Hansard, 1981-07-21

Under the provisions of clause 2(d) of Article 46 of the Constitution of Singapore, the following Members have been granted permission to be or to remain absent from sittings of Parliament (or any Committee of Parliament to which they have been appointed) for the periods stated:- Dr Ahmad Mattar (Brickworks), Acting Minister for Social Affairs - from 16th to 23rd June, 1981. Mr Lee Yiok Seng (Bukit Panjang), Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development and Government Whip - from 21st to 28th June, 1981. Dr Augustine H.H. Tan (Whampoa) - from 26th June to 4th July, 1981. Dr Yeo Ning Hong (Kim Seng), Minister of State, Ministry of Defence - from 28th to 30th June, 1981. Mr Jek Yeun Thong (Queenstown) - from 1st July to 31st December, 1981. Mr J.F. Conceicao (Katong) - from 1st July to 31st December, 1981. Dr Chiang Hai Ding (Ulu Pandan) - from 1st July to 31st December, 1981. Mr Tan Soo Khoon (Alexandra) - from 1st to 11th July, 1981. Mr Lau Ping Sum (Yio Chu Kang) - from 5th to 10th July, 1981. Mr S. Dhanabalan (Kallang), Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Culture - from 5th to 20th July, 1981. Mr S. Chandra Das (Chong Boon) - from 10th to 20th July, 1981. Mr C.V. Devan Nair (Anson) - from 11th to 15th July, and on 21st July, 1981. Mr A. Rahim Ishak (Siglap) - from 11th July to 31st December, 1981. Mr Chai Chong Yii (Bukit Batok) - from 13th to 22nd July, 1981. Dr Goh Keng Swee (Kreta Ayer), First Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Education - from 18th to 24th July, 1981. Mr Lee Yock Suan (Cheng San) - from 19th to 23rd July, 1981. Dr Yeoh Ghim Seng, B.B.M., J.P. (Joo Chiat), Speaker - on 21st July, 1981 Mr Sia Kah Hui (Paya Lebar) - from 21st July to 31st August, 1981. Dr Lau Teik Soon (Serangoon Gardens) - from 27th July to 4th August, 1981. YEOH GHIM SENG Speaker, Parliament of Singapore The House being met the Clerk at the Table informed the House of the absence of Mr Speaker from this day's Sitting Whereupon Mr Deputy Speaker proceeded to the Table and took the Chair, pursuant to the Standing Order.

asked the Prime Minister whether the grant of $24,000 for new community centres to purchase furniture and equipment will be substantially increased, as the amount is inadequate in view of higher costs resulting from inflation.

Sir, the People's Association is fully aware that the grant of $24,000 for the furnishing of a new key community centre is hopelessly inadequate at current prices, More than $100,000 is required to furnish a new key community centre. The People's Association will seek from the Government a substantial increase in the furniture and equipment grant.

Sir, could the Senior Minister of State kindly enlighten the House as to when a positive answer can be obtained from the Ministry of Finance?

I can only say that I hope that it will be very soon.

asked the First Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Education whether parents have any right in the choice of their children's second language.

Sir, pupils of Malay, Indian and mixed parentage are at present given a choice of Malay, Tamil or Chinese as their second language on enrolment. However, since the beginning of this year, all ethnic Chinese pupils are required to enrol for Chinese as their second language in Primary 1. An opportunity to switch to another second language is given at Primary 4 or at Secondary 1 only after the pupil has been given a fair chance to try CL2 and has shown that he cannot cope with the language. Apart from the fact that we want to encourage our pupils to learn something of their cultural origins through the second language, we know from our records that the passing rate for Chinese pupils is much better in CL2 than in other second languages. It is widely believed that ML2 (Malay as a second language) is an easy subject for non-Malays, but this is not the case. For example, in the 1979 'O' level examination, only 53% of the small number of Chinese pupils (705 to be precise) who took ML2 passed with Grade 6 or better, compared with 95% passes for Malay pupils. In 1980, the percentage passes in ML2 were 61% for Chinese pupils as against 99% passes for Malay pupils. These figures consistently indicate that ML2 is by no means an easy subject for Chinese pupils. In contrast, the percentage passes for Chinese pupils in the 'O' level CL2 examination in 1979 and 1980 were 80% and 84% respectively. One reason why Chinese pupils do not do as well in ML2 as Malay pupils is that they do not speak Malay as the home language. Even for those who do, the level of the home language is likely to be much more elementary than the standard of ML2 taught up to 'O' level.

asked the Minister for Communications and Minister for Labour when the bus service within the Eunos Industrial Estate will operate and whether a decision has been made not to extend the bus service into the residential estate of Eunos Crescent.

Sir, a new bus service linking Eunos Industrial Estate to SBS's terminal at Geylang Lorong 1 has been planned. The new service will be implemented when the bridge across the canal between the Eunos Industrial Estate and Paya Lebar Road is completed in the third quarter of this year. Meanwhile, workers in the ares can make use of the many services along Sims Avenue and Changi Road. At the request of the hon, Member for Kampong Ubi and some of his CCC members on 28th March, 1981, SBS has agreed that, for safety and pollution reasons, the route will stop short of Eunos Crescent.

asked the Minister for Communications and Minister for Labour, with the increasing use of visual display units, if the Ministry of Labour will be undertaking a comprehensive study on industrial health related to the use of such equipment, and if the Ministry intends to issue guidelines for the protection of workers using such equipment.

Sir, visual display units (VDUs) have been introduced into industry on a wide scale in many countries during the last decade. They have only recently gained popularity in the Republic. Experience in other countries shows that, basically, concern about the use of VDUs on health revolves round radiation hazards and eye problems. In the case of radiation hazards, the Radiation Protection Inspectorate of the Department of Scientific Services conducted a test on VDUs in December, 1980, and concluded that they emitted "no hazardous radiation harmful to the general health of an operator". The UK Health and Safety Executive and the relevant authority of other countries like the US also hold a similar view. As regards eye problems, the UK Health and Safety Executive has concluded that, while for most people VDUs pose no risk to health, some attention should be paid to certain aspects of their use if eye discomfort is to be avoided. This organization as well as the US National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health have proposed ways to reduce eye complaints. There is, therefore, no need to undertake a comprehensive study on health hazards related to the use of VDUs. The Industrial Health Department of the Ministry will continue to monitor the situation regarding the use of VDUs. It will liaise with the Radiation Protection Inspectorate to ensure that radiation levels remain low. The Ministry will issue guidelines to industry to reduce complaints of eye strain in due course.

Sir, would the Minister of State elaborate what these guidelines would be?

Sir, guidelines will be issued in relation to lighting, such as screen and character size, brightness and contrast, work station and general illumination levels, viewing distance and angle, and minimizing screen glare. Guidelines will also be issued in relation to ergonomic aspects, such as keyboard and screen heights, seat heights and leg-room. Guidelines will also be issued in relation to suitable work rest breaks as well as preplacement and annual vision testing.

asked the Minister for Communications and Minister for Labour (a) whether the hotel industry is now facing a shortage of manpower; (b) how acute this problem will be by the late 1980s, taking into account the growth of the tourist industry and the construction of new hotels; and (c) what measures will be taken by Government to alleviate the problems.

Sir, from various sources, including hotels, the Singapore Tourist Promotion Board and the Singapore Hotel Association, the Ministry gathers that the labour shortage in the hotel industry is not acute. The shortages are mainly in occupations such as waitresses and chambermaids. To alleviate the immediate shortage of workers, the Government has recently reviewed and liberalized work permit policies allowing the service sector, including the hotel industry, to employ workers from traditional as well as non-traditional sources. Over the next five years, another 13,500 rooms are expected to be added and more workers will be required. However, over the long term, after the implementation of the wage correction policy, the industry is expected to introduce measures, such as computerization and mechanization to raise productivity and to economize on its use of labour. Nevertheless, the Ministry will continue to monitor the labour situation in the industry and will introduce remedial measures as and when required.

Sir, taking into account that, up to the late 1980's, there will be an increase of 13,500 hotel rooms, in the opinion of the Ministry what would be the increase in the demand for the workforce? Secondly, would the traditional and, non-traditional sources of labour that we depend upon, be able to meet this demand?

Sir, according to the Singapore Hotel Association, an expected number of about 16,000 workers will be required, but this is a rather high figure because the staff to room ratio used is about 1.2:1. If we take the more advanced countries, such as the United States, Japan and even Hawaii, the staff to room ratio is about 0.5:1. If we assume that the hotel industry take heed of the Government's call to mechanize and computerize, and finally achieve a staff to room ratio of 0.5:1, then the present staff should be sufficient to cater for the needs of the future.

Sir, in view of the fact that hotels depend on the provision of good service to their guests, would it not be dangerous to rely on imported workers to solve the problem, without first ensuring that they are properly trained?

First, I would like to stress that it is important for the hotel industry to mechanize, and through mechanization the unnecessary labour in the various sectors of the hotel industry will be released to perform work in areas where service is most required. On the other hand, by liberalizing the work permit schemes, people will be brought in to fill in the areas where chambermaids and waitresses will be used, and training will certainly have to be provided by the hotel if they want to remain viable.

Sir, the Government has been concerned with the upgrading of the skills of our workers. To what extent does the Parliamentary Secretary think that the hotel industry, however it chooses to automate or upgrade by mechanization, would be able to produce the kind of skills that we require?

If the hotel industry is interested in remaining viable, then I think it will surely have a plan to train its workers. In September 1979, the hotel industry itself carried out a survey of 20 hotels representing about 51% of the total workforce of the hotels and have come out with their own recommendations such as providing a career development to promising staff, conducting in-house training, improving meritorious and long service benefits and offering more incentives to attract part-time workers, and farming out certain services that could be farmed out, such as security and laundry.

Would the Parliamentary Secretary agree with me that a chambermaid using a broom and a chambermaid using a vacuum cleaner is still a chambermaid?

When we talk about mechanization, perhaps it will be best for the hotel industry to seek its own advice. But when we talk about mechanization, we are certainly encouraging the hotels to mechanize in order to save unnecessary labour.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, before asking a supplementary question, let me express my thanks to the Parliamentary Secretary for making an attempt to reply. However, he himself has stated that there will be an increase of 13,500 hotel rooms by the late 80's. This means more than 100% increase when compared to the present number of hotel rooms in Singapore. Bearing in mind the fact that there would be competing demands from the other industries and also the fact that it is not always easy to solve the manpower shortage at the managerial and supervisory grades - at the moment this is a crucial problem - I wonder if the Ministry could consider having serious discussions with interested bodies, so that the private sector, the Government and possibly the Labour movement, could together look into this problem of labour shortage in greater depth.

Sir, I must thank the hon. Member for his concern, but may I just enlighten him on the latest survey results that we have received. In fact, this survey was done by the Ministry of Labour. In 1980, for instance, administrative and managerial workers totalled 717, out of which there were only two job vacancies. So the problem really is not that serious. There will be a few vacancies in each industry once in a while.

asked the Minister of Defence whether the deployment of national servicemen to do non-military duties like teaching and possibly construction work will have any effect on the mentality of the people towards national service; whether this move will dilute the fervour for national service which was so difficult to build initially; and whether this will ultimately affect the morale of national servicemen who may feel exploited at being asked to do a duty which is not related to the defence of the country.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have been asked by my Minister to reply. It has been the practice of the Ministry of Defence (Mindef) to deploy national servicemen, who are not physically fit for strenuous combat duties, in non-combat supportive and administrative services in the Singapore Armed Forces. From time to time, Mindef receives requests from other Ministries for manpower assistance to carry out urgent assignments that are in the national interest. One such example is the recent request from the Ministry of Education for English-medium teachers to help the Ministry in alleviating its present shortage of English-medium teachers in primary schools. Mindef agreed to attach 48 of these non-combat fit servicemen to the Ministry as English-medium teachers on a short-term basis. The servicemen concerned were selected on the basis of their academic qualifications, interest and aptitude in teaching. Their participation is voluntary. As for the possible use of national servicemen in construction work, Mindef and the Ministry of Home Affairs, which is in charge of civil defence, have identified a need for servicemen with skills in the construction trades in the national civil defence programme. These skills are essential for excavation, damage containment, repairs, reconstruction and other related activities. Training national servicemen in the construction trades would, therefore, have direct relevance, in the overall defence of the nation. As the feasibility of such a scheme is currently under study, it would be premature to discuss it at this time. Details of the proposed scheme will be released when the study is completed.

Sir, will the use of national servicemen in the construction industry be on a voluntary basis too?

Sir, various options are being looked into, and that is one of the possibilities which we will consider.

asked the Minister for National Development if he will ascertain from the Housing and Development Board (i) how many applicants have withdrawn their applications for flats; and (ii) how many applicants have changed their applications from 5-room to 4-room or from 4-room to 3-room flats, since the increase in prices of HDB flats as well as the requirement to pay 20% down-payment upon application (pertaining to HUDC flats).

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, during the period 17th May to 30th June 1981, 260 applicants changed their applications from bigger to smaller flats. Twenty of them changed from executive flats to 5-room flats; 70 from 5-room to 4-room or 3-room flats; and 170 from 4-room to 3-room flats. These 260 applicants represent only 0.28% of the waiting list of 94,400 as at 30th June 1981. It shows that the overwhelming majority of applicants can afford the new prices. Over the same period, 129 applicants cancelled or withdrew their applications. This is, in fact, lower than the average of 150 cancellations over a normal period of 1 1/2-months. The Housing and Development Board cannot ascertain with complete accuracy the ability of applicants to afford flat prices based on the income declared in the application form. Invariably, the applicant's ability to pay would be under-estimated as there may be extraneous sources of finance, such as financial support from parents, or brothers and sisters, or from accumulated personal savings. The purpose of imposing a 10% downpayment on HUDC applicants is to weed out non-urgent or marginal applicants. Since the imposition, 1,543 applicants, representing 22% of the HUDC waiting list, have been weeded out.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, would the Hon. Minister for National Development agree with me that those 260 applicants who have changed their applications from bigger to smaller flats should not lose their priority as such?

Sir, their priority will not be adversely affected as they will be allowed to retain their registration numbers.

asked the Minister for National Development whether he is aware that the industrial workshops built by the Housing and Development Board, like the three blocks in the Punggol Estate, are inadequately designed to meet the needs of trades like furniture-making, iron-mongery and small refrigeration plants, and contain a mixture of trades like mee and dumplingmaking; if he will request the HDB to look into the matter with a view to improving the design of such premises to ensure that the different needs are catered for and to separating industries like food manufacturing and other industries for health reasons; and, in future, if the HDB will relocate similar trades accordingly.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the size of HDB terrace workshops ranges from 88 sq. metres to 330 sq. metres to cater for the needs of the various types of industries, For health and environmental reasons, the food processing and manufacturing industries are segregated from the other industries. In addition, they must comply with approved standards set by the Government authorities. The terrace workshops at Block 12, Punggol Estate, are used exclusively to house food processing industries. Other non-compatible trades, such as wood-working, paper products, engineering and mechanical workshops, are located at Blocks 13 and 14, There is, therefore, no mixing of trades in the same block of workshops. These three blocks of workshops were completed in 1974 for resettlement of small industries which were affected by redevelopment schemes. Owing to business expansion, some tenants have found the workshop space too small for their needs and have applied for bigger units in other estates. Another 64 units of HDB terrace workshops in nearby Defu Estate are scheduled for completion in early 1982. Tenants in the Punggol Estate who require bigger workshop units can tender for one of these units when tenders are invited by the HDB.

Sir, if that is the case, would the tenants in the three blocks of industrial workshops be given priority under the scheme in the Defu industrial estate?

Sir, they will not be given priority. They will be treated as normal public tenderers.

Sir, although the Hon. Minister has mentioned that the various trades are separated into three blocks, viz. Blocks 12, 13 and 14, is it not true that the three blocks are situated so close to one another?

Sir, they are close to one another because they were built together and certain regulations have been complied with. One block is used for the food processing industry and the other two blocks are used for the other industries. This arrangement is acceptable to the Ministry of the Environment.

asked the Minister for National Development whether his Ministry has plans to build bus shelters along the following streets of Bedok North within the Kaki Bukit Constituency:- Bedok North Avenue 1, Bedok North Avenue 2, Bedok North Avenue 3, Bedok Nonh Street 3 and Bedok Reservoir Road, and when the bus shelters will be constructed.

Sir, bus shelters will be provided along the following streets of Bedok North Estate within Kaki Bukit Constituency: No.of Name of Street Shelters Bedok North Avenue 1 1 Bedok North Avenue 2 1 Bedok North Street 3 4 Bedok Reservoir Road 10 Work will commence at the end of this year and is scheduled for completion in mid-1982.

asked the Minister for National Development if he will elaborate on the development of Bedok North in particular the open space in front of Block 551, Block 552 and Block 554 in Neighbourhood 5 and the land in Neighbourhood 7 between Bedok Reservoir Road and the Pan Island Expressway.

Sir, a neighbourhood park will be developed in the open space in front of Blocks 551, 552 and 554 of Bedok North Estate to serve residents in Neighbourhood 5. The area in Neighbourhood 7 between Bedok Reservoir Road and Pan Island Expressway is earmarked for development of 1,100 units of 3-, 4-, 5-room Model A and Executive Apartments, 583 units of HUDC flats, an open space, a secondary school and a sports ares. Construction of the sports area and public housing is underway. The sports area will be ready by the end of this year, while the public housing development will be completed by the end of 1983. Tender for the building work of HUDC flats has been called.

asked the Minister for National Development whether the Housing and Development Board has finalized the scheme to enable immediate families to live within the same neighbourhood.

Sir, the HDB presently operates three schemes to enable parents and married children to live near each other. The Joint Balloting Scheme permits parents and their married children on the waiting list for flats to be given priority in the allocation of adjoining flats or flats within the same estate. Since the introduction of the Scheme in August, 1977, 1,985 families have been allocated flats under the Scheme and another 2,046 applications are awaiting allocation. Secondly, families which already own HDB flats can take advantage of the Mutual Exchange Scheme to live in the same housing estate. Under this Scheme, lessees can mutually exchange their flats provided one party has occupied the flat for at least five years. Since July 1978 when the Scheme was introduced, 64 families have mutually exchanged fists. To further encourage mutual exchange, the HDB will be reducing the minimum occupancy period from five years to one year. Thirdly, tenants of HDB rental flats are granted priority for transfer of flats in order to live nearer to their parents or married children. A total of 448 families have taken advantage of the Priority Transfer Scheme for Rental Flats since its implementation in July, 1978.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, would the Minister comment whether the Scheme that is operating now has been successful in bringing immediate families to live close to one another?

Sir, I think the scheme is reasonably successful. From the HDB records a lot of families still have their parents living with them. And this scheme is to enable families with married children who themselves are already separate family units, to live near one another. So the scheme can be considered to be reasonably successful.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in his Chinese New Year message, the Prime Minister made certain suggestions on how the HDB could bring the immediate families to live together. Is the HDB considering those suggestions?

Sir, yes, the HDB is considering those suggestions.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, that brings me back to my original Question: Has the HDB finalized the scheme?

Sir, as regards all the suggestions to bring the families together, whether they come from the Prime Minister, Ministers, Members of Parliament, or members of the public, the HDB has been carefully considering the various schemes. Those schemes that can be implemented immediately, the HDB has implemented them. As for those schemes that need time to formulate or if the schemes may give rise to problems or repercussions, then their implementation will take a longer time because further consideration will have to be given to them.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, could the Minister give an indication when the scheme as suggested by the Prime Minister would be implemented?

Sir, the scheme will be implemented when it is ready.

asked the Minister for National Development whether there is any plan to make up that stretch of Tanah Merah Kechil Road between Jalan Limau Bali and Upper East Coast Road.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, there are no plans to make up the stretch of Tanah Merah Kechil Road between Jalan Limau Bali and Upper East Coast Road. Satisfactory access to the private housing development in the area is provided by Bedok Rise and Jalan Langgar Bedok, off Bedok Road.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I take it, therefore, that the HDB has no plans to develop the vacant piece of State land between Bedok South Avenue 3 and the Tanah Merah Kechil Road,

Sir, the Planning Department and the HDB have studied the possible development of that area, and it is most probable that a public scheme will be implemented there. But until the scheme is finalized, I will not be able to make a definite statement on the development of that area.

Sir, would it not be prudent, therefore, for the HDB to make up that stretch of Tanah Merah Kechil Road now and consider it as part of the public scheme under study by the HDB?

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, when the public scheme is finalized, the Tanah Merah Kechil Road will be incorporated as part of the scheme. Therefore, any making up of the road in that area now will only be a waste of money.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I disagree. Is the Minister, therefore, saying that the HDB policy and the PWD policy is this: "We will cross the bridge when we come to it."? With such a policy they will not consider building any road until they have built a housing estate or until a big traffic jam occurs. Alternatively, it suggests that the HDB has actually no forward planning.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I do not think that is a correct interpretation of our policy, At present the housing estate concerned is being served by two roads, that is, Bedok Rise and Jalan Langgar Bedok, off Bedok Road. So there is a proper access to that estate. I do not think there is any traffic jam in that area. Another point is that the Member for Tanah Merah is asking for an additional road to serve that area. But since that private housing estate, which does not have a very large number of housing units, is already being served by two roads, an additional road is not justified because this is tantamount to wasting a large amount of public funds. To build an additional road would mean having three roads in that area. Another reason, as I have said, is that Tanah Merah Kechil Road is likely to form part of a future public scheme. So if we spend money on building up that stretch of Tanah Merah Kechil Road, the money will be wasted. I do not think it is correct to say that because we are adopting this policy we have, therefore, no forward planning.

Sir, I believe the Ministry of Trade and Industry is carrying on a Save Energy Campaign. To go to the estate, although very well served by two roads, involves a detour of about one kilometre each way. Is that not a waste of energy? Secondly -

Dr Lee, you are out of order. You are going out of the scope of the Question.

asked the Minister for National Development whether his Ministry (i) will take steps to improve the traffic flow into and out of Bedok North Housing Estate, as there is heavy traffic congestion at the junctions with the Pan Island Expressway and New Upper Changi Road during peak hours; and (ii) plans to construct a slipway from the Pan Island Expressway into Bedok New Town for traffic from Changi Airport, as at present motorists have to make a U-turn at Jalan Eunos and back track along the Pan Island Expressway to get to the flyover which gives access into Bedok New Town, and, if not, why not.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, traffic conditions in Bedok New Town are being continuously monitored by the Public Works Department (PWD). Their observations show that the traffic situation along the Town's major roads and at the Lorong Chin Chin Interchange with the PanIsland Expressway (PIE) has been satisfactory. There is some congestion near New Upper Changi Road and Bedok North Avenue 1 intersection. This will be relieved by the widening of New Upper Changi Road between Siglap Road and Bedok North Avenue 1 from dual two lanes to dual three lanes. The road widening will also enlarge traffic capacity at the junction. When works are completed in October this year, traffic flow in this part of Bedok will improve considerably. There is no plan to construct a slip road from the PIE into Bedok New Town, as there are already very good alternative access roads from Changi Airport to Bedok New Town. Residents returning from the Airport can use either the East Coast Parkway and Bedok South Avenue 1, or the PIE and New Upper Changi Road.

asked the Minister for Trade and Industry if he will request the Singapore Tourist Promotion Board to consider arranging with some bus companies or tour agencies to operate direct bus services between the Changi Airport Passenger Terminal Building and Changi Village for tourists to visit Changi Village during their short stop-over at Singapore.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Singapore Tourist Promotion Board has tried to interest some tour agencies to start direct bus services between Changi Airport Passenger Terminal Building and Changi Village so that tourists can visit Changi Village during their stop-over at Changi Airport. These tour agencies have shown a marked lack of enthusiasm as they do not think that such a service will be viable economically. However, the Department of Civil Aviation intends to arrange for a limited bus service from the Changi Airport Passenger Terminal Building to the Cargo Complex, so that passengers can take the SBS service to Changi Village. This service will be run on a trial basis to gauge the demand.

*

*The Statutory Boards (Taxable Services) (Amendment) Bill, standing in the name of the Minister for Finance, was introduced at a later stage.

"to amend the Road Traffic Act (Chapter 92 of the Revised Edition)", presented by the Minister for Communications and Minister for Labour (Mr Ong Teng Cheong); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament and to be printed.

"to amend the Central Provident Fund Act (Chapter 121 of the Revised Edition)", presented by Mr Ong Teng Cheong; read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament and to be printed.

"to consolidate and amend the law relating to the possession, distribution and exhibition of films", presented by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Culture (Mr S. Dhanabalan); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament and to be printed.

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to That the Bill be now read a Second time." This Bill will give effect to the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage adopted in Brussels on 29th November 1969. The Convention came into force on 19th June 1975. So far, 45 countries have accepted the Convention. The Bill ensures that compensation is available to persons who suffer from oil pollution damage caused by accidents involving ships carrying oil as cargo. Except for a few cases like an act of God, an act of war, or where the damage was caused by the negligence or wrongful act of any government or authority maintaining navigational lights or aids, shipowners will be liable for any oil pollution damage regardless of whether the oil escaped or was discharged through his fault. If the shipowner is not to blame, however, he may limit his liability in any one incident to an aggregate sum not exceeding 133 special drawing rights for each ton of the ship's tonnage up to a maximum of 14 million special drawing rights. However, the owner will not be able to limit his liability if the incident occurred through his fault. As in the Convention, the Bill requires ships carrying more than 2,000 tons of oil as cargo to maintain insurance or other financial security in sums equal to the owner's total liability for one incident. All Singapore-registered ships wherever they may be and any ship of any country entering or leaving Singapore waters and carrying oil as cargo must also be so insured. The Bill is necessary to safeguard ourselves against the expensive cost of clearing oil pollution from the many ships that now pass through our waters. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 3.18 p.m.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak in support of this Bill. Undoubtedly, it is an important piece of legislation which, when passed, will enable Singapore to give effect to the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage done in Brussels on 29th November 1969 and the Protocol thereto done in London on 19th November 1976. But before I deal with the various clauses of the Bill, I would like to make some general remarks. First of all, it is a fact that Singapore is located at a strategic point in the Straits of Malacca, and hence it lies at the crossroads of busy international sea-lanes. Singapore is the world's third largest port and a large number of ships come into our port and traverse our waters, or are harboured in our port. In a way, we can call it a port state. Also, we can call it a flag state as many ships have been registered with Singapore and are carrying our flag. But above all these, Singapore is a state whose economy also depends on maximum freedom of international navigation and communications, whether by air, sea or telecommunications, We have to bear all these important factors in mind as they affect our national interests. But, Sir, because we are a coastal state, a busy port and because of our strategic location, we are, therefore, very vulnerable to oil pollution by ships. The effects of oil pollution are too well known to all, especially the effects on fishing. And the precious little beaches that we have for recreation will also be adversely affected. In the long-term, the serious effects on ecology caused by oil pollution can upset the delicate life cycle that supports all life on earth. So it is both a national and an international problem. It is, therefore, both imperative and definitely in our interests to support measures which will provide for effective and remedial measures to combat oil pollution at sea. At the same time, we have also to look after our own national interests as dictated by our role as a major port and its vital importance to world shipping. Hence the measures to combat pollution must be proportionate to the problem. I say it must be effective but they must not be disguised to arbitrarily or unreasonably interfere with legitimate international shipping. Therefore, this Merchant Shipping (Oil Pollution) Bill, 1981, together with the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea (Amendment) Bill, 1981, take the approach of attaching liability on the basis of effects or harm or damage done within Singapore or Singapore waters. The important reason is that if only the territorial basis of jurisdiction is to be used for measuring liability, then ships will be liable only if they are physically within our territorial waters at the time of causing damage by pollution. Sir, this is clearly untenable, as the waters of the ocean know not nor respect any man-made boundaries. In other words, oil pollution occurring outside territorial seas can be brought by currents into territorial waters and beaches of one or more countries. Ships, therefore, should not be allowed to abuse the concept of freedom of the high seas by polluting the high seas. If the pollution they caused in the high seas subsequently cause damage to our state or other states, they must well know that they will be liable. This basic principle seems to be well covered in this Bill. But one major problem envisaged will be that of enforcement, investigation and establishment of facts. This is important if liability is going to be established. So can the Hon. Minister for Communications enlighten the House on whether we have adequate facilities for investigation and enforcement? Of course, in the case of a collision or disaster, the situation is well known and facts may not be disputed. However, it may be very different where vessels which are traversing our waters discharge oil indiscriminately. I say that we should have sufficient means to investigate and establish the facts. Otherwise, all these legislative provisions on liability will be rendered meaningless. Therefore, whatever efforts we take to ensure that our waters are free of pollution, as we are a coastal state, such efforts will be negated if there is no international co-operation. Similarly, because of tides and fast currents, pollution occurring in one place can be a cause of concern to countries in neighbouring places. What I have in mind is the close cooperation and coordination of the ASEAN countries in this context. May I ask the Hon. Minister how such a cooperation can be brought about? I am aware that the Third United Nations Law of the Sea Conference (UNCLOS III) has been going on for some years, and it is significant that this Conference is now presided over by Singapore's Permanent Representative to the United Nations. This draft Convention of the Law of the Sea which has emerged from the numerous sessions contains elaborate provisions for prevention, reduction and control of pollution of the marine environment. The provisions deal with enforcement by flag states, port states and coastal states. The concept of the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) also complicates the issue. Hence, I do not intend to go into this in detail. But I have to mention them in order to highlight the global nature of pollution and the consequential need for international co-operation. Hence, the question to the Minister on how cooperation amongst ASEAN states can be achieved. Further to this, I would also like to ask the following questions:- 1 Under existing circumstances, how is compensation obtained? 2 What are the main causes of oil pollution in our waters? 3 Since we know that much money has been spent on the prevention and control of pollution, the House would welcome the Minister's disclosure as to how much has been spent and whether enough has been done? 4 Why is the Bill necessary and what is the intention of acceding to the CLC Convention? Sir, I now come to the various clauses of the Bill. Whilst the House is grateful to the Minister for his explanation of the provisions in the Bill, there are clarifications to be made. For example, clause 3 makes a ship owner liable for oil pollution damage in Singapore and for the cost of measures taken to prevent or minimize such damage resulting from the escape of oil from a ship while carrying oil in bulk as cargo. The question is: What about the discharge of u"d oil in this respect? The Minister mentioned just now that it pertains only to ships carrying oil in bulk as cargo. That is not the escape of oil from a ship while carrying oil in bulk as cargo, but a ship cleaning itself on a high sea. As I have said earlier, tides and fast currents can pollute our waters as such. As regards clause 4, the onus of proof lies on the owner; in other words, he will not be liable if he can show that the oil escaped as a result of an act of war, hostilities, or wilful act of a third party, or negligence of an authority responsible for navigational aids, In the case of a wilful act of a third party or negligence, the owner may try to establish that he is not liable. Therefore, I do not think that this clause is adequate enough. Clause 5 restricts the owner's liability. This is not clearly spelt out, especially clause 5(b) which states that: 'no servant or agent of the owner nor any person performing salvage or cleaning operations with the agreement of the owner shall be liable for any such damage or cost.' Well, I must add that this Bill is highly technical and though I have very limited knowledge of the technicalities of the Bill, can I have the Hon. Minister's assurance that this Bill has been carefully thought out and drafted accordingly? For example, clause 17(1) states that: 'The provisions of this Act shall not apply in relation to any warship or any ship for the time being used by the government of any State other than for commercial purposes.' Can the Hon. Minister clarify this? Also, if I may ask the Hon. Minister whether, in the enforcement of this Act, the authority, in this case the Port of Singapore Authority, has sufficient manpower as well as equipment and facilities to implement this Bill when passed, and, if necessary, to carry out the enforcement. If I can get the assurance, I will definitely give my full support to the Bill. 3.33 p.m.

Sir, perhaps I will deal with the specific questions raised by the hon. Member for Punggol first, before coming to the other more general questions. The Member asked how is compensation obtained under existing circumstances. Under existing circumstances we base our claim for compensation under section 3 of the Civil Liability (Oil Pollution) Act, 1973. The owners of vessels, however, under this section, may limit their liability under section 295 of the Merchant Shipping Act, which is approximately $203 per ton of the ship's tonnage. The Member wants to know what are the main causes of oil pollution. Roughly, it could be due to equipment failure and human error during cargo operation at terminals. It could also be due to the transfer of cargo from ship to ship and during bunkering operations. It could also be due to the indiscriminate discharge of oil and contaminated water from the bilges of harbour craft. Another possible cause of pollution is through maritime accidents, including collisions, grounding of vessels and fire. It could also be due to discharge of effluent from foreshore industries and inland watercourses. In the past ten years, PSA has spent a total of approximately $46 million on capital projects for this purpose. In addition, PSA incurred an annually recurrent expenditure of approximately $4 to $6 million. I can assure the Member that adequate measures have been taken to prevent and control oil pollution. However, PSA is closely monitoring the situation and, if necessary, make the necessary adjustments and improvement to the facilities and manpower. The hon. Member also asked, "Why is the Bill necessary?" There are advantages in acceding to the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage (1969). Ships carrying more than 2,000 tons of oil in bulk as cargo are required to maintain insurance and other financial security. The shipowner's limit of liability is increased. This means that, in the event of an oil pollution, Singapore will be adequately compensated on the damage suffered. Regarding his question, "What is the intention of acceding to the Convention?", Sir, most of the leading maritime states have already acceded to the Convention, and the merchant ships of these states represent 79% of the world's total shipping tonnage. In any case, Singapore registered tankers calling at ports of Convention states, in other words, states which have acceded to the Convention, have to carry certificates attesting that appropriate insurance or other security is in force against oil pollution damage, even though Singapore is not a party to the Convention. So, in acceding to the Convention, there will be no extra burden imposed on Singapore ships. The Member asked, "What about the discharge of used oil" instead of simply oil in bulk as cargo, and whether used oil comes under the definition of "oil pollution" or otherwise. It could come under either the Merchant Shipping (Oil Pollution) Bill, i.e. the Bill that we are currently debating, or it could come under the next Bill which I will be taking its Second Reading later in this Chamber, i.e. the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea (Amendment) Bill, which deals with other forms of pollution. So, in as far as the points that the Member has raised are concerned, they will be dealt with either under this Bill or under the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea (Amendment) Bill. The Member questioned about clause 5 of the Bill which deals with the liability of shipowners. He asked why servants and agents of the owners are prevented from incurring liability for damage. This is mainly for enforcement reasons. It would be difficult for the authority to go about identifying the responsible party for causing pollution. In as far as the authority is concerned, the owner of the ship is responsible. If there is any dispute between the owner and the ship-repairing agents or servicing agents, then it is for the ship-owner to take it up separately with his agents. The hon. Member wants to know why warships do not come under the provisions of this Bill. We know that warships and government ships do not normally come under any international convention because any damages caused by warships or government ships in foreign pods are matters for the respective government to tackle. They do not have to go through a court of law. It is for the respective government to tackle it separately. The hon. Member also wants the assurance that the Port of Singapore Authority has sufficient manpower to carry out enforcement action. I can assure the Member that the operation of this law is not new. It has been pan of the Authority's day-to-day operations for some years already. This Bill is concerned only with tightening up the law and acceding to the Convention. I can assure him that the Authority has adequate manpower and facilities to deal with the necessary enforcement required under this Bill.

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

Order for Second Reading read. 3.45 p.m.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This is a very simple Bill which makes consequential amendments to the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea Act, 1971, as a result of the repeal of the Civil Liability (Oil Pollution) Act, 1973, by the Merchant Shipping (Oil Pollution) Bill, 1981. There are no now provisions in this Bill but certain sections of the Civil Liability (Oil Pollution) Act, 1973, which when repealed will be re-enacted in this Bill. These provisions include those which enable the Port of Singapore Authority to recover from the owner of a vessel or the occupier of a place the cost of any measure taken by PSA to remove any oil discharged into Singapore waters. Other minor amendments have also been made but these are mainly consequential in nature. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the explanatory statement states that "This Bill seeks to make consequential amendments to the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea Act, 1971, as a result of the repeal of the Civil Liability (Oil Pollution) Act, 1973, by the Merchant Shipping (Oil Pollution) Act, 1981." Just now, in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, the Minister mentioned that this is a very simple Bill. But let me refer him to the amendments. I notice that clause 3 has been re-enacted with amendments and whilst I wholeheartedly agree with the new sections 14 and 15, contained in this new clause, pertaining to "Recovery of costs for removing oil" and "Recovery of costs from occupier of land" which he has just mentioned that PSA must recover whatever money spent as a result of such work performed, a pertinent question can, therefore, be asked. Besides this reason, what other reasons are there for the re-enactment of this clause? It must be really a painful experience gained, and how much money has been spent in this direction? Sir, clause 4 is also being re-enacted with amendments, and it gives the Authority, in this case the Director or Port Master, the power to detain vessels. The question is how will he deal with the situation mentioned in my statement earlier in the debate on the Merchant Shipping (Oil Pollution) Bill, as a very large number of ships traverse our waters? I am more concerned with the adequacy of the staff and facilities although he has given the House the assurance that there are adequate manpower and facilities needed to carry out enforcement efficiently. If he can reassure this House, then I would give my support to the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the new sections 14 and 15, contained in clause 3 of the Bill, are not new provisions as far as enforcement of the port operation is concerned. The provision has already been in existence in the Civil Liability (Oil Pollution) Act, 1973, which will be repealed and replaced by the Merchant Shipping (Oil Pollution) Bill which has just been passed by the House earlier. However, it is considered that this provision is more appropriate for inclusion in this Bill rather than in the Merchant Shipping (Oil Pollution) Bill which deals only with oil pollution. It is perhaps due to the extraction of these two sections from the Civil Liability (Oil Pollution) Act, which is to be repealed, and including them in this Bill instead of the Merchant Shipping (Oil Pollution) Bill which replaces the Civil Liability (Oil Pollution) Act, that causes this confusion. I hope this explanation makes the matter clearer. The hon. Member is concerned about the facilities and manpower to deal with the situation in detaining vessels as pan of the enforcement action. I wish to reassure him again that this enforcement action is not now as far as the Port Authority is concerned. It has been part of the Port Authority's day-to-day operations to ensure that all vessels before leaving our port have obtained clearance. If not, the Authority's patrol boats will intercept and prevent the vessel from leaving the port. Therefore, the enforcement machinery is already there and it has been in operation satisfactorily over the years. I assure him that the Authority has adequate staff and facilities to carry out enforcement efficiently.

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

Order for Second Reading read. 3.55 p.m.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Members will be aware that in July last year the Council on Professional and Technical Education recommended that enrolment in engineering courses at the tertiary level in Singapore should be increased substantially in order to meet the manpower demands of our restructured economy. In particular, the Council recommended that a new institution, to be called the Nanyang Technological Institute, should be established at the former Nanyang University campus in Jurong in order to train practice-oriented engineers who would, on graduation, work in industry, manage our production lines, undertake plant and site supervision and oversee maintenance work. The training of these engineers would emphasize engineering applications and practice. The Bill before the House seeks to formally establish the Nanyang Technological Institute by legislation. The Bill is patterned along the lines of the National University of Singapore Act, but appropriate modifications have been made where necessary. I shall deal briefly with the significant provisions of the Bill. Clause 3 of the Bill formally establishes and incorporates the Nanyang Technological Institute. The functions and powers of the Institute are specified in clause 5. The Institute's functions include the provision of facilities to carry out higher instruction and research in various branches of engineering and technology, as well as in such other disciplines as the Institute's Council may determine from time to time. The Institute is also empowered to enter into and carry out such arrangements as the Institute's Council may think fit with the National University of Singapore for the coordination of the work of the Institute with the work of the National University of Singapore, and for the conduct of courses and examinations and for such other purposes as the Institute may, tom time to time, determine. Clause 6 provides that the Institute shall be governed by the provisions of the Institute's Constitution as set out in the Schedule to the Act. As in the case of the Constitution of the National University of Singapore, the Minister is empowered, on the advice of the Institute's Council, to amend the Institute's Constitution by Order published in the Gazette. This flexibility is necessary as occasions may well arise in future when the Institute's Constitution has to be amended. Clauses 8, 9 and 10 which relate to the accounts and the audit of accounts of the Institute are standard provisions. Clause 12 deals with the grant and acquisition of land for the purposes of the Institute, and clause 13 concerns the application of the Societies Act to the student bodies of the Institute. These two clauses are based on the existing provisions of the National University of Singapore Act. Clause 14 empowers the Minister to make rules for the removal of any difficulty which may arise in giving effect to the provisions of this Act and for the initial appointments of the President of the Institute, the Deans of Schools of the Institute and the appointments to the first Council. The Constitution of the Institute follows closely that of the Constitution of the National University of Singapore but with appropriate modifications. The chief executive of the Institute will be its President. Instead of faculties, the Institute will have Schools. The Institute's governing body will be the Council which will consist of 15 members. Five members (inclusive of the President) will be appointed from among the Institute's academic staff. Of these five members, at least two must be Deans of Schools or Heads of Institutions and at least one must be a full-time teacher who is neither Head nor Dean. Five members will be appointed by the Government, of whom one shall be on the nomination of the Professional Engineers Board and one shall be on the nomination of the Council of the Institute of Engineers, Singapore. The NUS will be represented by five members comprising its Vice-Chancellor, Dean of Engineering and three members to be appointed by the Vice-Chancellor. In place of the Senate there will be an Academic Board which will be chaired by the Vice-Chancellor of the NUS. The President of the Institute will be the Deputy Chairman of the Academic Board which will include in its membership the Dean and Vice-Dean of Engineering of the NUS and the Deans and Professors of the Institute. As with the NUS, no provision has been made for a Guild of Graduates. Since graduates of the Institute will receive NUS degrees, they will officially be members of the NUS Graduates Register. This will, however, not preclude the Institute from having its own Sub-Register. A Students Union will be established along the lines of the National University of Singapore Students Union. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, although the Institute has yet to be formally established, an NTI Planning and Development Committee, under the Chairmanship of Dr Cham Tao Soon, Dean of Engineering of the NUS, has been hard at work since August last year to prepare the groundwork for the setting up of the Institute. I should like to take this opportunity to thank the Committee for their energetic and unstinting efforts which will give the Institute a flying start. An overall plan for the development of the Institute has been approved by Government and provision has been made for the Institute to begin with three Schools: 1. Civil and Structural Engineering. 2. Electrical and Electronic Engineering. 3. Mechanical and Production Engineering. A vigorous campaign to recruit staff has been launched and the Institute is targetting to employ at least 30 academic staff by the end of this year. As of to-day, over 400 applications have been received in response to the Institute's recruitment efforts. Twenty-four appointees, 12 local and 12 expatriates, have accepted the Institute's offers of employment and a further nine offers have been made. Dean-designates for the three Schools have been appointed and the key administrative and library staff have already started work. INDECO has been appointed as the project manager for the physical development of the NTI campus and an eminent architect, Professor Kenzo Tange, has been retained to draw up the Master Plan for a new complex of lecture theatres, laboratories, offices and ancillary facilities capable of accommodating up to 3,000 students by 1990. Phase I of the plan, which is to convert the existing buildings to provide temporary facilities for students and staff, has already begun and will be completed by February next year in time to receive the first batch of NTI students to be admitted in July 1982. The Institute will encourage close interaction with industry in a number of ways. Firstly, the teaching staff will make it their responsibility to keep abreast with technological development in Singapore through the provision of consultancy services to the public and private sectors. Secondly, the Institute will have a system of industrial attachment for students so that it will be kept informed of the problems and requirements of industry. Thirdly, the Schools of the Institute will have Advisory Committees comprising industrialists, Government officials and academic staff. These committees will be effective channels of communication and will provide a good sounding board for the introduction of new courses by the Schools in keeping with changes in the needs of our local industry. The Institute will produce its first graduates by the mid-1980s. Government intends to give the Institute its fullest support so that by the late 1980's the Institute will have developed sufficiently to provide a full range of both general and honours degree courses in the various streams of engineering. This will pave the way for the Institute to be developed by 1992 into a full-fledged technological university to be called the Technological University of Nanyang. To meet this objective Government will ensure that the Institute will, from the start, have facilities and terms and conditions of service for staff which are appropriate to a University-level institution. When it is fully developed, the Technological University of Nanyang will play a crucial role in training the highly-skilled manpower needed for the sophisticated, capital-intensive, high-value added industries that will figure prominently in our economy in the 1990s. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I seek a clarification from the Hon. Minister? I take it that the old campus of Nanyang University will eventually become the property of the Technological University of Nanyang. Although it is not mentioned in the Bill where this Institute is going to be situated, the Minister did mention that it would be at the old University campus. However, the ownership of the land is not mentioned in the Bill. May I seek confirmation from the Minister that the land comprising over 500 acres at the Jurong Campus will be given to this Institute?

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am pleased to confirm that the land on which the Nanyang University Campus stands will be vested in the NTI first and subsequently in the Technological University of Nanyang.

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

Order for Second Reading read. 4.06 p.m.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Sikh Temples at Silat Road and Serangoon Road/Towner Road are now administered by Boards of Trustees appointed under the Silat Road Gurdwara Ordinance (Cap. 318) and the Queen Street Gurdawara Ordinance (Cap. 311) respectively. The Sikh community have long recognized that having two separate Boards of Trustees to run the two principal Sikh Temples in Singapore is not practical. As early as 1961, a law was passed, called the Central Sikh Gurdwara Board Ordinance, 1961, to amalgamate the two Boards into a single Board of Management. However, this Ordinance was not brought into force because, soon after it was passed, a few leading members of the Sikh community objected to certain provisions contained in it. There were no further developments until 1979 when the Sikh community revived the call for the amalgamation of the two Boards of Trustees into a single body. This was precipitated by the Housing and Development Board acquiring the land on which the Queen Street Temple stood. However, the HDB provided an alternative site at Serangoon Road/Towner Road and also erected a temporary temple on it for the Sikh community. The Sikh community has now to build a permanent structure so that the temporary temple can be demolished thereafter. The amalgamation of the two Boards of Trustees will enable the Sikh community to concentrate on setting up a building fund for the construction of the Central Sikh Temple. The Bill provides that the Central Sikh Gurdwara Board shall consist of 25 persons. The first Board shall be appointed by the Minister. Subsequent Boards will consist of 10 members to be appointed by the Minister and another 15 to be elected by persons whose names are on the Membership Register of the Central Sikh Gurdwara. Clause 5 of the Bill provides that the Central Sikh Gurdwara Board shall set up and maintain a Membership Register in which shall be entered the names of persons who have made declarations that they profess the Sikh faith, are not less than 21 years of age and are ordinarily resident in Singapore. The establishment of this Membership Register will enable Sikhs who are interested in the management of the two principal Sikh temples to offer themselves for election which will be by secret ballot. However, no person may be appointed or elected a member of the Board unless he is a citizen of Singapore. The Bill also provides for the Board to elect a President, a Secretary, a Treasurer, and other officials as it may consider necessary from among themselves. Board members are eligible for re-appointment or re-election at the end of their term of office of two years except that no member of the Board will be allowed to hold office as a Treasurer for more than two years consecutively. I would like to assure the Sikh community that the first 25 members to be appointed by the Minister will be representative of all the major denominations of the Sikh community in Singapore. The Government will ensure that the members appointed to hold office are persons who are interested in furthering the welfare of the Sikh community and will not be influenced in their decision- making by narrow sectarian interests. However, I am confident that, since a high proportion of the Sikhs living in Singapore are Singapore citizens by birth, they will strive to foster a united Sikh community that will live in peace and harmony alongside other religious groups in Singapore. Clause 12 of the Bill gives the Board the power to acquire, purchase, sell or otherwise dispose of movable and immovable property and, under Clause 19, all the movable and immovable property which were vested in the former Boards will vest in the Board upon the commencement of the Act. Clause 16 empowers the Board to make rules with the approval of the Minister for the purposes of the Act. It is necessary for the smooth and proper running of the two temples that there should be rules set out to regulate the keeping of the Membership Register, the conduct of general meetings, the keeping of proper accounts and other related matters. Clause 21 is a transitional provision and provides for the transfer of the rights and liabilities of the former Boards to the Board. Sir, I beg to move.

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

4.20 p.m. With the consent of Mr Deputy Speaker and the general assent of Members present, Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, "That the introduction of the Statutory Boards (Taxable Services) (Amendment) Bill and Items 1, 2, 3 and 4 on the Order Paper be taken now." - [Mr E W Barker].

"to amend the Statutory Boards (Taxable Services) Act (Chapter 149 of the Revised Edition)", recommendation of President signified; presented by the Minister for Finance (Mr Hon Sui Sen); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament and to be printed.

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Betting and Sweepstake Duties (Amendment) Bill is to give legislative authority to the increase in duty on bets announced in this year's Budget Statement. With effect from 1st April 1981, the duty has been increased from 10% to 15% of the amount of bets. The Bill also empowers the Minister to vary by order the duty on bets or sweep-stakes, without amending the Betting and Sweepstake Duties Act whenever there is a change in the rates of duty. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, according to the Memorandum on the Budget submitted in March this year, estimated revenue derived from betting and sweepstakes amounted to $35.9 million for last year. At the tax rate of 10% on betting and 30% on sweepstakes, the total legalized betting and sweepstakes was probably in the region of $300 million last year. There was probably much more in terms of illegal betting and sweepstakes. It would appear, Sir, that such gambling activities are a billion dollar industry in Singapore. I would like to ask the Hon. Minister for Finance: what exactly is the Government's stand on gambling? Does the Government consider gambling to be desirable or undesirable? Is the Government aware of the corrosive effects of gambling on work ethics, the development of skills and family stability? How can we tolerate double standards in public policy? On the one hand, we have the Ministers of Education, Communications and Labour and Culture trying to promote and preserve good moral values. The Minister for Trade and Industry is trying to upgrade our industries and encourage workers to learn new skills, to work hard especially as a team, and so on. On the other hand, the Minister for Finance makes money out of the vice of gambling and covetousness. Raising the tax on betting and sweepstakes will merely increase Government revenue. It will not discourage gambling. In so many ways already, Singapore is like a gambling casino with speculation in shares and property being rife, betting on soccer and other games, resulting in corruption and bankruptcy. Sports like soccer have been turned from a healthy activity into scandals involving bribery of players. Sir, I think it is time that Government evaluated its policies in regard to gambling. The best thing would be to out-law it altogether.

Sir, this Bill is merely to implement what was announced in the last Budget. Perhaps the appropriate time to debate the principles of betting and so on would have been at the last Budget session. Nevertheless, since the Member has raised it, I would like to say that while the Government does not as a matter of policy encourage gambling, it recognizes that this is a characteristic which is inherent in many of the populace, and we will try and limit gambling as far as possible. For example, we do not encourage casinos in order to raise revenue. We will, at the same time, in the limited way that is permitted, try and reduce it by making the tax as productive as possible and gambling as prohibitive as we can make it. Of course, there is a possibility that if we increase the amount of tax, gambling may be driven underground and the tax is reduced. So we are trying to do what we can to take advantage of the propensity for gambling in our populace by raising some revenue, thus trying to make a benefit out of evil.

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

Order for Second Reading read. 4.30 p.m.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Bill seeks to amend the Bretton Woods Agreements Act by adding a new section 11 for the purpose of exempting the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (the World Bank) and any issue by the Bank of shares, debentures, bonds, notes and other securities from the provisions of the Companies Act. Under the Companies Act, a "corporation" is widely defined to mean any body cor- porate formed or incorporated or existing in Singapore or outside Singapore. The World Bank falls within this wide definition, As such it must, unless otherwise exempted, comply with the requirements of the Companies Act in the event of a public issue of its securities in Singapore. However, it may not be appropriate to apply these requirements to the World Bank as a prestigious and well-established international organization. Unless the Bank is exempted from these requirements, it will not be able to offer its securities in the Singapore capital market on the same basis as in other capital markets. Statutory exemption from the requirements of the Companies Act had already been conferred on the Asian Development Bank by the Asian Development Bank (Amendment) Act, 1976. The World Bank made its first issue of Yen bonds in Singapore in February 1981. In connection with that issue, specific exemption under the Companies Act had to be given to the Bank so that it need not have to comply with certain requirements of the Act. The general exemption contained in this Bill, which is on the same lines as the exemption granted to the Asian Development Bank, will facilitate further issues in Singapore of securities by the World Bank and will dispense with the need to grant specific exemption each time the Bank offers its securities for issue in Singapore. Sir, I beg to move.

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

Order for Second Reading read. 4.33 p.m.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The purpose of this Bill is to give legislative effect to the estate duty concession that was announced in the 1981 Budget Statement. Clause 2 of the Bill amends section 10C of the Estate Duty Act so as to raise the existing exemption ceiling for dwelling houses from $200,000 to $600,000. The concession was effective from 1st January 1981. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Sir, those who own private residential property worth $600,000 or more would certainly be grateful to the Hon. Minister for this concession. However, the great majority of Singaporeans can only afford HDB and HUDC flats, the current values of which are far short of $600,000 despite the price increase of HDB and HUDC flats. This raises the question of equity in the administration of Estate Duty. It would be more equitable to treat all estates alike. I would suggest that the exemption from estate duty of $600,000 be applied to all estates, provided a dwelling unit is part of such estates.

Sir, I rise to speak in full support of this Bill which, when passed, will increase the relief from estate duty payable in respect of dwelling houses from $200,000 of the aggregate value of the deceased's interest value therein to $600,000. This increase will apply in respect of persons dying on or after 1st January, 1981. Sir, I must congratulate the Hon. Finance Minister for his pragmatism and foresight. It is a well-known fact that the prices of housing property today have increased by leaps and bounds. Surely we would like to continue to encourage home ownership and not see a family displaced from its owner-occupied residential property, the value of which may exceed $600,000 at today's market price on the untimely demise of the owner. Here, I would like to suggest to the Hon. Minister that, after all, in keeping with the encouragement of the home ownership scheme, surely it will not cost the State coffers too much if we could exempt one owner-occupied residential property from the liability of estate duty. I know, Sir, the Minister will shoot me down on this simply because there are owner-occupiers of residential properties whose values may be worth more than $1 million. It is also true to say that such owners number only a mere handful and if their property is worth more than $1 million, they will surely know how to get round it and avoid paying estate duty by dividing the property into a number of shares or through inter vivos, in which case it will only take effect after a five-year lapse. What I mean really is to ask the Hon. Minister for consideration to be given to those who simply have one piece of owner-occupied residential property and do not want to dispose of it, bearing in mind that such owner-occupied property might have been bought years ago when property prices were much lower then. In this case they might be caught by this Bill despite the fact that this exemption limit has been raised to the quite generous figure of $600,000. Owners of single residential property with a market value well above the $600,000 mark may have no choice but to dispose of them now or, at best, hope not to die. If they have to dispose of such property for fear of imposing a financial burden on the family, then the pride of owning a residential property after having worked and slogged so hard in their lifetime just to have a roof over their heads will render it meaningless. It will not be good for them and Singapore as well for, coupled with the prospect of having to be displaced, the family will have to look for alternative accommodation. If I may point out, the likelihood of getting such accommodation, whether through purchase or rental is bleak; bleak in the sense that it is not easy under the circumstances existing today for each member of the family who qualifies for HDB flats will still have to wait accordingly. I would like to cite an example in support of my appeal. I know of a case in my constituency where a family is affected by resettlement upon compulsory acquisition of land by Government. Before the acquisition can be finalized, the owner-occupier died intestate, rendering it imperative on his widow and eldest son to take up Letters of Administration to administer his estate which consisted of a house and land. After the residual effects of the estate were equally distributed among those who were entitled, the co-administrators, i.e. the son and his family, got a rude shock when they were told by the Resettlement Department of the Housing and Development Board that since his deceased father owned a house and that he had a share in it upon his father's demise, he was disqualified from applying for an HDB flat. I must add that in this case the beneficiaries were numerous and the residue due to each was a paltry sum. How about that? The Hon. Minister in reply may well say that a single swallow does not make a summer, but I still maintain that it is about time we changed the ground rules. Surely we can afford this change by allowing the family of the owner-occupier to keep the only residential property they have and not to impose any estate duty, even though it may well be above the exemption limit. This is to enable the beneficiaries to live peacefully and happily together in his (deceased) only property. Sir, when I said "his only property", I use the term "his" in the sense of a first person and in the legal context the masculine gender embraces the feminine gender. If I may be audacious enough to ask of the Minister, "Please, give this matter much more serious thought", I think the Hon. Minister is a kind and generous man and he would consider my humble plea favourably. After all, let us not forget that the HDB does allow owners of HDB flats to sell their flats at a profit and then to register again for the purchase of another flat. Here, I am not, of course, suggesting the same in this case but it is true that many people have sold their HDB flats and obtained new flats. All these HDB flats up to now do not cost as much as $600,000 each. There is a parallel to this. Simply put, if an owner-occupier of a single residential property runs the risk of having to pay estate duty and if he has no other estate in Singapore, the question is: How deep will their roots be? The Hon. Prime Minister has pointed out at a sitting of Parliament that we must take roots and he has likened it to the instant tree against the tree planted from the seed which has a tap-root. Nevertheless, Sir, I would still like to appeal to the Hon. Minister to consider my point, maybe not this time if he does not think it opportune but certainly the next time as he has done so over the past few years when raising the exemption ceiling from $50,000 to $100,000, to $200,000, and now $600,000. I think he fully understands the purport of my intention as I am sure he is aware that there are many people who have struggled hard and through hard savings and thrift managed to buy such properties in earlier times. Surely, we do not want to see them, especially their families, lose their homes, hence, the tap-root.

Sir, again in this particular case, the Bill is to implement the concession that was given in the 1981 Budget. At that time I think the limit of $600,000 was considered adequate to cover most owner-occupied properties up to the level of semi-detached houses. It certainly covers all HDB housing and some HUDC and Government flat units, I think many terrace houses come within the $600,000 limit and semi-detached housing too, and maybe some detached housing in the less select residential areas. I still think $600,000 is a good limit but I will take note of the suggestions which have been made by the hon. Members, and if they represent the views of a large part of the electorate, then perhaps at the appropriate time, i.e. at the next budget, it may be possible to consider extending this concession.

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

Order for Second Reading reed. 4.51 p.m.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." A Committee on National Computerization was formed in March 1980 to examine ways to develop Singapore into a regional centre for computer services. One of the recommendations of the Committee accepted by Government is a proposal to establish a National Computer Board. This Bill seeks to establish and incorporate the National Computer Board. The main responsibilities of the Board will be to guide the growth of the computer services industry in Singapore and to serve as the central agency in developing, implementing and coordinating computer-based management information systems in Government Departments and Ministries. The Bill also provides for the establishment of a Professional Examinations Syndicate which will organize and conduct professional examinations for computer systems personnel in Singapore. The Syndicate will have a broad representation of members from the computer services industry, the Education Ministry, the National University of Singapore and overseas professional examination bodies connected with the computer industry. This will ensure the international accredition and acceptance of Singapore-trained manpower. The Board will also organize courses and award diplomas and certificates of proficiency. Provision has been made in the Bill for the preservation of secrecy of information obtained by a member, officer, employee or agent of the Board in the performance of his duties or in the exercise of his functions. It is intended to make it an offence for any person to knowingly falsify any record of, or to knowingly provide false information to be included in, any computer system maintained by the Board. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, a key pillar of growth to achieve our economic restructuring programme in the Eighties as presented by the Government has been identified as the brain services. The computer services industry is an integral part of the brain services and is desirable for Singapore because it is knowledge-intensive and non-polluting and requires less manpower and energy. Computers can also raise the technology and productivity of other sectors. Therefore, the establishment and incorporation of the National Computer Board is the Government's positive step towards the promotion of the computer services industry as a key industry of the future, For this reason, I fully support the National Computer Board Bill. Furthermore, this is in line with what I have said in the House during the debate on the Budget last year when I spoke on computers and reviewed the position of our control loop and its operation. Here, I wish to quote selectively from Hansard, Volume 39, dated 14th March 1980, column 931: 'Need for centrally co-ordinating the requirements of computer services. To ensure that the taxpayer's money is put to good use, a more effective body to exercise such control would be desirable and urgently required. However, sufficient flexibility must also be exercised by this body so as not to stifle healthy growth and creativity. In short, we should have a central body to control all mechanisation, automation and computerisation for the Government Ministries and statutory institutions but tempered with a fair measure of flexibility.' Sir, I am cheered to note that the Government has reacted quickly and, more importantly, positively. Note of Caution Whilst the coming years will be a period of excitement, rapid growth, and learning, for the computer services industry, I would be failing in my duty if I do not voice a note of caution on this Bill because of its wide impact on our economy and population, particularly when the amount of public funds that will be spent is in the order of hundreds of millions of dollars. Looking at the explanatory notes on the Bill under the heading "Expenditure of Public Money", it is alarming to note the standard statement that "This Bill will involve the Government in extra financial expenditure, the exact amount of which cannot at present be ascertained". Business Times, on Tuesday, 21st April, 1981, carried the headline "Civil Service Programme: Computerization will cost $100m". Business Times have made an educated guess. But I feel this is an under-estimation because computerization is like the thin end of the wedge and, if not carefully controlled, will keep on consuming vast amounts of money and yet not fully achieving its objectives. In short, what you think is a workhorse may turn out to be a dinosaur. Furthermore, often we see a computer project started and implemented with all the pre-requisites of a well-planned and successfully-executed one. However, once implemented, no reviews were done and the com- puter installation is allowed to grow out of proportion and control, much to the delight of the computer vendors. In this case, the workhorse has grown into a dinosaur. I would not mind so much if, in such a case, the people involved in decision- making are used to feed these dinosaurs instead of using public funds. Open Check The formation of the National Computer Board should not be taken to mean that we are giving an "open check" to the civil service and statutory boards to computerize at all costs. I am of the fond opinion that sufficient practicing professionals would be consulted to keep an eye on the situation and to apply restraint, where necessary, on this project. It is not uncommon to note that computerization projects have failed, and failed miserably, like the infamous "Swansea project" in the UK. I trust that, before each project is embarked upon, proper cost-benefit analysis is done and the scope, terms of reference and objectives clearly defined. This note of caution is also based on the many Public Accounts Committee's reports which cautioned that several computerization projects embarked upon in the last five or six years could have been better managed. Hence, we get situations of computer installations being under-utilized. I am sure that with the National Computer Board controlling the situation, the scenario would be different and better, Of course, this is on the assumption that the National Computer Board would be properly managed. Mass Production Our experience has shown that to rush into mass production of skilled personnel may not be the best thing. I trust that the National Computer Board would keep this experience in mind in its fervour to mass-produce computer professionals. It would be worthwhile to ensure that quality would not be sacrificed for the sake of quantity because mass production has the tendency of producing sub-standard goods. It would not be to Singapore's advantage and it would be very disappointing if, say, 10, 15 years later, the Prime Minister has to send Dr Goh and his Task Force team to clear a mess which could have been avoided with careful planning. Of course, in the situation of 10, 15 years hence, the task force will most probably be led by a Dr Goh Mk II. In conclusion, I have confidence in the Government on its choice of personnel for the National Computer Board and the close monitoring of its policy implementation. The Government's computerization programme as proposed to be implemented by the National Computer Board will succeed, because it has to succeed. This is because we cannot afford any expensive mistakes such as a badly implemented national computerization programme. For this reason, I am sure that I am not alone in this House in being keen to monitor the National Computer Board's development since public funds by the millions will be involved. Sir, I support the Bill. 5.00 p.m.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill standing in the name of the Minister for Finance. The setting up of the proposed National Computer Board is most timely and necessary. In recent years the computer services industry has flourished. It is now experiencing a boom condition. There is an acute shortage of trained, professional manpower. The situation is such that anyone who has some technical qualification in computer programming, systems analysis or electronic data processing can command an attractive salary well beyond what his worth would be in a normal situation. Consequently there exists a high demand for computer courses. There are many enterprising entrepreneurs who are ready to meet this demand through private commercial institutions. At present each institution is individually drawing up its own syllabus. Some have tailored their courses to suit examinations conducted by foreign professional institutions, Others rely on the professionalism of their own staff. The disparity in professional standards is undesirable. There should be a co-ordination of these private commercial courses to ensure that they meet professional standards. Otherwise we run the risk of some students finding that they have overpaid for enrolment in mere introductory or appreciation courses. They may find that they have paid the price of a banquet for a mere wine-tasting course. Some enterprises which have taken the plunge to computerize immediately found that they have done inadequate planning both in manpower as well as in the acquisition of hardware. Without adequate knowledge, they have allowed themselves to computerize without clearly defining their requirements. Some blamed the vendors for not presenting them with a full picture. However, the fact remains that they were not able to ask the right questions in the first instance. These enterprises, therefore, found themselves landed with computer hardware and software inadequate for their needs. They have to undertake the expensive exercise of replacing their complete systems under the guise of upgrading. The proposed National Computer Board, therefore, will serve a serious need in the industry. Its most urgent task will be to establish the specific requirements of trained manpower for both private enterprise and the public sector. It should play a key role in the establishment of structured courses of different levels to meet the needs of industry. Together with this, it should be instrumental in bringing about a standardization of course syllabi to upgrade the level of private commercial courses. This would provide invaluable guidance to those institutions that wish to provide serious courses of adequate professional standard to the public. As one of its functions will be to provide consultancy and advisory services concerning computer data processing, the National Computer Board will be able to provide the professional expert advice required by enterprises seeking to computerize. While the Board cannot be in a position to meet the expected demand in professional consultancy, it can, by setting high standards as a pace-setter, uplift the consultancy and advisory services offered by the private sector. The proposed National Computer Board will, therefore, play a key role in nurturing the nascent computer industry to maturity at the desired pace, with the minimum of wastage. Sir, I support the Bill. 5.04 p.m.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this Bill represents an important step forward to accelerate the use of computers in Singapore, especially in the public sector. I would like to raise a question in relation to clauses 26 and 27 of the Bill. Clause 26 attempts to protect the secrecy of information collated by public computers. Clause 27 is a safeguard against falsification of information. However, the penalties provided by the Bill for violations of secrecy and for falsification of information are very lenient. There is provision only for imprisonment of a term not exceeding one year or a fine not exceeding $2,000 or to both such imprisonment and fine. I would urge the Hon. Minister to increase the penalties substantially, especially for violation of secrecy. There is also a serious omission in the Bill, Sir. There are no safeguards against errors of information about individuals being recorded to the detriment of such persons. I would recommend that a review or appeal committee be provided for in the Bill to protect persons from wrongful information being recorded against them. There is no mechanism at all for individuals to review the information recorded about them in Government computers. This Bill should be committed to a Select Committee before consideration by this House. There are tremendous implications for the rights of individuals in an age when the Government already exercises so much control over our lives.

Perhaps I should just remind hon. Members that under Standing Orders, Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries should be referred to by their designations and not by their personal names. During the course of his speech, the Member for Telok Blangah referred to the First Deputy Prime Minister by name. That should not be the case. 5.07 p.m.

Sir, I think there is a misconception of what this Bill intends to do. As far as the Bill is concerned, it is merely to set up a National Computer Board, and I think the safeguards against confidential information or against errors of records of individuals should really come under some other Act rather than that for the setting up of a National Computer Board. Obviously the National Computer Board cannot safeguard entries in computers owned by someone else. The position is that we want to set up the Board as soon as possible and I would not be able to accept the Member for Whampoa's suggestion that it be referred to a Select Committee. On the next point he has made, perhaps the National Computer Board, when formed, can take into account all the possibilities of errors and then suggest to the Government a Bill which can safeguard individuals against any errors which might affect their present standing. On the suggestion that clauses 26 and 27 provide for very lenient penalties, I suggest that one year's imprisonment is severe enough. If this penalty proves insufficient as a deterrent, then we can always come back to Parliament for heavier penalties. In the case of the Member for Kebun Baru, he was concerned about the courses being merely appreciation courses and that the National Computer Board would not conduct examinations which were professional in character. In my statement I have said that the Bill provides for the establishment of a Professional Examinations Syndicate. The provision should be adequate to ensure that the Syndicate would organize or the Board would organize professional examinations for computer systems personnel which would be recognized by the profession in Singapore. In the case of the Member for Telok Blangah, I think his general attitude was one of support. But there were some words of caution regarding the control of expenditure which may perhaps be wasted and also about skilled personnel not being mass-produced. These are words of wisdom which I will pass on to the National Computer Board. I think there should be no question that we want the National Computer Board established as soon as possible in order that our brain services can be developed rapidly.

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

Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed." - [Mr E W Barker]. Adjourned accordingly at Sixteen minutes past Five o'clock p.m. to a date to be fixed.