Hansard, 1979-03-19

Under the provisions of clause 2(d) of Article 30 of the Constitution of Singapore, the following Member has been granted permission to be or to remain absent from sittings of Parliament for the period stated:- Mr Goh Chok Tong (Marine Parade), Minister for Trade and Industry - from 19th to 22nd March, 1979. YEOH GHIM SENG Speaker, Parliament of Singapore

The following Question stood on the Order Paper -

To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Education (a) whether he has figures of the teachers who were called for interview in the 1977 promotion exercise; (b) whether he will inform the House, of the number of teachers interviewed, how many of them had been promoted; and (c) what effect the promotion exercise has had on the morale of teachers.

Question No. 1 has been withdrawn. Mr Yeo, Question No. 2.

asked the Minister for Health, in view of the increasing population in the Housing and Development Board and surrounding estates in Ang Mo Kio, (a) if he will consider expanding the facilities provided in the Toa Payoh Hospital and Bright Hill Drive Clinic; and (b) when a polyclinic will be built in Ang Mo Kio Estate and what are the facilities that will be provided.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is not possible to expand facilities in Bright Hill Drive Clinic because of physical constraints. Construction of Ang Mo Kio Polyclinic will begin in the middle of 1979 and will be completed in early 1981. The Polyclinic will provide outpatient, curative, maternal, child health, family planning, dental and psychiatric services. There will also be facilities for X-ray and minor surgery. As for Toa Payoh Hospital, I share with the Member for Ang Mo Kio the same concern. Toa Payoh Hospital was built in 1957, before the PAP came to power. In the first instance, it was built in the wrong place, on top of a hill and is inaccessible to patients. In the second place, at that time Toa Payoh housing estate and Ang Mo Kio housing estate were never conceived at all. So today we find that Toa Payoh Hospital which has less than 800 beds has got to serve two enormous housing estates plus the population from Sembawang. I have visited Toa Payoh Hospital on a number of occasions and have suggested how we could improve or increase the facilities at Toa Payoh Hospital. But the terrain is such that we have to embark upon a major development scheme, if at all Toa Payoh Hospital is going to improve its facilities. As of this moment, I regret to say that we can do very little except to move the student nurses who are living there out of their quarters or to move the housemen who stay there and convert some of the buildings into wards. That can be done at short notice, But it is an unsatisfactory solution. However, we are trying to manage and initial steps have been taken to convert some of these quarters into wards. However, may I also add that those who are living in the Ang Mo Kio area or Toa Payoh area need not necessarily go to Toa Payoh Hospital if it is overcrowded. They can have access to Tan Tock Seng Hospital which is close by. This, of course, touches on the point which the Member for Kim Seng raised in the debate on the estimates for my Ministry, that is, the problem of rezoning of patient catchment areas for the different hospitals. As I pointed out, a hospital is a long-lived building. But Singapore is in a state of flux. A criticism has been made at my Ministry by a consultant - and I think it is a well made criticism - that all these donkey's years the Ministry has never had a long-term policy. This is a point which has been driven home to my administrators, and we are trying as best as we can to correct the errors of omission. Nonetheless, Sir, Members in the House will realise that health care is very personal. In many countries, it is no longer pushed into the back of the budget of a government. Health care can be inflationary in character and, in fact, in the United States it is. It is a great contributor to the cost of living. Likewise, in other European countries health has become a political issue. We have done our best up to date. But I am afraid that policies of other Ministries sometimes overtake policies in the Ministry of Health. I have now made it a point that my administrators in the Ministry catch up with other Ministries which are responsible for urban renewal or resettlement of population, so that we will not be left high and dry.

asked the Minister for Labour whether it is feasible for the Central Provident Fund Board to work together with the Hawkers Department of the Ministry of the Environment to request all licensed hawkers to contribute to the Central Provident Fund as compulsory savings for future purchase of Housing and Development Board flats and for old age.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the desirability and feasibility of requiring hawkers to contribute to CPF should first be examined before we decide to bring them within the CPF scheme. Those in favour of requiring hawkers to contribute would argue that hawkers require financial protection when they grow too old to provide for themselves. While some of them earn good incomes, many are only making a marginal living with hardly anything to set aside for old age. Those able to save could have their savings wiped out by business failures or other misfortunes. Hence, bringing them within the CPF scheme would enable them to save for old age. On the other hand, those against the idea would argue that hawkers earning a meagre income would hardly have enough to contribute to the CPF. To require them to do so would only add to their hardship. Furthermore, a hawker's income fluctuates from month to month. There is, therefore, difficulty in determining the monthly income of hawkers to decide the amount that they should contribute. The inflationary impact of requiring hawkers to contribute should not be discounted. There is also the problem of the collection of CPF contributions from hawkers, especially if the monthly contribution is small. The CPF Board is now studying the desirability and feasibility of requiring hawkers to contribute to CPF.

asked the Minister for the Environment how many vehicles of his Ministry were involved in accidents in 1976, 1977 and 1978: how many of the accidents were serious and how many resulted in fatalities; and what steps have been or are being taken to reduce the number of accidents to the minimum.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the hon. Member for Punggol may be glad to hear that the rate of accident in which vehicles of the Ministry of the Environment were involved has fallen during the years.

Very good!

In 1976, the Ministry of the Environment had 567 vehicles. These were involved in 356 accidents of which three were serious and two were fatal. In 1977, there were 585 vehicles in the Ministry. There were 317 accidents of which four were serious and one was fatal. In 1978, the Ministry of the Environment had 608 vehicles and there were 268 accidents. Of these, three were serious and none was fatal. Sir, what-steps are taken to further reduce the rate of accidents? In the Ministry of the Environment, each driver is given a simple handbook on safe driving. In addition, the drivers are briefed from time to time on safe driving. Drivers of specialised vehicles like refuse collection vehicles and mechanical sweepers are given special training before they are allowed to drive. In addition to police action, departmental disciplinary action is also taken from time to time to see that drivers drive safely. To further minimise accidents, all the vehicles are regularly maintained. Each vehicle is inspected and serviced at least once in 40 days.

Mr Speaker, Sir, can I ask the Minister whether all these 268 accidents for last year have occurred as a result of the faults of the Ministry of the Environment's drivers?

Sir, offhand, I would say that it cannot be because the law of averages does not allow it. It is impossible that all the 268 accidents were due to the fault of the drivers of the Ministry of the Environment. The drivers of the Ministry were responsible for some but not all the accidents.

Mr Speaker, Sir, while I thank the Hon. Minister for his kind reply and for the figures on the number of accidents, I would like to refer him to the observation that in 1976 and 1977, over 60% of the vehicles were involved in accidents and in 1978 the accident rate dropped to over 40%. My question is: besides giving a handbook to the drivers and regularly maintaining the vehicles, are the drivers given incentives for accident-free driving for periods from six months up to a year? If incentives are given, does the Minister agree that the accident rate could be further reduced, to less than 40%?

That is the ultimate objective, Sir, but as the saying goes, "A journey of a thousand miles starts with the first step."

asked the Minister for the Environment how many more licensed hawkers are to be resited in hawker/food centres and the period it will take to complete this process; what are the hawker/food centres to be built in FY 1979/80; and whether his Ministry has a set of guidelines in the planning of the size or number of hawker/food centres in Housing and Development Board estates in the matter of the ratio of population to hawkers in the estates.

( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, there are 6,695 licensed street hawkers, including 465 itinerant and 86 showcase hawkers. About 5,000 of them will be resited by 1981 and the rest will be later in stages. Thirteen markets and/or food centres will be completed in FY 1979/80. Four will be located in Ang Mo Kio, three in Bedok, two in Clementi and one each in Lim Chu Kang, Bukit Merah, Woodlands and Bukit Batok, Twelve other centres are planned - one each in Clementi, Kreta Ayer, Kandang Kerbau, Bedok, Nee Soon New Town, Woodlands New Town, Tampines New Town, Bukit Batok New Town, Kampong Java, Hill Street, Telok Ayer and Farrer Park. There are guidelines in planning markets and/or food centres in HDB estates. There will be one market-produce stall to 50 units of flats, or about 250 persons. Similarly, there will be one cooked-food stall to 100 units of flats or about 500 persons.

asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) how many secret societies are still active in Singapore and in which areas they are most active; and (b) whether he has received any report or information about their infiltration into youth groups or organisations.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there are 37 active secret societies comprising 110 gangs operating in various parts of Singapore. They are more active in certain areas in Jalan Besar and Geylang, and in rural areas such as Jurong and Sembawang. Some are found in Housing Board estates. The Police are keeping these areas under close surveillance. There is no evidence of secret society elements infiltrating youth groups or organisations.

Sir, since there are still so many secret societies and so many gangs in so many constituencies, even in Housing Board estates, what steps does the Hon. Minister for Home Affairs propose to take to eliminate them?

Sir, as I have said, the Police are maintaining very close surveillance on areas where they are still active. When there are cases of secret society incidents, they are investigated and we make use of the powers of detention under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act. But over the years we have less and less incidents of secret society activity in Singapore.

Sir, in this respect would the Hon. Minister for Home Affairs enlighten this House as to the type and structure of these secret societies or gangs, and whether their modus operandi is the same as the secret society of yesterday?

Sir, they are still the triad type of secret societies. They have their initiation ceremonies and so on. Their common types of activity are extortion, crimes, and so on. They still have their traditional methods of operation. At the same time they also have modernised. Of course, they also take into consideration the lie of the land when they commit these activities. We also counter these new techniques and methods.

Sir, can I ask the Minister if he will enlighten this House on the reasons why gangsterism is so predominant in the areas he highlighted?

Sir, I feel that the Member for Kim Seng is asking me a rhetorical question. I think he knows why they are still active in certain areas like Jalan Besar and Geylang. The straight answer is that in Jalan Besar and Geylang there are still some red light areas.

Sir, can I ask the Minister another question? Is it because there is a need to preserve these red light areas that he is not able to flush out all the gangsters?

Sir, that again is another rhetorical question. The answer is that there is no such need to preserve such areas.

asked the Minister of Defence how many vehicles of his Ministry were involved in accidents in 1976, 1977 and 1978; how many of the accidents were serious and how many were fatal; and what steps have been or are being taken to reduce the number of accidents to the minimum.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in answer to the question from the Member for Punggol, the figures he has requested are as follows. In 1976 SAF vehicles involved in traffic accidents totalled 1,457. Of these accidents, three resulted in fatalities and 175 involved serious injuries. The corresponding figures for 1977 were 1,271 with eight fatalities and 190 involving serious injuries. For 1978 there were 1,351 accidents with four fatalities and 232 involving serious injuries. I think all of us are concerned that these figures should be reduced as far as possible. The Ministry of Defence is taking various measures to curb the SAF accident rate. These measures include: (a) strict enforcement of speed limits on military vehicles by military police motorcycle squads; (b) imposition of fines on drivers and vehicle commanders found guilty of speeding and negligence; (c) special instructions on defensive driving to teach SAF drivers how to handle road hazards, such as skidding; (d) restriction of movement of heavy military vehicles like low-loaders, to only off-peak hours under military police escort; (e) proper vehicle maintenance, with strict inspection at regular intervals to ensure road worthiness of every MINDEF vehicle. In addition to the above, certain preventive measures are also taken. These include: (a) incentives for accident-free regular driver; (b) qualification for civilian driving licence on completion of two years' driving provided that there has been no blemish of more than two traffic accidents; (c) withdrawal of accident prone drivers for proficiency tests and transfer of those who cannot pass such tests; (d) transfer of drivers away from driving immediately after an accident involving death until after the Traffic Police or the Civil Courts have exonerated them. By the middle of this year it is hoped that a special driving circuit will be ready at Keat Hong to improve the training facilities for SAF drivers. This driving circuit has been specially designed to enable trainee drivers to be exposed to all the possible road hazards and to prepare all SAF drivers adequately to drive safely and carefully on our public roads.

Sir, does the Minister of Defence not disagree with me that most of the drivers of these vehicles are national servicemen? In that sense, they are very young, 18 years and above, and therefore considering this aspect would he not engage professional drivers with a view to further curbing the numerous accidents in the last three years?

Sir, we in the Ministry of Defence consider driving as part of the instruction which national servicemen should have, because should we go to war we cannot say that we should have professional drivers to drive our lorries. I agree with him that the drivers are all very young because they come in only for a stint of two to 2 1/2 years of national service. This is something we cannot avoid. If we want soldiers, we want soldiers who are not only able to fight but also soldiers who are able to get others to the front to fight. Therefore, it is necessary that we continue to employ only national service drivers.

If that is the case, Sir, maybe the hon. Minister thinks that the measures, both preventive and precautionary, are sufficient to help reduce the number of accidents involving vehicles of his Ministry. Therefore, my question is this: would he not take more measures to further reduce the number of accidents given in the last three years? I wholeheartedly agree with the Minister that we should prepare our young soldiers to defend the country and that they also have got to know how to transport their fellow soldiers to the battle front.

Sir, I do not think we can disagree with the Member for Punggol that even one accident is one accident too many. But I would like to submit for the information of the House that accident rates are dependent on a lot of other considerations besides drivers. Accidents depend on the number of vehicles on the road, the condition of the road, the condition of traffic, the condition of the drivers; and sometimes it may be due to the negligence of the other drivers as well. So we in the Ministry of Defence will try to train our drivers to be as proficient as possible but, as they say, accidents do happen.

Sir, while I cannot wholeheartedly disagree with the Hon. Minister of Defence, I would also like to submit, with all the reasons given, whether the vehicles have been well maintained, as was pointed out by the Minister for the Environment just now in reply to my question concerning vehicles in his Ministry.

Sir, I have stated just now that one of the measures that we take is regular maintenance and strict inspection of our vehicles. I can assure the Member for Punggol that Mindef vehicles are properly maintained and very strictly inspected at all times.

Sir, as driving is part of the training, is he not a little alarmed at the standard of training that we have in the national service? In times of peace where conditions are not hostile, the accident rate is already high. What will happen then in times of war where conditions are more difficult? Would we be in a position to defend ourselves when our drivers are not able to drive without meeting accidents?

Sir, may I submit that the hon. Member for Moulmein is probably prejudging the issue when he states that the accident rate involving Mindef vehicles is high. I do not want to make comparisons but I would like to give figures to show that our vehicles are no more prone to accidents than many other organisations that have the same number of vehicles. SAF has got 5,800 thin-skin vehicles, that is, not the armoured trucks but just the normal vehicles that we have on the roads, similar to commercial vehicles. Our accident rate is only 1,271 to 1,457 a year. If I am not mistaken, SBS has a smaller number of vehicles. It has got about 2,600 buses on the road, and I think their annual number of accidents is something like 4,800. The Minister for the Environment gave him some figures. They have got 608 vehicles and there were 268 accidents. If you compare it with our fleet of 5,800 vehicles, only about 1,300 to 1,400 were involved in accidents. I do not think it is right to make a statement that Mindef vehicles are more involved in accidents and that national servicemen cannot drive safely. As far as I know, it is quite creditable that our people have been able to train the national servicemen to drive as well as they do now.

Sir, I cannot help making a little comment. I think the Backbench would only be too happy to offer a challenge trophy for an Inter-Ministry competition on road safety!

asked the Minister of Defence what is the duration of training and what tests are conducted for a National Serviceman before he is allowed to drive heavy vehicles on public roads.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this is a continuation of the debate. As far as the SAF is concerned, we have a seven-week Basic Drivers Course. This means that we put our national servicemen through a seven-week driving instruction period. During this course, each driver is given a minimum of 60 hours' practical driving on a three-ton truck. At the end of the course, the trainee driver is given a test conducted along the same lines as that for the ROV Class IV (heavy vehicles/lorries) driving licence. The test includes knowledge of highway code, practical road driving, parallel parking, reversing and three-point turn, After passing the driving test, the trainee driver is given a further week of experience driving a Land Rover before he is posted to a unit as a qualified driver for motor vehicles. In the unit he is given a further one-month continuation training course before he is allowed to drive three-ton trucks to carry SAF personnel from one point to another.

asked the Minister for National Development, in view of the rise in total family incomes in recent years, if the Housing and Development Board will consider raising the income ceilings for all types of flats.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Housing and Development Board will soon be submitting for Government's decision a proposal to raise the income ceiling for eligibility to purchase HDB flats.

How soon, Sir?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think in the next month or two.

asked the Minister for National Development, in view of the increasing number of cyclists killed or injured in road accidents, if he will consider providing separate lanes for cyclists along new roads, especially in industrial estates.

Mr Speaker, Sir, cycle tracks have been provided along major roads, such as, Queensway, Alexandra Road, Lorong Chuan, Adam Road, Lornie Road and Nicoll Highway. Industrial areas which have been provided with cycle tracks are Commonwealth Avenue between North Buona Vista Road and Queen's Circus, and Corporation Road in Jurong Town. However, these cycle tracks are poorly used by cyclists. The provision of cycle tracks along major roads has, therefore, been discontinued. Provision of cycle tracks will not reduce road accidents unless cyclists use the cycle tracks and observe the traffic rules. We will consider providing cycle tracks in new housing/industrial estates in future if a clear need exists.

asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) how many travel agents have been registered; (b) how many of them have violated the law; (c) how many complaints have been received by the Singapore Tourist Promotion Board from the travelling public that they have been cheated by travel agents; and (d) in the light of the operation of the Travel Agents Act, whether the present law is adequate to protect the welfare of the travelling public.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Trade and Industry who has had to leave for Jakarta today has asked me to reply to this Question. The Singapore Tourist Promotion Board has licensed 307 travel agencies under the Travel Agents Act and its supplementary Regulations of 1976. Eight companies and one individual have violated the law. Eight of the offenders were prosecuted for operating as unlicensed travel agents. The remaining one offender, a licensed travel agent, was prosecuted for sharing commission with an unlicensed travel agent. The Singapore Tourist Promotion Board has received 87 complaints of cheating by travel agents. Most of the complaints have been settled amicably between the parties concerned. There are only four outstanding complaints. Inquiries on these are being pursued by the Board of the cases settled, where the complaints of cheating were found to be justified, the travel agents concerned, on the advice of the Board, have paid compensation to the complainants. Where complaints of poor services have been proved, the travel agents concerned have been warned to improve their services. The Board has, therefore, been able to influence and control the travel agencies effectively. The present law is adequate to protect the welfare of the travelling public. The Travel Agents Act requires travel agencies to have a minimum paid-up capital of $50,000, to provide to the STPB a bank guarantee of $10,000 and to make a non-refundable cash contribution of $1,000 to the Compensation Fund to be used to compensate persons suffering hardship or loss as a result of actions of travel agents. In addition, heavy penalties are provided in the Act to deter malpractices. The remedies under the Act have been publicised and are now well-known to the public. The Board will continue to be alert at all times to possible malpractices by travel agents.

Order read for resumed consideration in Committee of Supply [3rd Allotted Day].

3.10 p.m. Head N -

Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head N be reduced by $10 in respect of Object Group 1210 of Subhead Code NA-01 of the Main Estimates. Sir, fortunately for us, there are only a very small number of people in the civil service whom I feel do not apply enough commonsense in the implementation of regulations and/or Government policies. Though this number is small, Sir, I believe it can lead to frustration of the people. It can also lead to frustration of work. In my opinion, there are two reasons why this could happen. Firstly, I feel that Government officers are not giving enough recognition to junior officers for their work. Secondly, I feel that junior officers themselves may be frustrated when they go about their work because they may be made scapegoats to problems that may arise in the implementation of regulations or any decisions. This idea of passing the buck should cease, otherwise we will find that this small group of people may reflect a bad name to our civil service. To quote an example, Sir, I would just like to recall a meeting I had a few days ago to discuss plans for a new community centre to be built in my constituency, I was told that the Housing and Development Board and the Ministry of the Environment could not agree on whether there should be a toilet on ground floors only because, according to the Ministry of the Environment, every floor has to have a toilet as long as there are people working on that floor. I had no choice, Sir, but to end up with a plan allowing for toilets galore! I think this is bad because all of us know that toilets are giving enough headache as far as maintenance is concerned. If centralising the toilets means reducing the workforce to the minimum, thereby reducing maintenance costs, then we should do so. The irony of it all is that the toilet is given 86% of the space allotted to the library. I feel that library space is in great demand these days rather than toilets. The problem is that we Singaporeans are rather spoilt. We want everything to be brought to our door-step. We want the market to be brought to our doorstep. We want the shops and everything else to be brought to our door-step, and now we want the toilets at our door-step. Sir, I submit that consideration be given to allowing flexibility in the implementation of certain regulations. In this particular case, may I ask the Ministry of the Environment whether or not flexibility of this sort can be given so that we can use space more productively and not have them waiting around for people to use them. 3.15 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not know whether it has ever occurred to the hon. Member for Mountbatten that, sometimes a toilet is in greater demand than facilities for a library. We have always impressed upon the civil servants that there should be flexibility in enforcing rules and regulations. As long as there is sufficient space for a toilet on the ground floor, the civil servants will find no difficulty in granting permission. Of course, there must be sufficient space for toilet facilities, and they must be easily accessible. On that score, the HDB will agree with the Ministry of the Environment. There is unlikely to be disagreement there.

Sir, in view of the Hon. Minister's explanation, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment by leave, withdrawn. The following amendment stood in the name of Dr Lau Teik Soon -

Dr Lau, Amendment No. (2).

I am not speaking at this stage, Sir.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head N be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead Code NB-01 of the Main Estimates. Sir, we are extremely fortunate in the sense that our country has been recognised locally and internationally as a place where tremendous emphasis is placed on cleaning the environment and ensuring that we are a pollution-free nation. I think this is very evident on the roads, in homes and on the beaches. The Government has ensured this through persuasion and also at times through measures to ensure that people do make the environment clean, green and gracious. However, I choose this opportunity to bring to the attention of the Hon. Minister the question of littering on the roads and public places. Ever since we started the anti-littering campaign, the environment has been definitely cleaner than before. However, it is my observation over the last year or so that more and more people seem to have forgotten that they must know where to put their rubbish and not just throw them on to the roads and public places without any regard. It has become a pretty common sight to see drivers or passengers in cars throwing out cigarette butts and boxes. Sometimes I even see cans being thrown out of cars. I wonder if this is because a lot of people, both local or work permit holders, have forgotten the anti-littering campaign and the laws we have enforced so strongly before, or is it because many people have just blatantly disregarded the law? I would ask the Minister if he would consider greater enforcement of the anti-littering laws. The second point relates to my observation of the Housing Board estates. I am not sure if this matter comes under the Ministry of the Environment. I notice an increase of dirt in and around the blocks of HDB flats. I had an occasion to go around and I even asked the Estate Officers about this. According to them, the problem lies with the sub-contract workers. It is difficult to get - these workers because of the salary and also partly because it is really very difficult to ensure that these same people do carry out the cleaning up of the estates dutifully. If that be the case, I wonder if the Minister for the Environment has any comments to make on this matter.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I can assure the Member for Kim Seng that we have been carrying out stricter and stricter enforcement of the law against littering. The figure shows that in 1978, 8,734 litter-bugs were prosecuted compared to 5,727 in 1977. The problem here is not so much enforcement as to inculcate good social habits and social values in the people. In this respect, I think a lot can be done later on when the Residents' Committees have been formed. It is through education rather than enforcement that good social habits can be cultivated. With regard to his second question, he is right, it is not within my province. So would he address his question to my colleague, the Minister for National Development?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not exactly endorse the view that it is not a question of enforcement. If we in Singapore want to ensure that the environment is clean and green and impose a $500 fine for littering, the chances are that most people will behave. I agree, however, that education is important but this is a much slower process.

Sir, the Member for Kim Seng could have misheard me. I did not say that it was not a question of enforcement. I said it was not a question solely of enforcement. There must be both enforcement and education - the carrot, the whip and some teaching.

Sir, I am very delighted with the Minister's clarification, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment by leave, withdrawn.

Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head N be reduced by $10 in respect of Object Group 1210 of Subhead Code NB-05 of the Main Estimates. Sir, I will go straight to the point. I have in my constituency a rather large and, if one may say, an ultra modern hawker centre with a very large emporium at the top. It is located along the Old Kallang Airport Road. This hawker centre and emporium has been attracting thousands of tourists per month, and I believe it has been the envy of many MPs around my constituency who have also tried to steal some tourists away from my area. But the problem is with the couple of staircases that lead upstairs. I believe that in the construction of these staircases no attention was paid to the sanitary specifications because the staircases were not walled up along the sides so that when the cleaner sweeps the staircase with ardent enthusiasm the dust would fall over the side and merrily find its way onto the food being served. Can I, therefore, ask the Ministry of the Environment and the HDB to pay more attention to the sanitary specifications in their construction programme in the future? Can I also ask the Ministry of the Environment whether it can convince the HDB to do something about this problem with this hawker centre?

Mr Speaker, Sir, during my meet-the-people sessions I get many requests to appeal, on the constituents' behalf, to the Ministry for transfer of their hawker stalls from their former places of work to the new hawker markets in Ang Mo Kio. According to the present policy, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to apply for a transfer of a stall from one place to another. But I suggest that each case should be considered according to its merit. The hawkers residing in Ang Mo Kio have their stalls elsewhere and they face great difficulties in travelling to and fro. Many of them are elderly people and this aggravates their problem. Since they have been allocated flats in Ang Mo Kio, it would be reasonable to allow them to transfer their stalls to the new market centres at Ang Mo Kio. It is unreasonable to say that because they have moved to Ang Mo Kio, they have to face up to the predicament or to give up their stalls; nor is it reasonable to expect them to remain in their former homes. They too, like other people, want to improve their living conditions. I hope, therefore, that the Hon. Minister would consider allowing the hawkers re- sident in Ang Mo Kio to move from other places to the new market centres in Neighbourhood 4, Ang Mo Kio. If this concession is given, it would of course, apply to similar cases in other new housing estates as well. Another matter which I would like to bring to the Hon. Minister's attention concerns the safety of the Hawker Liaison Inspectors. According to an AUPE report, there were 21 cases of assault on the inspectors in 1975, and since then numerous other cases have been reported. The inspectors have to deal with 28,000 licensed hawkers and about 7,000 street hawkers. During the course of performing their duties, they face all kinds of threats, and sometimes even suffer personal injuries. Sir, let me cite three examples. There was the incident when a hawker, who was served with a summons, became aggressive, used abusive language and threatened the inspector with a chopper. Then there was another hawker who, when warned for not complying with certain hawking regulations, took out a hook and knife and threatened to kill the inspector. These two hawkers, of course, were subsequently arrested by the police; one was placed under one year's supervision while the other was sentenced to two months' gaol. Fortunately, in both cases, the inspectors were not harmed. But in the third case, however, the inspector was not so lucky. He was viciously attacked by a fishmonger with a parang and suffered multiple wounds. Although he was compensated with $7,500, his scars are permanent and he continues to suffer severe spells of dizziness. Mr Speaker, Sir, these are just a few examples of the dangers which the Hawker Liaison Inspectors have to face. Yet the Ministry has no provision to act on the inspectors' behalf. I would like to suggest that legislation be provided immediately to require the Ministry to act on behalf of their inspectors and other employees who suffer assault in the course of their duty. 3.30 p.m.

( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, first I would like to answer the question raised by the Member for Mountbatten concerning the defects in the construction of the two-storey market. We have noted his comments and will consider his suggestion to wall up the staircase so that in the course of sweeping the staircase, dust will not fall down to the stalls below. I would like to thank him for his suggestion on anti-pollution. In the future construction of markets and food centres we will take his suggestion into consideration. We will also instruct the architects to take note of this suggestion so that such defects will not recur. Further, I would like to point out that the market that was referred to by the Member for Mountbatten belongs to the Housing and Development Board. He has suggested that we should liaise with the Housing and Development Board in the matter of sanitation in future construction programmes. We will do this so that some remedial action could be evolved. Two questions were raised by the Member for Serangoon Gardens. First, he would like to know whether the Government will consider reserving some hawker stalls in newly built markets and food centres in HDB estates for licensees who will be moving in to stay in those estates so that they can operate the hawker stalls within the same estate. At the moment we are unable to consider this request for the reason that we are unable to anticipate the number of such licensees. Further, we still have more than 6,700 street hawkers waiting to be resited in indoor hawker stalls. I believe Members will recall that the main purpose of the Government to build more markets and cooked food centres is to provide a service to the residents and at the same time reducing pollution of our water resources. From past experience, requests from new resident hawkers for stalls within the estates are not that numerous. Such requests will be given priority consideration when vacant stalls are available. For the time being, we do not intend to fix the rule on this. As regards the safety of our hawker inspectors in field work, I would like to thank the hon. Member for his concern for our staff. Our current practice is that those who earn less than $750 per month are covered by the Workmen's Compensation Act for any damages or injury suffered in the execution of their duties. Arrangements are also made to ensure that when they go on field duty, they do so in groups of threes and not alone, so that they can help one another in case of need. Moreover, they are provided with cars equipped with a wireless so that when necessary they could contact the Police or the Ministry's headquarters for assistance. And when they are performing duties which involve disputes, such as issuing a summons, they will be accompanied by the Police. This is our normal arrangement.

Sir, I am thankful to the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for his favourable reply with regard to the question of transfer of stalls for hawkers resident in Ang Mo Kio. He may wish to take note of two points in considering these cases. Firstly, there are a number of hawkers who are sited in hawker centres but who are not resident in the housing estate, in this case Ang Mo Kio. Some of them, in fact, expressed the desire to be transferred elsewhere. Secondly, although priority cannot be given in the first instance to hawkers who are moving into the housing estates because it is very difficult to anticipate the number, it may be useful to coordinate with the Housing and Development Board and reserve a percentage of the hawker stalls for such cases. When these cases come up, then these hawkers should be given the reserved places.

( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, on the further two points by the Member for Serangoon Gardens. First, about some stallholders residing in the same zone but not in the same housing estate, I would like to say that actually we do not base our consideration on any particular housing estate he is living in. In the case of a stallholder-applicant who wants a transfer to a hawker centre or market nearer to his place of residence, we will give him priority consideration. Second, on the reservation of a certain percentage of stalls for these licensees, I have said in my earlier answer that we are unable to anticipate the number of such licensees who will be moving into an estate. In normal circumstances, if there are vacancies, we will give priority to such stallholders to enable them to reside in the vicinity of their stalls. This is one of the groups of hawkers which can be considered for allocation. In future, we will look into this matter and give it consideration.

( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Senior Parliamentary Secretary has said that he and the Hawkers Department will give favourable consideration to stallholders who are moving into new estates. According to my personal experience, this is not so. For instance, when a stallholder who has moved into Ang Mo Kio estate requested that he be given a stall in the estate near where he is staying, he received a letter within a week telling him that his request was not approved. So, I would like to ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary whether he is changing this policy today.

( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, in fact this policy has been in force for many years and has been made known to all, but because the Estate Officers in the various Housing Board areas are subject to transfer where necessary, the newcomers may not be familiar with the arrangements that have been made. Normally when we build a new market or hawker centre, we will give first priority to licensees who are hawking in the vicinity and who are affected by clearance. After that, if there are some more vacant stalls, then stallholders who are residing nearby will be given consideration when they apply for the stalls.

( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have also one question which I would like to raise with the Senior Parliamentary Secretary. During my meet-the-people session, I often come across unemployed people asking for help in applying for hawker licences. In most cases when applications were made I was given a negative reply. On the other hand, when I visited a market, I discovered that there were about a dozen hawker stalls which were vacant, in fact, since I became the MP for that constituency. On the one hand, these stalls are left vacant and not fetching revenue and, on the other hand, applications for these stalls were not granted to our citizens who are unemployed. If they are not provided with some means of livelihood would this not amount to encouraging unemployed people to apply for financial aid from the Social Welfare Department, incurring loss and wastage all round? Would not the Ministry consider granting licences to these unemployed people? Although it is often said that the stalls are reserved for those street hawkers who would be resited, we discover that these hawker stalls have been left vacant for two years, without any sign of allocation. This is really contradictory. Therefore, I would like the Senior Parliamentary Secretary to enlighten us on this question.

( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Senior Parliamentary Secretary just now pointed out that the matter might be due to the fact that Estate Officers of the Housing and Development Board are subjected to transfer and the newcomers might not be familiar with the arrangements made. This would appear to be a matter of passing the buck from one department to another, and each one not knowing what the other is doing. I would suggest that the Hawkers' Department should have closer contact with the Housing and Development Board so that they resolve the matter mutually. So, what the Member for Khe Bong mentioned just now appears to be just one example of a lack of liaison between the Hawkers' Department and the HDB staff. I believe the question does not arise in any one particular HDB estate but is quite common to all the HDB estates. 3.45 p.m.

Sir, I rise to support the Member for Khe Bong. I would just like to add that in future the Hawkers' Department ought to apply what I would recommend "empathy" so that they would be more reasonable in granting hawker licences.

( In Mandarin): Sir, questions were raised by three Members of the House, but I can sum it up in two points. First, the question of application for hawker licences. The Member for Khe Bong has pointed out that in his meet-the-people session a large number of people asked him for assistance in obtaining hawker licences, On this point, I can say this. I myself have this meet-the-people session once a week, and my experience is that only those whose request is not met will keep on coming back. Once their problems are solved they will not come back any more. So, there is a repetition of this kind of request. Although it may appear that all those who have come for assistance were not given help, this is not so. The Member has also pointed out that people would go to the Social Welfare Department for financial assistance if they could not obtain a hawker licence. I would like to point out that those who are on financial aid from the Social Welfare Department would also come to apply for a hawker licence. But some of them are being used by unscrupulous people who keep behind the scene. Take, for example, a stall in a privately owned coffee shop. It is rented out at the rate of $600 to $1,000 per month and the stallholder has to pay a certain sum for PUB charges, where the contract is on a year to year basis. People who are not eligible for Government stalls because they are under 40 years old, therefore, have to rent private stalls and have to pay such high rentals. So they encourage recipients of Social Welfare assistance and other poor cases to go through the Social Welfare Department to apply for the Government stalls and to rent out to them so that they could pay a lower monthly rental, ranging about $200, $300 or $400 per month as the licensee has to pay to Government a fee of less than $100 a month because Government hawker stalls are subsidised. If Members should inquire further into this, they will find out that this is often the case. We have to consider carefully in dealing with cases like this. The other point is a matter of coordination or liaison between our department and the HDB. At the moment we have a Hawkers Coordinating and Licensing Committee which used to meet once a month, but recently there have not been frequent meetings. After this session, I shall call for a meeting of this committee to decide on any necessary measures. I hope in future we will be able to have better liaison among the various departments so that our work on such matters can be carried out more smoothly.

( In Mandarin): Sir, what I have asked is something different from what he has answered. The answer given is entirely different. He was not answering my question. I asked why is it that while there are so many vacant stalls in the market begging for occupants, on the other hand he turns down these applicants who are jobless and who only wish to fill such vacant stalls. This also constitutes a revenue loss to the Government. The Parliamentary Secretary has not answered my point. Whether or not they are successful in their applications is another matter. At the moment there are so many vacant hawker stalls there, but on the other hand he is not giving such stalls to those needy applicants. What a great pity!

( In Mandarin): Sir, the market and the hawker stalls mentioned by the Member for Khe Bong do not belong to the Ministry of the Environment, but the HDB. In other words, they are not under our care. They are not directly under our jurisdiction. So, there is no such question of our approving or not approving the allocation of stalls. That is why I could not give a direct answer. But in any case I have said that I will call a meeting of the Hawkers Coordinating and licensing Committee to resolve this matter. So. unless I know more about the actual case which comes under the HDB, I cannot tell him what we can or cannot do. According to practice, after stalls in a new market or hawker centre are allotted to licensed hawkers in the vicinity, application is open to members of the public during the first half of every month. But sometimes stalls have to be reserved by the Resettlement Department or by the HDB for people affected by Government clearance schemes, and this is the reason for some stalls being left vacant. So, before I know more about the vacant stall, such as whether it is in a market under our charge, I cannot make a direct detailed answer on such a matter.

( In Mandarin): Sir, I would like the Senior Parliamentary Secretary to clarify further. He mentioned the case of social welfare recipients being used by unscrupulous people to get the stalls and sublet the stalls Out to them so that they could enjoy lower rentals. I do not know whether this is really true of all applicants but is there any record of any investigation by the department concerned into the number of such cases? Will he kindly clarify this further, otherwise he will be generalizing the situation out of a few isolated cases.

Sir, from the replies that we have received from the Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment, it is quite clear to us here that in the work of meeting their constituents Members of Parliament have always been confronted with this problem of where to refer an applicant to. Very often when we refer the applicant to the HDB, the reply comes back, "No". and we may have, at the applicant's request, to again refer the matter to the Ministry of the Environment. In fact, sometimes an application to the Ministry of National Development may have to be referred to the Ministry of the Environment. I think there is a lot of unnecessary duplication in this. For the applicants themselves, this gives rise to a lot of running about and confusion, and there is a lot of unnecessary paper work and bureaucracies involved in this same exercise. Why is it not possible to centralise all applications for hawker licences through one channel? I think that would make life much easier. From the experience of the Ministry of the Environment, in the words of the Senior Parliamentary Secretary, there has been cause for concern that there seems to be two different arms doing the same thing. And the example raised by the Member for Khe Bong is absolutely true. I can quote my own example, but I will just be giving one more instance for the same reason.

( In Mandarin): Sir, first of all, I would like to touch on what the Member for Jalan Kayu has said, as to whether there have truly been such cases of "transfer". In actual fact, it should be "subletting". After the hawker has got his mall he cannot officially transfer or assign it to another. So he sublets it. There have been a few cases of subletting, not re-assigning or transferring. This is no fancy-talk but real. On the other hand the Member for Kim Seng said that we should not pass the buck round to the different Government departments. This is not a fault with the Government department or administration, but it is really the applicant who has brought about this. Let me quote just one example, There was an application for a hawker stall under the HDB. The applicant wanted to apply to the Ministry of the Environment instead of the HDB. He was told that the hawker stall was under the HDB, and because we wanted to help him, we asked him to fill up the forms nevertheless and we helped him to transfer his application to the department concerned. There are similar cases. Some people living in HDB estates wanted to apply for hawker stalls in a market but it happened that the market concerned belongs to our department. That means the Area office concerned would have to transfer such applications to us. That is why applications are being transferred to and fro. There are other cases where stallholders under our department went a transfer to other stalls belonging to the HDB. So they will have to come to our department to apply for the necessary recommendation to the HDB area office concerned for the transfer. That is one reason why there is this duplication of procedure every now and then. 4.00 p.m. As regards whether such matters could be channelled into one centre, this matter was raised some two years ago. After careful consideration and also some experimenting, we found that there was more duplication of work and the delay was even longer. So we stopped short at that. For instance, at the moment there are altogether 8 or 9 HDB Area Offices. There will be one more such office to be added. To channelize the procedure, all applications received by the 10 offices will have to be sent to the Headquarters, and it might even, take a longer time for these applications to be processed through the centre and sent back. That is why we think it is better for the individual office concerned to deal directly with separate cases of applications for vacancies in the market under its jurisdiction. This would save time and a lot of trouble.

( In Mandarin): Sir, I feel that the Senior Parliamentary Secretary has not replied to my question. At the moment, in the market in my Constituency there are about a dozen stalls lying vacant, I want to ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary whether the applicants should apply to the HDB or to the Hawkers' Department for these hawker stalls? Would he kindly enlighten us?

Sir, may I clarify? The Member for Khe Bong would probably know that it takes two to three years to build a market, and when we do build a market it will have a few hundred stalls. All these stalls will not be filled at once because they are meant for clearance cases. Clearance takes place all the time and clearance cases have a priority over other new applicants. I do not know the details of this particular case but probably these stalls are left vacant for clearance cases. Then also, we may want to widen a road; or there may be other PWD projects to be undertaken, and so the hawkers there have to be resettled. So these stalls are reserved for them. This is the anomaly of the situation, a visible one which he sees apparently - empty stalls but applicants are not given licences. This probably explains the position.

Sir, I sympathise with the Minister for the Environment because he cannot understand my Mandarin. I have clearly stated that the empty stalls are in the market at Block 93, Lorong 4, Toa Payoh. I have also stated just now in Mandarin that these stalls have been left unoccupied since I became the Member for Khe Bong. I do not see how I can make myself clearer.

Sir, I think he does not understand my English! I have already explained that it takes about two to three years to build a market. Once we build a market there will be a few hundred stalls, and these stalls are reserved for clearance cases, There is clearance going on all the time, Roads have to be opened and extended, water pipes have to be laid, and it may be that we have to clear the hawkers there. So these vacant stalls are reserved for them. That is why we cannot entertain new applicants. I hope this is quite clear.

Two years to clear?

Yes. The empty stalls are all reserved for them. It is either for that reason or we may have been trying to move certain clearance cases into the market but they refuse to move in. Whatever it is, there are certain stalls left for priority clearance cases, otherwise he will not be able to find a fast way from his home to Parliament House.

Sir, on the understanding that we will probably get a circular from the Hon. Minister for the Environment explaining the problem, I beg leave to withdraw.

Sir, may I clarify? The Member for Mountbatten is hoping for a circular. I do not understand what circular he is talking about.

A circular to give stalls!

Sir, on a point of clarification. It is a circular to explain to us why these stalls are left vacant for two years or more. I know the Minister has explained it, but I think a written circular would help us a lot in explaining to our supporters.

Do you mean you do not understand the Minister's English?

I understand his English, Sir. But if we could just get a written explanation we can at least show it to our supporters, Sir. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment by leave, withdrawn. The following amendments stood on the Order Paper Supplement - Dr Ong Leong Boon: Encik Mansor Haji Sukaimi: (5) That the sum to be allocated for Head N be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead Code N B-05 of the Main Estimates. Encik Mansor Haji Sukaimi: (6) That the sum to be allocated for Head N be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead Code NO-02 of the Main Estimates.

Dr Ong and Encik Mansor Sukaimi have withdrawn Amendment (5). Amendment (6), Encik Mansor is not here. Amendment (7), Mr Ng Kah Ting.

Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head N be reduced by $10 in respect of Project 8114 of Subhead Code ND-02 of the Development Estimates. Sir, first of all, may I say that I welcome the provision of $640,000 for FY 79 for Drainage Improvement for Punggol Pig Farm Phase Ill. Hon. Members know that the Punggol Pig Farm has already begun and pig production has already gone quite a long way but there is still a need to further develop the pig farms under Phase III. Whilst I welcome this provision, I would also like to draw the attention of the Hon. Minister for the Environment to the inadequate drainage system provided under Phases I and Ii. I have had on several occasions made visits, together with the engineers from the Drainage Division of the Ministry concerned, to see for ourselves the present drainage system and we found that it is grossly inadequate. In this respect, I am just wondering whether the Minister concerned would look into the question of providing adequate drainage system under Phase II before he tackles the drainage problem under Phase III.

Sir, there is no doubt at all that plans are being made to provide adequate drainage to the whole area. It may not be possible to synchronise them so that upon completion of Phase I of the resettlement of pig farms in Jurong, we could complete the drainage under Phase I of Punggol. But they are all interlinked. Altogether there are seven drains to be completed and, as I said, we cannot complete seven drains all at once. We may have to complete one at a time. But I can assure the Member for Punggol that plans are laid for sufficient drainage of the whole area. It may take time, but ultimately, there will be sufficient drainage. In fact, we are looking into the possibility of providing some sort of sewerage treatment for pig waste. It is something which is new but we are looking into the possibility and will try to relieve him of the nuisance which arises from living too near pig farms.

Sir, I thank the Hon. Minister for his kind remarks. But he probably missed out my point that the drainage system provided under Phases I and II is grossly inadequate. This leads me to the point which he has just made and, that is, we are now faced with this problem of smell nuisance. He pointed out that there is the possibility of providing sewerage treatment for pig waste. I have occasion to develop this argument with some of the officials of the Ministry of National Development in which the Primary Production Department is involved. I am given to understand that such a plant would involve tremendous costs. Sir, I would like to come back to this question of drainage. Under Phases I and II, the drain is very small, mostly of composite channels, and not what is known as the bigger L-shape or U-shape type of drain which resembles the monsoon drain. After the last flood on 2nd December, 1978, I went to the site on the following day and saw that many of these drains were damaged. Following several site meetings that we had, I must confess that up till today I have not been able to see any improvement in the drainage. As the Hon. Minister mentioned earlier, "it begins with the first step towards the ultimate", then may I say that, of course, the second step must be taken before he goes on to the third step, that is, Phase 111. So I would like to seek enlightenment from the Minister on these remarks.

Sir, there is a total length of 12,000 metres of drainage to be completed. It is not the first step or the second step. It is the third step we are going into. We have gone into the first step. A total of $7.3 million will be spent. Last year, one of the drainage schemes, the Sungei Tongkang Pechah scheme, was completed at a cost of $1 million. Here the seven drainage schemes total 12,000 metres in length. On the average, it is about 1,800 metres each. So we construct 1,800 metres of drain at a time; we cannot construct all the 12,000 metres at once. We have completed one drain and we have almost completed the second drain, and we are going into the construction of the third drain. All I ask of the Member is to be more patient and we will complete the 12,000 metres in due course.

Sir, whilst I have a lot of patience, I think the people at large do not have sufficient patience in this matter. With regard to the drainage work at Sungei Tongkang Pechah, may I say that it is nearing completion but it serves the drainage system at Seletar Hills which joins up with Sungei Punggol. This will not alleviate the problem that is present in the farms at the Lorong Buang Kok and Lorong Cheng Lim areas. I am well aware that it is not the first or second step, but it is the third step. All I am saying is that there must be comprehensive planning so that all these problems can be alleviated, if not, solved.

Sir, if there has been no comprehensive planning, I would not be able to stand up here and tell the hon. Member that there are seven drainage schemes with a total length of 12,000 metres and that they will cost more than $7 million. Sir, there is definitely an overall plan to provide the hon. Member relief from the smell nuisance.

Sir, I do not wish to impose on the Hon. Minister, but I believe we are speaking at cross-purposes. I personally would not like to be the one to complain about the problem of smell, but it is a problem which the constituents of another constituency have also complained about. What I would like to see are steps being taken to solve this problem. 4.15 p.m. All I am saying is, and I repeat, that the drainage system ought to be looked into further. I know and I realise there is a plan to construct seven drains which the Hon. Minister has indicated to this House; that the length of the seven drains is some 12,000 metres long; but that is one matter. The question is that the present drainage system is already inadequate. That is the first lesson to be learnt. So when his Ministry goes on to Phase 111, adequate care and consideration should be given to the planning of the drainage system if we are to resolve the problem of smell. I think the Minister has got the point. I hope he takes heed of it and, if he does, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $97,235,050 for Head N ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $197,305,000 for Head N ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head O -

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head O be reduced by $10 in respect of Object Group 1210 of Subhead Code OB-02 of the Main Estimates. Sir, this concerns "State Lands Management" which has to maintain and manage State lands as well as reverted properties, including acquired properties pending development, among other things. What I wish to ask of the Hon. Minister for Law and Science and Technology is whether he is aware that the staff in the State Lands Section, in their over-eagerness to maintain and manage these State lands, do not seem to take into account the hardship faced by the farmers. In this respect, I am directing my remarks at those State lands known as farm lands. I have received complaints from some pig farmers that when they put up a pig sty to keep their pigs they get a notice from the State Lands Section asking them to demolish it. In one instance I sent a complaint to the relevant department and the reply was that they were acting as a result of a notice from the Primary Production Department. I would like to believe that the two departments are working not only hand in hand but hand in glove with each other, so that these farmers can understand that the piece of land is allocated to them under TOL for pig rearing. So the farmer must therefore make full use of the land by rearing the stated minimum number of pigs and to put up the necessary structures. Of course, if a farmer puts up his structure without submitting the proper plans assistance must be given to him. But sometimes it is not possible for him to wait for the approval because we all know that he has got a target date to rear the minimum number of pigs laid down by the Primary Production Department. In this respect, I hope the Hon. Minister for Law and Science and Technology would assure me that his department will not be so drastic in taking action against the farmers.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the State Lands Section does not work exactly hand in glove with the Primary Production Department. But I can assure the hon. Member that there is plenty of coordination between these two departments. Records in the Land Office and the Primary Production Department indicate that most of the enforcement cases complained about by the hon. Member are in respect of unauthorised poultry sheds, additional kitchens, and change of use of farm structures for other business activities. The Primary Production Department has only four enforcement cases involving pig sties. The first case involved the conversion of a pig sty into poultry rearing. Two other cases were in respect of encroachments of land reserved for a proposed expressway and buffer zones where pig sties are not allowed to be constructed because of pollution problems in Punggol. The fourth case concerned pig sties on land reserved for the Telecommunication Authority of Singapore. The Member for Punggol may rest assured that action is taken only against unauthorised structures or change of user without permission. In fact, we have a licensing Committee which reviews all such cases, and I am tempted to put the Member for Punggol on that committee. There is an agreed procedure between the two departments. For instance, if someone applies for permission to build a structure, say a pig farm, the Primary Production Department will first process the application for the erection of the farm structure and, if approved, issue a temporary permit for it. In the case of non-farm structures, that is to say, a dwelling house, a watch tower or a feedmill, the application, after it has been processed, will be submitted to the Building Control Division of the Ministry of National Development for approval and issue of a temporary building permit. Now, farmers are required to notify the Primary Production Department when they have completed construction of such structures. Thereafter, the State Lands Section of the Land Office will on the advice of the Primary Production Department, inspect the structures to ensure that they are erected in accordance with the approved plans. Should there be deviations in the structures, then the structures will not be permitted to be retained and the State Lands Section, after notice, will have to proceed with demolition action.

Sir, I thank the hon. Minister for the kind reply and the assurance given.

Before the Member withdraws, Mr Selvadurai has an amendment on the same subhead.

In that case, Sir, I will withdraw my amendment after the Member for Kuo Chuan has spoken.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this matter merely concerns a piece of open land next to the Philips factory in Lorong 1, Toa Payoh. I believe, Sir, that this lot was originally reserved for a school, in fact, the Convent of the Holy Infant Jesus. I have been informed (I may be wrong though) that the Convent has now turned it down. It is not interested in that piece of land at all. If that is so, and if there is no definite plan for another school on that plot of land, I would be grateful if the Hon. Minister would consider releasing that land for a community centre.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the State land next to the Philips factory at Lorong 1, Toa Payoh is, in fact, Lot 4061 pt, Mukim VII, with an approximate area of 38,653 square metres. This is the land referred to by the hon. Member. Approval has been given for the relocation of the Convent of the Holy Infant Jesus at Victoria Street, which is affected by the development of the Raffles International Centre project. An agreement was signed in 1976 between the Convent School authorities and the Permanent Secretary to the Minister for Education for the grant of a lease for the site. I understand that construction work on the site will start soon and that the Convent is expected to move from Victoria Street in a few years' time. In view of the Government's commitment, the site cannot be released for use as a multi-purpose community centre, as proposed by the Member for Kuo Chuan. However, should I be wrong and should the Convent not be interested in moving, I would be happy to allocate that piece of land for a community centre. I think this case has arisen because the construction of the Raffles International Centre has been postponed for some years because there was over-development in Singapore. But now there are firm plans to proceed with the construction, and once the 70-storey building goes up, I am sure the Convent will be happy to move.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the hon. Minister for the hint given and, if the Convent does release the land, we would like to have it.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have nothing to add to that, and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment by leave, withdrawn. The following amendment stood in the name of Encik Mansor Haji Sukaimi: (3) That the sum to be allocated for Head O be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead Code OB-04 of the Main Estimates.

Encik Mansor is not here. Mr Ng, Amendment (4).

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. That the sum to be allocated for Head O be reduced by $10 in respect of Project 8401 of Subhead Code OB-04 of the Development Estimates. Mr Speaker, Sir, in moving this amendment, I wish to seek clarification and elaboration from the hon. Minister concerned regarding the provision for FY 79 as against FY 78. For FY 79 there is a provision of $25 million for Land Acquisition for General Development, whereas for FY 78 the sum provided was $54 million. Apparently there appears to be some slowing down, or is it because less private land is required for public development? 4.30 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the sum under this Subhead in the Development Estimates makes provision for the cost of land acquisitions for general purposes. The cost of acquisitions of land required for specific purposes by various Ministries or departments are incorporated in the respective Ministries' development votes for these specific projects. Experience over the last few years has shown that the actual expenditure incurred under this Subhead has been less than that provided for. For budgetary reasons, it has therefore been decided to reduce the provision to a more realistic one to cater just for the immediate needs, leaving out longer term requirements. This provision has, therefore, been reduced to $25 million this year as compared to last year's $54 million. In the event of the provision being insufficient, an application for supplementary provision will be made, at which time the hon. Member can rise again and ask his questions.

Sir, in view of the reply of the Hon. Minister, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $9,875,100 for Head O ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $25,000,000 for Head O ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head P -

Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head P be reduced by $10 in respect of Object Group 2210 of Subhead Code PB-01 of the Main Estimates. Sir, I notice on page 198 of the Budget that the provision for equipment for the year 1979 makes up about 14% of the total expenditure of $3,163,470, whereas last year the provision was only 1.2% of the total expenditure. Of the $442,020 provided for equipment for FY 79, $300,000 is to be sanctioned by the Treasury. Can I ask the Hon. Minister, Sir, where there is a mistake in this or, if not, what is the large amount for?

Sir, may I seek your permission, and if there are no objections from the House, I would like my Political Secretary to answer.

Yes. Mr Lim.

Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission I would like to reply on behalf of the Minister for Science and Technology. The provision under the Subhead Code indicated by the Member for Mountbatten will be used mainly for the purchase of laboratory equipment, instruments and tools. This will amount to over 90% of the provision indicated. A small portion will be used for the purchase of furniture and replacement of old office equipment. The substantial increase in the provision for FY 79 is due primarily to the provision of $300,000 for the purchase of testing equipment required for the analysis of difficult chemicals and compounds containing narcotic drugs such as morphine or heroin. The Department of Scientific Services has considered that this particular testing equipment will be most suitable for use in the analysis of drugs and, hence, has recommended its purchase.

Sir, as the Political Secretary to the Minister for Science and Technology has quite capably explained the expenditure, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $26,875,070 for Head P ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $8,385,190 for Head P ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.

Sir, as we are well ahead of time, I seek your consent and the general assent of Members present to move that progress be reported now and leave be asked to sit again tomorrow.

I give my consent. Does the Minister have the general assent of hon. Members to move the motion indicated by him? Hon. Members indicated assent. Resolved, "That, notwithstanding the Standing Orders, progress be reported now and leave be asked to sit again tomorrow." - [Mr E.W. Barker]. Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House.

Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply has made further progress on the Main and Development Estimates for the financial year 1st April, 1979 to 31st March, 1980 and ask leave to sit again tomorrow.

So be it.

Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn." - [Mr E.W. Barker]. Adjourned accordingly at Thirteen minutes to Five o'clock p.m.