall ill. Is this reasonable? Regarding the increases in dental treatment charges, the intention is more thought provoking. We know that every cent that a student or child has comes from the parents. Will it not mean that the increase will be borne by the parents? From this it can be seen that the increase in fees this time will greatly increase the expenditure on medical charges for all the households in our country. May I ask how out ordinary workers are going to bear this burden? The increase of Government medical treatment charges will no doubt provide private practitioners with a very good excuse to adjust their charges. Therefore, I earnestly hope the Minister will be able to reconsider the revision for increased charges.

( In Malay): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the problem before us is a basic one. It is an issue which directly involves the whole community. The community can accept an increase in TV licences because it is more concerned with entertainment. People can accept an increase in PUB charges because there are elements of costs which can be saved as a result of the world crisis. Nevertheless, the fact is that there are people who will be unhappy if the Minister concerned build a luxurious building and a swimming pool on top of it, as in the case of the new PUB building. About a decade ago in 1964, 40% of the people's incomes ranged between $100 and $200 only. Now there are 18% within the group earning between $100 and $200. If they were to see a swimming pool on the top of a tall building, which they cannot make use of, they will feel that their money has been spent unreasonably. If a person is given an opportunity to pay a lower rate of charges he would appreciate it more than a show of such beautiful things. However, the principle of conservation is there. Today, we have incurred the wrath of the people for the increased charges at hospitals. But more importantly, we should give reasons for such an increase. If the reason is simply that we need more revenue, because of the increases in medical expenditure, I think the community will understand it and make an attempt to pay. But if we say that one of the reasons for the increases is that people in the community do not know how to use the A & E Departments, then I feel that this is an insult to their intelligence because they have been taught, through education, to use the hospitals since the times when bomohs and sinsehs were common. Now, suddenly when they visit the hospitals they are accused of abusing the facilities. If an ordinary person is sick today and he has to go to work tomorrow for the sake of his family, he has to be medically treated and remain healthy to maintain them. Perhaps, in the final analysis, he feels that he can make a little contribution to the country that he loves. But we charge him for abusing the facilities. I think that kind of statement should be retracted by the Minister. I can give an illustration of an actual incident. A person was living in Changi when his mother fell sick at 4.30 a.m. He went out early in the morning and took a taxi. He was not sure whether it would take one hour to reach the hospital. There were no buses. He went to the A & E Department with some money. On arrival the doctor said, "It is nothing. Just give her two or three pills." When he reached home he discovered that the pills just cost $1 whereas the trip had cost more, in addition to the waste of time and energy. And we say that this is ignorance l We find here that on the one hand we teach the people how to use the facilities but on the other we expose them of being ignorant. I sincerely hope that the Minister would reconsider this, particularly for the sake of children at schools. The problem of dental care is very important. From the point of view of our Islamic faith, our Prophet encourages that we brush our teeth five times a day before Prayer. This is not just to show our handsomeness. If a young man like me has got no teeth I will look ugly. At the same time, those who often suffer from toothache will know the experience. So, for those children who are afraid to go to the hospital for extraction, let us not give excuses that their parents are reluctant to send them to the hospital because they have to incur expenses. There will then be a situation where the people of Singapore will be a toothless society!

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it has been said of this Government that it always introduces a painless Budget and increases taxes throughout the rest of the financial year, whether they be taxes on motorcars, petrol, etc. This year's Budget was not exactly painless. There were new taxes but there were also tax reliefs, for example, those on personal income tax. But, on the other hand, there were tax increases on motorcars. On the whole, Sir, in my view, it was a good budget. Therefore, my question is: why was it necessary, so soon after the Budget, to increase the attendance fees payable by persons who are very sick or who are in need of immediate medical attention? The increase in fees was announced by the Minister for Health in a Ministerial statement on 23rd March and came into effect, of all days, on 1st April, as pointed out by the hon. Member for Potong Pasir.

On 23rd March.

With immediate effect?

I made my speech on 23rd March.

That is right. But on 1st April the increased fees came into force.

That is the financial year.

I thank the Minister for reminding me but it is a day -

A bad day!

That day has been well described by my friend, the Member for Anson although the statement was made on 23rd March. I would say, with the greatest respect to the Minister for Health, that the timing was bad. Amongst other reasons given by the Minister for revising these fees sharply upwards is that the services of the Accident and Emergency Departments at the hospitals are being abused by people who are not sick enough to need medical attention. There was an illustration of a person who had a stomachache and believing that there was something really wrong with him, he went to the hospital. But I will go a step further on this illustration. This is with regard to the poor Singaporean who has a stomachache or what may be described as an abdominal pain at the right side. I am sure he himself cannot diagnose whether it is a simple case of stomachache or acute appendicitis. If I may go further, suppose he vomits and has diarrhoea. When he turns up at the emergency unit he surely has to pay the penalty of this 150% increase.

$10!

An increase of $4 to $10 is 150% increase.

Fifty cents over 50 cents is a 100% increase. Do not misuse statistics.

Sir, I am not an economist and I do not juggle with statistics. But I base my remarks on the facts and figures in the best way that I can. Sir, what happens if this person's condition deteriorates? He must go to the emergency unit of the hospital to check whether it is a case of severe diarrhoea, food poisoning or even cholera. If the Government increases the fees beyond the pocket of the poor and sick person I fear that there is a danger that he may not seek medical attention. This may prove detrimental to the society because it may result in the person dying or spreading a disease like cholera. My next point is on the role and function of hospitals. Health services are provided under social services for the people and that is what the Government is doing. It has spent vast sums of money in providing such services. Again, with due respect to the Minister, along with my colleagues who have spoken so well by giving good reasons, I feel that this increase in fees should be rescinded. Otherwise, as pointed out, not only the workers but there will also be others who cannot afford to pay the increased fees as in the case clearly illustrated by the Member for Anson. Had it not been for a relative who paid the fee of $10 for a school boy, he would not have received medical attention. So I am sure even the Hon. Minister and Members of the House will agree with me that nobody likes to go to a hospital unless he is sick at the odd hour.

Bad.

It may be bad for the Member for Whampoa. For the constituents in my constituency, which is a rural constituency, the nearest hospital is the Toa Payoh General Hospital. This hospital is out of the way. The stretch of road leading to it is at least more than a quarter of a mile from Thomson Road. After midnight, there will be less buses and after 12.30 a.m. there will probably be no bus services. There are very few taxis plying along Punggol Road after midnight. So anybody who has the misfortune to fall sick and cannot get the attention of private doctors will have to seek medical attention at this hospital which is supposed to be the nearest. In this respect, I would like to ask the Minister why there are so few hospitals. He might turn around and say, "We took over Sembawang Hospital, Changi Hospital and Alexandra Hospital". Those were military hospitals. But we will be spending millions of dollars to build a new general hospital next to the Singapore General Hospital. This is a modern general hospital. In keeping with the conceptual planning of Housing Board estates like Ang Mo Kio, Toa Payoh, Woodlands, Bedok and Au Kang New Town, why are hospitals not planned in those areas so that the people will not have to travel a long distance to a hospital? On this note, Sir, I share the sentiments expressed by my other colleagues and earnestly hope that the Hon. Minister for Health will kindly consider our appeals.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the views expressed by the Member for Potong Pasir. Sir, I ask myself a number of very simple questions, the answers to which put me very much at variance with the position taken by the Minister for Health. The first question I pose myself is: Is there an abuse of the services in respect of A & E Departments, Outpatient dispensaries and dental clinics? The Minister gave us figures to prove that there have been abuses in respect of the A & E Departments. For 1977, there was a 1 7.6% increase in the number of attendances and he drew attention to the last three months of 1977, in particular, which showed about 25% increase over the corresponding three months in 1976. But, Sir, in 1977 there were only 282,853 cases which amounted only to 23,571 cases per month, or only 786 cases per day, or only 131 cases per hospital. We have a population of 2.3 million. Even on a monthly basis, the attendances amount to 1.02%. I cannot see where the abuse comes from, and if the Minister knows any statistics at all he should not be using figures on the basis of three months and comparing them with another three months. There might be seasonal factors involved. People may tend to fall sick during the later months of the year because of the rain, flu and so forth. In my mind, Sir, I do not think there is any question of abuse. At the back of the Minister's mind is the fear that our health services will mushroom to unmanageable proportions as can be witnessed in the advanced countries where people really do abuse and take advantage of their health services. I believe we are far from that particular situation. If we look at the total health expenditure for this year which we have approved only recently, it amounts to $254 million out of a total Government expenditure of $5,7 56 million 'Or only 4.4%. The other question which I put to myself is: can our workers afford the increases? Quite clearly, as indicated by hon. Members who have spoken on this subject, the answer is no. Sir, if one looks at the CPF figures for 1976, the number of workers earning below $300 per month, that is, $10 per day, is 45.96% or nearly 46% of the total number of workers. And yet the Minister has increased the A & E charges from $4 to $10 per visit. But $10 is equivalent to the daily wage of a worker. The Ministry of Labour Annual Report 1976, Table 20, gives us information of wage-rates in selected occupations within industries in the private sector. I will quote some examples of the daily wage rate: Manufacturer of bread, cakes and confectionery: $ Chief baker . . . 11.72 Ovenman . . . 9.28 Baker . . . 8.15 Driver . . . 8.46 General labourer . . . 7.14 Spinning, weaving and finishing of textiles: Loom fixer . . . 6.83 Spinner . . . 7.80 Weaver . . . 7.21 General labourer . . . 7.41 Sir, I am not conducting a filibuster here, otherwise I could have read to you all the wages of ordinary workers in Singapore. They are available to hon. Members as they are in the Ministry of Labour Annual Report 1976. My point is very simple: that our workers cannot afford these very exorbitant increases. I suspect that the people who do the planning in Singapore are in one respect overly paid in the sense that they are paid at a level so many times that of an ordinary worker that they have lost all sense of perspective. I would like to invite just one Permanent Secretary, or his Deputy Secretary or even the Minister himself to try budgeting on $300 a month. In many cases people have to make do with less than that. Take a widow who is earning $200 or $230 per month with four children to support. On this kind of wage, how can we expect such a poor person to pay the charges which are being levied? Even the old charges were exorbitant enough. The other question which I put to myself is this. Can our Government afford not to increase these rates? As an economist, I would say the answer is yes, and a resounding yes, for the simple reason that in fiscal matters, we have been very conservative, if not overly conservative. We have been prudent, which is to the good. But at the same time, Sir, I am also beginning to suspect whether there is not a loss of a sense of proportion. Just a few days ago, 36 Members of Parliament visited the new PUB building. I was told that the cost was about $64 million. There are other new buildings being put up by the CPF and other statutory bodies. If one looks at the facilities being provided in these buildings there is only one word that can describe it adequately - magnificent or extravagant. But this is a very serious matter for us to consider. If our civil servants think that they can simply spend money on luxuries of that sort when they should really be concerned with providing adequate services to the people of Singapore, then we say something is wrong. If it is a money-making concern and the facilities are needed to entertain, that is fair enough. But if they have to levy charges on the ordinary people to support such expenditure then we say something is wrong. Let us again have a sense of proportion. There are 282,853 cases in the A & E Departments in 1977. A $6 increase for each one of these cases would only amount to $1.69 million compared to the expenditure of millions of dollars or tens of millions of dollars on buildings and on facilities for civil servants. Sir, we should sometimes stop to think what is the philosophy of this Government. I agree and I think hon. Members also agree with the principle that people should not feel that everything is for free. But I think that lesson is well taken in Singapore. If we want to increase the fee in respect of any category of service, let it be proportionate. An increase of 50 cents or $1 to people who earn several thousand dollars a month means nothing. But an increase of 50 cents or $1 to a person who earns $220 or $300 a month means "plenty". It can mean that some of these people may have to starve in order to get the necessary medical service. The Minister may turn around and say, 'Why do they not go to the Social Welfare Department? If they are social welfare recipients, they will be entitled to waiver of charges, etc.' But, Sir, let us thank our lucky stars that in Singapore the ordinary worker is still dignified enough not to want social welfare. Because he is dignified enough he is penalised in the process. But if we keep on adding these charges we will force people to get on to social welfare if only for the simple necessity of getting these services which they cannot otherwise afford. Sir, I think we should give very serious and due consideration to the points which have been raised.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I think I owe the House an explanation why the revision of charges in the A & E fees, dental fees and the OPD fees was not included in the Statement of the Minister for Finance during the Budget debate. My Ministry took four months to survey the position at the A & E Departments arising out of continuous complaints that I have been receiving regarding the congestion, the long waiting time and inefficiency at the A & E Departments. We discussed the problem and before making a decision we took another three months to confirm what the previous survey had shown. All in all it took us seven months of monitoring the A & E Departments before we made this decision. It was not a hasty decision, neither was it made off the cuff. I thought I had some respect for the Member for Whampoa as an economist. But after listening to him, I thank my lucky stars that I was not one of his students. I do not know which side he is really on. He is beating the poor and speaking on behalf of those who can entertain to make money. I think we can dismiss the Member for Whampoa as just presenting arguments which really do not have any logic. But, of course, they were very emotive, as every Member who has spoken has been. It could have been very easy indeed for the revision of charges to have been included in the statement of the Minister for Finance. But the paper presented by my Ministry to the Cabinet took some time to be cleared and it was too late to be included in his speech. That was why I thought it was a good opportunity to make a statement in the House. It would have been very easy indeed to avoid a debate just by publishing the revision of charges in the newspapers and leave it at that. But I have made it a point and I did say so at the end of the 1976 elections that any financial charges, fiscal or policy measures should be debated in Parliament. When I made my statement, many of those who spoke today were sipping tea in the Members' room. They should have been here when the bell rang. I am afraid that some Backbenchers had forgotten the Parliamentary procedure that when the bell rang it was their duty to be at their seats, I was indeed taken by surprise that nobody stood up to ask me any question when I made my speech. The Member for Anson has been following very closely with the Straits Times and I have a feeling that he is in cahoots with the young man who wrote a specious editorial, 'Below the belt' on 12th March. If there is any Member in this House who, like the editorial writer has any complaint below the belt, I can give one advice: The place to go to is not the A & E Department. It is either the Kandang Kerbau Hospital or the Middle Road Hospital. The Member for Punggol has griped about his constituents having to take long taxi rides to go to a hospital. Everyone has to travel to go to a hospital. The last hospital that was built was in 1957. It was called the Thomson Hospital. It has now been renamed the Toa Payoh Hospital. We then took over the Alexandra Hospital and Changi Hospital, which I did not want, and the Sembawang Hospital which is a small hospital. As far as the Ministry of Health is concerned, it has been very much a cinderella Ministry, neglected to a large extent. It could have played a far more prominent role in social development but it has not been able to do so because of fiscal measures. I have been asked to educate patients first before we raise the A & E charges. Let me ask the Members present here, how do they go about educating patients when to visit the A & E Departments or when to visit the OPDs. It is quite different from the Minister for Home Affairs who has Vigilante Corps members on roadside corners and if a car driver happens to cross - Mr P. Govindaswamy rose -

Sir, the Member for Anson has already spoken, I am sorry. I am not giving way. It is quite easy for Vigilante Corps members to give a ticking off to motorists who do not give way to pedestrians. That is enforcement with a threat of a fine and that means education with a rod. I do not think my nurses or the doctors are prepared to spend their time educating patients. We have only four major A & E Departments in the centre of Singapore, if we are to exclude Changi. We are faced with the problem that the whole of Singapore is converging upon these four A & E Departments, bypassing the Outpatient Dispensaries, where patients could go to. On the one hand, I cannot allow complaints about A & E Departments and not doing anything about them. On the other hand, Members are saying that the doctors in the A & E Departments are being put to the test. And if there is any doctor in the House, I can tell Members that posting to the A & E Departments is the most unpopular posting in the hospitals. Let me come back to the Member for Whampoa. I do not know whether he calls himself a statistician or an economist. I did not use three months' statistics. I gave the House statistics from 1974 to 1977. Members can see that in 1975, the number of attendances increased by 3.5% over 1974. In 1976, the increase was 12.1% over 1975. In 1977, the increase was 17.6% over 1976.

Sir, may I clarify? It is in Appendix II.

I am talking about Appendix I. Appendix II just substantiates Appendix I. If the Member has not read his homework, then he should not have spoken out. If we allow this arithmetic progression to go on in 1978, we must face a collapse of the A & E Departments. Doctors do not like to work in the A & E Departments because, firstly, they have got to make quick decisions involving matters of life and death. Secondly, it involves night shifts. No doctor wants to work on night shifts or even to be on night duty. Let me put it that way. So let us not have double standards. This is what I am trying to put across; there are double standards in the House and in Singapore. On the one hand, doctors who are in public service are good game for attacks. On the other hand, private practitioners who equal the number of doctors in numbers are always covered up. Why do Members not direct their attacks at the private practitioners for their lapses? I say it is a double standard of reporting by the press. Worse still, I am aghast that Backbenchers who are supposed to have a higher IQ cannot even see through this double-standard way of reporting. Now, let me disabuse those who are concerned over the inability of hardship cases to pay A & E fees. During the months of October to December last year there were 75,882 attendances, of which 29% were exempted from paying fees. Those dental patients whose treatment had begun but not been completed before 1st April will pay old rates. However, new items of service begun on 1st April will be charged new rates. Members have all read the story, that is, if Members read newspapers at all, of the 81/2-month pregnant woman who endured the hazards of travelling from Kampung Balai in Tanjong Pinang in a sampan for 12 hours in the middle of the night and without travel documents so that she could deliver her baby in Singapore. When I compare the ordeal she was prepared to undergo with the bellyaching about the increase in A & E fees by $6, it makes me wonder whether some Singaporeans will ever understand that the everyday facilities they take for granted are other people's good fortune. To enjoy a sip of water one must first live in the desert. It is no use for the Member for Whampoa to pretend that he is speaking for the poor. He works in the University. He does not have to work on a budget of $300. He never has. But let me phrase the question of health costs in another way. When people take out life insurance policies, it means that they place a premium or a cost on their health and they are prepared to pay that premium according to what they think their health is worth. The only people who believe that their life is not worth $10 are those who are already dead - long before A & E charges were raised from $4 to $10. The ballyhoo that Members have been following in the Straits Times is tub thumping - an opportunity for advertising the paper in the name of the poor. And equally in the name of the poor, the Straits Times Press with only a paid-up capital of $4.3 million made a profit of $3.6 million before tax, paying out a dividend of 30% to its shareholders and it has made a bonus issue of one for two. So much for crying out in the name of the poor. Now I am beginning to understand how the poor have been so abused. Revolutionaries use the poor for their cause. Now it seems that the capitalists also use the poor to enrich their cause. So let us stop the cant and hypocrisy and get down to the facts of why these things have got to be done. I anticipated the bellyaching that would arise when I announced these fees. Do not tell me that my nurses and the doctors do not know that there is going to be an increase in the fees. By the time the Member for Anson knew this rumour it was a public secret. As a matter of fact, the decision to increase the fees was made after my discussion with the heads of the A & E Departments who are in a better position to know what their staff are facing than Members in this House. Singaporeans are not that poor as Members and followers of the Straits Times paper that is monopolising the English educated make them to be. Perhaps we need a second English language newspaper in Singapore! Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Singapore's GDP per capita has increased from $1,974 in 1968 to $4,020 in 1977 at 1968 prices. It is a common sight now to see hundreds of people queuing every Saturday and Sunday to buy 4-digit lottery tickets even though there are only ghost horses running at Bukit Timah. Members can even see the so-called poor, their own constituents, rubbing shoulders in these queues, and back-street bookies have just as many 4-D customers. So every person has his own choice - either he saves $10 for a rainy day when he has to be attended to in an A & E Department if he feels that his life is in dire emergency or spends $10 on horses. My Ministry is monitoring the attendances at the A & E Departments. For the period 25th to 31 st March after I made my statement, the daily average attendance was 762. When the A & E fees were increased on 1st April, the daily average attendance from 1st to 6th April was 760. What does it prove? It suggests that $10 is no hardship. Is a person's life worth $10? If a person has a sick dog and he takes it to the Kampong Java Road Veterinary Centre, the surgeon will charge him a fee. If he thinks that his life is not worth a dog's life, then he should not go to the A & E Department. I feel that it is too early to make any conclusion from this short period of survey. We will do our analysis after four months of monitoring. Members know this lollipop [indicating]. It has a name that rhymes with pork-chop and costs 25 cents. I see on my TV that one is supposed to suck it if he is caught in a traffic jam. If grown-ups love it, children love it even more. Yet every dentist will tell those with a sweet tooth that toffee and lollipops are dangerous factors causing tooth decay. The price of indulgence in the sweet things of life is a toothache. Here again, one has a choice. A parent can let the child live with his toothache, have the tooth extracted for 60 cents or have it patched up with a filling for $1, which is the price of four of these lollipops. So let us stop the cant about poor children not attending schools because their dental appointments are due. The Ministry of Education has not given me a report that there has been a dramatic decrease of students in schools or students are playing truant. Far from it. The report that I get from the Dental Division is that the attendances are just the same. The Dental Division teaches primary school children to brush their teeth correctly and through annual health campaigns, more and more parents have become conscious of their children's dental health. They even send their children to the orthodontist to correct irregularities of the teeth. Charges have already existed for this cosmetic dentistry but they have not been increased in the new revision. For the child it may mean wearing dental braces for 11/2 to 2 years. Currently, there are 2,586 children under treatment and 1,247 on the waiting list. The duration of the waiting list is 15 to 18 months. So I do not believe the newspapers, neither do I believe Members, that parents will grudge paying for their children's dental care. Otherwise, Members know the song, Burong Kakak Tua, Gigi Tinggal Dua! The subsidy for dental treatment for school children is already 94%. If there are no revisions in dental fees, this subsidy will increase as there are now 93 dental clinics in primary schools. It seems to me and this is the point that I wish to drive home, that there are some Singaporeans who are living in a make-belief world where the value system is upside down. Spending money to suck lollipops with the risk of dental decay is perfectly all right, but when it comes to paying to preserve a tooth there is protest. Losing money on a horse is all right, but paying $10 for emergency medical attention leads to griping. I wonder what sort of Singapore we are building. I am receptive to practical suggestions and one practical suggestion which has emerged from this debate was that of the Member for Kallang. He has suggested what I think is a very good suggestion, that doctors in the A & E Departments should be assisted by para-medical staff. As a matter of fact, they are already using nurse practitioners in outpatient departments. I have given instructions that the training of nurse practitioners be institutionalised in the School of Nursing as a post basic course and these nurse practitioners will also be used in the A & E Departments in due course. My attention was also drawn to the idea proposed by a private practitioner that we should provide the freest access to medical attention. I do not know what he means by "freest access". It may be freest access, but it may not be free. We have only four A & E Departments, excluding Changi, which is remote. So it must be apparent to all that these centres do not have the capacity to handle all patients who go to them. As I have pointed out to Members, doctors in the A & E Departments make the assumption that patients whO go to the A & E Departments require a longer examination. Therefore, there must be a piling up of patients and hence I get complaints of congestion and long waiting times. But what then can be done? Private practitioners can come to the rescue and live up to their Hippocratic oath, that is, if they still subscribe to it. They can list their charges for a 2-minute, 3-minute or 4-minute consultancy and the injection or medicine that goes with the treatment. And if they have to stitch a wound, the charge per stitch. Patients are consumers of medical services and even the poor should have the right to know what the tariff rates are. At least the Government is bound to let the people know what Government rates are. That is why we announce them in the House and gazette them. After all barbers put up a list of what they charge for a hair-cut, a shave or a shampoo but private practitioners keep their charges a secret and in doing so not only prevent the freest access to medical attention but also prohibit freedom of choice by patients who are poor. Those private practitioners who find that their patients are difficult and take more than four minutes of their time should not send them to already congested A & E Departments with a mere chit, on which it is written "please treat", and that also in very bad handwriting. They should refer such patients whom they cannot or will not treat to a specialist. I mentioned in my Statement that among those referrals to A & E Departments, 9.2% came from private practitioners. Private practitioners can open their clinics at night. It will be a good idea for Members in the House to agitate the private practitioners to do so in their own constituency or they can even help organise A & E Departments with private hospitals. Why not? Members are not doing their job if they leave the private practitioners out and just keep on harping on the poor who is going away without treatment. In this way they can make even the poorest Singaporeans proud that they have the freest access to medical attention, if that is what they really want. The Member for Punggol wants a hospital in Punggol. The Member for Sembawang wants a hospital in Sembawang.

Sir, I did not ask for a hospital in Punggol. I merely suggested that hospitals should be built in the big housing estates.

May I remind Members of an Arab saying: "If the mountain does not go to Mohammed, Mohammed must go to the mountain." Mr Deputy Speaker, I have taken notes of what have been said. I find that the tune is the same: "The poor." Yes, the poor. Every Member is saying, "The poor". The Member for Kolam Ayer is quite happy to pay more PUB charges. Why? At least he sees the swimming pool on top of the PUB building. Encik Sidek bin Saniff rose - Dr Toh Chin Chye resumed his seat

( In Malay): Sir, I think the Minister misunderstood me. What I said was that 40% of the people were earning between $100 and $200 a month. When these people saw such an imposing building as the PUB building, they felt that part of the money which they paid for the PUB bills was used to pay for the PUB building, whereas they themselves could not swim in that swimming pool.

I apologise to the Member for Kolam Ayer. I thank him for his clarification. If it was not the Member for Kolam Ayer, it was one of the other Members who said, "Yes, PUB has got to entertain the customers because it is going to buy equipment for the new power station or for the water treatment plant." So it is all right. Pay. But when a man has been treated and he is cured, you see nothing. You see a healthy man. But that is not appreciated. Mr Deputy Speaker, I know you are thirsty and waiting for tea time. So let me conclude just on one note, that is, the perverse distortion of news in the Straits Times, all under the cloak of freedom of the Press. The Clerk of Parliament handed out the revised scale of dental charges to a reporter of the Straits Times, but the newspaper in its issue of 24th March said that the scales were not set out in my statement. I have never mentioned civil servants in my statement to the House but the Straits Times reported that "a private patient calling at a dental clinic will have to pay $12 more for a simple filling in future while a civil servant will have to foot an additional $2." I cannot understand such obtuse journalism. The only advice I can give to the News Editor is that he should really consult his dentist for holes in his wisdom tooth.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That Parliament do now adjourn. Adjourned accordingly at Nine minutes past Five o-clock p.m. to a date to be fixed.

asked the Minister for Health if he will take steps for the training of more eye surgeons to meet the increase in the incidence of eye diseases, and whether eye clinics will be set up at the zonal hospitals.

The main Eye Clinic within Government hospitals is situated at the Singapore General Hospital. Eye Clinics also exist at Toa Payoh Hospital, Alexandra Hospital and the Institute of Health for school children. Another Eye Clinic is planned for Tan Tock Seng Hospital. The Ministry of Health is aware of the demand for eye surgeons. The number that can be trained depends upon doctors wishing to take up this speciality. Presently there are seven trainees in ophthalmology. Two trainees are ready to leave for further training in the UK this year. The Ministry intends sending two trainees away each subsequent year in order to build up a good number of ophthalmologists for the country.

asked the Minister for National Development and Communications if the Parks and Recreation Department will plan to plant flowering trees and plants along pavements, walkways and roadside kerbs to add more colour to our city.

A country-wide programme to plant trees and shrubs along pavements, walkways, roadside kerbs and open spaces is already being actively implemented. Bigger flowering trees such as the Sea Apple (Eugenia Grandis) and Yellow Flame are planted on wider pavements and walkways, while smaller flowering trees such as the Orchid Tree (Bauhinia) and the Lilac Tecoma (Tabebuia Pallida) are planted on the narrower ones. Less colourful trees such as Angsana and Rain Trees are planted to provide shade along roadsides and major highways. Climbers such as Bougainvillaea, Maiden Jealousy and Allamanda will also be planted to further beautify the walkways.

asked the Minister for National Development and Communications what are the plans for the redevelopment of the Old Kallang Airport Estate and the Guillemard Road Estate, and when such plans will be completed.

At the Old Kallang Airport, 3 blocks of 14-storey building consisting of 365 units of flats are under construction, and are scheduled for completion by mid 1980. In the redevelopment at Guillemard Road, 17 blocks of flats built by the former Singapore Improvement Trust will be demolished soon and 7 new blocks of 13-storey building consisting of 864 units have been planned for completion by 1980.