Hansard, 1981-03-24

The following Bill was assented to by the President of the Republic of Singapore on the date stated:- 21st March, 1981 Judges' Remuneration (Amendment) Bill YEOH GHIM SENG Speaker, Parliament of Singapore

asked the Minister for Trade and Industry and Minister for Health what type of industrial training will be provided at the different Joint Industrial Training Centres, and whether any of these Centres will be located at Ang Mo Kio New Town.

Mr Speaker, Sir, at present, the Economic Development Board runs four Joint Industrial Training Centres. They are: (1) Tata-Government Training Centre at Chin Bee Drive, Jurong; (2) Philips-Government Training Centre at Jalan Ahmad Ibrahim, Jurong; (3) Rollei-Government Training Centre at Kallang Junction: and (4) Japan-Singapore Training Centre at Jalan Bukit Merah. These centres provide a four-year apprenticeship training in the following 11 trades designed to meet the needs of industrial firms using advanced skills and technology:-

asked the Minister for Trade and Industry and Minister for Health (a) how many new overseas trade offices will be established in financial year 1981-82 and in which countries; and (b) whether it is possible for our local industrialists or traders to get assistance from these overseas trade offices, and, if so, how.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there are plans to set up three overseas trade offices in Belgium, Saudi Arabia and the People's Republic of China in financial year 1981-82. Our local industrialists or traders can get assistance from these overseas trade offices, whose function is to promote our exports in overseas markets. Our overseas offices will, therefore, service trade enquiries, seek out foreign buyers and provide logistics support for overseas promotional projects such as organisation of trade fairs and trade missions. Actual follow-up of contacts established and business enquiries received will, however, have to be undertaken by the industrialists and traders themselves.

Order read for consideration in Committee of Supply (5th Allotted Day].

Head I - 2.36 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head I be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead IA-02 of the Development Estimates*. *The same amendment also stood in the names of Dr Lau Teik Soon and Mr Ch'ng Jit Koon. Sir, the Provisional Mass Rapid Transit Authority was set up through an Act of Parliament sometime last year, and the House has had on many occasions debated in great detail and at great length on the Mass Rapid Transit System, and we have also been getting reports. Sir, I am surprised to see that so many millions of dollars, if my memory is correct, more than $10 million, have already been spent on these feasibility studies of the MRT system. Today this House is asked to approve $7 million for FY 81 where the original total project cost would be $21 million. So this vote is one-third of the total original cost. Sir, since so much money is being spent on feasibility studies, I would like to hear from the Minister for Communications and Minister for Labour what other forms of studies are required before we come to a firm decision, bearing in mind that there is a report on the all-bus system. I think this matter is of very great interest and is being talked about very much in the last few days, since the announcement by the Ministry of Communications that the SBS will, on the first of next month, increase the fares by 10 cents all round. Sir, if I may, with your indulgence proceed along those lines?

Yes.

Thank you, Sir. I would like to touch on the hike in bus fare of 10 cents all round from 1st April, as was announced in a statement from the Ministry of Communications last Thursday, 19th March, 1981 and was reported on Friday. Although this has not come as a surprise, because the Minister himself has indicated that if we want to have a more efficient bus service we have to pay more. Nonetheless it is a shock to all bus commuters because of the hefty increase. Ten cents appear to be a small sum of money but it is a lot. This is going to cost the bus commuters a lot and that means more profit for the SBS. Coupled with this, the Communications Ministry in its statement made matters worse by saying that the fares will be further increased later this year, after a more detailed scrutiny of the SBS financial outlook has been carried out. In other words, this is more than a double shock. With the first shock it does not seem that the interests of the bus commuters have been taken into consideration by the SBS. The SBS has the sole monopoly, so to speak, of providing public transport. It is not cheap. They have been able to give convincing reasons to the Ministry of Communications for the bus fare increases. I would like to ask of the Minister whether his Ministry has considered the simple fact that a mere 10 cents increase means increasing the profits of SBS?

Increasing losses!

I do not know whether the Hon. Minister for Foreign Affairs has studied economics. I did not study economics. If increasing fares means a loss, then I think this House will come tumbling down on him.

It will decrease the loss.

Yes, it will decrease the loss. But I do not think so as I will develop along those lines later. Please be a bit patient. Then who suffers? I have in mind school children whose concession passes will be increased from $9 to $12 in the case of primary school students and $13.50 for secondary school and junior college students, including full-time VITB students. Students in the tertiary institutions would have to pay $25 instead of $18 for their monthly student passes. So one look at the percentage increase means 33 1/3%, 50% and 38.9% respectively. This also means that the lower income group, the thousands of office workers, the labourers and other workers, all will have to pay more by the all round increase of 10 cents. But the question is, will they be getting better and more efficient bus services? I would fully support the Hon. Minister's call for SBS to increase its paid-up capital rather than for SBS to merely give all sorts of reasons to justify their fare hikes. The House had debated at great length over the way SBS has been operating with profits being foremost in mind. The SBS is a public company and it does not mean that they can get away with what they want. I hope the Hon. Minister will pay attention to my remarks. Talking of efficient service, we have heard of appeals for feeder bus services in Kebun Baru Constituency as well as in Joo Chiat Constituency, and these appeals have not been agreed to I know because I have gone down to Joo Chiat constituency. So I hope the Hon. Minister would ensure that bus commuters will get value for their fare. As far as possible, the SBS should provide the necessary public transportation with the least inconvenience to the commuters. Finally, Sir, may I also suggest that the next increase be deferred to next year?

Sir, I would just like to add another voice of dissatisfaction with the way the Government has been procrastinating as far as the MRT system is concerned. I get the feeling that there is a consensus of view that the MRT is desirable and that it is even feasible to implement. The Hon. Minister has on many occasions stated that it is all a question of costs. But if there is a consensus that the MRT is desirable and feasible, then implementing the system at a future date will only mean a greater escalation of costs. I think that it would be advisable, therefore, to think in terms of implementing the MRT system as soon as possible. The hon. Member for Punggol has already mentioned the considerable sums of money that have been expended on feasibility studies. I think it is time that a decision was made. What I would like to ask the Hon. Minister is whether, in this case as in other cases which we have heard in the House concerning other Ministries, there is a conflict of viewpoints between either the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Communications, or whether there is a conflict of viewpoints between Ministers. What is the real reason for the procrastination? This indecisiveness on the part of Government is untypical of the way in which Government has gone about formulating and implementing policies. 2.45 p.m. It could be that the Hon. Minister has to look at an option thrusted upon him, the all-bus system. I recall an answer he gave in this House that even if the all-bus system were to be implemented, it would be viable up to the 1990s. If that is the case, then the period after that would require another consideration of a more viable transport system, which means the question of MRT once again. I would like the Hon. Minister to inform the House when and how soon it is possible to come to a firm decision as far as the MRT is concerned. May I, with your permission, Sir, deal with the recent increase in bus fares. I agree with what the Member for Punggol has just stated. I think the way in which the Hon. Minister has informed the public of future price increase is in my view akin to a slow-torture. The Minister has informed the public that there will be future increases in bus fares and they will come at, maybe, regular intervals. I wonder whether it would not be better to think in terms of a reasonable increase in bus fares on a longer-term basis than to advise the public that the price increases would be forthcoming at more or less regular intervals.

Mr Ch'ng Jit Koon is not here. Mr Ho Kah Leong.

( In Mandarin): Sir, I fully agree with the two hon. Members who have spoken before me. I am wondering why the Government has not yet made any decision on the MRT system. Why should the Government delay its decision? The Minister says that perhaps it is necessary to wait until some new technology has turned up so that the cost involved will be less. But, on the other hand, there is another problem to it, because the longer we delay, material cost, manpower and other building costs will also increase. Has the Minister considered this aspect? Although we may have higher technology available in future, which is an unknown feature, all the other costs will also increase by then. I hope the Government will be able to arrive at a prompt and firm decision. On the other question about the increase in bus fares, I agree with the other two Members that it is not quite reasonable. As described by the Member for Punggol, the Singapore Bus Service is a monopoly company and has the protection of the Government. The Government seems to be ensuring that the company should make money. Since ours is a free market economy, how are we supposed to do that? Of course, a company either makes money or loses money. But this company is special. Since it is a Government-sponsored company, it must make money. But where does the money come from? Of course, it comes from the people who are at the company's mercy. Since it is a monopoly, the people cannot do very much about it. It is therefore left to the Members here to make their voices heard. We would still hope that any increase in the bus fares must be reasonable and convincing. Do not blame everything on oil. There seems to be a general ailment, as in the case of the Public Utilities Board, that when they want to increase their charges they blame it on the increase in the price of oil. Likewise, when the bus company wants to increase its fares, they also put the blame on the increase in oil prices. It may very well be a pretext. I hope the Government will make a careful study of the case and give its reasons for increasing the bus fares and should not claim that because of inefficiency and increasing costs the bus company is now losing money and therefore it must recover by increasing its bus fares, which is not right. Yesterday, a constituent came to see me at my meet-the-people session and said that he saw several white-clad bus company staff roaming around the Jurong Town Bus Interchange. They seemed to be walking around aimlessly, with nothing to do. If bus fares are to be increased in order to maintain such seemingly redundant staff on the payroll, I think it is not right nor reasonable. Of course, there could be other areas where the bus company could try to economize, mechanize or automate in order to reduce expenditure and increase productivity. The Minister had been to Hong Kong to see for himself the underground railway system. We could well adopt the ticketing system in which train tickets can be obtained from an automatic machine. These tickets can be used many times, thus saving the cost of printing. The passengers board the train with the necessary tickets which will be returned. Thus, no conductor is required and the bus can also be driven and controlled by one driver. I mention this just for the reference and consideration of the Minister.

( In Mandarin): Sir, I would also like to take part in this debate. On the question of the MRT, I dare say that I was the first Member of Parliament to make an appeal to the Government to proceed with this system. But, unfortunately, the Government has delayed and further delayed the matter. I do not want to go further into the matter except to say that time will prove that what I have said is correct. In other words, the earlier we go ahead with MRT, the more money we will save. So we will leave it to the future and see what will happen. Sir, on the question of fare increases imposed by SBS, I would like to cite one Chinese saying. These are people who are prepared to chop off their head but there is nobody who is prepared to run a losing business. This is quite correct. So if the SBS is really running at a loss, then we should sympathize with it in its request to the Government to increase the bus fare by 10 cents all round. But I feel that SBS is not running at a loss. It is instead thinking of developing its business by purchasing more and bigger buses. Therefore, the company needs some capital to invest for their expansion and further development. If that is the case, then there is no reason for the SBS to increase the bus fares to raise the capital for its own business expansion. It is not right. It should not make its calculations at the expense of the passengers. That is not right. In my view, it is for the SBS to try and save money or to look for other sources of funds for its business expansion. Sir, I can say that Singapore Bus Service has a very bright future ahead. If the shareholders really feel that there is no future for the company, then a great many of them would have already sold their shares. At today's market price, the share value has gone up at least four-fold. If the company is losing money, how is it that the shareholders are still clinging on to their share certificates? This means that the company would have made sure of a profit of so many per cent per annum to itself. So if any fare increase is to be borne by the commuters, I think it is not right. If the Government allows the SBS to increase its bus fares, then the SBS should not be allowed to continue to enjoy its monopolistic position in the business. The Government should also allow either local people or interested foreign investors to run the bus services in Singapore for the benefit of the people here. In other words, if there are other organizations interested in providing public bus services, then the Government should issue licences to such organizations or people.

Encik Saidi, since we are on public transport, you might as well speak on your amendment.

Sir, actually I am still writing out what I want to say. But, nevertheless, since I am called to speak, let me say a few things about the public transport system. Sir, the Programme Description on Public Transport states: 'The planning and regulation of the public transport system including field studies, research and implementation of traffic management measures.' When we discuss the public transport system, we are referring to the whole network of roads with their directional signs and traffic lights that govern the operation of all public transport vehicles, such as buses and taxis, for the purpose of effective, speedy and safe mobility of people from one place to another. I am particularly interested to reflect in this House the situation of the public transport system in my constituency, particularly in the HDB estate of Bedok North. Anybody who connects to Bedok North - and I had the experience when I went there for the first time, by bus particularly - might have the nightmarish experience of finding his way round to his destination. It has been pointed out to me by many of my constituents that the feeder bus services are inadequate in terms of timing and frequency. So when I heard that the bus fare will be increased by five cents for the feeder bus service, I am very sure that I am going to face a lot of criticisms from my constituents. First of all, to pay 15 cents is a bit difficult. Probably it is better to retain the fare at 10 cents than to increase it to 15 cents. But, anyway, I am sure the Minister will say that the commuters will have to face the inconvenience of paying 15 cents. 3.00 p.m. What I want to raise particularly is in regard to the new Neighbourhoods 6 and 7. To me, I feel that the SBS is always thinking of making profits only. The SBS will respond to the request of the constituents only when it receives complaints that there is no service in the neighbourhood. It will first ask how many people are already residing in the neighbourhood. It is only when 80% of the people have moved into the neighbourhood, will the SBS start a bus service. I think that the SBS should be service-oriented in its profit-making venture. There is nothing wrong in making a profit but the first consideration is to provide a service. What I would like to know from the Ministry is that, if it is responsible for planning the transport system, then whenever a new housing estate is being developed, studies should be made as to how soon can a bus service be started. For instance, the Ministry should also find out how many buses are required and not to start a service only when there are complaints from the residents. At present there are not enough facilities at the Bedok bus interchange. I would like to invite Members here or even the Minister to go there, especially in the morning. I am sure they will find that they have to queue up for the bus. A lot of incon- venience is caused to the residents. I hope the Ministry can look into this matter and ensure that the bus system, particularly in the housing estate, is continually being improved.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I also take this opportunity to join in the debate. When I met my constituents and discussed about the Budget, some of the points, like those raised by the hon. Members for Khe Bong and Jurong, were also raised by my constituents. First, my constituents seem to have a very awkward feeling that the SBS is becoming and acting like a callous monopoly. Whether or not that is true, it is good for the Ministry to try and give some clarification. They also believe that the SBS is making a profit, because if it is not making a profit then the value of SBS shares must go down. In this regard, I was asked by my constituents whether, sometime in the future, I could ask the Minister to provide a more detailed statement of the profit and loss accounts of the SBS, taking into account the capital investments of the SBS over a specific number of years. They say this would help to clarify why in the case of the City Shuttle Bus Service they are able to operate with profits and without frequent increases in the bus fares. At the same time, it is also the first company to offer concessions to our senior citizens. Perhaps if the Minister could give more details about the profit and loss accounts of the SBS, then we would be in a better position to make an assessment on the viability of SBS, whether it is really making a profit, an unfair profit, against the interest of the commuters. I am confident that the SBS will find it more than an easy job to run an efficient service and, at the same time, make a profit and also avoid raising bus fares. This actually relates to the criteria of efficiency that we expect of a bus service. If we think that on the average 15 minutes' wait for a bus is fair, then I am sure the SBS would require a specific number of buses with a specific level of maintenance and repair service to maintain a flow of buses to meet the criteria of efficiency, that is, 15 minutes of waiting on the average for a bus service. It is not possible to maintain a very high standard of service if the SBS does not look for ways and means to raise the necessary funds. I am sure one of the ways is to increase the fares. I grant that it would be necessary for the SBS to increase the fares, but what I like the Minister to do is to give a clearer statement of the profit and loss of SBS. When there is a need to raise the bus fares, I would also like to ask the Minister whether he could also request the SBS to convince the public that it has taken all possible measures to reduce the cost of operations, administration and other costs which constitute part of the SBS cost of operation. Presumably, if the administration is more efficient, there will be more savings in manpower and so on. Any marginal increase in fuel cost can be met from savings in the administrative cost. Therefore, if the SBS can convince the public that it has taken all measures to save on administrative cost, and in spite of that, it still has to increase its fares, then please explain to the public. If this is done, I think it will be easier for us to understand why the SBS fares must be increased.

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me tackle the MRT first. The Members for Punggol, Serangoon Gardens, Jurong and Khe Bong have asked when a decision on the MRT will be made, why delay it, and why spend further money on the various studies. As Members are aware, the Provisional Mass Rapid Transit Authority was set up in July last year to undertake all the preparatory works and studies related to the MRT. These works, which include traffic studies, soil investigations, land surveys and other detailed engineering work, have to be done before MRT construction can take place. That is to say, even if we make a decision today to proceed with the MRT, all these works will still have to be carried out before construction work can actually begin. In effect, what this means is that we are not delaying the project but rather preparing ourselves to proceed with the building of the MRT project with the minimum of delay once a decision is taken. I hope I have made this clear. The Provisional MRT Authority will be provided with $21 million for the next two to three years to carry out various preparatory work and studies. For 1981-82, $7 million have been provided. Of this sum, $5.6 million will go into the island-wide Comprehensive Traffic Study that the Provisional MRT Authority has just embarked upon. The remaining $1.4 million will be used for the engineering studies and land surveys to be carried out later this year. Members have asked the reasons for the delay in making a decision. As I have repeatedly explained in this House on many occasions before, Sir, the project is complex and very expensive with wide-ranging implications. This being the case, the decision to proceed with the MRT can only be taken after all factors have been carefully considered. In this connection, Sir, I would like to point out that transport considerations will feature quite prominently in helping us to arrive at that decision. The Comprehensive Traffic Study, which the Provisional MRT Authority has just commissioned, will determine how an all-bus system will fare in the years 1990 to 2000, i.e. whether it will be able to cope with the travel demand at that time. If it is found that an all-bus system cannot cope satisfactorily, the study will then proceed further to tell us at which point in time we should have the MRT. Sir, on transportation grounds alone, there is no justification to start building the MRT now if the buses could be made to cope until 1990, 1995 or 2000. Otherwise both the buses and the MRT system would be under-utilized. The advantage of stretching the bus system to cope for as long as we can is that we will be able to take advantage of the latest proven development in MRT technology, as well as learn from the mistakes of others. I do agree with the concern expressed by Members here that the longer we delay by procrastinating the decision the more it will cost us. But the other way is equally true. We will also be in a better position to afford the MRT at a later date than now. But that is not the key point. The main point is that if we can stretch the bus system as long as we can and defer the MRT till a later date, either three years or five years from now, then we will have the advantage of having the most up-to-date system, rather than to have one now which would be five years earlier and would be obsolete by the time we really need ' I wish to assure the House that we will continue to improve the level of bus services even if we decide to go ahead with the MRT. This is because buses will continue to play a major role, even with MRT. In any case, it will take at least five, six or seven years before the first trains are running even if we decide to build the MRT now. I would like to come now to the questions on the SBS raised by Members. Before I come to the specific questions raised, perhaps you would allow me, Sir, to reiterate the basic principles under which we carried out the bus fare hike exercise. First of all, if the SBS is to remain viable and provide a level of service that can meet the increasing demand of the travelling public, then the fare must be allowed to rise and keep pace with rising costs. I think that is the basic principle. If it is not allowed to remain viable, then no company in the world would want to operate such a service here or anywhere else, unless it is heavily subsidized by the state. In this case, the Government's responsibility is to ensure that the fare hike is kept to the minimum under the principle I have just mentioned. The second principle is that a sensible balance must be struck between the full fare and all forms of concession fares. This is because the lower the concession fare the greater the burden that must be passed on to the full fare-paying passengers. Therefore, the concession fares must be rationalized when the fare structure is reviewed from time to time. 3.15 p.m. Members mentioned that the concession fares given to students of tertiary institutions, national servicemen and other uniformed personnel have been raised too high. Perhaps I may quote some overall figures to put the picture in proper perspective. Today we know that there are altogether a total of 2.265 million trips a day. Of these, those who pay full fares or full fare trips constitute 1.622 million a day whereas the concession trips constitute 643,000 per day. Percentage-wise, it is 72% against 28%. That means 72% of the trips are full fare trips and 28% of the trips are concession fare trips. But in terms of revenue for the whole of last year SBS collected $223.7 million from the full fare paying passengers and $37.9 million from the concession fare passengers. So, in terms of percentage based on revenue, it is 85% from the full fare paying passengers as against 14.5% from the concession fare passengers. If we remove the concessions and make all these concession pass holders to pay the full fare, they will have to pay an extra $50 million. In other words, they are being subsidized at more than 50%, almost 75%. That is the rate of subsidy as far as the company is concerned. Members also mentioned about students in the tertiary institutions whose concession fare will be raised from $18 to $25 as from next month. In fact, even with this increase in the concession fare, the subsidy given to the students in the tertiary institutions will be increased by 17%. If we want to actually maintain the same margin of subsidy for the tertiary students, then the concession fare should have been higher than $25. As regards full-time national servicemen, we thought that there is a case for assistance because of the meagre stipend of $90 per month that they receive, and agreed to an increase of $6, from $24 to $30 per month, for the season pass. This, in fact, increases SBS's loss by 23%. That means SBS is increasing its extent of concession to the full-time national servicemen by 23%. The Member for Kampong Kembangan asked whether we could explain the profit and loss figures of SBS so that the travelling public would understand and would perhaps be more prepared to accept this fare hike. It is true that SBS has made cumulative profits in the past because of Government's approval given to the company to raise the fares. Last year, they made a cumulative profit of $10 million - I have not got the latest report but it is round about that figure. This is despite the fact that SBS has been losing money since August last year, when they have been running into an operating loss on an average of $700,000 a month. In January this year, the loss was about $510,000. In February, the loss was about $1.54 million. For the month of March, the estimated operating loss will be about $1.9 million, and this will go on, escalating all the way. If there is no bus fare increase by 1st April, SBS would suffer a loss for the six months of this year of about $15-$16 million. So the cumulative profit that the company made last year would be completely wiped off. By the end of the year, if there is no increase in fares, the current cumulative loss would run up as high as $50 million. The company would then have difficulty in getting loans to finance its bus purchasing programme. As of now, SBS is already depending on loans to purchase its buses. It has borrowed about $50 million to date, and it will continue to resort to loans and other means. During the next few months we hope they will be able to raise the funds to purchase the necessary buses which are required to meet the demand of the travelling public, particularly to have more buses in Joo Chiat and Kebun Baru. This programme is not only to increase the bus fleet but also to replace the old buses because, with the higher standard of living and affluence, our travelling public expects a higher standard of service. They are now better dressed; so they do not want their dress to be dirtied, and they do not want the buses to break-down. half way on the road. All these cost money. In fact, the SBS wanted to have a fare hike as early as 1st February. But my Ministry was not convinced by all the arguments that they put forward and threw back the various proposals for reconsideration. And the delay of two months, from 1st February to 1st April, has caused the company a further reduction in revenue amounting to a few million dollars. This delay in the fare hike has caused further losses. As I said, if we can defer the next fare hike to next year, I will be happy to do so. Government would be too happy to defer this. Nobody wants to do unpopular things. But unfortunately if we do that, we will put SBS in a very tight spot and we will not be able to provide the service that the travelling public demands. The Member for Kaki Bukit unfortunately is under the wrong impression that SBS plans its bus services only when new towns are built. In fact, planning takes place long before the towns are built. Under a standing arrangement, the HDB and SBS do have close rapport. The HDB would send its land-use plan or outline plans for new towns to SBS to enable SBS to draw up a conceptual bus network. The plan indicates where the feeder services and trunk services could be run and where an interchange and bus depot could be located. This will determine also the pattern of the road network. It is no use having a brand new town with a road system such that a bus feeder service or trunk service will not be able to operate. This has happened in other places and perhaps here too in the past, to a small extent and not too seriously. But every step is being taken to prevent that sort of thing from recurring. Such early consultations constitute the first stage of planning of bus services of new towns. The second stage is that SBS follows the construction schedules of the HDB closely, so that feeder services to various neighbourhoods can be finalized before the flats are ready. Services normally commence two months after the flats are balloted. This is the time when residents normally renovate their homes before they move in. In the third stage, trunk services are introduced gradually. The first trunk services to be introduced are to the central business district, the new towns and into the surrounding areas of new towns and major industrial estates. The SBS has a market analysis programme unit which monitors the demand of the travelling public by carrying out comprehensive surveys in all major new towns once every six to eight weeks until the new towns are fully occupied. Response to growth in demand is made through the addition of buses, restructuring of existing routes or introduction of new services. 3.30 p.m. With regard to services at Kaki Bukit, there are presently two services, Nos. 50 and 53. Kaki Bukit is expected to be redeveloped over the next three years and SBS is already in touch with the authorities to plan the bus network for this area. I thank him for his invitation to visit this interchange. I would like to tell him that I have visited the interchange last year. I will visit the interchange again when it is about to be ready.

Sir, the answer given by the Hon. Minister with regard to the activities of the Provisional MRT Authority is generally satisfactory. However, I am not at all satisfied with his answer with regard to the justification of hikes in bus fares. I have a few questions to ask of the Minister. Sir, in raising the bus fares, what is the amount of revenue that the SBS will derive? To what extent will it help to reduce their losses? In his reply just now the Hon. Minister said that SBS had obtained loans of up to about $50 million. Has SBS not considered a way to repay these loans so that they need not pay interest? One of the ways, as suggested by the Minister in a speech sometime last week, is to raise the paid-up capital of the SBS. I think it is a viable project. As the Minister has pointed out, if SBS is able to pay at least a 7% dividend to its shareholders, then it justifies its viability. If that is the case, then SBS should look into the question of pumping some capital to make it more than viable. I hope the Minister will further elaborate on this point. Otherwise, as has been mentioned by the Member for Khe Bong, the quoted share of SBS in the Stock Exchange will not be four times its par value.

Sir, unlike the Member for Punggol, I am not satisfied with the answer of the Minister with regard to the MRT system. This year, as he has stated, about $7 million will be utilized for a comprehensive survey. I expect that for the next two years or so more money will have to be requested for further comprehensive studies. He stated that these were all preparatory work. In the event the decision is positive we will go ahead with the MRT. But if the decision is otherwise, it means therefore a loss of all these millions of dollars. So the question really is, can the Minister inform the House whether a decision will be made in, say, a year's time, two years' time or three years' time? One reason given for the postponement of the decision is that in the future a breakthrough in technology may reduce relatively the cost of implementing the MRT. I would like to ask the Hon. Minister what is the basis of the expectation that there will be a major breakthrough in the system, and whether in fact there will be relative savings in the cost?

Sir, I am convinced of the views expressed by the Minister that the SBS cannot be viable unless it is given the opportunity to raise its fares. But what I would like the Minister to do, and I will be asking him again in the near future, is to make public, through the media possibly, more details as to why the raises must be made. I recall seeing some papers on this matter, and I think his Ministry has got very good arguments. I am sure the public will understand and support his decision if some of the details he has in his analysis are made public. I am also convinced that generally the Singaporean accepts the principle that the SBS must be able to operate without subsidies. The question is for us to go to the people, give them the arguments and tell them why we have to have these increases. At the moment we have not had the details, and in my own experience with my own constituents I find it very difficult to convince them unless the Minister helps me to provide the details.

Sir, I am happy to hear from the Hon. Minister that there is consultation between the HDB and the Ministry with regard to the planning of the transport system. I hope that this consultation will take into consideration the construction of traffic lights as well as bus shelters. On two occasions when I returned home by taxi after my meet-the-people session, when the taxi driver passed Bedok North junction with Bedok North Avenue 1, he told me that these traffic lights were put up only after two deaths had occurred at that particular junction. I have not established whether it is true or not, but on both occasions these two drivers told me that. This means that if there was proper planning of the whole transport system, probably the construction of traffic lights would have been considered before the whole town was occupied by residents. I would like to bring to the attention of the Minister that in Bedok North Constituency there is a lack of bus shelters for quite some time. I hope this can be taken into consideration.

Sir, the Minister said that SBS raised loans from banks to buy new buses. Would it not be cheaper for the SBS to have a share issue to finance the purchase of buses?

Sir, the Minister mentioned that the Ministry of Communications held back the bus hike in February. There must be good reasons for doing so. What convincing arguments did SBS put forward later to change his mind?

Sir, SBS has seen fit to increase its fares all round in view of higher operating costs. What proportion of this is due to higher fuel cost and what proportion to labour cost? What steps are being taken to increase productivity? To the general commuters, buses under the Scheme B Service, on whom the Registry of Vehicles are more stringent, appear to be not only better maintained but their charges are also lower. They also face the same problem of high fuel and labour costs. would the Minister care to comment on this?

I would like to seek clarification from the Hon. Minister. I notice that all the concession fares are to be raised, but the particular concession given to the Police and Armed Forces personnel has been withdrawn. There must be good reasons for this. What is the rationale for a total withdrawal of this concession, thus depriving the Police and the Armed Forces personnel of a long enjoyed concessionary rate? Are the conditions now different as compared to the days prior to the withdrawal? The other matter is the feeder services. Many commuters are still not convinced of this bus interchange concept. They do not mind paying the extra 10 cents, and now 15 cents, for the feeder services. But what they mind most is the inconvenience of having to make too many bus changes. On top of that, many feeder services tend to arrive together instead of intervals of five or six minutes. In other words, they bunch up. I am a keen advocate of neighbourliness but not of buses! In this respect, would the Minister please comment? I hope the Minister will ensure that proper time-keeping and administration is done at the bus interchange so that these buses would come along at the stipulated times and therefore minimize the inconvenience to the commuters.

Sir, the Hon. Minister has, in his reply, stated that the SBS plans ahead. I do not know how much forward planning has been done because they were running at a loss of $700,000 a month since last August. Surely these bus fare hikes must have been planned a few months earlier and not just raised with the Ministry of Communications in January. If they had done so, then this delay of two months in implementing the fare increase would not have led to SBS losing more money. On the planning of SBS services, the Minister has stated that this is being done well in advance for housing estates. The plans of HDB are given to the SBS for concept plans of roads to be carried out. In July this year the airport would be shifted from Paya Lebar to Changi. At this moment the SBS has got some plans on how to cater for the workers who, instead of working in Paya Lebar, will be working in Changi. There will be no direct buses except for one service from Queen Street. For the other workers they will have to use three interchanges: at Tampines, Somapah and Bedok. The transfer of a large group of workers from Paya Lebar to Changi would mean that there@would be a great demand for transportation services. So would the Minister inform this House what plans there are to increase the services on those roads leading to those three interchanges? Before the announcement of fare increases, the fare charged between Bedok Interchange and Changi Airport is 70 cents. Now with the all-round 10-cent increase, I wonder whether this will lead to 80 cents. It would mean that for those who have to use the Bedok Interchange, the feeder service cost itself would be in the region of $20 per month. This is in addition to the extra cost they would have to pay to reach those interchanges. The majority of the workers at the Airport are not earning a thousand dollars. They are earning below $400. I think that, for this group of workers, transportation costs would cut a very substantial portion of their take-home pay. In such case, who is responsible for this cost increase? Should it be the responsibility of the employers or should it be borne to some extent by the SBS? 3.45 p.m. The SBS itself, I think, cannot be expected to bear the cost of this extra distance that the workers have to travel. But the SBS has got a decisive say as to how the routes should be structured. The SBS has chosen to use the concept of interchanges and this has inevitably increased the transportation cost to the workers. I would like to urge the Ministry to consider whether some direct services ought to be provided from the other parts of the island, say, tom Ang Mo Kio or from the major housing estates to the Airport. If interchanges have to be used, because in overall economics it makes for -better utilization, then could not the SBS consider a through fare instead of requiring them to pay one fare to the interchange and another fare from the interchange to the airport?

Sir, I fully agree with what the Member for Serangoon Gardens has said. The decision on the MRT really is whether we need the system rather than wait for the technological breakthrough. Here I would like the Hon. Minister to clarify whether the breakthrough that he has mentioned is in view or it is just a hope. I would also like to know if, in three to five years' time when we are making our final decision there is another technological breakthrough are we then going to delay again just to benefit from the breakthrough?

Sir, permit me to just make a short observation. Listening to hon. Members, it gives me the impression that maybe we should forget the whole MRT study and save all the millions of dollars and instead spend it on carrying out a study on the operational efficiency of SBS, Like the Member for Serangoon Gardens, I thought that the answer given was not very clear. It is still rather equivocal. I think the Minister mentioned that based on transportation grounds alone there is no justification for an MRT. Am I right?

If the buses can be made to cope until the 1990s.

How is the Minister going to ascertain that the buses would be able to cope till 1990s? Obviously, some study has got to be carried out. An expert has been defined as a person who makes simple things complicated. So as we get more experts the situation becomes more complicated. Personally, I am not quite sure whether we really need an MRT. Given the choice, I would rather say, "Let us not have the MRT." Why turn the whole beautiful city into a huge building site? And after spending all these millions of dollars, what are we going to get? We would not be here to enjoy it.

( In Mandarin): Sir, I would like to request the Minister to clarify two points. According to the Minister, the main reason for raising the bus fares is the increase in oil prices in the world. In respect of the expenditure of SBS, I would like to know what percentage of it is spent on diesel oil and what is the percentage for other oils? Is the SBS getting any tax-free concession for such oil imports? Otherwise, perhaps the SBS can request the Ministry concerned for tariff-free oils, i.e. exemption from import duties. In last year's annual report of the SBS, it was stated that the SBS was installing a new computer at great cost. I understand that before acquiring this particular computer, SBS was using another computer of a different model. Before SBS made the decision to install the new computer, did it request the systems engineers from the First Deputy Prime Minister's Office to make a study as to whether the SBS needed to acquire it?

Sir, I shall first clarify the points that I mentioned about the MRT. As I have said, on transportation grounds alone there is no justification to start building an MRT now if the buses can be made to cope until 1990 or 1995 or the year 2000. If the all-bus system can continue to serve the travelling public till 1990s, then there is no urgency to make a decision right now. But if we have to make a decision right now, all this preparatory work that I mentioned earlier will still have to be done. So we are not delaying. We are making the necessary preparation. The point is this. This is our first MRT project and likely to be our last. It is a very expensive project. We have no experience in constructing an MRT. Our knowledge of the MRT is based on the experience of other countries and we should not allow our decision-making process to be constrained by our own limitations. We should not allow ourselves to be constrained by our own narrowness of vision of what we see in technological breakthroughs. When we talk about technological breakthroughs, we are talking more of the system technological breakthrough and not the rolling stock technological breakthrough. Last year I went to a few places with officials of my Ministry and saw a number of new innovations being tested, such as the linear induction system to reduce noise level in the trains and the screening of the stations to cut down energy loss and to make stations safer. These are new devices that are just coming into the market. Some have just been put into operation while some have not. They will be put into operation in two to three years' time. Whether or not we can wait until then, we do not know. But, of course, if we can delay for another year or two, we will perhaps benefit from the experience of others. That does not mean that we will continue to delay in making a decision. I would like to assure the Member for Serangoon Gardens that, as I have said earlier in previous sessions of this Parliament, I am optimistic that the outcome of this study will be conclusive enough to enable the Government to make a decision on the MRT and this would probably be within two to three years. I am optimistic. It is not Government's intention to deliberately delay in making a decision on this. Neither are we forcing ourselves to make a decision because we feel that the all-bus system that we have today is still manageable and will be able to take us at least till the end of this decade. If we decide today to have an MRT, it still requires two or three years before ground-breaking begins and it takes five years to complete the first phase. That will be seven years from now and it will be ready by 1988-89. I think the all-bus system will be able to cope with the travel demand without serious problems by the late eighties. So it is within the next two to three years that a decision will hopefully be made and I am optimistic about that. The Member for Punggol asked about the cost and revenue of SBS operations. The Member for Ayer Rajah asked why it took so long to approve the SBS proposed fare hikes and why a change of mind.

Sir, can I clarify? The hike was intended to take effect from February. I was wondering what other arguments the SBS has put forward to the Minister to make him change his mind such that he decided to proceed with the hikes.

I will come to that later on. The revenue for SBS for 1980 was originally estimated at $286 million and the operating expenses were also originally estimated to be $246 million. So SBS was not expecting any operating loss for 1980 in view of the fare hikes in 1979. But the actual revenue and expenditure for 1980 turned out to be this. Revenue totalled $271 million. This is $15 million less than estimated, whereas the operating expenditure went up to $261 million from the estimated figure of $246 million. There was an increase of $15 million. The profit was not as high as it was originally estimated. 4.00 p.m. The estimated figures for 1981 are as follows: revenue will be $275 million against an estimated operating expenditure of $328 million. For 1982 the estimated revenue will be $282 million, and this is based on the assumption that there is no fare hike at all. The operating expenditure will be $397 million. It would incur an operating deficit of over $100 million for 1982 if there is no fare hike. The estimated figures for 1983 are revenue, $290 million and operating expenditure, $464 million. That would mean a total operating deficit of $174 million for the year 1983, if there is no fare hike. The Member has asked about the wage bill or the labour cost. Labour cost alone for 1980 was $129 million. The fuel cost was $36 million, an 80% increase over the previous year of $20 million. As regards the wage bill for 1979, the labour cost was $105 million compared to $129 million for 1980. The Member for Kaki Bukit has requested for the early installation of traffic lights and bus shelters. I suggest that he raise this matter with the Minister for National Development, who is not here now.

The Parliamentary Secretary is here.

Sir, I agree with him that bus shelters should be built early. I have the same problem in my own constituency too. The Member for Khe Bong and other Members have made a suggestion that the SBS should finance the purchase of its buses from other sources, for example, by the issue of shares and so on. We have asked the SBS to look into this question, and hope that they will come up with some proposals within the next few weeks or the next few months. As regards the Member for Ayer Rajah's question, we did not change our mind. In fact, the SBS requested for a fare hike last year as soon as they ran into an operating deficit in the third quarter of 1980. We have been scrutinizing their figures and questioning the various assumptions they made on the costs of fuel and labour for 1981 and so on, and this has led to the delay in approving the fare hike. Unfortunately, as I have mentioned earlier, this has caused additional losses to the SBS. We should have approved it earlier. But I think the current arrangements should be acceptable. We have a 10-cent fare hike across the board.

What is the revenue?

This round of fare hike would give the SBS an additional revenue of about $40 million by the end of this year, that is, for the balance of eight months of this year. Based on estimates, and without another hike at the end of the year, the SBS would run into cumulative loss of $4 million or $5 million by the end of the year. This again is based on the assumption that there will be an increase in the NWC wages, fuel cost and so on. We will wait until the NWC recommendations and the rate of the fuel cost increase over the next few months are known before we decide on the second round of fare hike. But from what we have gathered, it is unlikely that we can avoid the second round of fare hike at the end of this year. The Member for Kebun Baru has raised the question about those who have to transfer their service to work in Changi, from Bedok New Town and other places. No doubt for those who have to transfer their service to get to their place of work, it means 10 cents more for each transfer. The burden can be quite high. To these public transport commuters, I would suggest that they get a concession pass by purchasing SBS shares with their CPF savings. The Member may ask why the share price of the SBS shares listed at the Stock Exchange is high. I think it is now about $5 a share, from the original issue at par of $1.

00. That is probably because of the concession that they enjoy. As I have mentioned earlier, the concession that the pass holders enjoy is more than 50%. In fact, if commuters do not enjoy any concession, they will not buy the concession pass. Only those who enjoy the concession will realize that holding a concession pass means saving them a lot of money on bus fares as compared to paying a full fare. They will find that $5 per share of SBS shares listed on the Stock Exchange is a worthwhile investment. It is not because of the 7 1/2% dividend promised by the SBS. The return of 7 1/2% is very low. If we base it on $5 per share, the yield is less than 2%. The Member for Telok Blangah raised the question about the withdrawal of concession. As I have mentioned at the very outset when I explained the principle, we have to strike a sensible balance between the concession fare and the full fare. Police personnel and uniformed personnel earn wages like everybody else. There is no special reason why they should be given a concession. The reason why they enjoyed this concession in the past is history now. This was a long time ago during the days of the Singapore Traction Company. If there were not more than three policemen each time on the bus, the STC would allow them to travel free. This was probably because at that time, 30 or 40 years ago, it was safer to have policemen in the bus. The STC would not allow more than three policemen at a time to travel free in a bus so that they could be spread all over the place. But now the reason for giving the concession is no longer valid. If we continue to give them a concession, then the fare hike would have to be even more hefty. The Member for Yio Chu Kang has brought up two points. First is on the fuel cost. The SBS buses use diesel. There is no tax on diesel. But the cost of diesel has gone up, more than 100% since 1979, the last time when we increased the bus fares. It was then only 28 1/2 cents per litre. Now it is over 60 cents per litre. Since no tax is charged, I do not think the Ministry of Finance would want to give any further rebate. On the question of the new computer, I must confess that I do not know very much about the computer in SBS. If the Member wishes, he can submit a question and I will ask the SBS whether they have asked the systems engineers from the Ministry of Education to evaluate this before they made the decision.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I just make a number of comments and raise a number of questions? First of all, in his computation of the operational costs of SBS and the projected losses of the SBS, has the 7 1/2% dividend for the bus shareholders already been taken into account? In other words, is the 7 1/2% dividend regarded as a fixed cost? If it is, then I think the losses are really not losses at all because it was a mistake to guarantee the 7 1/2% dividend anyway. Secondly, in computing the profits or losses of the SBS, what is the depreciation policy? In other words, are the buses written off in seven years or 10 years? What is the depreciation policy? That is very crucial in the determination of costs or profit. Another question is the subsidy for the shareholders who have the bus passes. At the time when this question came up before Parliament, I was against giving the subsidy to the shareholders because it is like robbing Peter to pay Paul. Somebody must pay for it and it is the general public that has to pay for it. So when it comes to bus fare increases because of the subsidy to the shareholders, those members of the public who do not own shares are therefore made to pay a higher percentage increase in bus fares. Another question is whether he has done any study of the comparative efficiency of the SBS vis-a-vis bus companies elsewhere in the world, particularly privately owned bus companies. I would not make a comparison with government-owned bus companies because they are always inefficient. My final question is whether he has any plans to expand the operation of the shuttle bus company. I have forgotten the name of that company in Singapore. There is another company that owns the small city shuttle buses. Has the Minister any plans to expand this particular service because I am very uncomfortable whenever there is a monopoly. The first mistake made by the Ministry of Communications was in combining all bus companies into one company. That was the major mistake. We can undo that mistake if we can promote the operation of other bus companies because that will offer us a basis of comparison. 4.15 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, on the first point raised by the Member for Whampoa about the 7 1/2% dividend promised to the shareholders, he thought it was a mistake. I do not think it is, because we allow the shareholders to use their CPF money to purchase the shares and we have to make sure that their life-long savings do at least get the same returns as what they would get from the CPF. Anyway, 7 1/2% is a very negligible amount when we consider the total revenue and operating expenditure of the SBS. As regards the depreciation rate of buses which has been taken into the computation of SBS losses, I cannot remember the exact figure. I think it is 12 years. SBS buses are allowed to operate up to a maximum of 14 or 15 years and they have to be replaced. The depreciation period is about 12 Years. But I will check on this point. I fully agree with the Member on the principle of concession. The more we subsidize one group, the other groups who are not subsidized and who are paying full fares will carry a greater burden. Therefore, there is a need to review and rationalize this whole business of concession fares. But I think a concession will have to be given to school children and to full-time national servicemen who are paid a very small allowance and, to some extent, the shareholders. The student concession, in fact, is a double concession. The student paying 25 cents per trip is already a concession as against the full fare paid by adults. And we are giving another concession. In fact, it is a double concession. When a primary school student pays $12 a month for the monthly season pass and a secondary school student pays $13.50 per month, it is highly subsidized by the full fare paying passengers.

In the past when we had private bus companies, a student pays a flat rate of 10 cents and he could go anywhere.

The other point is about the city shuttle service buses and scheme B buses. They have been very useful in helping us to solve our transportation problem, especially during the peak hours. These buses operate along lucrative routes during the peak hours, unlike the SBS which is like a conference line operating not only in the city centre and in the town area but also in the rural areas and along unprofitable routes as well where they incur very heavy losses. So the reason why the city shuttle service and the scheme B buses are able to operate at lower cost is that they only operate along profitable routes. The reason why the Government decided to amalgamate all the 13 bus companies into one was to ensure that an acceptable level of public transport service is provided throughout the island and not just in the town areas along profitable routes where concentrations of population occur. These are some of the problems that may not be fully appreciated by members of the public. We have made studies of bus companies in other countries. Unfortunately, there are not very many good examples for us to follow. I would say that our public transport service is superior to most that we have looked into or that we know of. Hong Kong's public bus services are cheaper than our services here, but I think it is due to a lot of other factors and reasons for them to be able to operate at a lower cost and the fact that the travelling public are prepared to accept a lower level of service. The reason for our going into interchanges, feeder services, trunk services, and OMO services is to further reduce the costs of operation. SBS has introduced O MO service to about 30% of its total services. They hope to increase the OMO service to about 50% within the next few years and thus hopefully to further reduce the requirement of bus conductors. The Member asked whether there is any plan to expand the city shuttle service and perhaps even the scheme B service. As and when there is a demand along highly concentrated corridors, we will allow them to operate if SBS cannot cope with the demand. SBS cannot acquire all the buses that are required just to cope with peak hour demands because all the buses will be idle during the off peak periods. Whereas the scheme B buses carry school children during the off peak periods. So we are making good use of school buses for the scheme B service.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the Hon. Minister has given much of his time to explain at rather great length the decision and the rationale behind the bus fare hike and the MRT. Before I withdraw my amendment, I must say that I am satisfied with the Hon. Minister's reply on the MRT. This project has been under study for the last seven to eight years and he has been nursing the baby quite well. I think all my colleagues would like to thank him for his good answers. On that note, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment by leave, withdrawn.

May I remind hon. Members that the guillotine time for this Head is at 6.00 p.m. which will be inclusive of the suspension which I am proposing to take now. Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House.

Order. I suspend this Sitting and will take the Chair again at 4.55 p.m. Sitting accordingly suspended at 4.24 p.m until 4.55 p.m Setting resumed at 4.55 p.m

Debate in Committee of Supply resumed.

Head I -

(cont)

Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head I be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead IE-01 of the Main Estimates.* *The same amendment also stood in the names of Messrs Teo Chong Tee and Rohan bin Kamis. Sir, in moving this amendment, I would like to speak on another price increase, one which has not been given as much publicity as the bus fares but no doubt will have as much significance on the public at large. Last month, the Postal Services Department announced that the mail system will be reorganized and divided into first-class priority mail and second-class non-priority mail for local mail, regardless of the content. For a little more postage than second-class non-priority mail, the first-class mail will be delivered the next day after it has been posted. And the second-class non-priority mail will be delivered within three working days. This, we are told, is to ease the manpower shortage which is faced by the department and to make better use of the staff. Sir, I would like to ask whether this division of local mail into first-class and second-class followed by an increase in the postage rate is really a necessary move. Last year, in reply to questions raised by me and the hon. Member for Changi, the Hon. Minister told us, and I quote Hansard, Vol. 39, col. 1260: 'We are satisfied that the standard of service that is being maintained is satisfactory. . . . On the average, over 97% of the local ordinary mail are delivered one day after the day of posting, and only about 3% take more than two days to deliver.' It seems to me, Sir, that the coming increase in postal rates is probably a device to raise additional revenue for the Postal Services Department. It seems that we are trying to increase the postal rates by promising an improvement in the services when, in fact, the services are already very much improved. If 97% of the legal mail are already being delivered one day after the day of posting, how much better can we improve on that? Sir, I foresee that if we are to go ahead with this system, eventually many people will end up posting their mail as first-class priority mail, given the pace of life that we have today. And in the end, if it is really a question of manpower problem, we are back to square one. Then the beneficiary, of course, will be the Postal Services Department which would receive an additional boost to its surplus earnings which incidentally totalled $27.2 million in 1979. The figure for 1980 is still not available. And the loser would, of course, be the man-in-the-street who has to pay more for his mail for the so-called improvement which really is already there. I suggest, Sir, if the Postal Services Department is, in fact, already making so much money, why cannot the Department use the surplus to engage more staff or to obtain better equipment so as to speed up the mail services? 5.00 p.m.

( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, once again I wish to raise the problem of improvement of the postal services. The Hon. Minister for Communications had indicated last year that the Postal Services Department would during the fiscal year 1980 install one letter sorting machine and two stamp-cancelling machines to improve the standard of service to solve the problem of shortage of manpower and to expedite the delivery of mail. One year has elapsed and yet there has been no improvement in the delivery of mail. On the contrary, local mail has taken an even longer time to reach the addressees. My constituents frequently show me mail which has been delayed and complained to me that their mail has taken too long a time to reach them, resulting in their important official and private business being disrupted. Sir, I believe I should mention an incident that actually happened. One constituent of mine owned a house which did not meet the requirements of the Building Control Department and was ordered to be demolished within a short period of time. As he had brought up some valid reasons for an extension of time, I wrote on his behalf a letter dated the 7th March to the BCD requesting for an extension of time. However, on the 12th of March the BCD still proceeded with their action, turning up to demolish the house. When I received his telephone call, I immediately enquired of the BCD. The reply was, "Just received your letter." I was then in an awkward position, because my constituent might doubt the efficiency of my work. Now this house has been demolished. I would therefore like to ask the Minister for Communications how many days does it take local mail to reach the addressee? From the 7th March to 12th March, there were six days, and minus a Sunday, it means that altogether it takes five days to reach the addressee. I would like to ask whether those machines for the Postal Authority which I mentioned earlier have already been bought. Sir, new postal district code numbers have already been allotted by the Postal Authority. The various post offices have also set up special mail boxes for mail meant for their own postal district to facilitate faster delivery of mail within their own district. What surprises me is that some mail from the same postal district takes an even longer time than mail from other postal districts to reach their destination. Why is it so? Sir, I do not doubt the work attitude and the efficiency of mail delivery of the postmen. But I do believe that this is caused by poor management methods. Therefore, I would like to ask the Hon. Minister for Communications whether the Postal Services Department is going to make a further study into its management methods and the mail-processing procedure? Is there a shortage of postal staff? Is the Minister going to suggest to the Minister for Finance raising the salary scales of the postmen in order to attract more people to work as postmen and so solve the problem of late delivery of mail?

Sir, the Member for Changi has summarized effectively in Mandarin what I wanted to say. Therefore, it will suffice for me to say that I endorse his sentiments. I would like to state that the postmen are very good people. They do take the trouble to deliver our mail carefully and even when the mail is bulky they do take the trouble to climb up the stairs or take the lift, barring any dogs or what have you, to deliver the mail. But lately delivery of letters and parcels has been delayed. They are being delayed for about three or four days. I wonder why? Maybe we should channel some of the money from the study of the MRT to make a study of the mail system. In this respect, I am tempted to even suggest that the Hon. Minister employs the First Deputy Prime Minister's famous systems engineers to have a look at the system. The risk here is very low because the human contact is negligible. Furthermore, letters and parcels are not vocal and therefore cannot complain. Would the Minister please comment.

Sir, I have a comment to make regarding the LUM service. This service is a great convenience to the public in that it enables letters posted in the morning to reach the recipient in the afternoon. However, there is a defect in the system, and that is, that there must be somebody to receive the letter. If not, the letter goes back to the post office and it might reach the addressee sometime the next day, or even two days later depending on whether there are people to receive the letter. That defeats the entire purpose of sending the letter in the first place. Perhaps one or two things could be done. One is simply to leave the letter at the address or in the post box or, alternatively, to contact the sender to inform him that the letter cannot be delivered the same day.

Sir, may I join the debate and say a few words just to clarify a point? Singapore has too many first-class, second-class and third-class divisions. I want the Minister for Communications to inform Members of this House what class do our letters with no stamp or postage on them fit in when Members of Parliament send letters to the various Ministries?

I wish to assure the Members for Changi and Telok Blangah that whilst occasionally letters may have taken as long as four days or even five days to reach the recipient, this does not reflect the general standard of our local mail service. The Member for Changi quoted the example of a letter posted on the 7th March and reaching the recipient on the 12th March. 7th March was a Saturday. I just had a quick check. If he had posted it on a Saturday afternoon, then Saturday and Sunday should not be counted. The addressee received it on Thursday, that is about two or three days after posting. When the officer told him on the telephone that he had just received it, I do not know whether he meant that he had received it on Thursday afternoon or morning or Wednesday evening. So unless the particular incident is referred to the officials in my Ministry to investigate, I will not be able to give an explanation why it took four or five days to be delivered, as alleged by him. Surprise checks have been conducted from time to time by my Ministry. They show that about 70% of the local letters are delivered within one working day after the day of posting. Of course, this is lower than the figure of over 90% I quoted last year. Less than 5% of letters took four days to reach the addressees. Letters are occasionally delayed when there are staffing difficulties, when mail postings are unusually heavy, or when letters are not fully or clearly addressed. Of course, our aim is to achieve a general service target of at least 90% delivery of local mail by the next working day. That is our target. So, frankly, we are short of the target. However, one has to realize that deviation from this target must be expected to occur from time to time. For example, as I have mentioned earlier, delays could be due to temporary staffing problems such as sick leave, medical leave, sudden resignations and the inability to get early replacement. Sometimes it could also be due to abnormal heavy mail traffic during the festive seasons. The Postal Services Department will, however, continue to improve the standard of its services. The Department will continue to remind members of the public to address their letters clearly, fully and correctly. Letter sorting and stamp-cancelling machines have been ordered and will be installed in the Mails and Parcels Centre at Nelson Road Post Office later this year to cope with the growing mail traffic. This will upgrade the skill of our postal workers and speed up the delivery of letters. During shortage of staff and staffing difficulties temporary workers will continue to be employed to fill vacancies as well as to cope with the abnormally heavy mail traffic. Delivery of mail unfortunately cannot be mechanized. We will have to continue to rely on postmen or postwomen. I must thank the Member for Telok Blangah for his kind words. The postman's job is a tough one. I appreciate how tough it is because I had worked as one when I was at the university. It is a tough job. He has to cycle in the sun and in the rain. Sometimes he wonders whether his work has been appreciated at all in getting the mail delivered to the home. The question is how serious is the staff shortage in the Postal Services Department. On the average, out of the 682 authorized posts for postmen, there are some 35 to 45 vacancies per month. That is about 6% or 7%, reaching a peak of 64 vacancies in November last year. That is not so bad. What is serious is the turnover rate. The turnover rate was almost 20% for last year for postmen alone. When there is a high turnover rate, valuable experience is lost. When a postman resigns, time is needed to train a new postman. This is a perennial problem, especially in a tight labour market situation that we face today. To alleviate this problem, the Postal Services Department, besides efforts to recruit replacements to fill the vacancies, has also redeployed staff to the Mails and Parcels Centre at Nelson Road. 5.15 p.m. For the long-term the Department has planned to establish a new mechanized mail-handling centre as part of the new com- munication complex to be jointly developed with its merging partner, the Telecoms. I am bringing this up because this is relevant to another question about raising the salaries of postmen. I agree that the existing salary scale of postmen, starting at $250 per month and rising to $365 per month, may not be attractive enough. The Postal Services Department has, in consultation with the Ministry of Finance, come up with improved salary scales for postmen. Presently, negotiations with the union on this and related matters are on-going. So we will leave it to the negotiators to settle these problems. Hopefully, they will come out with a happy solution. As I mentioned earlier, the Postal Services Department will be merged with Telecoms next year, hopefully sometime in the middle of next year, either in April or May. After the merger, postmen will be able to enjoy the better fringe benefits which Telecoms, as a statutory body, has been able to provide their staff. These fringe benefits include better recreational facilities, holiday schemes and long service awards. These are part of the fringe benefits that will boost the morale, and their salaries will be rationalized. But I am not saying that it will be made so attractive that we will be able to solve our manpower shortage problem. The Member for Alexandra mentioned about the scheme which the Postal Services Department is still studying. This is the priority and non-priority mail. The Member will appreciate that the Postal Services Department faces an increasingly difficult situation as a result of the growing mail traffic, tight manpower resources and recurring staff vacancies. To make more efficient and flexible use of its manpower resources without lowering the standard of mail delivery service, the Department is thinking of grading local mail into priority and non-priority mail. The priority mail will be delivered the next day while the non-priority letters will be sorted only during off-peak hours and may, therefore, take a little bit longer to deliver. Priority mail will cost more than non-priority mail. This will ensure a more even distribution of mail to be processed and cut down on manpower. The smoother workflow will also make better use of the mechanized mail-handling equipment which will be installed later this year. It will enable staff to be more effectively deployed. The concept of priority and non-priority mail, therefore, ties in with the Member's suggestion to make more effective use of resources. While the individual may not mind paying a little extra to ensure that his mail gets priority treatment, it may not be so for business organizations with hundreds, if not thousands, of letters to send out each day. The priority and non-priority mail concept should make these firms consciously decide whether their mail requires priority treatment or not. For example, simple items like non-urgent circulars, receipts and advertising material, need not be given priority treatment. There is no urgency. About 70% of mail posted for local delivery comes from these companies. If this proportion of mail items could be graded accordingly, then this would go a long way towards assisting the Postal Services Department to cope with the inevitable increases in the volume of mail traffic as our economy grows. I am sure Members will appreciate that this problem of rapidly increasing mail traffic is not unique to Singapore alone. This problem is faced by all postal agencies throughout the world. The scheme is still under study by the Postal Services Department and will only be introduced next year after the delivery of the three postal machines have been made later this year. The segregation of the priority and non-priority mails will be done by the machines. This will speed up sorting and cut down the errors in sorting or mis-sorting problems which we also face in the Centre. We are sure that this will speed up the delivery time of mail. The Member for Whampoa mentioned about our local urgent mail service. This again is something that was introduced not very long ago and there are a lot of practical problems that were not envisaged at the time when this was introduced. The Department is actually taking a closer look at this particular service and I am sure some adjustments will be made. I cannot promise him at this stage that when a letter on LUM service is not received by the recipient - perhaps he was not at home at the time of delivery - whether the letter will be redelivered later on or whether they will telephone the sender. I am not sure whether all this is being done, but we will take another look at the services provided. The Member for Bukit Ho Swee asked about letters sent by Members of Parliament using Parliament envelopes. I assure him that they will be accorded priority.

Sir, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head I be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead IF-01 of the Main Estimates.* *The same amendment also stood in the name of Mr Rohan bin Kamis. Sir, last year in reply to questions raised by hon. Members, the Hon. Minister said that the Registrar of Vehicles did not expect a high standard of English from applicants for a taxi driver's vocational licence but just enough for normal conversation. Quite a number of my constituents who have applied for such licences have complained to me that this is not so. From the questions put to them by the ROV, it seems that they expect these applicants to engage into a conversation in English with the passengers. Therefore, I would like to pose this question again: is English really a necessary requirement for applicants for taxi driver's licence? Sir, my feeling is that this is really not necessary. For example, if a tourist wants to go somewhere in Singapore, say, Bugis Street, all he has to say is "Bugis Street" and I think the taxi driver understands where he wants to go. A taxi driver is not expected to give a discourse or a running commentary on what is going on in Bugis Street. Sir, if you get into a taxi in Hong Kong the taxi driver will ask you in Cantonese where you are going, and if you tell him in English you will still end up where you want to go. And if, for example, in Paris you are asked the same question in French and you reply in English, you will still get to where you want to go. In these places, there is no insistence that the taxi drivers have to know English. Therefore, I contend that the ROV's insistence that our taxi drivers must know English is depriving many people of a means of livelihood. Sir, this brings me to the perennial question of whether there is or there is not a shortage of taxis in Singapore. Taxi drivers, of course, say that there are already more than enough taxis. The passengers say there are not enough. All we have to do is to take a look at the long queues outside the hotels in Orchard Road or the more popular shopping complexes like Lucky Plaza, Plaza Singapura and People's Park. We see that people have to wait a long time for taxis. Sir, we can argue till the cows come home but I think we will never find the perfect balance as to how many taxis are needed for Singapore. In my own constituency, for example, people complain that they have to wait at least an hour for a taxi to come by. Sir, I suspect that even if we have enough taxis, one of the reasons that causes a shortage may be due to the present system of self-ownership of taxis. It is a very good system, but what happens is that when people own their own taxis they can choose when to drive or when not to drive their taxis out to look for business. As a result, during the peak hours in the morning or lunch time or in the evenings where traffic is very heavy, many such taxi drivers choose not to ply their taxis because they will end up in traffic jams. Take a look at the car-parks in housing estates during the peak hours, and you find a lot of taxis parked in these places. I would therefore urge that there should be, more competition and more taxi driving licences should be issued. My question now is: since the ROV has already closed the applications for taxi driver's vocational licences quite a long time ago, when will the ROV allow applications to be submitted again?

Sir, I wish to make two proposals to the Hon. Minister. The first one concerns the 10-year limit for PARF entitlement for private cars and the other concerns CBD labels for taxis. The purpose of the PARF scheme for cars below 10 years old, among other things, is to encourage motorists to replace their cars before the 10-year limit is up. This is supposed to ensure that our roads will have relatively new cars and therefore road-worthy. With the implementation of the car inspection scheme to ensure that all cars on our roads are road-worthy, in my opinion the 10-year limit becomes redundant. Therefore, would the Hon. Minister consider abolishing the 10-year limit for the PARF entitlement? In other words, since the car is road-worthy and if a motorist replaces it, thus not increasing the car population, he should therefore be entitled to the PARF, irrespective of the 10-year limit because this 10-year limit was arbitrarily set. 5.30 p.m. The other point, Sir, is that the CBD concept is proving to be successful. The Member for Alexandra has said that there is an apparent shortage of taxis and that this is more acute in the CBD area during the CBD hours. Would the Hon. Minister also abolish the CBD permit charges for taxis as this would encourage more taxi drivers to ply within the CBD? I am, of course, aware that taxis are granted a concessionary rate for the CBD labels.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there were no pre-conditions for applying taxi driver's licences during the colonial administration and also during the Lim Yew Hock regime. But now, Sir, under the PAP Government, those who wish to apply for a taxi driver's licence must comply with the preconditions laid down by the Registry of Vehicles. For example, an applicant must be above 30 years old. He must be married and must understand some English. I think these pre-conditions are unnecessary and unfair. Those who wish to apply for a taxi driver's licence should be allowed to do so without the pre-conditions so long as they have a professional driving licence and can pass the driving test as set out by the authorities. This is important. However, if the authorities insist that the pre-conditions must be complied with, I would like to ask the Minister why and what is the justification? Another point which I would like to bring to the attention of the Minister is the complaints of delay in the testing of applicants for a taxi driver's licence. The applicants say that they often have to wait for a long time before they can hope to take a test. If this is so, I would like the Minister to look into this matter and expedite the process of testing as quickly as possible so that they will be able to earn their livelihood as taxi drivers if they can pass the test.

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me answer the point raised by the Member for Telok Blangah about Preferential Additional Registration Fee (PARF). Members know that this was first implemented in 1975 to encourage motorists to replace their old cars early, that is to say, within 10 years. This conditional PARF also had the effect of slowing down car growth because more old cars are taken off the road. When we decided to introduce compulsory car inspections, considerable thought has been given to the possibility of removing the 10-year age limit. But we could not justify giving away a concession in exchange for nothing. This would be unprecedented as taxis are also given PARF only if they are replaced early. If we look at the issue objectively, PARF should, in fact, be abolished if the 10-year limit were to be removed. There is no reason to have PARF. On the other hand, we also noted that conditional PARF had the desired effect of controlling car population. On balance, we have decided that it is still desirable to retain the 10-year limit. Another question he raised is the abolition of surcharges for taxis plying into the CBD. For one thing, the fee at $2 per entry is already a concession and has not been raised ever since it was introduced in 1977 although the area licensing fee for private cars has since gone up from $3 to $4 and recently to $5. For another reason, the taxis may enter the CBD free of charge if they carry three passengers or more (excluding the driver). We would like to encourage taxi pooling because it is a more efficient use of the taxi and road space during the peak hours. The Member for Alexandra has questioned the need for taxi drivers to know English. In fact, taxi drivers who are ethnic Chinese are also required to know Mandarin. The purpose of requiring taxi drivers to speak some English is to improve their ability to communicate with their passengers and thereby upgrade the standard of taxi service in Singapore. We all know that English is spoken by most people in Singapore. It is also the language which the majority of our tourists and businessmen understand. Therefore, the knowledge of simple spoken English is one of the criteria used in the selection of new taxi drivers. Members would perhaps appreciate that the taxi vocational licences are issued only to those who the ROV believes would be able to provide a courteous, pleasant and efficient taxi service. They are not meant to solve the financial problem of those who apply for them. During my meet-the-people sessions, many of my constituents would tell me that they have five children; they are in financial difficulties and they need a taxi vocational licence. However, that is not what a taxi vocational licence is for. It is a vocation requiring not only driving skills and knowledge of places but also the ability to communicate effectively with the passengers. Those with a pleasant demeanour, clean, healthy and pleasant looking are preferred. Now, I must apologize to some Members who have been constantly troubled by their constituents who have to wait for a long time for their taxi vocational licence. Anyway, the end is near. In 1979 when the ROV opened the registry, 26,000 applications were received. Almost all have been cleared except for about 400 or 500 applications which will be cleared within the next couple of months. Of the 26,000 applications received, over 6,000 have received their vocational licences. The successful rate is about 20% to 25%. As can be seen from the figures, English language or Mandarin poses no problem to most of them. They passed the test. There is an intention to introduce more taxis this year by another 500. The ROV will again open its registry to invite applications sometime in April or May. Those who wish to apply are advised to look out for the advertisement in the newspapers. The Member for Khe Bong has asked why an age limit is imposed on those who wish to apply for a taxi vocational licence. As I have mentioned earlier, the number of people who wish to hold taxi driver licences is so large that unless we set out our criteria, we will have too many applicants. Moreover, if no age limit is imposed, it would also have an adverse effect on other industries which are now facing a tight labour situation. Nevertheless, we will consider lowering the age limit when changing circumstances warrant it.

Sir, I am pleased to learn that the ROV will once again allow applications for licences to be made. On that note, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment by leave, withdrawn. The following amendments which stood on the Order Paper Supplement were not moved - Mr Ho See Beng: Mr Ch'ng Jit Koon: (4) That the sum to be allocated for Head I be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead IF-02 of the Main Estimates. Mr Eric Cheong Yuen Chae: Mr Ho See Beng: (5) That the sum to be allocated for Head I be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead I F-03 of the Main Estimates. The sum of $123,903,150 for Head I ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $163,659,000 for Head I ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head S -

( In Mandarin): Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head S be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead SB-01 of the Main Estimates. Sir, Singapore has a very large Ministry, the Ministry of National Development, in charge of land administration in Singapore housing, primary production, etc. But many people in Singapore find it strange that the Land Office which is concerned with land administration is not within the Ministry of National Development but under the Ministry of Law. Mr Speaker, Sir, the administration of rentals, control of land, housing and matters of a similar nature are handled by two Ministries. As a result we find that to a given problem there are different standards of treatment and different effects in the administration. Sometimes what is endorsed by the Ministry of National Development is disapproved by the Land Office. The administration is incomprehensible to the ordinary man in the street. They do not know that these matters are handled by two different Ministries. All they can see is that different methods are being applied on the same issue. Hence, they make complaints and blame the Government for giving different treatment to the same problem. It is the Members of Parliament who will in the end be saddled with such complaints. For example, under the Ministry of National Development, the Housing and Development Board is in charge of land. Before the land is developed, the HDB normally allows the farmers to fully carry out approved agricultural activities. But in the case of the land under the charge of the Land Office, no such facilities are extended. In other words, the Land Office does not allow the farmer tenants to carry out activities other than those approved in the first instance, in nature and in scope. It would rather let the land be unutilized. 5.45 p.m. Mr Speaker, Sir, there is another problem that Members of Parliament in the rural areas often come across. This is related to what we call unauthorized structures. The people in the rural areas sometimes put up additional structures without the prior approval of the Ministry concerned. They put up such structures under extenuating circumstances, and most of these so-called unauthorized structures have been there for many, many years. In handling this matter of unauthorized structures, I think the authorities concerned should be both sympathetic and reasonable. They should be flexible in their approach instead of just bulldozing or demolishing such structures to dispose of the matter. Sir, according to past experience, the Building Control Division under the Ministry of National Development seems to be more flexible in dealing with such matters. They are more sympathetic and reasonable. For example, when a member steps forward to speak for the farmer concerned, a period of three months or six months, according to the circumstances, will be granted. But I cannot say the same for the Land Office because the Land Office would at the most give only one month's grace. Sir, I do not understand why these two departments handling a matter of similar nature should come under two different Ministries. My question is: why can the Land Office not be merged with the Ministry of National Development? I think it is a good idea to bring the Land Office into the Ministry of National Development so that with common administration the Government can achieve more effective control and better utilization of land in Singapore. There will be a lot of improvements with the minimum of complaint. I hope this suggestion will receive favourable consideration.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member should not ask me why the Land Office is in the Ministry of Law. He should ask the Prime Minister. The Ministry of Law should really be confined to legal matters. At one time the Ministry of Law had under its charge the Port Authority, the Public Utilities Board, even tourism. But we managed to discard them. There are very good reasons for having two separate departments to deal with land matters. The functions of the Land Office are not exactly similar to that of the Building Control Division of the Ministry of National Development. For instance, the Land Office deals with acquisition of land and alienation of State lands to various statutory boards and individuals. It also administers State lands. What is similar are the enforcement functions. For example, if someone builds an unauthorized structure on Government land, then the Land Office will take action against him. If it is built on private land, then it is the function of the Building Control Division to either demolish the structure or, as the Member says, give more time. What the hon. Member is saying is that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development is kinder. And so is the Minister for Law. But that is questionable. We do give time, sometimes more than three months. But if they are unauthorized structures, it is our policy to demolish them. Sometimes they are regularized on payment of a penalty fee and sometimes the rent is increased. But in order to serve the public and for the convenience of the public, the departments of the Land Office, like the Survey Department, the Registry of Land Titles and Deeds, including the Land Office itself, are not situated in the building where I work, but are situated in the Ministry of National Development Building. So anyone dealing with land matters, whether it be surveying, titles or controls, goes to the Ministry of National Development Building. At one time, when I was Minister in charge of the Ministry of National Development, I was tempted to take the Land Office away from the Ministry of Law and put it under the Ministry of National Development. On second thoughts, I considered that would be giving too much power to one Minister. The present Minister is kind but nobody knows who will come next!

Sir, I thank the Minister for his reply and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The following amendment stood in the name of Mr Goh Chee Wee: *(2) That the sum to be allocated for Head S be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead SC-02 of the Main Estimates.

Mr Goh Chee Wee, amendment (2).*

I am not moving, Sir. The sum of $25,379,010 for Head S ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $26,440,500 for Head S ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head W -

( In Mandarin): Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head W be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead WA-01 of the Main Estimates. Mr Speaker, Sir, in order to meet the challenges of the 80s, we have embarked on an economic restructuring programme to change our economy from a labour-intensive to a technological and capital-intensive one, to encourage high value-added production and alleviate labour shortage. In the long-term economic and national interests of Singapore, this is a necessary move. However, what worries us is that the rapid pace of the economic restructuring will affect some of our local medium-and small-size enterprises to the extent that if they are not able to catch up with the programme, they will be pushed aside from the main road or even fall into the drain. In order to achieve the objective of restructuring, the Government has over the past three years resorted to high wage policies in order to encourage the use of automation and mechanization. The Minister for Trade and Industry had, in his speech on one occasion, said that since the implementation of the high wages policy, the great reduction in employment creation has shown that the new policy has been successful. As for the big corporations, it is due to mechanization and automation. But to the local medium- and small-size enterprises, they may not have the capacity or ability to mechanize or automate. Under the impact of the high wages policy, the reduction in employment creation indicates, in fact, a dwindling of their businesses. I would like to know how many local enterprises have closed down or dwindled in business since the Government's implementation of the policy in 1979, and how many staff have been retrenched or job hopped, and the reasons for the retrenchment. Has the Government conducted any survey on the matter and look into the ways and means to help solve the problems facing the local enterprises? Some of them were the pioneers of our industrialization in the 60s. At the beginning of this month when the Minister for Trade and Industry introduced his Budget in this House, he urged commercial and industrial enterprises to take advantage fully of the existing tax concessions. However, in recent years, some applications by our local medium- and small-size enterprises have been rejected just because they did not furnish with complete information. This has caused some disgruntlement. I am told that they did not furnish with complete information because they did not quite understand the schemes. Generally, the organization of these local medium- and small-size enterprises is not as good as that of the big corporations. Their management is therefore not so efficient as one expects it to be. The officials concerned should not just for the sake of their own convenience have rejected their applications because their applications did not quite comply with the required format. That would run counter to the purposes of the schemes. We hope the authorities concerned would try to simplify the application procedures and provide advisory service in this respect. The staff concerned should with all sincerity and undaunting spirit try their best to help the applicants. To raise productivity, the Government is encouraging employers to utilize the Skills Development Fund to formulate training schemes for their employees to attain higher skills. This policy is laudable. In principle, the Government should provide the employers with an opportunity to make use of this scheme. Very often, smaller companies have failed to get any funds from this source because of a lack of well thought-out plans. At present, participants in the VITB training schemes are enjoying subsidies from the SDF. This is a good opportunity for smaller companies to avail themselves of such funds. It is hoped that the VITB would expand their training schemes so that more enterprises of various industries can benefit. 5.58 p.m.

Furthermore, participants of some courses conducted by the National Productivity Board should also be given subsidies from the SDF. Generally speaking, the training courses of the NPB are specialized courses meant for the management staff. These courses are very useful to the management personnel of medium- and small-size enterprises as they will help them to improve their efficiency. Therefore, it is only reasonable that all participants of such courses should also be given the SDF subsidies.

Sir, thank you for allowing me to speak. I would like to raise a matter of great public importance. Last Saturday, an explosion occurred in the electrical meter room in a block of flats in my constituency, just next to the PAP Alexandra Branch. 6.00 p.m. Sir, initial investigations revealed that there was a leakage in the underground gas pipe system. The gas seeped its way along the underground electrical wire duct and accumulated in the electrical meter room, causing it to explode. The impact of the explosion was so great and of such magnitude that the whole building shook and the glass panes were broken. Fortunately, the explosion did not take place while the kindergarten classes were in session or while the meet-the-people session was going on, at which time there would have been a lot of people or children milling just outside the room. However, fate played its cruel hand. At that very split second of the explosion, three children happened to walk by. As a result, two of them suffered severe burns and one little girl died of brain injuries yesterday. Sir, in speaking on this topic, I am not here to pinpoint any blame on anyone or what was at fault. What I am interested in is to see how we can take steps to prevent a recurrence of such a tragedy. Sir, I have been told, and it is disquieting for me to note, that this is not the first time that such an explosion has occurred. In late 1979, the same kind of incident also occurred outside a block of flats at Farrer Road. There was an underground leakage of gas, but this time the gas accumulated beneath a car park and it exploded. In that incident, Sir, no cars were parked there at that moment. Nobody was walking by; nobody was driving in the car park, and therefore no one was injured. I am told that one solution would be to cast the gas pipes in concrete and lay them above ground. This would minimize any risk of accident should there be a leakage, as the gas would then filter into the air. I am told that this new system is already being used in the newer housing estates. But in the old housing estates like mine, the gas pipes are still laid underground. I shudder to think that all of us may be walking above possible death traps. Is it possible then, Sir, for us to undertake a complete study of our underground gas pipe system to see what improvements can be made? Another solution which has been suggested to me is that we could set some kind of a device which triggers off an alarm whenever there is a leakage of gas. But what I feel most important for us and for the PUB to do now is to educate the people as to what to do in the event they detect a leakage of gas from the pipe, and not only in the matter of gas but also what to do if there is a short circuit of electrical wires or in the cable system. If our people know what to do when they come across such faults, then perhaps we could reduce the risk of any accident.

Sir, first let me deal with the points brought up by the Member for Alexandra. We are all saddened at the loss of an innocent life as a result of the tragedy that happened in Mei Ling Street. We share with the parents their grief over the loss of their daughter. The Member for Alexandra has suggested that we should perhaps review the existing network of gas pipes as it could pose a potential danger as a result of possible gas leakages. This matter can be studied by the Public Utilities Board. I believe that generally the service pipes should last 20 to 25 years, depending on the ground conditions. Perhaps the PUB could take a look at the older pipes in the older estates to see whether, if they are indeed 20 to 25 years old, they should be replaced. As for pipes to be cast in concrete and laid above ground, I do not know the engineering possibilities but I believe there is also a danger of localised subsidence of the ground. It that happens, the weight of the concrete could, in fact, help to break the pipe and thereby pose a danger of leakage. Nevertheless, I will ask the Public Utilities Board to look into the suggestion by the Member for Alexandra. He also suggested that there should be devices installed to monitor a leakage when it occurs. Generally such devices could be installed in a confined space. In the case of the H D B meter room, I believe there was no gaswork in the confined meter room, and therefore there was no necessity to have an alarm system to trigger off as a result of leakages. I also understand that the Public Utilities Board does a routine check every month of the major gas mains to check on possible leakages. It is not possible, however, for the Public Utilities Board to do routine checks of the miles of service pipes. They have told me that, as far as they understand, no country in the world carries out regular checks of service pipes because of the extensive mileage of service pipes that are laid underground. The suggestion by the Member for Alexandra that people should be educated to respond when they detect gas leakages is a good one. I think it is necessary for the public to be alert when they detect leakages through the presence of gas odour in the air. They should immediately inform the Public Utilities Board so that they can come round to check. I would not like to comment on the tragic event in Mei Ling Street because I understand that the Coroner is conducting an inquiry into the cause of the death. It is, therefore, not proper for us to apportion blame or otherwise as the facts are not yet fully investigated. I thank the Member for his concern over possible dangers posed by gas leakages, and I assure him that the Public Utilities Board will look into the safety aspect of the gas-work. Coming to the comments made by the Member for Tiong Bahru, he made an eloquent plea for local industrialists. He wanted to know how many local enterprises have closed down; how many people were made redundant as a result of the economic restructuring policy, in particular the higher wage policy pursued by the economy. I do not have with me figures for the number of local companies that were forced to close down as a result of the economic restructuring policy. I do not think the figures are important because we operate a free market economy. Companies will have to live within the regime and those that are unable to live within the regime of higher productivity, higher value-added and higher wages will therefore have to close. But that does not mean that we should not try to help the local industrialists in their plight. We have a number of schemes whereby we try to help local industrialists to operate. I have earlier looked at the figures of workers made redundant as a result of the new economic policy. The percentage of staff made redundant as a result of the higher wage policy is very small. If I remember correctly, if should be less than 5%. The termination of services of the staff of most factories that have closed down has been due to other reasons, such as poor marketing, bad management, no forward orders, and so on. Causes that could be traced to the higher wage policy were small, less than 5% if I remember correctly. I do not have the exact figures with me now. The Member made a point that the local companies being smaller were unable to put up a good case to take advantage of the various schemes which the Economic Development Board operates. We have the Local Industries Unit in the Economic Development Board. I believe the Board has been very helpful to the local industrialists. They have, in fact, helped the smaller businessmen to complete their application forms for the various incentive schemes, such as the Small Industries Finance Scheme and Product Development Assistance Scheme. If the Member has any specific evidence of cases that have been turned away because of their poor presentation, I would appreciate it if the Member could bring up the evidence to my notice. I will then confront the Economic Development Board with such facts. But so far as I understand it, the officials have given me the assurance that they have indeed helped the small industrialists to fill in the necessary application forms for the various incentive schemes. The facts before us do not support the contention that we are not helpful to the local industrialists. They have benefited from the var ious schemes that we have, and I can give my assurance to the House that they place great importance in trying to help the local industrialists to upgrade as far as they could.

( In Mandarin): Sir, in view of the Minister's assurance, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head W be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead WB-01 Project 8201 of the Development Estimates. Sir, I have heard that the JTC housing estates will be handed over and managed by the HDB very soon. I do not know how far this is true as I have not been officially informed so far. Perhaps the Minister concerned could throw some light on this. Sir, hitherto I should say JTC officials have been quite cooperative, and the estates, bY and large, have been properly maintained. The residents are generally happy to live in Jurong Town and make their home there. 6.15 p.m. Sir, JTC and HDB may have different ways in estate management. I do not know. But I hope the proposed handover will not unduly disturb the lives of my constituents. To-date, one obvious advantage enjoyed by residents living in JTC estates is that they do not have to pay parking fees. In other words, car parks in JTC estates are free of charge. The residents have been accustomed to orderly parking without the supervision of parking attendants. I think the hon. Member for Boon Lay and the Member for Ayer Rajah who also have JTC estates in their constituencies can bear me out on this. I am rather concerned that once HDB steps into JTC estates, my constituents will be deprived of the privilege which they are now enjoying. Could I have the assurance of the Minister that this practice of free car parking in JTC estates will remain when the JTC estates are managed by HDB?

Sir, I am happy to note that the residents of Jurong are quite happy to live in the housing estates managed by JTC. I believe a major reason why they are happy is because they have a good Member of Parliament.

Thank you.

The Member has heard that the JTC will be passing on the management of its existing housing estates in Jurong to the HDB. He has heard correctly, and I am sorry that the JTC has not informed the Member of Parliament earlier and he has got to hear this from the grapevine. JTC has, in fact, earlier decided to hand over the construction of some 31,000 units of public housing flats in Jurong East and Jurong West to the HDB. There is a good reason for the move. It is to avoid duplication and conflicting rules in the provision of public housing. It is better for HDB to be the single authority that looks after public housing in Singapore than to have two authorities which may be operating conflicting rules, such as the provision of free car parks in JTC housing estates when it is not available in other HDB housing estates. It is also more efficient for HDB to do so and it will allow JTC to concentrate on industrial estate management which is the primary role of JTC. I believe the only privilege available to residents of Jurong Town housing as compared with residents of HDB estates is the privilege of free car-parking. When the housing estates are transferred to HDB, the estates will not be under the charge of JTC and, therefore, would not be under my charge. I would therefore be in no position to give the assurance to the Member for Jurong.

Sir, first of all, I must thank the Hon. Minister for his kind remarks about me. I am not here to argue on the rationale for the proposed take-over. However, as a Member of Parliament, I think I have a duty to safeguard the interests of my constituents. I would like to place on record that I will strongly oppose any move by the HDB to charge my constituents car-parking fees. On that note, Sir, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $51,687,910 for Hood W ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $383,194,000 for Head W ordered to stand pan 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 Subhead PC-01 of the Main Estimates. Sir, in moving this amendment, I am seeking assistance from the Hon. Minister to ensure that our good medical services are not negated by some unthinking act down the line in the hospitals. I am concerned because parents have told me that little children and even babies are given antibiotics, namely, ampicillin 125 mg. in capsules. This is very strange because a private doctor usually gives ampicillin in syrup form for children and babies. With these facts, I consulted several doctors and they themselves, like the Member for Ayer Rajah, mentioned that it was quite strange because, in my opinion, it is harder to get a two-year old baby to swallow a capsule than to get the Minister for Finance to increase the personal income tax relief! Furthermore, this capsule cannot be dissolved in water and it gives a disagreeable odour. Since it cannot be dissolved, it leaves sediments in the water. I have tried to dissolve the capsule in water and since sediments are left behind upon drinking the solu- tion, the dosage, in my opinion, will not be correct. This is what I am concerned about. I have written to the then Minister for Health, who is the Member for Rochore, about this case, and one month later I got a reply from the Chief Pharmacist. Strangely enough, he gave a reason and I quote: 'The reason for using paediatric ampicillin capsule was because commercial paediatric ampicillin in syrup or in freeze dried powder to be reconstituted before dispensing was rather expensive.' I feel that economy should not be used as a reason. He further went on to say that: 'When dispensing ampicillin capsules (paediatric) to patients, the staff of SGH Pharmacy were told that for children who could not swallow the capsule, the relative is advised the following instructions [and these instructions are given on cyclostyled sheets].' The instructions read: 'If the child cannot swallow, open one capsule and mix its content with some sugar water in a small cup and give the child the admixture using a spoon. If some powder remains in the cup, repeat the procedure with more sugar water.' This is absolutely unthinkable. I could use a better word, Sir, but it would be unparliamentary. In this particular instance, we expect the worried parent to be an amateur pharmacist by mixing this insoluble ampicillin capsule before giving it to the child. I have never seen anything more ridiculous than this. The Chief Pharmacist went on to say: 'Perhaps the dispensary had inadvertently left out the instruction or did not make it clear when the ampicillin capsule (paediatric) was dispensed. The pharmacist in charge of SGH Pharmacy has been told that henceforth when dispensing ampicillin capsules (paediatric) a cyclostyled sheet containing the above instruction should accompany the product so as to ensure that parents or relatives follow the instruction accordingly.' Sir, I will not give up, but I appeal to the Minister to look into the matter, otherwise all our good medical services done by the doctors and nurses would be completely negated by just an unthinkable act of the pharmaceutical department's staff. This is probably one reason why people think that private doctors dispense better medicine as it is more easily taken than that given by Government doctors.

Sir, ampicillin in syrup form costs 10 times more than ampicillin in capsules, and if a patient is prepared to pay the price he can get it. There is, therefore, no comparison between ampicillin in capsule form which is dispensed by the Government dispensary with those dispensed by the private clinics because the patients are prepared to pay the higher price for ampicillin in syrup form. There is another reason and, that is, the stability of the mixture. I have been advised by the pharmacists that ampicillin in syrup form is stable in room temperature for only about three days. The parent or the patient would therefore have to come back to the dispensary every three days to collect a fresh supply, and this is inconvenient to the patient or the parent. I agree that it is not reasonable to expect a two-year old baby to swallow capsules and, for the two reasons I have given, the simple procedure is to dissolve the capsules in sugar water. I see no difficulty in dissolving it in sugar water. If there is residue, dissolve it again and he will get the syrup which the baby will enjoy.

Sir, maybe the Minister is better at dissolving things than I do. But the parent involved in this particular case was not given the choice, and I am sure any parent concerned about the safety and health of her child would easily pay for that extra bit to make sure that the medicine given can be easily consumed. I am not convinced that giving cyclostyled sheets instructing people how to take their medicine is an example of what a good medical service is. They should either dispense proper medicine in a professional way or they do not give it at all. This is my opinion. I wonder whether the Minister would comment. 6.30 p.m.

Sir, my comment is that this is the professional way of doing things. I have explained earlier that it is not possible for the dispensary to dissolve the ampicillin in capsules on behalf of the patients because the syrup would not be stable at room temperature and we cannot expect the dispensary to dissolve the ampicillin in capsules into syrup form, and have a fresh supply ready for the patient every time. I see no difficulty whatsoever in the parent going to some small trouble of dissolving the capsule so that the baby can take the medicine in syrup form. I believe the medicine is as effective as that which we can buy from the private practitioners.

Sir, allow me to make a point of clarification. The Minister for Health has stated that the powder form of ampicillin dissolved in sugar water can only last for three days under room temperature. I agree with him. But if we put it in a refrigerator, it can last for at least a week. I just want to point this out to the House.

Sir, I do not agree with what the Minister has said because I have checked with the consultants at the General Hospital. I am not prepared to quote the names of the consultants who have uttered a shock at the method of dispensing medicine to children. On that note, I most reluctantly withdraw my amendment. Amendment by leave, withdrawn.

( In Mandarin): Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head P be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead PF-02 of the Main Estimates. Sir, the Tiong Bahru Outpatient Dispensary at Jalan Membina has been in existence for the past 15 years. This outpatient dispensary has been providing very convenient medical services to the residents in Tiong Bahru and those living in the surrounding areas. Yesterday evening, on returning to my office from the House, I found a letter from the Ministry of Health informing me that the Ministry has decided to close down this outpatient dispensary as from the 27th of this month. This decision is also reported in today's newspapers. Henceforth, patients who are currently receiving treatment at this OPD will have to attend instead the Bukit Merah Polyclinic at Bukit Merah Central. This polyclinic is situated on the third floor of Bukit Merah Central. Those who have visited this place will agree that going into this Central is just like going through a maze. Those who go there for the first time will have great difficulty in locating the polyclinic. Sir, since the polyclinic is on the third floor of the building, patients on wheelchairs will have difficulty going up to the polyclinic. Of course, the Minister can say that lifts are available. But I can tell you, Sir, that the lifts in this building very often break down. Among the patients who are receiving treatment at the Tiong Bahru OPD, some of them are chronic sick patients. They have to visit the OPD once in two or three days, some of them every day, for injection. These chronic sick patients are old people. Up to now, as they do not have to travel a long distance to the Tiong Bahru OPD, they can walk there by themselves. But with the new arrangement that they will have to attend the Bukit Merah Polyclinic instead in future, it will certainly pose a problem for them if they choose to walk there. If they are required to take a bus, then it will even be more difficult. In view of this, I wonder whether the Minister will consider making arrangements for two or three nurses to be posted at a community centre in my constituency to give simple treatment to these chronic sick patients.

Sir, I shall communicate with the Minister for National Development on the frequent breakdown of the lift. If the lift does not break down so often, then I think there would not have been complaints about the patients having to go to the polyclinic on the fourth floor of Bukit Merah Centre. The Member for Tiong Bahru has suggested that perhaps the Ministry of Health can arrange with the community centre to make use of the premises for such a purpose, so that old patients who are unable to travel long distances can be attended to. This suggestion can be looked into. But I believe the community centre normally does not open in the mornings and that, for diabetic patients, it is preferable to give injections of insulin in the morning. However, I shall certainly look into this matter. Perhaps we can do one better, if the number of patients is not great. We have the Home Nursing Foundation whereby nurses visit the homes of patients who are unable to afford private nursing. If the number is not great, maybe we can get these nurses to attend to the old patients and to render them medical assistance, such as administration of injections, if there is nobody at home who can do this for the patients. But we can look into the request by the Member for Tiong Bahru to see if we can come to some arrangement whereby the patients can be attended to either in the community centre or in some other suitable place.

( In Mandarin): Sir, the Minister has given a very satisfactory reply and I have no reason not to withdraw my amendment. I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $275,160,510 for Head P ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $69,488,700 for Head P ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head O -

Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head O be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead OA-01 of the Main Estimates. Sir, our continued economic growth is dependent upon internal and external factors. Among the external factors which are crucial to us is the peace and stability of South-east Asia. The House has heard very little about the prospects of peace and stability in Southeast Asia, and hence I would like the Hon. Minister to comment on some issues which affect the peace and stability of the region. The most complex problem facing Singapore and the ASEAN countries is the Kampuchean problem. Together with the ASEAN neighbours, we have succeeded so far in getting the large majority of the inter- national community to support the ASEAN resolution at the United Nations, particularly to oppose the Vietnamese occupation of Kampuchea. But it has now been more than two years since the Vietnamese troops marched into Kampuchea and installed the Heng Samrin puppet regime. The Vietnamese have continued to occupy Kampuchea and only just recently the Heng Samrin regime has held its first general elections. The danger of a long delay in the implementation of the ASEAN resolution is that the international community may lose interest in the issue and consequently withhold their support for the ASEAN position. If this were to happen, the Vietnamese occupation may become a permanent feature. I would, therefore, like the Hon. Minister to inform the House whether he is satisfied with the progress concerning the implementation of the ASEAN resolution. What is his view of the prospect of a continued or better support for the ASEAN resolution in the near future? Another issue I would like to raise with the Minister concerns the regional organization, that is, ASEAN. Over the past years, ASEAN has developed into a strong, cohesive and united organization, particularly when the members are confronted with international crises or when they negotiate with external powers. But I am afraid that, in the course of ASEAN development over the years, Singapore and the other governments may have forgotten the original rationale for the formation of this regional organization, that is, to promote economic cooperation. I would, therefore, like the Minister to express his view on the state of economic cooperation in ASEAN and his view as to the prospect of the organization becoming an economic body in the near future. 6.45 p.m. Finally, Sir, I would like to touch on the non-aligned movement. We have seen how the non-aligned movement has been subjected to the manipulation of members who favour the Soviet Union. If this continues and the non-aligned movement becomes a vehicle for the expression of Soviet interests, I see no purpose in Singapore continuing to be a member of this organization, I would like the Hon. Minister to comment on the tendency on the part of the non-aligned body favouring Soviet policies, and what is his view with regard to the state of the organization.

Sir, the Member for Serangoon Gardens has raised a number of points which I will try to comment on or answer, as the case may be, in the order in which he raised them. First of all, on the question of peace and tability in South-east Asia, in particular the problem of Kampuchea or, to be more precise, the Vietnamese occupation of Kampuchea, he asked whether I am satisfied with the pace of progress of the implementation of the UN Resolution on the Kampuchean problem. And he wants to know what are the prospects for the continued support of the ASEAN position. Sir, he quite rightly made the point that, as time goes on, the international community may lose interest in the issue and may not feel exercised enough to keep the issue in the forefront and may not feel compelled to take a principled stand on the issue. It is true that more than two years have passed since Vietnam occupied Kampuchea. But one of the dangers in seeking a solution to the Kampuchean problem is to try and seek a quick solution. We must have the patience and the tenacity to wait out the communists who have long-staying power. And one of the problems has been that some of our friends want a quick solution, and therefore are prepared to compromise on this problem. ASEAN has counselled patience. We have said that it is necessary to wait for the right time. It is necessary to wait to allow the pressures to build up against Vietnam so that the price that they are paying for the violation of accepted international principles will become so heavy that they will begin to think of solutions other than a military solution to the Kampuchean problem. Sir, since the passing of the UN Resolution late last year on the Kampuchean problem, the ASEAN countries have been pressing the Secretary-General to take action to implement the Resolution, specifically that part of the Resolution calling for an international conference of all interested parties to seek a political solution to this problem. I am personally not very happy with the enthusiasm and the speed with which the Secretary-General has tried to implement the Resolution of the General Assembly. As a servant of the UN, it is his duty to do his best to carry out the instructions of the General Assembly. Anyway, I am glad to inform the Member that when I was in New Delhi a month ago, I took the opportunity to meet the Secretary-General together with the Foreign Ministers of Malaysia and Indonesia and we impressed upon him the need to take some action. The Member may have read that the Secretary-General has, in fact, appointed a representative, Mr Mohammad Essaafi, who, in fact, has already started his visit and he will be coming to Singapore next week and he will be visiting all the ASEAN countries as well as Vietnam and Laos and, we hope, other countries. I am looking forward to a discussion with him to find out how he intends to progress further on the implementation of this Resolution and I will also be very keen to learn from him the outcome of his discussions in the other capitals. As to the prospects of a continued support for the ASEAN position, I am glad to inform the Member and the House that our consultations and discussions with our friends not only in this part of the world but also in Europe and elsewhere have given us confidence that we will be able to continue to maintain the diplomatic and political pressures on Vietnam. The fact that we were able, in the last non-aligned Ministers' meeting in New Delhi, to have a clear resolution calling for the withdrawal of foreign forces from Kampuchea, is a clear indication that we have been able not only to maintain the support that we have had so far but even to increase the support, in the sense that many of our friends are prepared to speak out and take a stand. We are confident that in the coming UN General Assembly meeting in September, we will continue to get support for the ASEAN position. We are quite well aware that it is necessary to keep the issue in the forefront because with the emergence of new international issues, it is quite easy for old issues to be forgotten and for certain situations to become accepted. Therefore, ASEAN will continue to make every effort to keep the attention focussed on the Kampuchean issue. The next point the Member raised was on ASEAN. He pointed out that it is sometimes forgotten that the original reason for the formation of ASEAN was economic and that we have been so active in political matters that sometimes we lose sight of the original intentions. And he wants to know the state of economic cooperation in ASEAN at the present moment and what are the prospects for intensifying such cooperation. While economic cooperation within ASEAN may not appear to have been spectacular, I want to assure the Member that it still remains one of ASEAN's main objectives. ASEAN has made some progress in economic matters since it was established in August 1967. The Bali and Kuala Lumpur Summit Meetings in February 1976 and August 1977 established the machinery and set some directions for ASEAN economic cooperation. ASEAN Economic Ministers and officials have since met periodically and implemented a number of mutually beneficial regional economic projects in trade, finance, agriculture and other areas. The more significant arrangements, to name some, are the Preferential Trade Arrangements and the ASEAN Industrial Complementation scheme. Private sector cooperation in ASEAN is also developing at a healthy pace. In fact, this has taken place somewhat spontaneously without any government initiative or direction. But I would think the main contribution of ASEAN in economic matters is in two areas. One, it has brought together five countries and created a climate of understanding, cooperation, peace and stability. And this climate has been very conducive for each ASEAN country to promote foreign investment in the country. Foreign investors, whether they are in Europe, the USA or Japan, when they look at this area, they do not see this area as an area of conflict. At least the five ASEAN countries stand in stark contrast with Indochina or other parts of the world. And the fact that the five ASEAN countries have been able to create this umbrella, as it were, of cooperation and peace has been largely instrumental in each of the countries being able to attract foreign investment and help them in their own economic development. Secondly, the five have been far more effective in their relations with other countries, with developed countries and international organizations when they have acted together collectively. And this has enhanced the negotiating strength and has served to protect and promote economic interests of member states. For example, ASEAN has been successful in requesting the European Community to extend the GSP Scheme for ASEAN to the year 1990. I would say these are the two broad areas where ASEAN has been most successful in economic terms. Despite the progress made, I agree with the Member that there is still much more room for progress. But we are only able to progress at the rate at which the member who wants the slowest progress wants progress. In other words, we have got to keep pace with the slowest member. I would like to point out that, by saying that, I do not mean that the other four are always the slowest. Sometimes it is also in Singapore's interest not tO 90 at the pace demanded by others. So there is an understanding not to force the pace, lest any one member feels that its own economic interest will be jeopardized. so within these limitations of trying to evolve a consensus approach to economic development, I think we have made satisfactory progress. Of course, if we compare ourselves with the progress made by the European Community, we are still very far behind. i always tell those with whom I discuss ASEAN economic progress that perhaps we should not look at the European Community as an example because it is the only example of its kind and I doubt it is an example that can serve as a guide and as a practical aim for most other economic cooperation groups. 7.00 p.m. Lastly, the Member asked for my comments on the non-aligned Movement and he asked the question whether it is worthwhile for Singapore to continue to be a member of this Movement when the Movement as a whole seems to be drifting away from the principles on which it was founded. I am glad to inform the Member, and I am sure that the Member is also aware, that whilst the Movement really showed a serious danger of drifting well away from its original aims instead of being non-aligned (there was the threat of the Movement being hijacked by the friends and sympathizers of the Communist countries) we were able, in the last meeting in New Delhi, to take some corrective action. I am personally heartened by the fact that the majority of the members of the Movement who truly subscribe to the principles of non-alignment were prepared to take a firm stand and to speak out against the very militant and vociferous group of so-called progressive countries who are members of the non-aligned Movement. I think that it will neither serve Singapore's interest nor will it serve the principles of non-alignment, nor will it serve the interest of friends who think like us and who share our values, our beliefs and our philosophies, for us to leave the Movement. Rather, we should stay in the Movement, mobilize support and ensure that the Movement stays on the right track and that the small number of radicals and so-called progressives do not capture the Movement and use it for their own ends. In short, I am glad to report that the Movement has veered away from becoming aligned and we have to remain in the Movement and continue to work with our friends.

( In Tamil): Sir, the Minister for Foreign Affairs has given some explanations to Members. However, I have not understood some of the explanations because with the present state of affairs the Singapore Government has not followed the principles of ASEAN. Around us there is a tiger, which is under the Moscow Government. The Moscow group does not wish to see the governments in this region functioning smoothly. This is my own opinion. However, in the Vietnamese region there is a lot of trouble. It should not be allowed to spread to other parts of Asia. The economic, political and social development should not only take place in the South-east Asian nations. Singapore has not recognized a very big nation which is near to us. That is the People's Republic of China. Singapore should recognize it as soon as possible. In the Asian region, China is a big power. She is a stabilising nation. Only China can teach Vietnam not to invade other countries. We also know how the Vietnamese have been acting. Therefore, we should as far as possible have contacts and establish diplomatic relations with China. We are friendly with the majority of the nations in the world. So why have we not established diplomatic relations with China? I suggest that the Minister should try and establish diplomatic relations with China. Could the Minister give some clarification on this matter?

Sir, regarding the question of Singapore recognizing the People's Republic of China, there are good reasons why we have taken the decision that we will not establish - I think the term to be used is not so much "recognize" but establishment of formal diplomatic ties - that we will not establish formal diplomatic ties until all the other ASEAN countries have established ties with China. Members must be aware that the diplomatic relations between Indonesia and the People's Republic of China were suspended after the abortive 1965 coup. Up till today, diplomatic relations between Indonesia and the People's Republic of China have not been re-established. We have taken the stand that we will be the last among the ASEAN countries to establish formal diplomatic ties with China because of our position in this part of the world, because of some traditional attitudes of our neighbours, and because of some lingering suspicion that still remains in some minds as to whether Singapore is truly an independent country pursuing an independent policy, looking after its own interests, or whether it is a Third China, because 75% of our population are Chinese. To make the point quite clear and to establish this fact beyond doubt, we have openly stated that we will wait for every other country in ASEAN to establish diplomatic relations with the People's. Republic of China. This does not, of course, mean that we do not have cultural and trade relations with China. Earlier, the House was informed by my colleague, the Minister for Trade and Industry, that a Trade Office will be established in the People's Republic of China in the course of this year. This will further promote the trade ties that we have with the People's Republic of China. But formal diplomatic ties will have to wait until all the other ASEAN countries have established ties with China.

Sir, I am sure Members of the House are pleased to learn that we have achieved diplomatic successes on the three fronts: the United Nations Resolution, the question of economic cooperation among ASEAN countries and the Non-aligned Movement. I hope that the Hon. Minister in his discussion with the United Nations' representative will impress on him the urgency to convene an international conference as soon as possible so as to resolve the Kampuchean problem. On that note, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment by leave, withdrawn.

Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head O be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead 08-01 of the Development Estimates. Sir, our Foreign Ministry was established on the attainment of independence and thus the necessity for us to be physically represented in the core capitals of the world. I am wondering what steps the Ministry is taking or has taken to ensure that we are purchasing sufficient properties overseas for the premises to be used not only as our chanceries but also as accommodation for our Singapore-based staff. To me, the provision of $10 million in the Development Estimates seems rather inadequate. I would urge the Hon. Minister to be a little bit more bullish on this subject, especially since the availability of money is not a major problem. If sufficient properties are judiciously purchased, this could, apart from being a sound investment, also reduce the Ministry's recurrent expenditure in terms of rentals. I am sure Members here will agree that rentals the world over are likely to be on the upward trend. I would be pleased to hear if the Hon. Minister for Foreign Affairs has any plans in this direction. Secondly, I would like to touch on another area. Foreign Missions in Singapore are generally free to purchase properties for their chanceries and accommodation for their staff. It may be useful in this context for the Foreign Ministry to seriously reconsider this policy. I strongly feel that all privileges must be on a reciprocal basis. We should only allow foreign missions in Singapore to own properties in land-scarce Singapore if we are similarly allowed to do so in other countries.

Sir, I could not agree more with the Member that it is cheaper in the long run for Singapore to purchase properties abroad to house our missions. I am told that in the early history of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, we had very great difficulty in convincing the Ministry of Finance that we ought to purchase properties overseas. But since then they have all become more enlightened and we have been given funds from year to year to purchase properties abroad. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs now owns overseas properties amounting to $73.2 million at original prices. Of course, at current prices these properties have a considerably higher value. These properties constitute chanceries, ambassadors' residence and staff accommodation. They are located, for the information of the House, in Bangkok, Bonn, Brussels, Cairo, Medan, Canberra, Jakarta, Hong Kong, Kuala Lumpur, London, Manila, Tokyo, Paris, Washington and Wellington. An hon. Member: What about Moscow?

I will come to that in a moment. In Tokyo and Wellington, we own the chanceries as well as all staff accommodation. In Jakarta, Manila and Kuala Lumpur we own the chanceries and most of the staff accommodation. In other cities we own either the residence or the chancery, or both. In early FY 81, my Ministry will complete the purchase of staff accommodation in London. This purchase is expected to cost about $2.8 million. 7.15 p.m. Construction of the new chancery in each of the diplomatic enclaves in Canberra, Jakarta and New Delhi will begin in the new financial year. Progress payment for these buildings is estimated to total $4 million. The remaining amount of $6 million out of the $10 million that the Member mentioned is earmarked for purchase of additional properties in Washington and Bangkok. The sum of $10 million is expected to be adequate for the commitments that will have to be paid for in fiscal year 1981. Of course, some of the payments will be carried over to subsequent fiscal years. The second point that the Member made was the question of reciprocity between countries in which we have missions and countries which have missions here. In the purchase of properties for our diplomatic missions, we were guided in the past by land ownership laws existing in each host country where we establish the mission. In most countries we have been allowed to purchase properties for use as a chancery or as residential accommodation. However, in some countries, in particular communist countries, we cannot purchase or own properties. On the other hand, we have not up till now restricted such missions from purchasing properties in Singapore. We have allowed foreign missions to purchase properties in Singapore without insisting on reciprocity. My Ministry is studying this matter and we are aware that this is an advantage we have given to the missions but which we should not continue to give. I am sure that some of the foreign missions who believe very strongly in public ownership of property and whose strong sense of moral principles on this issue must be very violated by being forced to own properties in Singapore, will be most happy and welcome any move on the part of Singapore to put things right.

Sir, in view of the Minister's explanation, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $38,918,550 for Head O ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $10,449.500 for Head O ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.

With the consent of Mr Deputy Speaker and the general assent of Members present, Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, "That, notwithstanding the Standing Orders, progress be reported now and leave be asked to sit again tomorrow." - [Mr E.W. Barker]. Thereupon Mr Deputy Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House.

Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply has made further progress on the Main and Development Estimates for the financial year 1st April, 1981 to 31st March, 1982 and ask leave to sit again tomorrow.

So be it.

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