Hansard, 1978-07-31

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 ftom sittings of Parliament (or any Committee of Parliament to which they have been appointed) for the periods stated:- Mr Ong Soo Chuan (Nee Soon), Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs - from 15th to 30th June, 1978. Mr Goh Chok Tong (Marine Parade), Senior Minister of State, Ministry of Finance - from 16th to 24th June, from 2nd to 5th July, and from 21st July to 10th August, 1978. Encik Mansor Haji Sukaimi (Kampong Kembangan) - from 21st to 24th June, and on 31st July, 1978. Mr S. Rajaratnam (Kampong Glam), Minister for Foreign Affairs - from 25th to 29th June, and from 21st July to 12th August, 1978. Mr Lim Kim San, D.U.T. (Cairnhill), Minister for National Development - from 25th to 29th June, 1978. Mr Lee Khoon Choy (Braddell Heights), Senior Minister of State, Ministry of Foreign Affairs - from 25th to 29th June, 1978. Dr Lee Chiaw Meng (Farrer Park) - from 29th June to 12th July, 1978. Mr Jek Yeun Thong (Queenstown), Minister - from 1st July to 31st December, 1978. Haji Ya'acob bin Mohamed (Kampong Ubi), Minister of State - from 1st July to 31st December, 1978. Mr J.F. Conceicao (Katong) - from 1st July to 31st December, 1978. Dr Chiang Hai Ding (Ulu Pandan) - from 1st July to 31st December, 1978. Dr Ong Leong Boon (Kim Seng) - from 3rd to 29th July, 1978. Mr Ng Kah Ting (Punggol) - from 5th to 8th July, 1978. Dr Augustine H.H. Tan (Whampoa) - from 7th to 12th July, 1978. Mr Ng Yeow Chong (Mountbatten) - from 8th July to 11th August, 1978. Mr Tang See Chim (Chua Chu Kang), Deputy Speaker - from 14th to 17th July, and from 21st August to 20th September, 1978. Mr Ho Kah Leong (Jurong) - from 15th July to 1st August, 1978. Mr Chai Chong Yii (Bukit Batok), Senior Minister of State, Ministry of Education - from 24th July to 2nd August, 1978. Mr Sia Khoon Seong (Moulmein) - from 25th July to 4th August, 1978. Mr Ahmad Haleem (Telok Blangah) - from 26th July to 8th August, 1978. Mr Lee Kuan Yew (Tanjong Pagar), Prime Minister - on 31st July, 1978. Dr Lau Teik Soon (Serangoon Gardens) - from 12th September to 4th October, 1978. YEOH GHIM SENG Speaker, Parliament of Singapore

The following Bill was assented to by the President of the Republic of Singapore on the date stated:- 15th July, 1978 Customs (Amendment) Bill YEOH GHIM SENG Speaker, Parliament of Singapore

asked the Minister of Defence whether he will consider making it less inconvenient for those who apply for exit permits after they had loyally completed their National Service.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to assure the hon. Member that my Ministry is always striving to reduce inconvenience to the minimum for those who have dealings with it. Each month, an average of 3,800 reservists apply for exit permits. They have to be present at the office in person because they have to produce their reservist certificates for checks to be made on certain details as to the timing of their in-camp training. Exit permits are issued to them on the spot after this check. Reservists who have to travel frequently in and out of Singapore on business are given multiple trip exit permits so that they need not apply for an exit permit for every trip. Until last month, the average waiting time for reservists on official business at the Exit Permit Office was about an hour. A recent reorganisation of the office resulted in a better flow of work, and the waiting time reduced to half an hour. At present, checks on personal records are done manually. As the number of personal files of reservists is large, fast approaching 100,000, extracting details from these files and matching them with liability for in-camp training is quite a laborious process. To achieve instant retrieval of information, it is necessary to store data in computer discs. The Finance Ministry has recently agreed to MINDEF's proposal to store such data in the Finance Ministry's computers with on-line terminals at various manpower departments in MINDEF. This will considerably speed up the work of processing applications from reservists. When this on-line facility comes into operation, MINDEF will review the necessity of requiring reservists to attend in person at the Exit Permit Office. If found feasible, this will further reduce the time needed for the reservists to get the exit permits.

Mr Speaker, Sir, a supplementary question. Could the period of time be extended from six months to, say, a year, so that more valid time will be allowed for those who have applied for exit permits? If not, why not?

Sir, under current practice, exit permits are, in fact, valid up to one year but the duration of the exit permit will depend on the validity of the passport issued. Currently, passports are normally issued for six-monthly intervals but in cases where students are proceeding abroad for studies, exit permits are given up to four years.

asked the Minister for Health if he will consider introducing legislation to control contact lens practice and the sale of contact lenses.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in the last two years, 26 patients using contact lenses were found by the Eye Department to have suffered from cornea abrasions, ulcers and allergy. The Ministry will consider legislation on the prescription and sale of contact lenses after further studies. Meanwhile, I would advise those who are using contact lenses for cosmetic reasons, rather than for medical reasons, to go back to spectacles which avoid foreign material from coming into contact with eye tissues. In any case, the Member for Thomson should know that contact lenses are expensive. If he is wearing contact lenses, he should know that he is liable to lose them while drinking his soup, or to drop them in the sink while washing his face, or to lose them in the toilet or lose them in some other way.

asked the Minister for Health, in regard to the recent incident in which some doctors refused to go to the aid of an injured girl whose fingers were caught in a grinder, whether his Ministry intends to take action against the four doctors, and what steps are being taken to prevent recurrences of such a nature.

Mr Speaker, a letter of complaint against the four doctors has been submitted to me and I have forwarded it to the Singapore Medical Council to investigate. The Council will meet at the end of August to discuss this case. I ought to add that it is a sad episode in the history of the medical profession and it is not a good prognosis to Singapore's efforts in building civic consciousness among the population. As far as I can gather, the reason why the four doctors did not go to the aid of the girl whose hand was caught in a potato grinder was that they had patients in their clinics when, in actual fact, only one had some patients in his clinic while the other three had very few patients. But the major reason given was that they were not surgeons. I would have thought that it is human instinct to go to the assistance of any other human being in distress. Let us take the case of the petroleum tanker which exploded in a camping site in Spain. The people who went to the rescue of the victims were not doctors or surgeons. They were just ordinary tourists and civilians and they did their best to assist the injured so that they could be taken to the hospitals. In the case of the Sembawang incident, the people from the Fire Brigade were there. They were not doctors but they had to saw the machine to release the girl's hand so that she could be taken to the hospital. The ambulance nurses were there but unfortunately they were not allowed to inject morphine into the girl who was in a state of shock. I am happy to say that the reorganisation of the Fire Brigade, alerting the Accident and Emergency Departments, has proved that our policies have been operating in the right direction. Rightly, the A & E Departments should be used for what they are. I am not saying that a sole incident like this should be justification for the imposition of a $10 charge on people using the A & E Departments, but it certainly does help to release doctors from the A & E Departments to assist cases like this.

asked the Minister for labour whether, in view of the recent increase in the rates of central Provident Fund contributions, he will instruct the CPF Board to consider introducing an element of Life Assurance into the CPF scheme to give protection to (i) depositors with family responsibilities who are in the earlier years of their working life and whose deposits are consequently insignificant; and (ii) depositors with outstanding housing-loan commitments, so that in the unfortunate event of their premature deaths their families will not be left unprovided and in debt.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the hon. Member for Jalan Kayu might like to know that the Central Provident Fund Board is already looking into the question of introducing a life assurance element into the CPF savings scheme. Coverage of this life assurance is expected to cater primarily for CPF members who die in the early years of their working life and whose CPF savings are insignificant. The extent of protection to be given under this life assurance is being examined.

asked the Minister for National Development whether he is aware that business at the shops and hawker stalls in the Upper Thomson Road 2nd Shopping Centre is very poor; if consideration is being given to transfer them elsewhere and, if so, what are the plans to develop the present site.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Upper Thomson Road 2nd Shopping Centre was specially built by the Housing and Development Board to resettle the shopkeepers who were affected by road widening at Upper Thomson Road so that they could continue their business in the same locality. To attract more people to the shops in this Centre, the Board also built market/cooked food stalls. The resettlement cases have been granted concessional rentals at the Centre. If they claim that their business is poor and they wish to move to other estates, they can tender for the shops in other HDB estates. Alternatively, the HDB is prepared to offer them shops in accordance with the tendered rentals.

asked the Minister for National Development, in view of the frequent accidents occurring at the junction of Boon Lay Way and Corporation Road, whether traffic lights will be installed at that junction.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Public Works Department is aware of the hazards at the junction of Boon Lay Way and Corporation Road and has included the installation of traffic signals at this junction in its 1978/79 Financial Year programme.

asked the Minister for National Development whether consideration can be given to the installation of traffic lights at the junction of new Tanjong Katong Road Extension and Sims Avenue in order to facilitate the movement of traffic from the new Tanjong Katong Road Extension into Sims Avenue.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we have no immediate proposal to install traffic signals at the junction of Sims Avenue and Tanjong Katong Road Extension. The traffic light at the junction of Paya Lebar Road and Sims Avenue creates sufficient gaps for vehicles turning right from Tanjong Katong Road Extension into Sims Avenue. The traffic volume is not heavy. A new road has been constructed opposite the Tanjong Katong Road Extension. Traffic lights will be installed should traffic volume increase at this junction when the new road is opened to the public.

asked the Minister for National Development whether single persons affected by resettlement clearance will be allocated alternative accommodation in Housing and Development Board flats even if they choose not to share flats for personal reasons.

Mr Speaker, Sir, owing to limited public housing, it would not be possible to provide HDB flats to single persons affected by clearance schemes. However, allocation of one-room rental flats to single persons may be considered in cases where there are special circumstances to warrant such allocation.

To ask the Minister for National Development whether there is a new policy which authorises the Building Control Division to demolish extensions to residential houses even though such extensions have been previously approved by the Department.

Encik Mansor Haji Sukaimi.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Question No. 9.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there has been no change in policy with regard to extensions to residential houses. The Building Control Division has been taking enforcement action only against unauthorised extensions to buildings in various areas that cannot be regularised under the Building Regulations. In cases where the unauthorised extensions may be regularised through setting back, the owners or occupiers have been advised to demolish their existing extensions and to subMit applications for their proposed extensions for consideration. In no instance has the Division taken action to demolish extensions to residential houses where such extensions have been previously approved.

asked the Minister for Home Affairs and Education (a) how many blue identity card holders have to date lost their permanent residential status because they left Singapore without a re-entry permit; (b) what are the reasons for this policy of retraction of permanent residential status; (c) how many, if any, have been reinstated as permanent residents: and (d) whether there will be consideration to modify, if not cease, this policy of retraction of permanent residential status on humanitarian grounds.

Mr Speaker, Sir, between 1st August 1967 and 20th July 1978, 3,494 Singapore blue identity card holders had lost their permanent resident status and had their identity cards impounded. Unfortunately, the records do not make a distinction between those who lost their permanent resident status because they left Singapore without a re-entry permit and those who lost it for other reasons. However, the Immigration Department studied the cases occurring during the period 1st January 1977 to 20th July 1978 and found that 94.5% of them were due to failure to obtain a re-entry permit or to renew their re-entry permit. If this parameter is representative, then approximately 3,300 of the 3,494 persons who had their blue identity cards impounded, lost their permanent resident status because they left Singapore without obtaining a re-entry permit or renewing their re-entry permit. It is not a question of the Government or the Immigration Department retracting the permanent resident status of these persons. The requirement for a re-entry permit for re-entry into Singapore is provided for under the Immigration Act. Under section 11 of the Immigration Act, a permanent resident who intends to leave Singapore temporarily must obtain a re-entry permit which will authorise him to re-enter Singapore. Failure to comply with this will make him lose his permanent resident status automatically, and I repeat, automatically, and he can only return to Singapore as a visitor. This legal provision is found in the immigration laws of many countries, including Malaysia, Thailand and Indonesia. The underlying objective of this legal provision is to ensure that those who are conferred the status of permanent residents make Singapore their permanent home or, if abroad, show their intention of returning to Singapore. Otherwise they should not continue to enjoy the privileges of being permanent residents. The re-entry permit which is issued for a specified period is, therefore, an instrument of control over unduly lengthy or frequent absence from the country of domicile. Considerations are, however, given for re-entry permit extensions for valid reasons such as absence on account of overseas studies. During the period 1st January 1977 to 30th June 1978, 1,709 persons who had lost their permanent resident status applied for reinstatement of their permanent residence. Of these, 1,496 or 87.5%, including 944 Singapore blue identity card holders, had their permanent resident status reinstated. A person who values his permanent resident status in Singapore should not leave without a re-entry permit. However, this is not to say that a hard line is taken against those who have left without a re-entry permit and so lost their permanent resident status. Each case is considered on its own merits, and where it can be shown that failure to obtain a re-entry permit was due to ignorance, or for other compassionate reasons, the permanent resident status will normally be reinstated. The figures which I have quoted earlier speak for themselves, and they show that we have been very humane in the implementation of section 11 of the Immigration Act.

Mr Speaker, Sir, how many, if any, persons were stateless? And why have the rest, i.e. 213 out of the 1,709 persons not been reinstated?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have said that each case is treated on its own merit. In fact, we have reinstated a large majority of those who have lost their permanent resident status through failure to obtain a re-entry permit before leaving Singapore. In fact, it is over 87%. We cannot reinstate permanent resident status to every one of them. If they had a good case, they would have been given their permanent resident status back. The Member wanted to know why the remaining few were not reinstated. I cannot give specific reasons now because I would have to go through all the applications that have been turned down. But generally, I can say that they do not merit reinstatement.

asked the Minister for Home Affairs and Education whether he will consider sending more policemen to patrol the Boon Lay Garden area.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Boon Lay Garden area is presently patrolled by one Team Policing car with four policemen, one scooter with two policemen, and three teams of 10 full-time Police National Servicemen on vertical policing on an 8-hour shift. Additional patrols are also performed by detectives from Jurong Police Station, Police Reserve Unit (PRU) Troops from PRUs 3 and 4, and members of the Special Constabulary under the neighbourhood policing scheme. The crime rate in the Boon Lay Garden area is relatively low. For the first six months of this year, the number of offences committed in the area averaged about 15 per month as compared to the monthly average of 16 for the whole year of 1977. The Police has, therefore, provided adequate coverage for the Boon Lay Garden area. It is, therefore, not necessary at this stage to deploy more policemen in the area. However, the crime rate in this area will continue to be monitored, as in all other areas in Singapore, and adjustment on the deployment of policemen will be made, when and where necessary.

To ask the Minister for Home Affairs and Education if he will elaborate on what specific criteria or qualities are expected of an applicant for Singapore Citizenship in assessing the applicant's ability "to make a positive contribution towards the economic well-being of the Republic and not to become a liability."

Encik Mansor Haji Sukaimi.

Question No. 12, Sir.

Mr Speaker, Sir, generally, an applicant who satisfies any of the following criteria would be considered to be making a contribution towards the economic well-being of the Republic: -

Mr Speaker, Sir, is the Hon. Minister aware that in the event that an application for citizenship is refused the applicant has got to re-apply and go through the procedures again? It does impose hardship in many of these cases. Could not the application be kept alive for further reference?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not think that a re-application will, in fact, impose hardship on the applicants. Each application is considered on its own merit. When the time comes for processing and, on consideration, it is found that the particular application does not merit the granting of citizenship, it is refused. Is there any point then in delaying consideration of the application? I think it is a disadvantage to delay because if it is found that an applicant has no hope of getting citizenship, it is better that the application be considered and that he be told that citizenship will not be granted to him. On the other hand, the applicant is free to re-apply. May I explain the matter? It does not mean that an applicant's situation is static. He may improve upon his income. He may improve his skill and qualities. If, after having been rejected once, he feels that he has improved on all these aspects, he may apply again.

asked the Minister for Finance whether he will give sympathetic consideration to implementing the National Wages Council's recommendations or a cost of living allowance to alleviate the hardship faced by pensioners over the past six years due to the steep rise in the consumer Price Index from 100 in November 1972 to 155.9 in May 1978.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the National Wages Council recommendations apply only to the active labour force. They have no relevance to pensioners who have retired from the active work force and are rewarded by the pension benefits which are paid to them in their retirement. The hon. Member will recall that in March 1974, Government approved the grant of an ex-gratia allowance of a minimum of $15 per month and a maximum of $30 per month to pensioners resident in Singapore whose pensions are below $650 per month. This was in recognition of the abnormal inflationary situation at that time. Since then, there has been no significant rise in the Consumer Price Index.

Mr Speaker, Sir, does the Hon. Senior Minister of State not believe that a rise from 100 to 155.9 in the Consumer Price Index is significant?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Consumer Price Index at constant prices in 1972 was taken as 100. In 1973 it was 117.

7. In 1974 it went up to 144. That was the period when the ex-gratia allowance was given. In 1975 it was almost the same, 147.

7. In 1976 it was 144.

9. In 1977 it was 149.

5. I am suggesting here that between 1974 and 1977 there was no significant increase in the Consumer Price Index.

Mr Speaker, Sir, does the Hon. Senior Minister of State not realise that the increase in the ex-gratia allowance that was given in 1974 was just 5%?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not in a position to debate with the hon. Member whether or not the 5% increase given in 1974 was adequate. But if he feels that the situation now warrants another increase, perhaps we can have a look at the position.

Mr Speaker, Sir, just as a matter of interest, what would the Hon. Senior Minister of State think would constitute a significant increase in the cost of living?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I really do not know the right answer.

asked the Minister for Finance whether he will ascertain from the Jurong Town Corporation the response to the announcement of the revised scheme for the rental of JTC flats.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I understand from the Jurong Town Corporation (JTC) that since the announcement of the revised schemes for the rental of JTC flats, 783 flats have been allocated to date. The revised schemes are intended to provide accommodation at reasonable rentals to skilled non-citizen industrial workers in Jurong. These revised schemes have enabled the JTC to achieve greater occupation of flats in Jurong. In accordance with Government policy, the JTC will be reserving sufficient numbers of flats to accommodate both citizen and non-citizen skilled industrial workers in Jurong in future.

asked the Minister for Finance, in view of the continual increases in contributions to the Central Provident Fund resulting in less take-home pay for many wage-earners, whether he will now revise the limit of $4,000 allowed for income tax relief on contributions to the CPF and life assurance premiums.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in 1977, 12,665 taxpayers were given the maximum relief of $4,000 on their CPF contributions and life assurance premia. They form only 4.5% of the total tax-paying population. The increase in the number of taxpayers who enjoyed the full $4,000 tax relief as a result of the recent increase in CPF contribution rate is not expected to be significant. Any upward revision of the $4,000 relief ceiling would, therefore, only benefit a small group of taxpayers who are the higher salaried employees. For most of the middle and lower income groups, the combined CPF contributions and life assurance premia are not likely to pierce the $4,000 relief ceiling. Furthermore, the concessions in personal income tax rates effective from Year of Assessment 1978 have benefitted most taxpayers in the higher income group. I, therefore, do not see any justification to warrant a revision of the $4,000 limit allowable for purposes of tax deduction.

asked the Minister for Communications, in fairness to those thousands of regular bus commuters in Singapore, if he will consider asking the Singapore Bus Service (1978) Ltd to allot 100 shares in the company to each of those commuters who wish to purchase concession bus passes.

Mr Speaker, Sir, with 50% of its existing shareholders travelling on concession bus passes from 1st August 1978 onwards, it is expected that the Singapore Bus Service (1978) Ltd will suffer a loss in revenue of about $2.2 million a year. If holders of 100 shares in the Company are also allowed to purchase concession bus passes, revenue loss will increase at least fivefold to about $11 million a year. The Singapore Bus Service (1978) Ltd is now a public-listed company. It is not subsidised and has to pay its own way. Besides having to continuously improve its level of service to the public, it has an obligation to its shareholders to remain financially viable. Therefore, I do not propose to ask the Singapore Bus Service (1978) Ltd to allot 100 shares in the Company to each of those commuters who wish to purchase concession bus passes.

asked the Minister for Communications whether his Ministry has made a feasibility study on the building of a Passenger Town Terminal for passengers' facilitation in conjunction with the development of Changi International Airport which is due to be operational by early 1981.

Mr Speaker, Sir, passenger terminals in town or "off-airport" terminals have been in operation for a number of years in some airports in the world with varying degrees of success. Studies made by my officials have shown that for various reasons, such as higher costs of operation, higher security risks involved in the transporting of passengers and their baggage to the airport and declining popularity, some of these town terminals have now ceased to operate. For example, in Amsterdam, the town terminal is only acting as a staging point for a bus service and passengers no longer check-in at this terminal. Some of the air line town terminals serving airports in the London area have also been closed or are being considered for closure. Unlike other airports having passenger terminals in town, Changi Airport is only about 12 miles away. This factor, together with the availability of fast and uninterrupted traffic flow along the new roads to the airport, and the low differential between the taxi and bus fares, reduce to some extent the need for a town terminal. However, we have not written off the idea completely. As a variant to the passenger town terminal, my Ministry is looking into the desirability of having staging points in the major tourist areas to collect departing and distribute arriving passengers to and from the hotels in the vicinity. This system would reduce the strain of vehicular traffic on the roads, car parks and kerbside space at the airport.

asked the Minister for Communications (a) how many drivers have had their licences suspended since the introduction of the demerit points system; (b) how many of them are persons whose livelihood depends on driving; and (c) if he will inform the House what sort of appeal system is in operation and whether adequate steps have been taken to ensure fairness and flexibility in cases of extreme hardship.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the number of drivers suspended under the Points Demerit System since its inception in March 1975 Is 1,129. Of these, about 150 depend on driving for a living. When a driver is suspended upon accumulating 12 demerit points within 12 consecutive months, he may appeal to the Registrar of Vehicles for a reduction of his suspension. If he is dissatisfied with the Registrar's decision, he may further appeal to the Minister whose decision shall be final. Appeals are divided into two categories: (a) those who do not depend on driving for a living; and (b) those who depend on driving for a living. A reduction in the period of suspension ranging from one month to five months has been allowed. Each case is considered on its own merits. When considering an appeal, mitigating factors such as whether the appellant depends on driving for a living, the seriousness of offences committed, past record of offences and the number of dependants of the appellant are taken into account. Cases of extreme hardship have been given careful consideration and treated exceptionally. However, based on past experience gained, my Ministry will be implementing a revised system for the imposition of penalties. In cases where the offences committed are minor, a letter of warning instead of suspension might be given. For the more serious offences, suspension will continue to be imposed, the duration of the suspension will depend on the gravity of the offences committed and other mitigating factors.

Mr Speaker, Sir, on the question of traffic offences, does the Minister think that it is fair for an offender to be informed of the traffic offence by the Traffic Police at the time when the offence was committed or after one month?

Sir, the offenders are informed of the traffic offences as soon as the Registry of Vehicles is in a position to inform the offenders. Normally the information is given to the offenders within two weeks. The exceptional cases are where the offenders have changed their addresses or for some good reason, when there have been slight delays of about three to four weeks. The situation has improved since the Points Demerit System was introduced some time ago. There is actually better coordination between the Traffic Police and the ROV at the present moment. If the Member has any specific cases of dissatisfaction about the time involved in the information of these offences, I suggest that he inform me.

Sir, in view of the harsh action taken, would the Hon. Minister ensure that all notices are issued within, say, a fortnight? Although the Minister mentioned that there is better coordination now, but from my own personal experience I have just been issued with a notice alleging that I committed a traffic offence more than three weeks ago, which I cannot remember.

Sir, I cannot ensure that the information will be given to the offenders within two weeks. But I can assure the Member for Jalan Kayu that we will do our best to inform the offenders as soon as possible, preferably, within two weeks.

To ask the Minister for Social Affairs if he will report the progress of dialogues the Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura has held with Muslim religious institutions and associations and what further plans are being made to expand such dialogues.

Encik Mansor Haji Sukaimi

Sir, Question No. 19.

Mr Speaker, Sir, since March this year, the Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura (MUIS) has held four dialogues; one with representatives from eight Madrasahs (Muslim religious schools); one with the management committees of four mosques; and two with Muslim religious teachers. The first dialogue with head teachers and school management committee members of eight Madrasahs was held on 11th March 1978. They discussed future plans of the Madrasahs, MUIS financial assistance and the Madrasahs curriculum and syllabus. The MUIS education committee is presently considering the points raised at that meeting. The second dialogue with mosque management committees of Masjid Kebun Limau, Masjid Hang Jebat, Masjid Muhajirin and Masjid Mujahidin was held on 2nd April 1978. They discussed the activities planned and organised in the mosques and expansion plans to provide more space for worship and other social activities in the mosques. The MUIS has initiated action to implement some of the proposals. The third dialogue was held on 24th June 1978 with Muslim religious teachers conducting religious classes in ten Government secondary schools. It was jointly sponsored by the MUIS and the Singapore Malay Teachers Union. The teachers were of the view that Muslim students were not making full use of these classes as they only attended the religious classes when they could during their spare time. The fourth dialogue was also held on 24th June 1978 with Muslim religious teachers conducting religious classes sponsored by MUIS. The teachers suggested that MUIS issue certificates of participation for the students and adopt a common syllabus. MUIS is considering these proposals and would implement them if found feasible. The MUIS will be holding another series of dialogues with mosques management committees. This will be followed by other dialogues with Muslim associations.

Mr Speaker, Sir, would the Minister and MUIS consider having a dialogue with the new converts at Darul Arkam at their earliest convenience?

Sir, dialogues with the new converts at Darul Arkam have been held in the past. I can assure the hon. Member for Kolam Ayer that dialogues with new converts at Darul Arkam will be held in the near future.

3.15 p.m. Order read for consideration in Committee of Supply (Allotted Day)

First Supplementary Development Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 1st April, 1978, to 31st March, 1979, contained in Paper Cmd. 6 of 1978. No notice of amendment has been received. Head I -

Question, "That the sum of $250.000,000 for Head I of the First Supplementary Development Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 1st April, 1978, to 31st March, 1979," put, and agreed to. Question, "That the sum of $250,000,000 shall be supplied to the Government under the head of expenditure for the public services shown in the First Supplementary Development Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 1st April, 1978, to 31st March, 1979," put and agreed to. Resolution to be reported Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply have come to a certain resolution. Resolution reported - "That the sum of $250,000,000 shall be supplied to the Government under the head of expenditure for the public services shown in the First Supplementary Development Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 1st April, 1978, to 31st March, 1979, contained in Paper Cmd. 6 of 1978."

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move "That Parliament doth agree with the Committee on the said resolution."

Question put, and agreed to. Resolution accordingly agreed to.

Order for Second Reading read. 3.20 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill was tabled in the name of the Prime Minister. As it deals with pensions of parliamentarians, Government has decided that it would be more appropriate for me, as the Leader of the House, to move it. I moved the Parliamentary Pensions Act in 1969. Nine years have gone by since, but it still contains some defects and anomalies, in spite of the several amendments which we made to the Act. Government has therefore decided, after careful consideration, that the time has come to enact a new Act. This Bill was first read in this House on the 31st of January last. It has been allowed to lie on this Table all these months in order to allow hon. Members ample time and opportunity to study and consider its implications. Certain representations have been made by Members which have been carefully considered and a few accepted, as Members will see from the notice of amendments. A great deal of time, thought and effort has been given to the drafting of this Bill. It is not possible to accommodate everyone who stands to lose what he has or would have earned under the present Act, without creating new anomalies. However, we feel that the Bill together with the amendments, which I shall be moving in Committee, will provide a fairer and a more lasting framework. It has taken account of our social and economic circumstances. It will not do too much injustice in lost expectations of higher pensions of those who will in the future have their pensions as Members of Parliament and office-holders calculated separately, and not jointly as under the present Act. I do not propose to deal with the technical details and complexities of the Bill but merely wish to explain the reasons which prompted Government to initiate this Bill and to draw the attention of hon. Members to the most significant changes. First, I must stress one point. Our Party occupies every seat in this House, and has done so ever since the second half of 1965. We can enact any law and move any resolution that suits us in this House. But each and every law or resolution has to be manifestly fair and publicly justified, or the censure will be registered at the next elections. Because we occupy all the seats, we have a heavy responsibility, and this responsibility becomes particularly onerous when we are taking through a bill to provide for our own pensions upon retirement. It would be tempting and easy for us to provide enhanced benefits for ourselves, but it is a temptation we must resist when discharging our duty, namely, to ensure that any revision must be in the public interest. One of the crucial problems which we face is to ensure that there will be sufficient men of character, integrity and talent who can take over from the present leaders and ensure the continuity of honest, effective and efficient Government. It is, therefore, of paramount importance that we should make the terms and conditions of service for Members and office-holders sufficiently attractive for the ablest and best to want to enter Parliament and to take office. Mediocrity in political leadership is a luxury we cannot afford in Singapore. Hence this Bill which, it is hoped, will encourage our most promising to enter politics and to serve the nation. It will be a great tragedy if we should fail in this objective. A serious defect of the present law is that it fails to take into consideration the difference in the contributions made by Members in their various official capacities. A Minister, for example, has far more responsibility than a Parliamentary Secretary or a Backbencher. Under the present law there is no distinction between the pension of an office-holder and that of an ordinary Member. A Member's pension at present would be computed on the basis of his reckonable service as a Member as well as an office-holder without any distinction, and on his best three years' salary. The new formula embodied in the Bill has an entirely different basis, treating service as a Member and service as an office-holder as separate and distinct. The pension benefits in respect of an office-holder will reflect the actual contribution made by him in his various official capacities. To qualify for a Member's pension, a Member must have at least nine years' reckonable service as at present. To qualify for an office-holder's pension, an office-holder must be an office-holder for at least eight years. However, if an office-holder has less than eight years' reckonable service there is provision to convert the period of his service in any office or offices to count as additional period to determine his eligibility for and the amount of his Member's pension. Further, the pension rate at present payable to all of us is fixed at 1/30th of our annual salary. Under the Act, the pension rate payable to a Member will remain the same, that is to say, at 1/30th, but the pension rate payable to an office-holder will be raised to 1/27th of his annual salary. Another defect of the present law is that the qualifying age for a pension is too low as it is fixed at 45 years. The normal retirement age for civil servants is 55 or 60 years depending on whether the officer is recruited before or after 1st July 1956. At 45 years of age a man should be at the prime of his life and should not be thinking of his pension. It is, therefore, proposed to fix the qualifying age for all Members of Parliament, be he a Member or an office-holder, at 50 years of age under the new scheme. Yet another defect of the present Act is contained in section 10 which provides for service in a public office (defined in that section as the office of High Commissioner or Ambassador or such other office as the President may determine) to count as reckonable service for the purposes of Parliamentary pension and for the pension to be computed on the basis of the salary drawn in the public office. This present provision is difficult to justify. Service as an Ambassador cannot in any circumstances be equated with service as an office-holder. The section has therefore been removed and will find no place in the new pension scheme embodied in the Bill. Though the present Act is being repealed, the rights of former Members of Parliament who are already in receipt of a pension will be preserved. So will the rights of former Members of Parliament who may become eligible for the grant of a pension on attaining the age of 45 years. There are some serving Members of Parliament who have already become eligible for the grant of a pension under the present Act, in that they have served for more than nine years and have reached the age of 45. If they retire or cease to be Members before the date of enactment of the new Act, they would be entitled to a pension. It is therefore considered fair that their rights should be preserved. I will be moving an amendment to Clause 15 to provide for this. There are other Members in this House who have reached the age of 45 years, but have not served for at least nine years. There are others also who have served for nine years or more but have not reached the age of 45. These Members will not be given, I repeat, will not be given, the option to remain under the present Act, even though the present Act is more generous to them. It is considered right and proper that they should come under the new Act, since the benefits they enjoy under the present Act were fortuitous and unintended. Sir, I have spoken freely and frankly within the constraints that circumscribe me as a Minister of the Cabinet. I hope hon. Members will speak even more frankly and freely than I have. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 3.30 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I find this Bill a difficult subject to speak on. Nevertheless, it is important that the issues raised by the Bill be thoroughly aired so that our constituents do not misconstrue our intentions. Members of Parliament have given long and careful consideration to the Bill. Representations were made, resulting in a number of amendments which remove some inequities. Allow me, Sir, to comment on some of the provisions of the Bill. The change in pensionable age from 45 to 50 years affects the younger Members adversely. I hope this will not deter young people from aspiring to be Members of Parliament. The majority of present Members accepted office when no pension was available and when the parliamentary allowance was much less than it is today. In the same spirit, I am sure we will accept the adverse change in pensionable age. The change in the basis of computation for office-holders' pensions from 1/30th to 1/27th makes little or no difference to the majority of existing office- holders. The Senior Ministers who started in 1959 have already served 19 years. Under the old formula of 1/30th salary for each year of reckonable service, they have almost reached the maximum two-thirds allowable. The change to 1/27th clearly does not benefit them. Those Ministers who started in 1963 have served 15 years. The change in the basis of computation means very little, from 1/2 to 5/9ths of their salary. For those office-holders who were promoted from lower offices, the new Bill has reduced their pension benefits significantly. I refer to Senior Ministers of State, Ministers of State and Senior Parliamentary Secretaries who rose from lower offices. Under the existing Act, these colleagues would enjoy pension based on the highest three years' salaries. The new Bill prorates their benefits in accordance with years of service in each office, I hope this will not deter younger Members from accepting junior offices at considerable sacrifice to their own careers and having to run the gauntlet to reach higher office. On this side of the Bench, there are three colleagues who deserve mention because the new Bill has affected them particularly adversely. Two non-office holding Members are currently serving as Ambassadors abroad. I refer to the Members for Ulu Pandan and Katong. Under the existing Act, their service as Ambassadors is reckonable for pension as mentioned by the Hon. Minister. The new Bill has removed this provision. But I do not think that these colleagues would have changed their minds about serving our country had they been informed of the change beforehand. The other colleague who is losing out substantially is the Member for Farrer Park. He has served as Parliamentary Secretary, Minister of State and as Cabinet Minister. He has more than nine years of reckonable service but his problem is that he is too young - not yet 45. Therefore, he will lose out considerably under the new Bill. Sir, I am drawing attention to these adverse effects of the Bill so that it is clear to the public that we are acting responsibly in a matter affecting our immediate welfare. Singapore would be ill -served if its leaders do not have the proper dedication and the willingness to sacrifice time, energy and even material benefits for the nation. Public service in Singapore is certainly no bed of roses. Strict standards of honesty and integrity ensure that the public knows exactly what it is paying to Members of Parliament and office-holders. Perquisites of office are so paltry as to be almost non-existent. The ordinary MP gets only a home telephone - there is no provision for staff, not even a direct telephone line in his own office. He gets a part-time allowance for a job that is supposed to be part-time but which carries full-time responsibility. He has to nurse his own career at the same time. But the demands of office include not only Parliament and Parliamentary Committees but also his Constituency, his Party Branch and the Party itself which can sometimes be demanding. The resulting time and energy expended cut significantly into his own career. Perhaps some thought should be given to supporting services for MPs to allow them to be more effective. Meet-the-people sessions, for example, are easy to handle when only 10 to 20 people turn up but not when 80 to 100 turn up. I am sure constituents would appreciate easier access to MPs. This can be done if MPs are allowed full-time staff - at least a good personal assistant - located in the constituency and who are qualified enough so as to be able to handle complaints and problems. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is a good thing to provide for our pensions but we want to be in a position to enjoy it. May I offer my support to the Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I had not intended to speak on this Bill, but, having listened very carefully to the Minister concerned and the Member for Whampoa, I do agree that if we do not speak up, members of the public will think that we are trying to sneak through this House extra perks for MPs. As the Minister puts it, we are trying to rationalise and make the pension scheme more attractive so as to be able to attract the best brains. I am afraid this is rather misleading, as very eloquently put forward by the Member for Whampoa. If anything, I find that the Bill is rather more restrictive than what it used to be. The pensionable age used to be 45 but now it is 50 years. As pointed out here again by the Member for Whampoa, quite a few Members, in fact, would suffer very badly. I also share his sympathy for the Member for Katong who is away in the cold of Moscow. [Interruption]. I do not know about Bonn but I think it is quite a pleasant place. Nevertheless, I think it would be wrong to say that the "service of Ambassadors cannot be equated with service as an office-holder." These are the words of the Minister. I certainly hope that he will think over that clause again. I think it is unfair to our friend who has uprooted the family by going abroad and there are all the attendant difficulties and problems associated with having to move house and finding appropriate education for the children and so on. This is one aspect which has been very eloquently pointed out by the Member for Whampoa. All that I am concerned is this. I still remember that after the First Reading of this Bill in this House, the next day the press seemed to give the impression that a whole series of new perks were being introduced. I am afraid this is not very responsible press reporting and I certainly hope that after today's session, we will see something more accurate tomorrow so that members of the public would not think that we are trying to do ourselves great favours here.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I first thank the two Members who have just spoken for their valuable contributions and for taking this Bill in the right spirit. As for Ambassadors, the Member for Jalan Kayu asked that we think over this clause again. What can best be done is to provide for gratuities for Ambassadors through and by way of the Foreign Service. But to equate them with MPs will mean going back to square one.

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 E.W. Barker]. Bill considered in Committee.

3.40 p.m. Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 2 -

Sir, I beg to move, In page 2, after line 6, to insert - "(2) The reference to service in Parliament in the definition of "reckonable service" in subsection (1) shall be read as Including a reference to service in the Legislative Assembly on and after the 3rd day of June, 1959, and before the 9th day of August, 1965.". Sir, this is a purely technical amendment to make clear that the reference to service in Parliament in the definition of "reckonable service" will be read as including a reference to service in the Legislative Assembly on and after the 3rd day of June, 1959, and before the 9th August, 1965, during which period Parliament was known as the Legislative Assembly. Amendment agreed to.

Sir, I beg to move, In page 2, to leave out lines 19 to 27 inclusive. This is considered now not necessary. Amendment agreed to.

Consequential amendments will have to be made to renumber sub-clauses (2) and (3) as sub-clauses (3) and (4) respectively. This will be done. Clause 2 as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 4 -

There is a correction to be made in page 3, line 26. The word "provisions" has been wrongly printed.

Sir, I beg to move. In page 4, after line 23, to insert - "Provided that where the monthly rate of salary applicable to any office previously held by an office-holding Member is increased during any continuous period of reckonable service while he is an office-holding Member but holding another office, he shall be deemed to have received such increased rate during his period of reckonable service as a holder of that office." Sir, this amendment is necessary so as to ensure that an office-holding Member who is appointed to another office, whether by reason of promotion or otherwise, will not suffer any detriment in the amount of pension which may be granted to him as a result of the change in his office. The amendment will give him the benefit of any increase in the monthly rate of salary applicable to any previous office held by him, if the increase is made whilst he is in continuous service as an office-holder but is at the time of the increase holding another office. 3.45 p.m. This will remove the possibility of a situation in which an office-holder who is appointed to another office will receive less pension than if he had not been so appointed because of a general upward revision of salaries after such appointment. If he has a very long period of service in his previous office or offices and only a short period in his current office before ceasing to be an office-holder, the pension in respect of his reckonable service in his previous office or offices will, without the amendment, be calculated on the pre-revised salary instead of the revised salary. The amendment will enable the revised salary to be used in computing his pension for the periods of reckonable service in previous offices which are continuous with his reckonable service in his current office. Amendment agreed to.

Consequent upon the addition of the new proviso, the full-stop at the end of line 23, in page 4, will have to be substituted with a colon. This will be done. Clause 4, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 5 to 14 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 15 -

Sir, I beg to move, In page 9, after line 3, to add - "(4) If in the case of a Member who at the commencement of this Act has not less than nine years' reckonable service and has attained the age of forty-five years, the pension which he is eligible to receive under section 3 on his ceasing to be a Member, together with any pension which he is eligible to receive under section 4, is less than the amount of pension which he would have been eligible to receive under the former Act in respect of his reckonable service before the commencement of this Act had he ceased to be a Member at the commencement of this Act, his pension under section 3 may be increased by the difference between that amount and the pensions which he is eligible to receive under sections 3 and 4: Provided that this subsection shall not apply to a person who may be granted a pension by virtue of sections 8 and 10. (5) Any person who at the commencement of this Act is eligible to receive a pension under section 10 of the former Act in respect of his reckonable service under that Act if he had ceased to hold public office as defined by that section may, when he ceases to hold such public office, be granted a pension under the former Act in respect of the period of such reckonable service before the commencement of this Act as if the former Act had not been repealed by this Act.". First, may I deal with the insertion of subsection (4). This amendment will ensure that a Member who is already eligible will receive a pension under the present scheme, that is to say, he has done nine years' reckonable service and has attained 45 years of age. Now, if he were to cease as a Member on the commencement of the new scheme, he will ultimately receive under the new scheme not less than the amount which he would have been eligible to receive under the present scheme in respect of the period of his service before the commencement of the new scheme. If, in the case of such a person, his Member's pension together with any pension which he may receive as an office-holder under the new scheme is less than that amount, his Member's pension may be increased by a sum equal to the difference. The proviso to the subsection makes clear that this special preservation of benefit will have no application in the case where a pension is granted in the circumstances referred to in the two New Clauses (A) and (B) which will be inserted as clauses 8 and 10 respectively later. Sir, as for the new subsection (5), this amendment will preserve the benefit of any person who is already eligible to receive a pension under section 10 of the existing Act, if he were to cease to hold public office as defined by that section, but only in respect of his reckonable service up to the date of commencement of the new scheme. No further benefit under section 10 of the existing Act will be available for any subsequent service in the public office defined by that section. Under the new scheme there will be no provision corresponding to the said section 10, as that section is considered to be an anomaly. Amendment agreed to. Clause 15, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. New Clause (A) - "Pension (1) Where after the commencement of granted this Act a person ceases at any time to be to person a Member or to hold office by reason of ceasing ill-health and the President is satisfied to be that on account of such ill-health that Member or person has become incapable of office- performing the duties of a Member or of holder on his office, he may be granted a pension or medical gratuity in accordance with this section, ground. (2) In the case of a person who ceases to be a Member and -

Sir, I beg to move, "That the clause be read a Second time." Mr Speaker, Sir, this provision is designed to secure for a Member who has to cease to be a Member by reason of ill-health, a Member's pension if he has the minimum nine years' reckonable service, notwithstanding the fact that he has not attained the pensionable age of 50 years. The President must, however, be satisfied that on account of such ill-health he has become incapable of performing the duties of a Member. If such a person does not have the minimum nine years' reckonable service, he may nevertheless be granted a gratuity at the rate of 10% of his annual salary for each completed year of reckonable service as a Member. This provision will also secure for an office-holder who satisfies the President that he has to cease holding office on account of ill-health, a pension for service as an office-holder if he has the minimum eight years' reckonable service for such pension even though he may not have attained the age of 50 years. Question put and agreed to. Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

This new clause is to be inserted immediately after clause 7. This will be done. New Clause (B) - "Pension and (1) This section shall apply in relation gratuity to any person - granted on in-

Sir, I beg to move, "That the clause be read a Second time". Sir, this provision deals with certain contingent circumstances in the case of a person who has ceased to be a Member and has the minimum period of reckonable service for a Member's or office-holder's pension but has not been granted any such pension because he has not yet attained the age of 50 years. If he dies before attaining the age of 50 years, his dependants or legal personal representatives may be paid a gratuity. If he becomes physically or mentally incapacitated so as to be unable to continue in any employment before he has attained the age of 50 years, he may be granted a pension notwithstanding the fact that he has not attained the age of 50 years. Question put and agreed to. Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

This new clause is to be inserted immediately after clause 8. This will be done. Amendments will also be made to renumber clauses 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 as clauses 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 respectively, consequent on the addition of the new clauses, and to amend the contents page consequent on the addition of the new clauses. Bill reported with amendments; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 3.56 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, the Central Provident Fund savings is the principal source of savings for workers in Singapore for their old age. It is also a source of protection for the dependent family when a member dies. Members can make use of their CPF savings to purchase flats under the various approved housing schemes. They can also use their CPF savings to buy shares issued by the Singapore Bus Service (1978) Ltd. This use of CPF savings ensures that Singapore workers have a stake in the country and participate in its future development. At the end of June 1978 there were 1,292,925 members registered with the Fund. These members have a total of $5,406 million standing to their credit. The administration of the Central Provident Fund Act over the years has shown that the Act requires to be further improved. The amendment Bill is before the House for this purpose. The proposed amendments will streamline the administration of the Fund and provide better protection to the immediate family of a CPF member. The proposed changes to the Act are described in the Explanatory Statement to the Bill. I should like, however, to elaborate on some of the more important amendments. Investigations into whether employers have paid contributions correctly for their employees have often been hampered by inadequate and inaccurate wage records. Since the authority conferred by the present legislation is confined only to the examination of documents relating to the employment of employees, employers could often evade or underpay contributions by understating or omitting altogether wages paid to their employees. This is especially true for employees who have already left employment. As a result, such employees are often deprived of their due benefit. The proposed amendment to section 4A contained in clause 3 of the Bill seeks to empower the CPF Board to examine the audited statement of accounts of an undertaking regardless of whether the accounts relate to employees of the establishment involved. This is important as enforcement officers would be able to view the accounts as a whole and any under-statement or omission of wages by employers, whether intentional or otherwise, would be discovered and suitable enforcement action taken to recover any contribution due to the employees. Mr Speaker, Sir, under section 13 of the CPF Act, a member of the Fund may nominate any beneficiary to receive his CPF savings in the event of his death before withdrawing from the Fund. We have found that this system of disposal does not adequately meet the interest of the immediate family of the deceased CPF member. Hon. Members will recall an incident in January of this year when the aged widow of a deceased member was deprived of means of support because her deceased husband nominated another person, his employer in fact, to be the beneficiary of his CPF savings. Despite her efforts, which included taking the case to court, she was not successful. The case has now been referred to the Legal Aid Bureau which has filed an appeal to the High Court. This is not an isolated case. Many hon. Members in the course of their constituency work have been confronted with family tragedies compounded by loss of CPF benefits. The immediate family needs the CPF savings for the daily necessities of life. In cases where the deceased member owns a flat which is still mortgaged to the Housing and Development Board and the Jurong Town Corporation, the family will also need the savings to make further payments for the flat. From these cases, it is clear that there is a need to improve the present system of nomination so that despite the failure of members to make provisions for their immediate family, they would not suffer as a result. Indeed the Government has a responsibility to ensure that at least 50% of deceased members' CPF savings will be passed on to their families and dependants in their hour of need. The number of payments to nominees of deceased members is not large. In 1977, out of a total of 15,736 withdrawal payments, 2,147 were made on the ground of death. Of these 2,147, there were 98 payments which were not made to the members of the immediate family of the deceased members. However, the consequent hardship to these dependants cannot be measured in terms of statistics. Clause 10 of the Bill, therefore, seeks to improve the provision for members of the immediate family by introducing two changes. The first is that a CPF member will be entitled to dispose of by nomination only 50% of his CPF savings. The other 50% of the deceased member's CPF savings will be transferred to the Public Trustee for distribution. The distribution of this 50% of the savings for Muslims will be under Muslim law. In the case of non-Muslims, the distribution will be as provided in clause 14 of the Bill. Hitherto, a CPF member was allowed to dispose of all his savings to his nominees. This restriction on his right to distribute all his CPF savings according to his wishes is not a radical change. Under the Inheritance (Family Provision) Act, the court has the power to order payment out of the estate of a deceased for the benefit of a surviving spouse or child if the Court is of the opinion that the disposition of the deceased's estate effected by his will, or by the law relating to intestacy, or the combination of both of his will and that law, is not such as to make reasonable provision for the maintenance of the spouse or child. It must be pointed out that the rules of distribution provided in clause 14 of the Bill follow closely that of the Intestate Succession Act. The rules give priority to members of the immediate family. The wife or husband and children of the deceased member will have first priority to receive all the 50% CPF savings. When there are no children but there are a spouse and parents, then the spouse will receive half and the parents the other half. If there is no spouse or children, the parents will get all the 50% CPF savings. If there are no parents, grandparents come next, followed by brothers and sisters and children of deceased brothers and sisters, and uncles and aunts. When none of these are present, the amount will be distributed to the beneficiaries nominated by the deceased member. If there is no nomination, the amount will be paid to the Government. The second change to the system of nomination is the provision for revocation of the nomination upon the marriage of the member. Regular notices reminding members to update their nominations are printed on the members' statements of accounts sent out each year. The CPF Board has gone as far as making nomination forms freely available at the Registry of Marriages, although I might add that this was not always welcome on so auspicious an occasion. In addition, the Board provides assistance at its offices to help members complete nomination forms. Despite these measures, the problem of ensuring that members of the Fund update their nomination remains. Furthermore, many workers in Singapore start work before they are married. The beneficiaries they nominate at the start of their working careers were often left unchanged. If they subsequently marry and die before reaching 55 years, members of their immediate family will be deprived of the CPF savings of the deceased CPF member. In the interest of caring for the young, aged and needy in Singapore, the Government cannot avoid the responsibility of ensuring that the workers' hard earned savings in the Fund are used to benefit those who are most likely to be adversely affected by their untimely death. It is, therefore, necessary to introduce the invalidation of nomination as a result of marriage. It is not a new concept as a similar provision exists in the Wills Act. The proposed amendments to the system of nomination is of public interest. I therefore propose to refer the Bill to a Select Committee so that it can be examined in great detail. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 4.11 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, during the past year considerable publicity has been focused on the Central Provident Fund Act, particularly on the provisions relating to the payment of CPF contributions on the death of a contributor. It is not uncommon, as was shown in one court case, for a contributor to nominate a person who is not a member of the family or one of his dependants to receive his contributions under the Act. In that context, the provisions of this Bill seeking to correct a situation, which can be manifestly unfair and cruel to the dependants of the deceased by irresponsible contributors, are most timely and welcome. Some may question the basis of the relevant provisions of this Bill which take away from a contributor any discretion to do what he likes with the money credited to him under the Central Provident Fund Act. To my mind, the justification is that it is the responsibility of a contributor to look after his dependants. If he fails to do so for one reason or another, then his dependants who survive him will become a burden to the State and the responsibility of his fellow Singaporeans. Moreover, whatever sum is credited to a contributor, at least half of that sum represents contributions by his employer who is required to do so under the CPF Act. Such contributions by the employer though credited to the contributor would not have formed part of his contributions under the Act if it were not for the existence of the CPF Act. In that context, I should think that the Government is eminently justified in amending the provisions of the CPF Act to ensure that at least one-half of a deceased's contributions goes to his wife and dependants. Sir, while I give my support to the Bill, I am not satisfied with the scope and purpose of the proposed amendments to the CPF Act. Undoubtedly, the relevant provisions of this Bill seek to correct an evil. But a pertinent question is whether, in seeking to rectify the evil, the Bill will create another evil of equal or even greater magnitude. To make myself clear, under the proposed amendments to the CPF Act, one-half of the contribution is to be reserved for the spouse in the first instance. But there may be valid reasons for the deceased contributor in the first place not wanting to leave any portion of his or her CPF contribution to the spouse. One example is that a contributor may be estranged from his or her spouse and may be judicially separated but not divorced from the spouse. In an extreme case, the deceased contributor may have commenced divorce proceedings against his or her spouse but the final decree of divorce is not announced before the death of the contributor. It is conceivable that, in such a case, it may be most unfair for the CPF Act to require one-half of the deceased contributor's CPF money to be given to the spouse, particularly if the intention of the deceased contributor is to set aside the whole of the CPF money for the benefit of the children rather than the spouse. It is also conceivable that, even if a deceased contributor is not estranged from the spouse or has not contemplated divorce proceedings against the spouse, there may be valid reasons for the deceased contributor not wanting to let the spouse have any control over any portion of his or her CPF money. The spouse, for instance, may be a spendthrift or a compulsive gambler who cannot be entrusted with the proper management of the CPF money. For this reason the deceased contributor may have appointed a person who is not a member of the family to hold the CPF money in trust for the benefit of the spouse and the children. Under the proposed provisions of the Bill, no consideration is given to such a possibility, i.e. the suitability of the spouse to be entrusted with one-half of the deceased contributor's CPF money. If the spouse is an irresponsible person, the objective of the proposed amendment, that is, to prevent the spouse and children of the deceased contributor from becoming a burden to the State, is therefore defeated. In that context, I am particularly unhappy that in proposing the amendments to the CPF Act, the Government does not appear to have considered the amendment of the provisions of section 13(2) of the Central Provident Fund Act, excluding CPF money from forming part of the deceased contributor's estate. That particular provision is reproduced in the amended section 13(2) as contained in clause 9 of the Bill. As long as such a provision exists, it is not possible for a contributor to safeguard the spouse's own self and the children from a failure of the improvident spouse, that is, by appointing a trustee to whom the whole of the CPF money can be entrusted for the ultimate benefit of the spouse and children. In that context, I think it is much to be regretted that advantage has not been taken to plug, what I would consider to be a considerable loophole in the Act. Under section 13(1) of the existing Act, there is a provision to protect CPF money from being seized in payment of debt owing by the contributor. But the contributor can nominate his creditor to receive his CPF money under the Act. Under the Bill, the creditor may receive not more than one-half of his CPF money, but I think the ability of a creditor to receive any portion of any CPF money lawfully under the Central Provident Fund Act serves to defeat in any way the social objective of the Act which is to ensure that the spouse and children of a contributor are not left destitute on his death.

Sir, I have a request to make to the Hon. Minister for Labour. I would ask him to give serious consideration to compel those who are going to get married to sign the CPF nominee form, failing which the marriage certificate would not be issued.

Sir, as I have said earlier, I am proposing to refer the Bill to a Select Committee so that the provisions of the Bill can be considered in detail. So I do not propose to answer the points raised by the Member for Toa Payoh at this stage because it would require quite some time to answer all the points that he has raised. In fact, the point he mentioned about the estranged wife is really a very complicated problem, because who is in a position to assess whether the spouse is a responsible person to receive the CPF savings? I do not think the Central Provident Fund Board has the means to make the proper assessment. In any case, the law is to legislate for the vast majority of the people and we cannot legislate for the exceptional cases. Nevertheless, the points raised by the Member for Toa Payoh will be discussed in the. Select Committee when it is formed.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time. Resolved, "That the Central Provident Fund (Amendment No. 21 Bill be committed to a Select Committee consisting of Mr Speaker as Chairman and seven Members to be nominated by the Committee of Selection." - [Mr Ong Pang Boon].

4.22 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move the motion* standing in my name as it appears on the Order Paper. *The motion reads as follows: That pursuant to Article 25 of the Constitution of Singapore, the salary of the Speaker shall be $6,500 per month for the period 1st March, 1973 to 31st October, 1977 and $9,370 per month with effect from 1st November, 1977. Sir, Article 25 of the Constitution provides, inter alia, that the Speaker shall be paid such salary as Parliament may from time to time determine. The salary of the Speaker was last determined by Parliament at $3,000 per month with effect from 8th December 1965 by a resolution passed on 13th December 1965. On 16th February 1973 the Minister for Finance made a statement in Parliament relating to the revision of salaries for officers in the public service. The Minister stated then that the salary of the Speaker was to be revised to $6,500 per month with effect from 1st March 1973. No approval of Parliament was, however, sought to revise the salary of the Speaker accordingly. With the consolidation of the salaries of officers in the public service by the incorporation of the National Wages Council allowances for 1973-77 into the salary scales with effect from 1st November 1977, it is now proposed that the salary of the Speaker be revised to $9,370 per month, based on the pre-consolidated salary of $6,500 per month, with effect from 1st November, 1977. Members are, however, aware that the present Speaker has only drawn about half the salary of the Speaker and will continue to do so as long as he does not devote all his time to the office of Speaker. Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That pursuant to Article 25 of the Constitution of Singapore, the salary of the Speaker shall be $6,500 per month for the period 1st March, 1973 to 31st October, 1977 and $9,370 per month with effect from 1st November, 1977.

4.24 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move the motion* standing in the name of the Minister for Finance as it appears on the Order Paper. *The motion reads as follows: That this Parliament, pursuant to section 3 of the Departmental Titles (Alteration) Act (Chapter 53), resolves that the Schedule to the said Act be amended by the addition under the headings of "Old Title or Name of Office" and "New Title or Name of Office" respectively of the following:-- Old Title or Name of Office New Title or Name of Office Comptroller of Customs and Director-General of Customs Excise. and Excise. Deputy Comptroller of Deputy Director-General of Customs and Excise. Customs and Excise Assistant Comptroller of Director of Customs and Customs and Excise. Excise. Sir, these amendments to the Departmental Titles (Alteration) Act are necessitated by the amendments made to the departmental titles in the Customs (Amendment) Act, 1978. The Customs (Amendment) Act, 1978, was passed by Parliament on 14th June, 1978, and assented to by the President on 15th July, 1978 and will come into operation on 1st August, 1978. Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Parliament, pursuant to section 3 of the Departmental Titles (Alteration) Act (Chapter 53), resolves that the Schedule to the said Act be amended by the addition under the headings of "Old Title or Name of Office" and "New Title or Name of Office" respectively of the following: - Old Title or New Title or Name of Office Name of Office Comptroller of Director-General of Customs and Excise. Customs and Excise. Deputy Comptroller Deputy Director-General of Customs and Excise. of Customs and Excise. Assistant Comptroller Director of Customs of Customs and Excise. and Excise.

Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn sine die." - [Mr E.W. Barker]. Adjourned accordingly sine die at Twenty-six minutes past Four o'clock p.m.

The following Bill, which was passed by Parliament on 31st July, 1978, was assented to by the President of the Republic of Singapore on the date stated:- 17 August, 1978 Parliamentary Pensions Bill