Hansard, 1982-03-24

asked the Minister for Law whether any opinion of the rental value of the property was obtained before the Commissioner of Lands granted a lease for three years in July 1978 of No. 11 Napier Road to the People's Action Party at a rent of $2,000.00 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the answer is yes. Prior to the PAP's occupation of No. 11 Napier Road, the building, which was managed by the Ministry of Finance (Revenue Division), was rented out to the Applied Research Corporation at a monthly rental of $2,000. The Commissioner of Lands, in consultation with the Ministry of Finance, charged the PAP the same rental of $2,000 per month.

Sir, is the Minister aware or was the Commissioner of Lands aware that in 1978 the property would have fetched a rental value of $4,000 in the market?

Sir, I am not aware of the values in the vicinity. The Chief Assessor made the valuation. But perhaps I could help the Member. When the Applied Research Corporation first went into occupation, the building was in a bad state and they had to spend about $72,000 towards repairs and renovations. When the PAP moved in, the PAP reimbursed the Applied Research Corporation $55,000. So, in addition to the rental of $2,000, if you consider this big sum divided by the number of years, it would be another $2,000 per month over a three-year lease.

Sir, the renovations would have been capital expenditure, would they not? Why should they be included in the rental value?

Sir, one of the terms of the three-year lease was that at the end of that period the additions, including airconditioners, could not be taken away by the Applied Research Corporation. This term was also applied to the PAP.

asked the Minister for Communications and Minister for Labour whether, in view of the substantial savings in costs achieved, he will direct the Singapore Bus Service (1978) Limited to consider a reduction in fares.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as I explained to the House on 5th March 1982, 1981 was a fortunate year for SBS. The price of diesel did not escalate as much as SBS had feared at the time that fares were increased across-the-board on 1st April, 1981. The weakening of some foreign currencies against the Singapore dollar also contributed to the favourable position by way of cheaper spare parts. At the same time, determined efforts by SBS to cut costs and improve productivity led to more cost savings primarily through more extensive use of OMO services. For these reasons, a second across-the-board fare increase planned for late 1981 was averted. One could argue that this is tantamount to a reduction in fares in real terms. To reduce fares now will almost certainly mean that future increases have to be larger. A more sensible approach would be to intensify the search for cost-saving measures and hope that external factors remain favourable. In this way, future bus fare increases can be kept to the minimum.

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Culture whether, in the light of the considerable profits made by the Singapore Broadcasting Corporation during the past year, he will consider a reduction in Radio and TV licence fees.

Mr Speaker, Sir, while it is true that SBC has realized a surplus of $19.3 million during the 14 months of its operation, I do not consider it prudent to reduce the licence fee. SBC has achieved the surplus because of improvements which have made the broadcasting service a more attractive advertising and sales media, resulting in an increase in income for SBC. The surplus is to be ploughed back on improvement of SBC's programmes. SBC intends to build up its capability both in facilities and talents in order to increase its own production of programmes, geared specifically to meet our needs and interests. However, production of local programmes is much more expensive than acquisition of programmes from abroad. Therefore, it is necessary to have access to additional financial resources. Without additional funds, SBC can at best hope to maintain its existing standard of service. Even this may not be possible in the face of mounting inflationary pressures. It is also SBC's intention to purchase better programmes which are educational, informative or of better cultural value. Such programmes will cost more to acquire because they are not usually available on the "bicycle circuit". Therefore, SBC would not be able to share the cost of such programmes with other TV stations in the region. SBC is a young organization. It is prudent to build up a reserve fund to cater for the future expansion of operation, improvement of quality, training and upgrading of manpower and any unforeseen circumstances. I mention the last point because advertising business is among the first to suffer from a cutback in expenditure in a recession. SBC's licence fees on TV and radio have remained unchanged for the past four years in spite of substantial increase in operating cost. As it stands now, the colour TV licence fee at $54, black and white TV licence fee at $36 and radio licence fee at $12, are already very low, considering that the licensee has available 13 hours of SBC TV programmes daily and 18 hours of radio programmes over each of the five radio channels. The revenue from radio and TV licences for the financial year 1980 amounted to $13 million or 20% of SBC annual income. A downward revision of licence fee will significantly affect the financial resources of SBC. To try to make good the loss of revenue by radio and TV commercials will mean that there will be far more commercial breaks interrupting programmes. This is not desirable. Moreover, not all of SBC's programmes are commercially exploitable. The overall audience response to changes and improvement made since the inception of SBC has been favourable. The momentum built up in improving its services will be lost if SBC's revenue were to be reduced. Hence, so long as SBC uses its surplus to improve the quality of programmes and the standard of services for the benefit of its viewers and listeners, no one should grudge paying the radio and TV licence fee.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe the advertising rates of SBC are going up, Could the Minister give an indication of what is the estimated increase in revenue?

Sir, I am afraid I cannot give the hon. Member an estimate right now. The rates will go up from next month, which is the new financial year, and the full impact will be known by March 1983.

Sir, if as a result of this increase and after a further period of 12 months, the surplus continues to accumulate, would the Minister then consider a reduction in licence fee?

Sir, I think that when we have a surplus we will have to consider the matter in the circumstances prevailing at that time. There is much scope for improvement in the SBC services. We are not using the surplus to pay dividends to anybody. Every cent generated will be used to provide a better service to Singapore.

Order read for resumed consideration in Committee of Supply [6th Allotted Day].

3.42 p.m. Head T (cont.) - Amendment moved [23rd March, 1982], "That the sum to be allocated for Head T be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead TE-01 of the Development Estimates." - [Mr Ho See Beng].

Mr Speaker, Sir, when the House adjourned at 8.00 pm last night, I was reminding the Member for Anson that I have yet to receive his list of Blair Plain residents whom he claimed to have attended his meeting and approached him for assistance on the matter pertaining to resettlement. The Deputy Speaker and Member for Jalan Kayu, who was in the Chair, questioned me whether there was any relevance in my asking for such a list. But -

I am questioning you now, Mr Ho.

I am coming to that. I will prove to you that it is relevant.

All right. If it is not relevant, you will sit down then.

But before I could explain the relevancy, I was interrupted by the Member for Anson, who stood up and denied that he had ever said anything about supplying me with such a list. Sir, the Member for Anson has realized that he was trapped by his own stupidity and arrogance by offering to supply me with the list and has now turned and twisted his own words by saying that what he meant was to invite me to examine the list in his office. Sir, he has eaten back his words, and this is not the first time. When he encountered our Prime Minister the first time, this was what the Prime Minister described of the man: "the unseemly, disgusting. . ."

Mr Ho, what has that got to do with this particular subhead?

I am just describing this man - whenever he is caught, he tries to wriggle out.

What has that got to do with this subhead?

Since he has eaten back his words, I do not intend to argue with him further on this issue, but I wish to invite the hon. Members in this House, including the Member for Anson and the Press in the Gallery to read the Hansard of last Friday's sitting on 19th March, 1982, as well as the Sitting yesterday, in order to testify who is lying and who is telling the truth. Sir, I now come to the business of my amendment. I intend to appeal to the Minister for National Development whether he will consider giving priority allocation of flats to the Blair Plain residents who will be resettled by PSA soon. 2.45 p.m. I notice there is an item of loan to the Housing and Development Board for a sum amounting to $2.25 billion. Part of this sum is to be used, among other things, for compensation and resettlement. So this is relevant to the Blair Plain residents' resettlement problem and it is also connected with the Member for Anson who said that the residents approached him for assistance. Let me tell the Member for Anson that there is no need for him to assist. Just give me the list and I will assist them.

They do not want your assistance.

Sir, as I have said, I intend to appeal to the Minister for National Development whether he will consider giving priority allocation of flats to the Blair Plain residents who will be resettled by PSA soon. I would also like to ask him whether he is aware of any precedent in the past where HDB had given priority allocation of flats to people who were resettled by statutory boards other than the Government or Housing and Development Board. If there was such a precedent or such a case, why can the HDB not give priority allocation of accommodation to employees going to be resettled by PSA which is also a statutory board?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to ask a few questions of the Hon. Minister for National Development with regard to the fact that the HDB will be given a loan of $2.253 billion for FY 82, representing an increase of $789 million or 53.9% over FY 81 provision. Before I come to my question, I would like to draw the attention of the House to the remarks made by the Hon. Minister for Trade and Industry in his Budget Statement where it is stated: 'Over this decade, the construction industry will figure even more in our economic plan because of the additional challenge it faces of having to build 290,000 new HDB flats for our population by 1990.' To my mind, the growth of the HDB with regard to the building of housing units in the years 1980 and 1981 had been rather slow, due to a variety of factors like shortage of labour, and building materials. Whilst the HDB has been able to overcome the latter problem, that is, building materials, it has still to come to grips and work out the question of labour. This brings me to the point of what the HDB intends to do to overcome the problem. According to the HDB Annual Report 1980-81, a record Government loan of $1.13 billion was given to the Board which represented 36% more than the year before, but despite this increase in loans, the number of housing units completed, as I was given to understand, was very much less. In this respect, with such a substantial increase in loan for FY 82, can the Hon. Minister elaborate on what would be the target of growth in the public housing programme for the coming fiscal year? I know that the HDB had in the latter half of last year been able to get contractors to come forward and accept big contracts so as to build more housing units. I think public housing deserves top priority over other pressing matters, as it is a programme to meet the housing needs of our people. While we take pride that about 70% of our population are now housed in HDB flats, I am sure a good number of new applicants have joined in the queue for more flats. Hence, the need to accelerate the housing programme in the 80s. May the Hon. Minister in reply also enlighten the House on upgrading skills in the construction industry, not only from the point of mechanization and automation, but also from the point of developing higher skills on the part of our construction workers, bearing in mind the fact that foreign workers will be phased out in years to come. Sir, can the HDB not also look into the question of providing more car parking lots in the new estates in their conceptual plans of housing estates, as the number of flat dwellers owning cars has definitely increased? For example, Punggol Estate, which has some 21 housing blocks, needs at least 200 more car parking lots. Finally, Sir, in accelerating the housing programme, can the Hon. Minister inform the House of the reduction in the waiting time for those who have applied for HDB flats? Mr Jeyaretnam rose -

You have not filed any notice on this amendment.

I am aware of that, Mr Speaker, Sir, but in view of the very serious allegations that have been made against me by the Member for Khe Bong, may I be permitted to say a little bit on this?

Perhaps you had better look at the Hansards of the Sittings that the Member was talking about, Mr Jeyaretnam.

I accept your ruling, Sir.

Mr Speaker, Sir, before I answer the points raised by the hon. Members for Khe Bong and Punggol, I would like to ask the Clerk of Parliament to circulate a Table (Cols. 1603 - 1604) showing the Income and Expenditure on Service and Conservancy of the HDB estates. Table - INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ON SERVICE & CONSERVANCY (Cols. 1603 - 1604) Hon. Members of the House will see from the Table that the HDB had suffered a net deficit of $15.7 million on service and conservancy in the financial year 1979-80 and $48.2 million in the financial year 1980-81. This information was published in the February issue of the magazine Our Home. The details are in the magazine. The magazine is distributed free to all Housing Board residents. The hon. Member for Punggol is correct in pointing out that the HDB has been getting very big loans from the Government for the housing programme. I would like to provide the Member with the detailed information requested on the HDB programme. As at the end of last month, the HDB has a waiting list of a total of 113, 871 applicants, of which 14,348 are for rental flats and 99,523 for purchase flats. Between now and 1985, the HDB plans to complete 140,000 units of flats as follows. For this year, 1982, because of the rather slow start in the last two years, the HDB can only complete 19,500 units; 38,500 units next year; 40,000 units in 1984 and 42,000 units in 1985; making a total of 140,000 by 1985. Barring any unforeseen difficulties in the construction industry, all applicants on the waiting list can be offered a flat by 1985. The waiting period for future applicants is expected to be shorter as the HDB accelerates its building programme and the waiting list is steadily reduced. I shall now deal with the request by the hon. Member for Khe Bong about granting priority of HDB flats to the PSA workers. Under the Government's resettlement policy, the HDB is responsible for the clearance and relocation of the staff who are occupying quarters for the statutory authorities. But it depends on the status of the residents. If the residents are tenants of the quarters or accommodation, then they are not entitled to resettlement priority. I will just give an example. The HDB has several types of accommodation. We have, for example, a lot of bungalows in Kay Siang Road, formerly occupied by SIT senior staff. But after the formation of the HDB, no quarters are provided for the senior staff. These bungalows are being let out on monthly tenancies to various people. These HDB tenants who are living in Kay Siang Road bungalows are not entitled to alternative accommodation if they are asked to vacate the quarters by the HDB. Similarly, I understand that the Blair Plain residents, either PSA or non-PSA staff, are monthly tenants and therefore they are not entitled to resettlement benefits, i.e. they cannot be granted priority in the allocation of flats.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the Hon. Minister has not answered two of my questions. One is on the overall central planning of new estates. Can the HDB not look into the question of providing sufficient car parking lots? The second question is with regard to the upgrading of skills in the construction industry. How does the HDB propose to tackle this problem of upgrading the skills, taking into consideration mechanization and automation? The Minister has not replied to these two points.

Mr Speaker, Sir, regarding the increase of car parks in HDB estates, the HDB has a standard on the provision of car parks for various types of flats. From our experience, when an estate is occupied, in the beginning, the car parks are adequate. But subsequently as the owners of flats or tenants improve their economic situation, they start buying cars, then there is the complaint of the shortage of car parks. On the whole, there are more car parks in the HDB estates than cars. But the reason car owners. are complaining is that they are unable to park their cars in the particular car park, usually near their flats. The HDB works on the principle that if there are surplus car parks within the housing estate but are some distance away from the popular areas, then the HDB will not increase the car parks. The HDB will tell the residents, "If you cannot get parking lots in this particular car park, there are other car parks in the estate with vacant lots and you can apply for those lots." But if there are really not enough car parking lots, in other words, there are more cars than parking lots, then the HDB will consider providing additional car parks. 3.00 p.m. But we must strike a balance because we cannot convert all the open spaces into car parks and thereby deprive the residents of the greenery. On this question of shortage of car parks in Punggol, I think I will ask the HDB to look into it, and we will base the request on the same principle. If there are really not enough car parks, we will provide more car parks. On the question of upgrading the skills of construction workers, HDB is at present providing interest-free loans to contractors to buy more machines in order to mechanize more processes in the construction industry. The second point is that HDB has awarded the "prefabrication" contract to foreign contractors, and we hope the foreign contractors will bring new construction techniques and new technology to Singapore to upgrade the construction industry. Another matter is that the HDB is undertaking the training of some of the national servicemen to be skilled construction workers. We are hoping that these people, after their national service, will eventually remain in the building industry to become skilled workers. Also, HDB together with other Government departments are at present considering the setting up of a school to train skilled workers. This is in the thinking stage at the moment.

Sir, on a point of clarification. If a tenant rents a house from the owner of a property and this property is to be redeveloped by, say, a statutory board, then as a result of this redevelopment the tenant has to be resettled by this statutory board. So under these circumstances, will the HDB consider giving priority allocation to the tenant concerned?

The answer is no.

In spite of the unsatisfactory reply, nevertheless I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head T be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead TF-02 Object Group 1210 of the Main Estimates. In moving this amendment, I simply wish to find out from the Minister how long it takes for the Building Control Division to approve a building plan submitted by a developer?

Sir, I am replying on behalf of my Minister. The hon. Member has asked how long it takes my Ministry to approve planning applications. This would depend on the nature of the application and the complexity of the case. But before going into that, perhaps I can explain what has happened because there have been some complaints about delays in planning approvals. In recent years the buoyant property market and the building boom have imposed severe strains on the processing of planning and building plan applications. The longer time that has been taken to process the applications for approval has been due to the following reasons: (1) An enormous increase in the number of new applications. The number of applications for the erection of new buildings doubled during the period 1978 to 1981. (2) The boom conditions in the private sector have led to a drain of experienced planners and technical officers to the private sector, making it more difficult to recruit such grades for the Government. (3) The boom conditions for private architects and engineers have led to staff shortages for the private sector also, resulting often in the submission of incomplete or inaccurate plans which require further processing by the Building Control Division. (4) In a situation where property transactions are rapid, new owners invariably want to change the approved plans of the previous owners. Even owners with approved plans often change their own plans to meet changing market conditions. All these result in abortive work for the Planning authority. Arising from the voluminous increase in planning applications, the Ministry has been reviewing procedures to expedite planning and building plan approvals. These include: (a) A new system of outline applications to enable developers to test their proposals against planning requirements and to have a quick reply. This sort of application may take sometimes two weeks for approval to be given. Based on the in-principle approval, the developer can ask for a determination of the development charge, which can therefore be given very quickly. (b) A new system to accept architect's and engineer's certification of plans as accurate with only random checking. This cuts down laborious and time-consuming checking work on. the part of the Building Control Division. (c) Early payment of development charge and re-zoning, as I have explained, to expedite the processing of planning approvals. (d) Specific internal time limits for each processing stage to ensure that plans are speedily approved. With the streamlining of the processing procedure, the approval of plans is now much faster than before. The Ministry is looking into further areas where processing can be expedited. The expeditious approval of plans depends not only on various Government departments involved but also on the developers and their consultants. Numerous amendments and changes proposed by developers in processing mid-stream will delay project approval. Incorrect or incomplete submission of plans by consultants requiring the return of plans for correct submissions also leads to delay. Invariably consultants, pressured by clients, put the blame on Government departments when any delay occurs. In one case, for example, my Minister, reacting to a developer's complaint that his plans were delayed for 24 months, found on close investigation that for 17 months the plans were with the developer's consultants.

Sir, in view of the Minister of State's reply, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head T be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead TF-02 of the Main Estimates. Sir, the purpose of my moving this amendment is to draw the Minister's attention to two rather frequent and recurring complaints in the rural areas. These are the demolition of eaves that do not conform to building control requirements, and the demolition of R2 toilets built to the specification of the Ministry of the Environment. For some reason they do not seem to comply with the building control requirements. According to the present regulation of the Building Control Division, eaves must be of a certain width. However, this width does not seem to take account of the tropical sun and the tropical rain. Invariably, in the rural areas the rural folk would extend the eaves to a width that is consistent with what they think would shield them from the rain and the sun. I do not really know and perhaps the Minister could enlighten us: why is it that the width of the eaves should be so narrow that it does not shade the house from the rain and the sun? I was told sometime ago that our building regulations previously required roofs of houses to be at 450, and the explanation for this requirement was, so that the snow would not accumulate. I do not know whether it is really for this reason because in temperate countries the people like the sun and also there is not really too much torrential rain. Is it because of that that we require the eaves to be of a certain width? So far as the rural areas are concerned, these eaves are really not suitable for our climatic conditions. In any case the eaves of the houses which the Ministry seeks to demolish do not offend against aesthetics. They look beautiful and, as far as I can see, they really also do not endanger the structure of the building. So perhaps the Minister could consider this and allow the present buildings that have got these extended eaves to remain. The second point is the R2 lavatory system. Because of the catchment area in Chua Chu Kang, and I think the R2 system also applies to the other rural areas, the Ministry requires the residents in rural areas to install this particular sewerage system. So these toilets are built and passed the inspection of the Ministry of the Environment. However, a lot of these toilets are built outside the house and, so far as the toilets are concerned, the Environment Ministry passed them. But the Ministry of National Development (Building Control Division) seems to think that these lavatories must be installed inside the building and cannot be outside the building. Sir, these farming people want their lavatories to be outside their houses so that, after working in the farm, they can come back, have a bath, wash themselves before getting into the house. 3.15 p.m. But again, for reasons that escape me, the Building Control Division wants them to install these lavatories inside the building itself. This leads to a lot of argument without any solution, and yet the Building Control Division insists upon enforcing the regulations and demolishing these lavatories and requiring them to be rebuilt inside the house. While this may be regulations, I think this House wants to know what are the reasons for this requirement. Because from the hygienic point of view, from the convenience point of view, and even from the aesthetic point of view, they all point to the fact that the toilets should be left outside the building because, in the rural areas, these are more convenient and also more hygienic.

Sir, concerning the first problem raised by the Member for Chua Chu Kang, farm houses like other buildings and structures must comply with building standards which have been laid down. The revised standard-type plans for farm houses and other temporary buildings provide for normal roof eaves of 0.9 metres, or three feet width. However, the Development and Building Control Division does permit side extensions of up to 1.2 metres or four feet, and 2.4 metres or eight feet for front extensions provided the eaves can comply with spacing requirements. I wish to assure the Member for Chua Chu Kang that the Development and Building Control Division has been applying consistent standards for all buildings and has not been unduly strict with the houses in Lim Chu Kang. Building standards and requirements are constantly reviewed. As far: as roof eaves are concerned, enforcement action is taken only in the following circumstances: 1. If they are built without permission; 2. They are built larger than what has been approved; or 3. They cannot meet boundary clearance requirements. There must be a limit to the protrusion of roof eaves, beyond which they become unsafe for temporary timber buildings. If more coverage is required, and there is a need to deviate from the BCD standard-type plans for temporary buildings, then a proper plan should be submitted through an architect for a shed to be erected. The situation is not that we do not approve the eaves, but there has to be a certain amount of control for safety and other reasons. In the case of the R2 toilet system, I am afraid I am not too familiar with this problem and I will have to ask the BCD to look further into this problem.

I think the Minister of State has missed my point. I agree that these are regulations but I am questioning the rationale for these regulations. Why must eaves be exactly 0.9 metre? Why cannot they be two metres? In the tropics, you have the tropical sun and you have torrential rain. The rain beats down upon the house, and if you have got only 0.9 metre of eaves, the rain will splash into the house. So in order to shade the house, they extend the eaves. And because of the extension, the BCD says that this is illegal and not according to requirements. I am not saying that the regulation is not to be followed. I am asking: why is it 0.9 metre? Why cannot it be 1.5 metres, or 1.9 metres, or two metres? Sir, is this the leftover of the regulations that we inherited but which we have not really gone into to see whether it suits our conditions? That is the point, Sir.

Sir, I would like to answer this point because this matter has a long history and my Minister of State is not conversant with it. When the PAP Government came to power and if the PAP had insisted on observance of the existing by-law which said that farmers must employ an architect to submit a plan, those farmers or rural people would have to spend a lot of money, and they might not be able to get an architect to do the job for them. So the BCD came up with a few standard plans. These are Government's standard plans. Anyone who uses these standard plans need not employ an architect. And he builds his house according to the plan which has been drawn up by qualified architects. So a standard building plan has been set. In the early years, farmers used to come up and say that they were very poor and could not afford the luxurious house that the Government had designed for them, and asked if the eaves could be made very narrow. This answers the Member for Chua Chu Kang's question on why the eaves are so narrow. Because at that time the farmers said that they wanted a cheap house and that they could not afford a luxurious house. But recently the eaves were allowed to be extended. Once you have a standard plan, the standard must be followed. The standard that has been set for the side eaves is up to 1.2 metres or four feet. It is quite a reasonable width. The front porch is up to 2.4 metres or eight feet. It is quite wide. The front porch can accommodate almost up to three-quarters of the body of a car. We can say that this is an arbitrary standard but once we have adopted the plan we have to comply with this arbitrary standard. It is just like saying that children who want to go to school must be at least six years old. You can argue and say: what about a child who was born on 2nd January? Why cannot he go to school? So an arbitrary standard has been set, and I hope the Member for Chua Chu Kang now understands how we arrived at those figures.

Sir, I thank the Minister for his explanation, but may I request the Minister to look into this matter and see whether the standard plan can be further revised to take account of the climatic conditions in Singapore? In view of his explanation, Sir, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head T be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead TG-02 of the Main Estimates*. Sir, this subhead includes the question of assessment of rates of compensation for resettlement. I just want to draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that the rates of compensation for resettlement do not seem to keep up with inflation. Resettlement itself is difficult enough, Sir. You uproot the whole family and they have got to begin a new life in a new area. If you do not give them adequate compensation to begin their life anew, we are in fact compounding the difficulties faced by the resettlers. While appreciating that the rates of compensation cannot really be revised every month, perhaps what the Minister could do is to consider pegging the rates to our cost of living index. Let me just give an example. Previously a farmer who was resettled could either opt for a 3-room flat or for $11,800, that was the cost of a 3-room flat. However, that choice was done away with in 1979. Instead of that, he is now given $19,500. I think my figures are right. However, in the meantime, the price of a 3-room flat has gone up to $26,700. That is the figure given to us by the Minister yesterday to show how heavily we subsidize a 3-room flat. But that just goes to show that, while the rates have been increased to $19,000-odd, the price of a 3-room flat has gone well beyond that. We are really compounding the difficulties faced by the resettlers. May I appeal to the Minister on behalf of all those who are affected by resettlement that we should really devise a formula so as to ensure that the hardship faced by those who are affected by resettlement can be, as far as we can, lessened.

Sir, I stand to seek clarification from the Minister or the HDB on a matter of resettlement which invariably makes it a point of some urgency. Resettlement is not a new word in our Republic. In fact, within the context of national development, in particular, in the field of re-housing, it has become a common everyday word and accepted as such. However, this term still connotes nostalgic memories among the older generation who holds greater sentimental attachments to home and hearth and things they have got used to for such a long time. Still, for the sake of national progress, they are prepared to move into a new environment, as it were, to start afresh. The transitional stage holds some trepidation for some of them. It is to these people that we must ensure a smooth change-over from the old to the new. For them it is not the physical change that they fear so much as the change in the way of life. Living in flats would mean, for a start, renovation which involves a lot of expenses. Thus the question of finance is uppermost in their minds and who can blame them, for Kaki Bukit constituency is not well-known for its affluence. It is essentially an area where most of the residents are in the lower or lower middle income bracket. I have received feedbacks at my Meet-the-People sessions that payments of compensation have been haphazardly distributed. There have been cases of residents who have been allocated flats without having received payments of any kind. In the other extreme, there are cases where residents are still awaiting resettlement but their compensation has been paid in full. Evidently, this speaks of a lack of coordination among the departments concerned. To use an analogy; it is almost a clear-cut case of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing. Perhaps if one pursues what I was told the biblical concept of charity, it is best that the left hand does not know what the right is doing, lest man should boast of good work. But compensation is not a gift but a rightful payment, a business transaction of sorts. Perhaps it is opportune to ask for enlightenment on the method and rationale for such payments. 3.30 p.m. Because resettlement in the Kaki Bukit constituency is to be conducted in two phases, there are still some residents who have been left behind. Their immediate neighbourhood could consist of homes left vacant by those who have shifted out. Feedbacks from the residents indicate that the maintenance of this area leaves much to be desired. Some homes have been infested by rats and even snakes. Notwithstanding the fact that not all snakes are venomous and dangerous, it is still a fearsome environment to live. Dust from passing lorries and the lurking danger from speeding SBS buses at night add to the discomforts of the residents. I should be grateful for an upgrading of the standards of maintenance in this area by the HDB. Last but not least, I would like to touch on the subject of compensation paid. We are in the midst of spiralling costs, and this has led to a commitment to review salary scales of all civil servants - spiralling wages. Will this lead to an artificial inflation, as what goes to Paul will ultimately go into the pocket of Peter? Price increases in the next generation of flats also look inevitable and unavoidable. In view of this, I would like to ask the Hon. Minister for National Development when the compensation rates will be reviewed to offset these increases.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have an amendment* under the Development Estimates in respect of resettlement. May I have your permission to speak now so that I need not move my amendment later?

All right.

Sir, first of all, for the information of the Member for Chua Chu Kang, under Subhead TG-02 of the Development Estimates, there is a provision of $27 million for FY 82 as against $19 million for FY 81. This represents a 50% increase in the payment of ex-gratia compensation.

Sir, I really do not see why it should mean that. It could simply mean that there are more resettlement cases.

That may be so. But, in actual fact, I suspect there is going to be an increase. I think the Hon. Minister will come to this question eventually. Sir, with the substantial increase of $27 million -

Sir, on a point of order. I do not know whether -

The Member for Punggol is not referring to you.

Thank you, Sir, for your correction. I am happy to note the very substantial increase in the provision to $27 million for resettlement as against $19 million provided for FY 81. As I have said earlier, this is an increase of 50%. I take it that the increase in this year's provision is largely due to the numerous representations by my PAP colleagues on the Backbench. In this respect, may I refer to the reply given by the Hon. Minister of State for National Development in this House on 22nd December last year to the Member for Tiong Bahru, who has now been elevated to the office of Senior Parliamentary Secretary (Prime Minister's Office). The reply was as follows [Hansard, Vol. 41, col. 304]: '. . . . it is Government policy to review periodically the rates for resettlement compensation. There have been two reviews in the last three years. In March, 1979, compensation rates were increased by an average of 20%. In March 1981, there was a further increase of 30% in compensation rates. The next review of rates will be undertaken by the Housing and Development Board in the first half of 1982.' Sir, it is specifically towards this end that I am directing my remarks to the Hon. Minister, that is, to enlighten the House whether there will in fact be an increase in the rates of ex-gratia compensation. I would like to make a strong plea to the Minister. In my constituency resettlement has been going on for the last 11 years since 1971. There are many thousands of resettlement cases in Punggol and it is not surprising at all for me to receive so many requests not only for rehousing priority in the area of their choice but also against the paltry sums, I repeat, paltry sums, classified as "rates of ex-gratia payment", that is, payment out of grace which is not a right. To be fair to the Resettlement Department of the HDB, I must say that they are really doing their work for in some cases the Resettlement Department officials have been able to accommodate some of the requests. However, Sir, I can see the obvious problems arising out of the varied requests as I am given to understand that cases of rehousing under the resettlement programme take priority over public housing applicants. So they stand a chance but at a slight advantage over the ordinary public housing applicants. Whilst I understand the plight of those affected by resettlement, I would like to ask the Hon. Minister how he proposes to alleviate the trauma of those affected by resettlement. As rightly pointed out by the Member for Chua Chu Kang, these people have been uprooted from their place, a place they have lived maybe for two or three generations and as a result they have come to us with various types of requests. Now, Sir, I do not wish to go into the various details in this House as I have already spoken quite clearly on this matter on many occasions in the last 11 years. Suffice it to say, Sir, I would like to ask whether the Government would give more than a listening ear to the requests of those affected by clearance, that is to say, the Government must show more compassion and concern for these people.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to answer the points raised by the hon. Members for Kaki Bukit and Punggol before I go on into the policy on resettlement with respect to the increase in the resettlement compensation rates which all three Members have asked. As regards resettlement in the Kaki Bukit constituency, in particular, the Kaki Bukit Malay settlement area, the area affected by resettlement is very extensive, involving about 800 houses. Therefore, it is not possible for the Resettlement Office in charge of the area with a limited manpower, to calculate all the compensation rates at once, with the result that some people get their compensation account early while others get it later. The Resettlement Department is trying its best to finalize the compensation account as soon as they can. On the question why some families have been left in that area whilst others have been resettled, I think we face a similar problem in all the resettlement areas. When the Resettlement Department officers offer alternative accommodation to those people affected by resettlement, some of them readily accept alternative accommodation. They, therefore, move in first. Other people for various reasons have rejected the alternative accommodation offered, either the type of accommodation is not suitable or the locality is not suitable. Therefore, they remain at the site for a long time. That accounts for the fact that some houses are empty while some other houses are still occupied. This is a difficult problem. I have been in the HDB for a long time and I appreciate their problem. I sympathize with the people affected by resettlement. As all hon. Members in this House will understand, without resettlement there can be no development in Singapore. I hope the families affected by resettlement will also understand this. However, I will ask the HDB staff in the Resettlement Department to do their best to relieve the difficulties and inconvenience of those affected by resettlement. This will similarly apply to Punggol constituency where the hon. Member has made a plea for his constituents. On the question of increase in compensation rates, I am very glad to say that it is the Government's practice to constantly review the resettlement policy to ensure that the people do not suffer unduly as a result of resettlement. There have been two reviews, that means two increases in the compensation rates over the last three years. One was in March 1979 when the compensation rates were increased by an average of 20%. In March 1981 there was an overall increase of 30% in the compensation rates. The Government has just completed another review and has decided to substantially increase, I want to emphasize "substantially" - Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

- substantially increase the rates of resettlement compensation and disturbance and transport allowance. Ex-gratia payments for all the houses and certain farm structures will be increased by 50%. The rental rebates for residential squatters who opt to rent HDB flats and the cash grant payment to business establishments will also be increased by 50%. The disturbance and transport allowance for residential squatters will be increased by a hefty 100%. These increases are among the largest ever granted to-date. All squatters who were on the clearance sites on or after 22nd December, 1981, the date of the review announced in Parliament, will enjoy the enhanced benefits under this revised policy. In other words, it is made retrospective to 22nd December last year. Squatters who have collected their exgratia payments on or after that date will also be entitled to the enhanced payments. Full details of the increase in compensation rates will be announced soon. The Member for Anson was reported to have claimed that his presence in Parliament had forced the Government to increase the social assistance allowance. It appears that the Member has conveniently forgotten about the story of the rooster and the sun related in this House by my colleague, the Minister for Trade and Industry, on Tuesday last week. I hope the Member for Anson will not stake a similar claim - that the resettlement compensation rates are being increased because of his presence. As I have stated earlier, it has been the Government's practice to review the resettlement policy periodically. In the last three years there have been two increases when the hon. Member for Anson was not around. The present increase is the third. This revision has, therefore, nothing to do with an Opposition Member in Parliament. 3.45 p.m.

Sir, can I ask the Hon. Minister to be more sympathetic to people whose houses are actually going to break down and are not suitable for living? Can the HDB allocate houses to these people even though they are in a different area?

Sir, the answer is yes and I will ask the Resettlement Department to look into it.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg your indulgence just to make an observation here. Whilst we appreciate that the Government has at least heeded the pleas of the PAP Backbenchers with regard to the payment of resettlement benefits, can we get the assurance of the Hon. Minister that in the process of resettlement, the resettlement cases are not caught when the prices of HDB flats are increased at a later date. In the case of Punggol, there are many thousands of resettlement cases. I would like to ask the Minister to have them cleared as soon as possible so that they will not be caught in having to pay higher prices for their flats.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the rules governing resettlement have been clearly established. So we will continue. As I have said earlier, we will try our best to resettle the people in various areas as soon as we can. That is why our policy is to allow 50% of the newly completed flats for resettlement cases. If it goes beyond 50%, it will make applicants on the waiting list having to wait for far too long. So we have to strike a balance.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this is good news for those affected by resettlement albeit, of course, resettlement itself is difficult enough. At least, the Government is doing something to see that it will ease their difficulties somewhat. On behalf of my constituents who are affected by resettlement, and may I be so bold as to include all those in Singapore who are affected by resettlement, I want to thank the Minister for his sympathetic attitude towards this very difficult problem. Sir, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head T be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead TH-04 of the Main Estimates. Sir, I have also two other amendments, amendments (15) and (16)* on the Order Paper Supplement. These are, in fact, related matters and may I have your permission to range my remarks over these two amendments so that I do not have to move them later on?

Yes.

Sir, with regard to Rural Development Services, Project 8102 refers to the development of farming lands at Loyang, Sungei Tengah and Murai. Project 8401 refers to land acquisition for intensive farming. With regard to land acquisition for the development of farming lands, I think the Minister should give consideration to existing farmers who are doing the same type of farming. In my constituency, there are two areas which are now being developed by the Ministry of National Development for intensive farming. This is in the Murai and Sungei Tengah areas. These areas are to be developed into commercial farms. However, in these areas presently there are farmers who are doing the same type of farming. As such, I would appeal to the Minister on their behalf to give them special consideration. If the intensity and type of farming that they are doing now conform to the requirements of the Ministry, they should not be asked to move out of the area. If they have to move out, then when the area is developed, they will have to apply to come back into the area. As of now, the policy appears to be that in order to develop the area for commercial farming, everybody in the area must move out. And when the area is developed, the existing farmers, together with all the other applicants, must then apply to come back and do farming on a commercial scale. No special consideration or preference is given to existing farmers. This is, in fact, not very fair because the existing farmers were already in the area doing the same type of farming on an intensive scale, albeit on land that is not as big as stipulated by the Ministry. However, these existing farmers are prepared to join up with other neighbouring farmers to acquire more land from the Ministry so that they could meet the area requirement. I think they deserve special consideration. I would invite the Minister's attention to this matter and appeal to him to give special consideration to these existing farmers on the land.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in replying to the hon. Member for Chua Chu Kang, may I first assure the House that my Ministry is not going out of its way to get rid of small-time farmers. Unfortunately, those farmers occupying lands which are required for more urgent uses, such as public housing and industries, may be affected. They should be compensated and assisted to adjust to new occupations more compatible with land-scarce Singapore. In the case of Lim Chu Kang, Murai and Sungei Tengah, the affected areas are required for a public scheme; in this case, for the development of intensive farming. The hon. Member for Chua Chu Kang has asked why we are resettling these people to make way for big-scale farming. He has also asked whether it is possible to leave some of the bigger ones alone and just develop around them. I have been told that this is a comprehensive scheme and that it may not be possible technically to do it the way he envisages. But I will ask the Primary Production Department to examine this more closely. The point I am making is this: there is, in fact, a scheme to develop the whole area for intensive farming. May I just make a comparison here with the development of land for public housing? In the case of clearance of land under squatter housing, we subsequently build up the area for highrise public housing. But it is on a much more intensive scale, benefiting many more Singaporeans. When the areas designated for intensive farming are developed, their output per hectare and per worker will be significantly higher than that of marginal farms. Intensive farming will make better use of our scarce land and manpower resources to help ensure our supplies of fresh food at minimum cost. I am dwelling a bit on the wider scope here to explain to the farmers concerned because it is important that the new farming policy is understood. As I have said, if possible, we will try to accommodate those deserving cases. Farming, like manufacturing and other economic activities in Singapore, has to be restructured and upgraded to make optimum use of our scarce resources. A good example is the reorganization of the pig farms. The resettling of the pig farms was primarily to clean up the water catchment areas. In the process, the more enterprising local farmers have been encouraged to go into more intensive farming using modern mechanized methods and pollution control. The modern farms have to be large to benefit from economies of scale and to implement more capital-intensive methods. The number of pig farms has been reduced from about 9,300 in 1975 to about 1,500 at present. But the total output of pigs has been maintained. In the Punggol Phase 3 farms, 12 large farms will keep about 300,000 pigs, as many as the 175 farms in Phase 1. Incidentally, apart from the Government-owned farm, the large farms in Punggol Phase 3 all belong to local farmers. I want to emphasize the word "local" here. These are farmers who have made use of the opportunity to upgrade themselves over the years with assistance from my Ministry. Singapore is not an agricultural country with a large land area. We have only 620 square kilometres and there are many competing claims for our scarce and precious land resources. Over the years, the area used for agriculture has been shrinking as farms have to make way for more urgent uses, such as industry and public housing, to provide jobs and homes for our people. Today, agricultural activities occupy about 7,500 hectares or 10% of our total land area. In the medium-term land use plan, only 3,300 hectares of land in several localities will be available for agricultural use. If we are to maintain or even increase our farm output with less than half the land area, we have no choice but to maximize the use of this land. To achieve this, farming must be placed on a fully commercialized footing, like other economic activities in Singapore. Land designated for agriculture will be cleared and redeveloped by the Primary Production Department into proper farming estates. When developed, farmers and entrepreneurs with necessary capital and expertise will be invited to apply for the farm plots which will not be less than two hectares each. Economic rentals will be charged and the successful applicant will be required to meet production targets set by the PPD. The farmers will have to use modern farming methods with a high degree of mechanization and pollution control. 4.00 p.m. Hon. Members are aware of our agricultural policy which has been announced in previous years in Parliament. Effective from 22nd March 1979, affected farmers who hold farming licences are compensated for their improvements at enhanced rates and are given a resettlement cash grant as well. Members have just heard from my Minister the increases in the compensation rates. The farmers also get priority to purchase HDB flats. However, in keeping with the Government's policy to maximize land use, farmers are no longer offered alternative farming land as part of their resettlement benefits. Those affected small farmers who wish to continue farming should group together and organize themselves to undertake large scale intensive farming using modern methods. They can apply for land in the designated areas. Alternatively, the compensation paid to the farmers will assist them to adjust from subsistence farming to other activities more compatible with land-scarce Singapore. It is unlikely that the children of marginal farmers will want to work on the farms, and so sooner or later the adjustment will have to be made. As Members may be aware, affected small farmers are also given priority to rent HDB shops at resettlement rental, which is 10% below open market rentals. Many farmers have, in fact, made use of this opportunity. Those farmers who are above 40 years of age and meet other criteria for consideration for hawker licences may also apply for hawker stalls. However, each application for hawker stalls will be considered on its own merits, as the policy is to encourage our population to go into other more productive occupations. If I may just come back to the point made by the hon. Member for Chua Chu Kang. He has asked whether we can give special consideration to these farmers - whether they could be left alone on the site, whether they can group together and buy over other sites and to continue farming without having to move out. As I said, the Primary Production Department will have to examine this further. But I have been told that it may not be possible in a comprehensive redevelopment like this to allow these odd plots to be left where they are. The point is that it is not so much a question of giving these people priority when they apply for the land, because if they meet the requirements set by the Primary Production Department they are fully welcome to apply to the Primary Production Department which will give them every assistance to develop into modern farms which are viable. Once this land is developed, it will be somewhat like the development of industrial land in Jurong where those industries which qualify simply come to apply for the land and are allocated the land at the standard rentals. We fully sympathize with the situation of the farmers and, as you can see from my lengthy explanation, we are trying our best to compensate them and assist them to adjust to their new way of life.

Sir, the Minister of State made the comparison with resettling squatters for a public housing scheme. Here, I wish the Ministry would give to the farmers the same sort of consideration for the resettlement of squatters, because here in resettling a farmer we do not provide him with, or give him the priority of getting, another farm. Whereas in the resettlement of a squatter, the squatter is given priority for public housing. So the comparison made by the Minister of State is really very misleading, All I am asking here is that the existing farmers be given priority just as priority is given to existing squatters who are being resettled. Also, I am appealing to the Minister to give the existing farmers a chance to upgrade themselves so that they really need not have to move out, and even if they have to move out because of the comprehensive development, they should be given special consideration, because that is their livelihood and a lot of farmers cannot do anything else other than farming. They should be given the chance to either group together and given priority to come back, or they should not be moved out at all, if possible, so that they could remain on land and upgrade themselves. It is not their fault they do not get five acres of land because it has been Government's policy to give small plots of land to farmers to cultivate. We understand the position because land is scarce in Singapore. But all I want is for the Minister to ensure that this development is properly undertaken. From the bureaucrats' point of view, it is always much easier to just move out everybody and then bring the bulldozers in and develop the land. Then say, "Okay, anybody who is eligible may come back and apply." Here, what we are doing is something that affects the livelihood of the people, and therefore special consideration should be given to them.

Sir, the hon. Member for Chua Chu Kang said that I was misleading the House when I made this comparison. The point that I am trying to make really is that some people may ask, "Why are we clearing farms to make way for other farms?" So I drew a comparison to show why we clear squatter houses to make way for other houses. Therefore, the point really is that it is for the same use but it is a much more intensive use. That is the point I was trying to make. In the case of farmland, the important thing is to optimize on our scarce land resources. I have explained that farmland is getting less and less, from 7,500 hectares to about 3,000 hectares. On the other hand, it is desirable for us to continue to have a steady supply of fresh food. So if these farmers can group together and meet the requirements, they will be able to apply for the land after it has been developed. The question of priority does not arise because there will be adequate land available. If they meet the requirements, they will be given the land. I have also explained just now that we very much welcome them to upgrade themselves if they can and the Primary Production Department will also assist them to do that. I have also explained the kind of assistance we give to the other farmers whose livelihood may be affected. These are the marginal farmers who are able to survive because they pay no rental, they do not undertake pollution controls, and so it is only a matter of time before marginal farming dies out naturally, what with the farmers' children going to schools, universities, and not following their footsteps. In the case of old farmers who have difficulty adjusting, I have explained that we have enhanced the compensation. In addition to the normal resettlement rates for their house, for their plantation, for their trees, farm plots and so on, we also give a special compensation for the licensed farmers. I think this is about $19,000. They are also given priority for HDB housing, as well as priority to rent HDB shophouses with rental concessions. This is at the resettlement rates. So I think the Government is doing its best to help these people to adjust.

Sir, I think the Minister of State misunderstood me. I did not say that he misled the House. I said that his comparison was misleading. There is a world of difference between the two. Indeed, his comparison is very misleading, Sir, because resettled squatters for a public housing scheme are given priority; resettled farmers here are not given priority at all. In fact, a resettled farmer is not even given special consideration, and that is all I am appealing to the Minister - to give special consideration to those farmers who are able to meet the new requirements of the Ministry, on matters like payment of commercial rent, pollution control, area. But, of course, as regards area, you have to give them the area. Unless you give them the area, they cannot farm. I mean, at the moment they are farming on one acre of land, they cannot expand. They must acquire more land. And I am asking that special consideration be given to them so that they could upgrade themselves, meet the requirements of the Ministry and continue to be farmers.

As I have explained, we are not able and we have stopped giving land to resettled farmers unless they are able to meet the minimum requirements. So in a sense we are not giving them back the land, and for a very good reason because we have not got land resources. Singapore is not a farming country. But as I have explained just now, we do give special assistance to these people. We do give them special compensation - we rent them shophouses at resettlement rates, and so forth. They do not have to tender for the shophouses. They are allocated shophouses. So these are the various means of assistance to help them to adjust. If they want to continue farming in the context of modern Singapore, then they have to upgrade themselves; maybe several of them could group together so that they have enough capital resources to apply for a piece of land that is suitable for modern farming. But in terms of giving every farmer a piece of land, that is simply not possible.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not asking the Government to give every farmer a piece of land. What I am asking is that they be given special consideration. Let me give an example. Perhaps this will make the matter clear. If I were a farmer and I am doing intensive farming on two acres of land at the moment, I can never hope to meet the requirement of farming five acres unless the Government is prepared to give me special consideration for three more acres. These three more acres can be given on this basis. "Okay, we fix it at the commercial rate. We give you first right of refusal. It is $10,000 an acre a year. If you can match this, do it. If you cannot, too bad." This is what I am asking, instead of having to come back and apply with the others and without special consideration being given. I hope the Minister will now understand what I am driving at. I am not asking for special allocation. I am simply asking for priority, as indeed squatters who are resettled because of a public housing scheme get priority. That is all I am asking.

Actually I have already answered the point, but there seems to be some communication gap here. We cannot give every farmer a piece of land if he asks for it because we have not got the land. But the land is there and it will be developed. If the farmers think they are .able to meet the requirements, say, they ask for two hectares and say that later on they may want to go on to five, then the Primary Production Department will consider their plan if they meet the requirements. In fact, the Primary Production Department will assist them with the know-how to eventually grow to be big farmers. I have cited the instance of the pig farmers who have been helped over the years to become really big farmers. They are among the largest in this part of the world. But to give every farmer a piece of land because they have been farming before, that is not possible. So there is no question of priority here. The land is there. There will be many hectares of land for farming and those farmers who want to continue farming and are able to meet the requirements can apply, and the land will be given. There is no question of jumping the queue or anything like that. The land is there. So I do not see the need for special consideration. For those who are changing trade, and those who are old, I have explained the various ways by which Government is trying to assist them.

Mr Tang, are you going to withdraw your amendment?

The only thing I agree with the Minister of State is that there is a communication gap between us. Therefore, I would rather put this matter to the vote, because I do not think he has answered my question satisfactorily.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived. 4.15 p.m.

Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head T be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead TH-06 of the Development Estimates. Sir, with your indulgence, the Minister of State has, in fact, given some answers to questions that I intend to raise about the - development of farmlands at Punggol and Seletar when he mentioned about the success in the development of pig farms. There are about 200 pig farmers in Punggol and my problem is that the pig farmers are now being asked to install treatment plants for pig waste. The House is well aware of the fact that $10 is levied per pig slaughtered, and a sum of $25 million was collected sometime ago. I suppose the figure is bigger now. What form of help would these farmers get when they are asked to set up these pig waste treatment plants? My question on fisheries is actually a very small point pertaining to the Punggol Fishing Port and Auction Market which has been under construction for some time. My concern is the slow progress because I note there has been a re-vote of $1.5 million against a provision of some $3 million in FY 81. For FY 82, the provision is $3.457 million. I hope the Minister can enlighten this House as to the progress of the development of the Punggol Fishing Port, and when it will be completed.

Sir, on the first point regarding pig waste treatment, the Primary Production Department and the Ministry of the Environment have jointly formulated a plan to assist permanent pig farmers to manage their pig waste. I am pleased to inform the House that the Government has set aside a sum of $65 million to be disbursed over the next few years as capital grants to assist permanent pig farmers to overcome their waste pollution problems. However, at this stage the details have not been finalized. We expect to finalize them very soon and, together with the Ministry of Finance, an announcement will be made. Concerning the Punggol Fishing Port and Market, this is now under construction and will be completed in June 1983. The $11.7 million complex covers a site of two hectares. It will have a jetty equipped with water and fuel bunkering facilities and cranes for the loading and unloading of fishing vessels. Besides the wholesale auction market, there will also be shops, offices, stores, canteens, car parks and other amenities to serve the fishermen, fish merchants and fish retailers. The port and market is expected to handle about 10,000 tons of fish a year and will be the main fish marketing and distribution centre for the eastern part of Singapore.

Sir, I am more than happy with the Minister of State's reply and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head T of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100.* Sir, two years ago in the debate in the Committee of Supply I underlined the need for HDB to set up special units in Area Offices to look into and advise residents on their social problems. I understand that recently the HDB has set up such a unit and I would like to ask the Minister to give some details on the operation of this unit, as I feel that there is an urgent need for HDB officers to have compassion and a better understanding in human relations when dealing with members of the public, particularly the residents and hawkers. I would like to give a few examples of the lack of such understanding and the insensitiveness of certain HDB officers, particularly Housing Maintenance Inspectors (HMIs) and Hawker Liaison Officers (HLOs). Most of these officers are young, they lack maturity, and they sometimes adopt arrogant and aggressive attitudes when dealing with members of the public. Although this is only a small minority, it will spread like a disease to others if not checked, bearing in mind that nearly 70% of the population live in HDB estates. This could lead to a situation where the good image the HDB has built up over the years in its housing projects will be severely affected. I would like to quote the first instance. Here, an elderly tenant of a 1 -room flat wishes to stay with her elder son who is staying in a larger flat, and she wanted to have a separate room for herself. This lady informed the Area Office of this fact. At the same time she applied for a transfer of her tenancy of her present 1 -room flat to her younger son whose family members are also registered applicants. Instead of approving or rejecting such an application, the Area Office sent a letter to this lady informing her that she should terminate her tenancy. She was terribly upset and sought my assistance on this matter. On the one hand, we are encouraging our young citizens to take care of their elders, on the other hand, there is a lack of sensitiveness displayed by Government officials. The second example I like to state is an old lady, aged 79, who is continually being harassed by the HDB's HLOs and HMIs. She has been an unauthorized itinerant hawker for several years. Repeated attempts made by me on her behalf for a hawker stall were unsuccessful due to her advanced age. Her application was also supported by the Hon. Acting Minister for Social Affairs. Sir, I would like to seek your permission to read a letter from the Ministry of Social Affairs: 'Madam Ng Lian Huay, a childless widow, aged 79, is healthy and active. She earns her living as an itinerant hawker in carrot cakes and so on at the Toa Payoh Central. She is assisted by another two old ladies in the preparation of food for sale. As such, the job generates an income for the old ladies who otherwise would have to depend on public assistance from this Department. As she is an unlicensed hawker she is harassed by officers of the Housing Board. This is an independent report. She was referred by the Member for Toa Payoh for help. The Department feels strongly that this healthy and active senior citizen should be assisted with a hawker's licence to enable her and the other two old ladies to assist her to earn an honest living and to be independent of public assistance from this Department. Hence her application for a hawker's licence is strongly supported for your consideration.' I met this lady last night at 11.00 p.m. when she was still hawking outside the cinema. Then the HMIs came into the picture. The old lady was threatened with eviction for using her 1-room flat for preparation of food for sale. She has declined welfare aid and prefers to fend for herself. Sir, we should be proud of senior citizens with such determination to survive on their own. I decided to put a stop to such insensitiveness and unwarranted harassment and took this matter up with the Area Office. Give her a stall or leave her alone. At present, she is left alone without a proper stall. There are also two examples, one of compassion and one of a lack of compassion. Ten years ago, I brought up a case of a transfer when two members of a family were murdered in a flat. The Area officer at that time was very sympathetic. Within a very short period of time, arrangement was made for the transfer. Last year, I took up a case of a widow whose husband hanged himself in a flat. Up to now, she has not been offered any possibility of transfer for the same old reasons. She is on the waiting list and she will be kept on the waiting list. Another point I would like to raise, Sir, is on the request for transfers of flats or stalls on compassionate grounds or for other good reasons which should be carefully looked into and not in an offhand manner as is often the case. In older estates like Queenstown, Toa Payoh, Alexandra and so on, there are many residents moving out of 1- or 2-room flats to larger flats in other new towns. Some of these are hawkers. Their applications for transfer to stalls nearer their new homes are always refused as it is not the policy of the HDB to grant such transfers. This policy should be varied according to the merits of each case. A transfer of stall would not deprive other applicants of a stall. As we can see, most hawkers in new estates are resettled from outside these estates. Therefore, they could be given stalls vacated by others from Queenstown, Toa Payoh and other older estates whose requests for transfers to these estates could be entertained. When a family moves out of a 1- or 2-room flat, say, Ang Mo Kio or Bedok, they usually arrange for their children to be transferred to schools in or around the area they live. Applications for transfer of stalls bring the family closer together and parents find it more convenient to look after their children while they are plying their trade. The Member for Ang Mo Kio yesterday brought up a matter which affects most MPs in HDB estates. Let me enlighten the House on the tricks of the trade. HLOs are employees of the Housing Board. They act on behalf of the Ministry of the Environment when exercising certain functions concerning hawkers and environmental control. They are aware that summonses are not compoundable. Their tactics are to serve the summons and send the copies promptly to the head office -

You have one minute more.

- thereby pre-empting MPs from taking up the case. So it becomes the responsibility of the Ministry of the Environment who are the bad boys. This is a perfect way of passing the buck. Notices to quit should be given as a last resort. As you can see, even in the Ministry of Communications, when taxi drivers flout rules and regulations their licences are suspended for varying periods. So I would suggest that, instead of using notices to quit, the HDB should consider this as a very last resort and implement other measures to penalize defaulting hawkers. I am not against enforcement action but it should be carried out with due regard to a person's livelihood.

Sir, I would like to ask the Minister for National Development to consider extending the guarantee period of HDB flats from one year to two years. I have made this request because many flat owners are very unhappy about the many defects, such as leakages in sanitary pipings, warping of timber doors and windows, cracked floors and walls appearing after the one year guarantee period. 4.30 p.m. Many Members in this House have already made the same request before and they have not been successful. But I am not discouraged. I feel that the request is fair because the defects are due to poor workmanship and poor building materials; the defects normally appear after one year and the flat owners are from the lower and lower middle income groups. Since the HDB has subsidized so much per flat, $34,779 in the case of a 3-room flat, why make these flat owners unhappy just for a few hundred dollars more? We are only talking about 10% of the total number of flats sold per year. I know that the defect liability period has already been extended once, from six months to 12 months with effect from 1st January, 1972. But the 12-month period has been proved to be insufficient. Many other Members in this House had also requested the Minister for National Development last year on 23rd March, 1981, to extend the guarantee period. The Member for Changi brought up the same question about the warranty period. The Minister for National Development's answer was [Vol. 40, col. 1060]: '. . . if we are going to extend the maintenance period to more than one year, even perhaps for as short a period as six months more, I think for each flat we will have to pay several thousand dollars more. The HDB thinks so, and I personally agree that it would be rather unwise to extend another six months and to allow the contractors to charge several thousand dollars more. Also, if we extend it for another six months, there is no guarantee that the defects will not occur in the 19th month.' I do not agree that the HDB need to spend a few thousand dollars more for each flat, if it has defects, when the warranty period is extended for just six months. I do agree with the Hon. Minister that there is no guarantee that the defects will not occur in the 19th month. But I am sure the Hon. Minister will agree with me that when the warranty period is extended to two years, the probability of the defects appearing after the 24th month would be greatly reduced. The Senior Minister of State for National Development on 22nd March, 1977, in his answer to a query on the same question, said [Vol. 36, col. 1491]: 'Whether or not the major defect is due to structure or poor workmanship, and if it occurs within a certain guarantee period it will be the responsibility of the HDB to rectify; but if it exceeds that period then I think it is the owner-occupier's responsibility. This is applicable to both private and public sectors.' I think we cannot compare the HDB and the private developers. The objectives are very different. The objective of the private sector is to make a profit whereas the HDB's objective is to provide housing for our citizens. In view of the above, I hope the Hon. Minister would consider seriously extending the warranty period to two years.

Sir, I agree with the Member for Toa Payoh that about 70% of the population are now living in HDB estates and that the attitude of the HDB officers has a very important bearing on the happiness or otherwise of the residents. We are conscious of that. On the other hand, the hon. Member will appreciate that the management staff of the HDB are also facing an enormous task in managing the large housing estates by trying to keep the estates clean and to make the environment conducive to good community living. To achieve this objective, the HDB staff have to deal with an increasing and wider range of problems. The Member for Toa Payoh mentioned about a tenant's request for transfer of her flat, and also about a 79-year old lady being harassed by the HDB staff. I want to point out to hon. Members that the HDB has a set of rules. That is to say, any hawker in an HDB estate must be a licensed hawker. Any itinerant hawker found hawking in an HDB estate must be an unlicensed hawker. If he is a licensed hawker, he would have a stall inside the market or food centre. Thus, if a person is hawking in a housing estate, he is committing an offence. If the HDB staff do not take any action against unauthorized hawking, they are likely to be pulled up by the senior officers, who will say, "Look here, you are sleeping. You are not doing your job." Alternatively, they may be criticized by the people. The people will say, "Look here. We all know that no hawker is allowed here. Why is the HDB staff sleeping? You see such and such a hawker hanging around in front of the theatre, but the HDB officers just do nothing about it." The HDB staff have to follow the rules and perform their duties. In a case like this, a simpler solution is for the hon. Member to make a strong representation to the Minister for the Environment. It is not a question of passing the buck. Markets and hawker centres are under the control of two Ministries, one is the Ministry of the Environment (Hawkers Department) and the other is the Housing and Development Board. In order to coordinate the policy, there is a central committee under the Ministry of the Environment to consider application for hawker stalls, and so on and so forth.

Sir, on a point of clarification. I agree with the Hon. Minister that we should not bend the rules, as far as rules are concerned. I am perfectly aware of it. But the old lady concerned is eligible as she is a hardship case and she ought to be given a cooked food stall long ago. But it is because of her old age that she has not been given one. I am not quarrelling with the rules and regulations. In fact, I qualified my statement by saying that I am not against enforcement action. It is necessary to keep our estate clean.

Sir, perhaps the correct thing to do is for the Member to have a word with the Minister for the Environment or with the Senior Parliamentary Secretary who is the Chairman of the Hawkers Committee, and try to find a solution. Maybe they can make a special case or exception, or whatever it is. But to blame the HDB staff for harassing her - of course, by presenting the case of a 79-year old lady trying to earn a living and who had refused to accept social welfare assistance - would seem to show that somebody is preventing her from earning an honest living and that the HDB seems to be the villain. But I am only saying that the HDB officer was performing his duty. The hon. Member should make a strong representation to the Ministry of the Environment. I think it would be unfair to blame the HDB staff. Another question is on the transfer of flats. There are rules governing the transfer of flats. Perhaps the HDB staff whom the hon. Member spoke to had no authority. If the Member feels that there is a very strong case that a transfer should be given, I would suggest that the Member should get in touch with my Senior Parliamentary Secretary who is in charge of the Allocation Committee. He has authority over the staff. But to cite this case in order to blame the HDB staff who was carrying out his duty is not fair. I am not suggesting that all the HDB staff are angels. There are more than 10,000 people working under the HDB and there may be some who are inconsiderate. There would be some black sheep among the staff. If we have evidence that an officer is acting outside his authority or is acting against the interest of the State by unreasonably harassing or persecuting the people, the HDB will take disciplinary action against him. The HDB is aware that the field staff have direct contact with the public. The HDB has a unit which monitors the performance of the staff. Usually the field staff are given an in-house training on public relations, i.e. how to handle the public. In addition, they are given courses on courtesy and public relations so that they will be able to keep cool when they are provoked by the aggressive offenders. For example, if an HDB officer goes around to issue a summons, as has been mentioned by the hon. Member, of course, the reaction of the hawker concerned cannot be pleasant. Sometimes harsh words are exchanged and complaints are then made to the Members of Parliament. We have asked our staff to keep cool even under provocation. If the hon. Member can give me the names of those staff in the Area Office who the Member considers have not behaved properly or are not courteous to the public, we will look into the matter and, if necessary, we will send them on a refresher course on public relations. As regards the request by the Member for West Coast, the Member has read extensive extracts from the Hansard. The policy will remain unchanged. But the point mentioned by the Member is well taken. We will monitor the complaints of defects by the people who purchased flats after one year. At present the percentage is very small. I will just give an example. If the HDB has sold 10,000 flats during a certain period, say, the first six months of last year, and there are 300 complaints received after one year, this represents 3%. And because of the 3% we are putting a condition in the new contract that the maintenance period should be extended either to six months or one year. This means that we are paying additional money to 97% of the flats, which we could have saved. The figures are there. But we are monitoring the situation. If there are a lot of defects occurring after one year, then there is a reasonable ground for extending the defect liability period. But at present, our monitored records show that the percentage of defects occurring after the 12-month liability period is small. Therefore, the HDB considers it uneconomical to extend the period. But the Member's point is well taken and we will monitor it. 4.45 p.m.

Sir, just a few points before I withdraw the amendment. The Hon. Minister suggested that I should refer this matter to the Hawkers Department, which I did. In fact, the letter from the Hon. Minister for Social Affairs with his recommendation was addressed to the head of the Hawkers Department, and this was followed up by my appeal to the Housing Board Area Office. So the necessary steps were taken.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I also clarify before the Minister answers? I am not suggesting that the HDB gives a contract covering all the flats to the contractors. And if only 3% of the flats are with defects, he is going to award the whole contract to the contractors, I think that is very unwise. I suggest that the HDB keep a team of workers to repair these defects.

On the point mentioned by the hon. Member for West Coast, we have to bear this in mind. The HDB is worried that if we make this announcement, that 3% may become 30%, and eventually it may become 100%. Whenever people are told that the HDB is going to provide things free, there will be an enormous demand. So I would prefer to keep it at this figure. But we will take the necessary action if the figure gets too large or gets out of hand. On the point mentioned by the hon. Member for Toa Payoh, I think the correct person that he should take up with is the political leadership, not the civil servants in the Hawkers Department. Because the civil servants do not make the rules. I am myself being persuaded by hon. Members and I am quite sure my colleague, the Minister for the Environment, is also a very sympathetic man. I believe that a persuasive man like the hon. Member for Toa Payoh should be able to make him change his mind or change his heart, not the civil servants. I think the Member is attacking the wrong person.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not attacking anybody. But I take the Minister's cue and I will pursue the matter further. On this note, Sir, I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $245,353,930 for Head T ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $2,901,996,000 for Head T ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.

I propose to take the Suspension now. Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House.

I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 5.20 p.m. Sitting accordingly suspended at 4.48 p.m. until 5.20 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.20 p.m.

Debate in Committee of Supply resumed.

Head P -

Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head P be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead PA-01 Object Group 1100 of the Main Estimates.* Sir, the Government has in the last several years been actively promoting Singapore as a regional medical centre. This is logical because medical services is something that we can provide efficiently with our increasingly sophisticated facilities as well as skilled manpower resources available. Partly because of this promotion and the relatively high standard of medical services, the demand on our medical services from nearby countries has been increasing very rapidly. This has two potential side effects. First, it may raise the cost of medical treatment for both local and foreign patients because when demand outstrips supply, price mechanism sets in, especially in a state where demand is high and supply is short. Second, if the charges are too high, it discourages foreign residents from coming to Singapore, thereby defeating the very purpose of our developing Singapore into a regional medical centre. As we can see, it is quite simple and easy to introduce facilities as evidenced by the new hospitals and the medical centres that are being established in the last several years. The question is whether there has been a corresponding increase in the supply of doctors and nurses to keep pace with this increase in demand. Based on the statistics on the registration of medical practitioners, in 1977, there were 1,679 doctors on the register. By 1980, the figure reached only 1,771. By 1981, there was at least a more sizable increase to 1,991, bearing in mind that every year our university turns out about 120 to 130 doctors. It is a subject of some concern that this increase has not been evident in the registration of medical practitioners in Singapore. If we look at the position for nurses, it is not very healthy either. In 1977, we had about 4,000 registered nurses. By 1981, it increased to only 4,650. And even for assistant nurses, the figure for 1977 was 1,007, increasing to 2,000 last year. If we do not have sufficient manpower in terms of doctors and nurses, then the pace of development of a medical centre is bound to raise the cost of medical treatment. Is there a possibility for the Ministry of Health to look into increasing the supply of doctors as well as nurses? For example, can we admit more foreign doctors, especially those with qualifications that are acceptable here? This should be one way to relieve the supply situation as well as to inject fresh talent and expertise to this area. We have in the course of the past five to eight years built up a reputation for being one of the best medical centres in this region. It would be a pity if we were to lose it by having charges that are beyond the reach of even the more well-off patients from the surrounding areas, not to mention that local patients will also suffer just as much because they are looking towards the same doctors for service. Sir, I would be grateful if the Minister for Health can enlighten the House on this.

Mr Speaker, Sir, last Sunday, the local newspapers reported that the Singapore Medical Association would be discussing the setting up of a standard schedule of rates. This has been long awaited by the public. It is difficult to explain the different charges by different practitioners unless the medical profession admits that there is indeed a disparity in professional competence. I hope that the coming discussion by the Singapore Medical Association will not again end inconclusively. It appears that the subject has been discussed for at least 10 years. Therefore, I hope the coming discussions will not be yet another round of hot air. The medical profession owes it to themselves to remedy the unfavourable image that they have conveyed to the public. Recently there were at least two outraged residents who complained in letters to the press of doctors who refused assistance to people in urgent need of medical attention. This would make hypocrites of those who subscribe to the Oath of Hippocrates. The medical profession must be concerned that there is an impression that specialists are charging exorbitant prices. There are also signs that commercialization has now taken precedence over concern for the health of fellow citizens in the order of priority of the members of the medical profession. Some patients get the impression that they are asked to see the specialist more often than is necessary in order that the specialist may charge more consultation fees. Furthermore, they complain that when they do see the specialist, the attention they get is cursory, that it is doubtful that the specialist has been able to make an accurate assessment. Another indicator of the poor health of the medical profession is the continued practice of most companies not to accept the medical certificates issued by doctors not from their appointed panel. Surely if there is no doubt about the professional ethics of doctors, all companies should recognize the medical certificate issued by any qualified doctor. I hope the medical profession would remedy this unsatisfactory situation. Sir, I will now turn to the National Health Plan that the Minister for Health has said is being prepared. Since his announcement of the preparation of such a plan which includes the raising of charges to be levied by Government clinics and hospitals, there has been a lot of anxiety among the public. Firstly, workers are concerned whether the higher charges would lead to the withdrawal of medical benefits that is presently provided to them by employers. Secondly, even if the employers continue to extend the same medical benefits and absorb the higher cost, most companies do not extend their coverage to include spouses and children of employees. A rise in medical charges will therefore adversely affect the lower income group. Does the health plan take this into account and does it have provisions to alleviate hardship? 5.30 p.m. Thirdly, there is a grave concern among the retired and older members of the public. It is inevitable that with age the human system tends to break down more often. If the medical costs are to go up, the older members of our society may have to forgo medical attention unless they find some means to pay for the additional cost. For pensioners it may mean that the increase in pensions announced recently by the Minister for Trade and Industry would be absorbed by the increase in medical cost. It is important therefore that the medical plan has adequate provisions for our senior citizens. I hope that the Minister for Health will reveal the details of the National Health Plan as soon as possible and that it will be finalized and adopted only after a public debate.

Dr Tan, I see that you are not going to speak on Amendment (9)* but you want to take part in Amendment (1).

Yes, Sir.

All right. Carry on.

Thank you very much, Sir, for allowing me to speak. First, I would like to say that I am a general practitioner and I have no vested interest in what I want to say. Sir, going into the Ministry of Health's Summary of Expenditure Estimates for FY 82, I notice that out of a total sum of $368 million, approximately $214 million (it has been given as an approximate sum) was allocated to General Hospital Services, while only $32 million (again an approximate) was being allocated to Primary Health Care. In other words, 58.1% of the total expenditure for Health is being used for Hospital Services and only 8.7% of the total Health expenditure is given for Primary Health Care. Let us examine the utilization of both services. I refer you to the Annual Report of the Ministry of Health, 1980. In that year, $139.41 million or 64.3% of the recurrent expenditure went to Hospitals while only $23.08 million or 10.6% of the recurrent expenditure was allocated to Primary Health Care and Health Education Division. In that year, however, out of a total attendance of about five million patients at Government clinics, i.e. outpatient clinics, maternal and child health clinics, A&E attendances and Hospital Specialist clinics, approximately four million or 70.8% were seen at the Primary Health Care clinics. Of the rest, about 1.6 million or 29.2% were seen at the various hospitals. In other words, the fund allocated is not proportional to the utilization of facilities, i.e. 64.3% of Health budget spent on 29% of total patients seen while only 10.6% of Health budget catered for 70.8% of total patients seen. Sir, there is no need for me to explain why hospital care costs more, but I would like to point out to the Minister for Health that his Ministry must not rely too much on hospital services in the delivery of our health care system. On the contrary, I would like to emphasize the importance of primary health in the form of outpatient dispensaries, maternal and child health clinics, school health services, in the delivery of our health care system. I therefore lament at the 8.7% allocation of the Health budget for 1982 for this field of health care. Perhaps the Health administrators being specialists tend to be biased in their priority and have concentrated on specialized medical care, including the building of big hospitals. Primary health care at the OPD level, for example, has therefore lost out in priority. Sir, primary health care should cater for the main health problems in the community. Not only should it deal with the curative aspect of ill-health but it should also undertake measures to promote health, to prevent diseases and to provide rehabilitative services. While private practitioners have played an important part in primary health care, the Ministry of Health must not expect and depend too much on them. I believe that OPD must continue to upgrade and expand because four million attendances is sufficient proof of its importance. Sir, the outpatient clinic is the first line of patient contact. It is important to realize this very basic fact. Whatever medical services that the Health Ministry provides after that would depend on how this first line of health delivery system handles the situation. If, for example, the doctor and his primary health care team are unhappy, either due to poor working conditions, poor pay, lack of facilities, there will be slip-ups in the first line and its consequential effects on the hospital services. Let me explain further. If a patient with high blood pressure is looked after carefully at this level of health care, he has a less likely chance of being hospitalized. Similarly, a diabetic, or for that matter any ailment, if well taken care of by this team, will result in a less likely chance of hospitalization care later on. Sir, I could continue to explain and cite examples, but I hope my point is clear to the Minister that primary health care is an important component in our health care system. We should continue to upgrade and improve this area. The Ministry must look into the working conditions of the OPD doctor, the nurses, the amahs and also examine the present facilities available at such centres. Let us take the Home Nursing Foundation scheme. The Home Nursing Scheme, for example, could be expanded because at present there are - I stand corrected in this particular figure - 60-odd staff nurses engaged in this work. Yet they have made 39,573 home visits in 1980. These nurses provide basic nursing care and rehabilitation of the old non-ambulant and chronic sick patients in their own homes. In the course of these home visits the nurses also educate the families on providing basic nursing care to detect changes in the health status of elderly patients at an early stage to enable prompt medical attention to be sought to prevent long periods of hospitalization. Priorities in the delivery of primary health care do not remain static. They need to be updated according to the changing needs of our community. In Singapore, for example, the number of elderly people is gradually increasing and the social changes are associated with an increasing trend of psychosomatic and mental disturbances; affluence and stresses appear to be associated with the rise in cardiovascular disorders; certain life styles and the aging population are associated with an increase in malignant diseases. Primary health care will therefore require changes in an appropriate direction. In this connection, Sir, may I ask the Ministry to explore into the possibility of including physiotherapy on an outpatient basis. This is because of the need to rehabilitate our injured patients close to their homes and place of work. We need every able-bodied Singaporean to participate in our industrialization programme and therefore extension of this physiotherapy on an outpatient basis would facilitate a quicker return of the affected workers to the factories and industries. I have already mentioned the importance of the nurses in looking after the chronic sick and aged at the homes. Sir, if we neglect to include primary health care for our aged population, I can see our hospitals crowded with chronic sick and upsetting all other hospital programmes in the future.

Sir, the Member for Clementi has warned about the danger of increasing medical costs as a result of Singapore being developed into a medical centre. The warning was also put forward by the Member for Kebun Baru. I share the concern of these Members that the development of Singapore as a regional medical centre should not unduly push up the cost of health care, particularly for Singaporeans. Singapore's medical reputation will depend ultimately on the quality and pricing of the services. Foreign patients will continue to come to Singapore only if they are satisfied with the quality of these services and the fees charged. The locals, i.e. Singaporeans, should not worry too much about the exorbitant charges in the private sector in Singapore because they have recourse to the public hospitals which play a dominant role in the provision of health care in Singapore. My Ministry has initiated discussions with the Singapore Medical Association and the Association of Private Medical Practitioners to explore the feasibility of introducing a scale of fees charged by private medical practitioners. The scale of fees, if introduced, will serve as a useful guide to patients. Unfortunately medical skills and services differ even for the same type of services or operation. So it would not be practical or desirable to enforce, through legislation, charges in accordance with a schedule of fees. But a published schedule of fees will serve as a useful guide to the public who use the services in the private sector. We would like to see self-policing by the medical profession in the first instance. Its good name must not be tarnished by an avaricious few. I agree with the Member for Clementi that an adequate supply of doctors and nurses is crucial to the development of our medical service. The number of doctors registered with the Singapore Medical Council at the end of 1981 was 2,091 which is higher than the figure quoted by the Member for Clementi. By 1985 this will increase to 2,400. Based on projections of hospital beds and outpatient attendances, the number of doctors required by 1990 is estimated at 3,000. We have already taken steps to increase the supply of doctors in Singapore. The National University of Singapore has increased its intake of medical students from 140 to 170 since 1980. It has further increased the intake to 203 from this year. The expected supply of doctors will be 2,800 by 1990, which will lower the doctor/population ratio from the present 1:1200 to 1:950. 5.45 p.m. So long as there is a shortage of doctors in Singapore, foreign doctors from the better known medical schools, within the Commonwealth or outside, will be permitted and even encouraged to practise in Singapore. In fact, the list of qualifications for registration in Singapore has been expanded from 58 to some 200 since 1980. This list will be reviewed and enlarged periodically. It is true that the Government hospitals are presently facing a shortage of nurses. This has been brought about by the rapid expansion of private hospitals in recent years. However, the recruitment and training of nurses has been stepped up since 1980. The Ministry has reverted to the former practice of recruiting both student nurses and pupil assistant nurses, in parallel. Prior to this change, applicants had to go through the route of pupil assistant nurse before becoming student nurse which, therefore, made it unattractive for applicants to the nursing service. Currently, 1,250 nurse trainees are in various stages of training. Another 1,000 school leavers will be taken in this year. Terms and conditions of service of nurses are being reviewed. I believe the Ministry of Finance is sympathetic towards the review of terms and conditions of service for the nurses. Hopefully in the next few years the nursing shortage will be alleviated. The Ministry is also encouraging, in the meantime, the large number of qualified nurses who have left the profession to come back on a part-time basis. Private hospitals are also encouraged to recruit foreign nurses with suitable qualifications. These steps should help solve the nursing shortage problem. The Member for Kebun Baru touched on the question of medical ethics when he referred to letters to the press. One swallow does not make a summer, just like one opposition MP does not mark the dawn of a new era, Isolated reports of unethical practices, therefore, do not mean that there is a degeneration of medical ethics. But just as one cantankerous, obstreperous, obscurantist charlatan in Parliament will tarnish the high standing of MPs, one blatantly unethical medical practice will bring the medical profession into disrepute. Therefore, we must try to eradicate all unethical medical practices, just as we must try to block all charlatans and scallywags from entering Parliament. With regard to ethics there is no legislation to enforce this. The medical profes- sion, however, has an obligation to look into this, whether it ranges from high fees or non-response to urgent calls for attention. The Ministry of Health is working with the profession to see how this can be done. The Member for Kebun Baru also touched on the question of medical certificates. Employers no doubt have their reasons for wanting to recognize only medical certificates issued by the company doctors. Putting aside professional consideration, my Ministry is of the view that private employers could be more flexible and make it less inconvenient for their employees in seeking medical treatment when they fall sick. The Government allows its employees to produce medical certificates from private practitioners but these will have to be endorsed by its own doctors. Similarly, employers could consider allowing their employees to consult doctors other than those on the company's panel but requiring the medical certificates issued by these other doctors to be endorsed by its own company doctors. Alternatively, companies could increase their panel of doctors to make it more convenient for their employees. For instance, company doctors could be appointed on the basis that the location of their clinics is close to the place of work and/or the employee's homes as far as possible. Before I discuss some aspects of the National Health Plan, I would like to answer the comments raised by the Member for Ayer Rajah. He has made a fundamental error when he looked at the accounts - the sums budgetted for hospitals and outpatient clinics - and compare them with their respective attendances. The two are not comparable. The sum provided for Hospitals includes in-patient care and not just attendances at the specialist clinics and the A & E departments. As he will know, the cost per attendance at the outpatient clinic is very much lower than that for hospital care. On a per day basis, the cost per attendance at outpatient clinic is $4.50 as against $124 per patient-day in the Singapore General Hospital, or an average of $15 and $22 per attendance at the hospital's specialist out-patient clinic and A & E department respectively. The two are not comparable. But I agree with him that we should emphasize the importance of primary health care, that being the first line of patient contact. Total primary health care service is provided by Government and private practitioners play an important role in keeping the population generally healthy and, as he rightly pointed out, reducing the need for costly hospitalization. Under the National Health Plan the primary health care service will be consolidated to improve the quality of service. New and better equipped polyclinics will be planned for HDB new towns, and old and uneconomical clinics will be closed down. We are studying the feasibility of extending the working hours of selected clinics when the supply of doctors increases in the Ministry, to meet the needs of working families. Outpatient clinics will be made available to Government or private doctors to run in the evenings on a fee-sharing basis. The dominant role played by the 500 private medical clinics manned by over 600 general practitioners will be maintained. To improve their service to the public, the Ministry of Health will propose to HDB to allocate space for future private medical clinics in its new towns on the basis of anticipated demand. As for the working conditions of doctors in the primary health service, most doctors in polyclinics and OPDs are generalists without specialist qualifications, unlike their counterparts in the hospitals. But there is no bias in the Ministry towards specialists in so far as compensation for contribution to services is concerned. It is true that in the past doctors in the primary health service lost out in promotion simply because they did not have a higher qualification but the situation has been rectified. The condition of a higher qualification for promotion to a higher grade was waived in 1978. Since then three promotion exercises were held which benefited the primary health care doctors. Quite a few of these doctors have been promoted to Registrar level as well as Superscale Grade 'H'. The doctors in the primary health care will also be considered for formal training, for practical attachments locally and abroad, under the Ministry of Health's manpower development plan. The Member for Ayer Rajah emphasized the importance of paying attention to the medical needs of elderly people. We agree and I will also touch on this when I discuss the National Health Plan. The Health Plan requires time for debate and Budget session is not the best time to do this because of time limitation. I propose to have the Health Plan debated fully both inside and outside Parliament at a later date, hopefully in the next few months. Hence I would ask the House to bear with me if I do not go into details this afternoon. I shall only outline the philosophy behind the plan and give a few assurances to dispel unnecessary fears. 6.00 p.m. Let me emphasize at the outset that it is not the purpose of the National Health Plan to increase medical charges and recover more revenue. If revenue is the only consideration, it will be far simpler and more effective to ask the Minister for Finance to increase taxes, or not to reduce them as had been consistently done over the last four years. We can then continue to subsidize health care heavily, as we have always done, 90% for C-class and 80% for B2-class. Health care is a basic need, as basic as food, clothing and housing. No one expects the Government to provide free food, clothing and housing, except for some small political parties. So no one should expect health care to be provided for free. These same parties want an immediate repeal of the charges that are now being levied at Government hospitals and clinics regardless of the capacity to pay for those who seek treatment. They want to introduce a free health service for all citizens without any discrimination based on wealth. If the medical service is available to all, regardless of the ability to pay, the poor must suffer, not the rich. I will explain. Well-heeled lawyers who can now afford to be treated by private doctors will want free treatment at Government hospitals. Accountants, expensively-dressed business executives, chauffeur-driven bankers and loaded stock brokers who now do not use Government hospitals and clinics will flock to these hospitals, competing with poor patients for the limited facilities and specialist doctors. They will demand to be treated by the best specialists and accommodated in the best class wards because medical care is for free. And contrary to popular belief, there are more well-to-do Singaporeans than poor Singaporeans. According to CPF records, more than half the employees earn more than $500 per month. A high proportion of those earning less than $500 per month are young workers. They are, therefore, not necessarily poor. Demand for health services will explode if medical care is rendered free to all, regardless of the income status. When a system is overloaded, it is the poor who suffers, not the well-to-do who can opt out for private medicine. The poor cannot do that. This argument that the poor will benefit from a free medical service is not unlike the argument that income tax reliefs should go up to benefit the poor. But the effect is the opposite of what is intended or expected. There is no such thing as free medicine. Medical care is expensive. The Ministry's budget is $368 million this year, $322 million for doctors and nurses'wages and to pay for other running costs, and $46 million for hospital expansion. The question is: how is health care to be financed, not whether it should be available for free. Many countries have a comprehensive health care system. They finance it in the following ways to keep charges within the affordability limit of the population. (i) From general taxation, with the patients paying nothing as in the UK, or the patients paying something, as in Singapore. (ii) From a levy on employers or employees to run a national health insurance scheme. West Germany offers such a system. Both the employer and the employee contribute 7% (I repeat 7%) of the employee's wages towards a national health insurance scheme, making a total of 14%. France also operates a compulsory national health insurance scheme. The employee contributes 3% of wages, but the employer contributes 11%, again making a total of 14%. In Japan, the employee and employer contribute a total of 8% of wages towards national health insurance. In the United States, 65% of the population are covered by voluntary private insurance, There is a compulsory national insurance scheme, called Medicare, for those aged 65 years and above. This is financed from payroll tax contributed by employer and employee over a person's working life. Thus, Medicare for the old is actually financed by the people themselves during their working lives. There is a health plan for the poor called Medicaid financed from general tax revenues. Medical care and treatment are invariably given free or heavily subsidized at the point of consumption under these health delivery systems. This may have created the impression in many that health care is provided free to all, regardless of the ability to pay in many countries. This is a serious misconception. Health care is not provided free. Indeed, the population has made a pre-payment, either in the form of taxes or a levy on wages. It is a hefty pre-payment, high taxes in the case of UK and a high levy of 14% of wages in the case of West Germany and France. It is not just the rich who have to pay high taxes. Workers too pay high taxes, 7% of wages in West Germany and France.

Not France.

Sorry. For France, it should be 3% from the employee and 11% from the employer. For Singapore, a levy on wages may not be a bad idea because it is forced saving to finance future consumption of health services. Most people forget or tend to forget that they must save to look after their health needs, just like they have to save to buy new clothes or HDB flats. A levy on wages is, therefore, not such a bad idea. It is better than general taxation because it is a specific tax for a specific purpose. The Achilles' heel of the health system in the UK, Australia, USA and other advanced countries is not the method of financing but the lack of control in the utilization of medical services. It is also our vulnerable spot. Human beings are selfishly shrewd. Having paid for health services in the form of taxes or levies, they naturally want to consume them to get their money's worth. Patients are known to have collected vitamin and iron pills, under the British National Health Service, not for themselves but for their dogs. In the US, those on welfare are also known to have stretched the definition of dependants to include dogs, cats and other four-legged pets. Surgeons become liberal in using their scalpels and physicians in dispensing medicine. All those countries with a pre-paid comprehensive national health system have learnt to their horror that the demand for health services is virtually bottomless since direct payment at the point of consumption is either nil or insignificant. The system has a built-in bias towards over-using the medical facilities. It contains no disincentives at all to minimize usage. It does not motivate people to stay well. Most of the national health schemes, therefore, suffer from insolvency. All are extremely worried about the escalating costs. To solve their financial problem their governments have to periodically increase taxes or the levy on wages. People must be motivated to stay well and minimize their visits to the hospital or the clinic. They have to pay something at the point of consumption to prevent over-use. This is the basic philosophy behind the Plan we are working out for Singapore. We are studying the feasibility of a compulsory health savings scheme. Unlike the levy in West Germany or France, the fund collected will belong to the individual employee. It will not be siphoned off into Government's Consolidated Revenue nor will it be lumped in a common insurance pool. It is a savings scheme, not a pre-paid health insurance scheme. This will be the critical difference between our plan and those now found in the UK, Australia, France and Germany. If a person needs to go to a hospital, he will have savings to meet the expenses. If he stays well, the money is his. The savings scheme would be sufficient to take care of the hospitalization expenses of the wage earner and his dependants. Over the longer term, if we project 20 or 30 years from now, when the current workers who have funds in their savings scheme for health purposes grow old, they will have sufficient funds in their savings account to look after themselves in old age when the need for medical attention is more. But there are people who are more prone to illnesses or long illnesses. We are therefore also considering a partial insurance scheme to take care of these people. For this group of people, the savings in their health account would not be sufficient to look after their needs. There will have to be some kind of a partial insurance scheme to finance the hospital expenses. Therefore, I can give the assurance to the House that no one need fear that he would have inadequate savings in his health account to finance his hospitalization needs. Even if he does not have sufficient savings in his account and even though the insurance does not cover him adequately, in other words, he is a true indigent, a destitute, he will be fully taken care of by the hospitals. Patients will have to pay a little bit more than now at the point of hospitalization. I can assure the Member for Kebun Baru that hospital charges will creep up slowly and almost painlessly. Class C will continue to be heavily subsidized so that all can have access to medical care. The truly indigent will be treated free as of now. They will not be turned away. 6.15 p.m. The Health Plan will not reduce the take-home pay of employees. It may or may not increase the financial burden of employers. We are still working that out. But if employers are required to contribute, it will be a token amount, tied in with our move towards company welfarism. The sums have to be carefully worked out and the intricacies of the scheme carefully thought through. I know Members are see-thing with questions but I would ask them to hold their horses. They can have a field day later when the details are finalized and made public. I believe I have answered all the queries of the Members who touched on this subject.

Sir, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head P be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead PB-01 of the Main Estimates. Sir, last year on behalf of parents in my constituency, I pointed out in this House the inappropriate way of dispensing prescribed antibiotics to little children and even babies by the Singapore General Hospital in the form of ampicillin capsules. I then appealed to the Minister for Health to look into the matter and take corrective action. Sir, this appeal has a happy ending. Several parents have brought to my atten- tion that the situation has now improved. Now, not only are the antibiotics ampicillin prescribed for little children dispensed in syrup form, but they come in agreeable flavours - pineapple, strawberry. Sir, as I take my duty and responsibilities as an MP seriously, I checked these facts and went to the pharmacy myself. It is true. They are now being dispensed in syrup form. Therefore, would the Minister please inform the House of the details, particularly the how and when the Singapore General Hospital decided to bring about this happy state of affairs?

Sir, the Member for Telok Blangah has one good quality. He persists at a problem until he gets it solved. He wrote to my predecessor on this subject in 1980. He raised it in Parliament with me last year, and he is now raising it again. As a result of his persistent championing of mothers and young babies, the Ministry's Pharmaceutical Department conducted tests on the suitability of using freeze-dried ampicillin granules. Based on these tests and the lower tender prices than originally expected, the Department decided in May 1981, i.e. two months after the Member raised it in Parliament, to purchase dried ampicillin granules. As from June 1981, dried ampicillin granules instead of capsules have been supplied to paediatric patients. It is simple to mix the granules with water before use and the mixture can be more easily taken by young children. The granules cost four times more than the capsules. Last year when they estimated it, it cost 10 times more. Hence the reason for the switch.

Sir, I am proud that the Minister for Health is prepared to correct any inconvenience to the public whenever national health policy is not compromised. In short, the Ministry of Health officials are prepared to swallow the difficult ampicillin capsules and give the syrup to the public. May I record my appreciation for the good job done by all concerned, the nurses, doctors, pharmacists, dispensers and related workers, in providing the high standard of medical services to our citizens. An hon. Member: And the Minister also.

And also the Minister, of course. We therefore have a healthy health service. On this note, Sir, I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head P be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead PC-02 Object Group 2210 of the Main Estimates. The Minister for Health in his talk to the Singapore Professional Centre's 10th Anniversary Charity Banquet on 25th September 1981 ended his speech by saying that he was fully aware that there would always be a group of Singaporeans who through no fault of their own were unable to fend for themselves and have no friends or relatives to look after them, such as the mentally ill, the chronic sick, the aged and the disabled. He further stated that they would be looked after, and they belonged to a special category for whom real compassion must be shown. Sir, I would like to draw attention to one category of the chronic sick group, namely, the end-stage kidney failure cases. The incidence of end-stage chronic kidney failure cases in Singapore, as far as I understand, is very similar to those reported in other countries, i.e. approximately 40-60 per million of the population each year. This works out to be about 100 to 150 new cases for Singapore each year. The majority of these chronic kidney failure cases will require regular dialysis procedure in order to live a life of ordinary activities in their workplace and at home. However, as far as I understand it, the facilities for renal dialysis in the Government hospitals can only cater to a very small proportion of these cases. Many of these chronic kidney failure cases are between the ages 15 and 50. It is a great pity that the majority of them are left to die slowly. In fact, the renal unit of the Singapore General Hospital can cope with only 40 cases, maybe more, of kidney failure requiring regular renal dialysis. The Renal Centre at Alexandra Hospital, the capital outlay of which was funded by the National Kidney Foundation, can only handle 22 cases under its present one-shift system. The total number of cases who can be treated is therefore only 62. These are the more fortunate of the unfortunate group of Singaporeans. One of the important criteria for their selection for regular dialysis is that they have more dependants to support than the others not so selected. Those who are not fortunate enough to be selected for regular dialysis at the Government hospitals will have to fend for themselves. Among them, even those who can afford treatment at the private hospitals and these belong to a very small minority, are finding the financial strain unbearable. Self-dialysis at home is another alternative. The capital cost of the dialysis machine, including a water treatment unit, amounts to $30,000 but the recurrent expenditure per month is about $800. Again, not many patients can afford this alternative. I realize that it is almost impossible for any government to maintain a huge dialysis centre to treat every case of end-stage chronic renal failure. But then, are we doing enough? Sir, some selection of cases appear inevitable. The Government, however, has the obligation to provide free medical care to its indigent citizens, as the Minister has just stated. May I venture to suggest some cost-effective ways to deal with this problem?

6.25 p.m. First, we have the hospital dialysis centre which should concentrate on training patients on self-dialysis and on treatment of complicated cases. Secondly, I would like to suggest the establishment of small satellite dialysis centres in different housing estates, each manned by a specially trained staff nurse, where patients from the immediate neighbourhood can go for self-dialysis. It is a very economical way to deal with this seemingly hopeless situation for these unfortunate people for whom real compassion must be shown. I specifically mention the word "unfortunate" because the most important cause of end-stage kidney failure universally is a condition known as chronic glomerulonephritis. There is still no effective treatment for most forms of glomerulo-nephri- tis despite progress in the understanding of the disease. In other words, prevention of end-stage renal disease for this large group is not possible. Finally, may I venture to suggest that the equipment at the renal centre at Alexandra Hospital is under-utilized. It would be more cost effective and efficient to have two shifts instead of the present one shift so that 44 patients, instead of 22, can be treated at the Alexandra Hospital. Only one additional trained staff nurse is required. The really effective long-term solution to this difficult problem is to encourage our citizens to donate their kidneys, thereby enabling more kidney transplantations to take place. The success rate of kidney transplantation involving living-related donors is in the region of 87% and for cadaveric donors it is about 50%. May I conclude by stressing the point that the Government should look seriously into increasing the renal dialysis facilities both within and outside our hospitals so as to show real compassion by actual deeds in taking care of these people to enable them to live as far as possible a normal active life pending kidney transplant or other breakthroughs in medical research whereby a cure could be effected. 6.30 p.m.

Sir, the Member for Thomson has touched on a difficult area of medicine. I sympathize and I feel strongly for those so unfortunate as to be afflicted with renal failure. The problem of patients with chronic renal failure is not unlike the problem of the aged sick and the chronically sick; for example, patients at Trafalgar Hospital and Woodbridge Hospital. It is an area where we can never do enough because of the magnitude of the problem and the unfortunate fact that the sicknesses are long lasting, unlike episodic illnesses which can be treated in the hospitals, where the patient is cured and dis- charged. Nevertheless we must do as much as we can for the chronic sick, including those who suffer from renal failure, within the limits of our manpower and financial resources. Each year we register about 150 patients with chronic renal failure, 60% of whom are between the economically productive age of 20-49 years. Treatment of patients with chronic renal failure is presently limited to dialysis and/or kidney transplants, dialysis being the established procedure for the prolongation of life in terminal renal disease and renal transplant the apparent cure. Presently, a haemodialysis machine costs $25,000. The recurrent cost of treating each patient amounts to $10,000 each year. To cope with the problem of chronic renal failure a renal unit was established in Singapore General Hospital in 1968. A self-dependency dialysis unit at Alexandra Hospital was set up in July 1974. This facility can cope with 54 patients, far below the required figure. I have taken note of the suggestion of the Member for Thomson that the self-dependency dialysis unit at Alexandra Hospital should mount an additional shift so that 22 more cases will be made available to such patients. This will be done. The Ministry will also consider the Member for Thomson's suggestion of providing more facilities for self-dialysis at appropriate new centres. This will take quite some time but we would put in more facilities, subject to manpower and resources constraint. Voluntary or community organizations can also and should supplement the efforts of the Government. An example is the National Kidney Foundation's Haemodialysis Project at the Kwong Wai Shiu Hospital which is coming on stream. This will provide facilities for 40 patients. Facilities are also available in the private sector, but I agree these facilities are often beyond the means of many of the patients. Haemodialysis is no substitute for kidney transplant to achieve a better prospect for cure. The public can help to ensure a better lease of life for the unfortunate renal patients by supporting the Kidney Bank. A successful kidney transplant will not only give renewed hope to the recipient but will also create a vacancy for those waiting their turn for dialysis. There were only 18 kidney transplants done in 1980, due to the lack of live or cadaveric kidney donations. More of such transplants can and should be carried out if more donors are forthcoming. A few days ago a 20-year-old Malaysian male was the unfortunate victim of a motor-cycle accident. He sustained fracture of the skull with severe brain damage, from which he did not recover. His mother gave her consent for her deceased son's kidneys to be donated. The cadaveric transplant benefited two of our patients-on 13th March this year. So far, one of the two cadaveric kidneys is functioning well. In keeping with the mother's wishes adequate publicity will be given to the donor, the late Mr Ang Kee Seng. His mother wanted to use this to encourage more such donations. Incidentally, on the same day a live donor transplant was also carried out between siblings of another family. This patient is also doing well. Kidney dialysis cannot be seen in isolation as a form of treatment of chronic renal failure. Kidney transplants must complement the process. To conclude, I have taken note of the Member for Thomson's concern for patients suffering from renal failure, and we will do as much as we can to help solve the problem.

Sir, I am happy with the Minister's positive reply, except that I would like to add this. The big difference between the aged sick and chronic renal failure cases is that the latter can still be economically productive. With that, Sir, I beg to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir, I have two amendments* here, Subheads PC-02 and PC-03. May I speak on both these amendments now?

All right.

Thank you, Sir. Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head P be reduced by the whole sum in respect of Subhead PC-02 of the Main Estimates. I have asked that the sums provided for both these Subheads PC-02 and PC-03 be reduced by the whole sum, not just because of any craving for publicity which might be imputed to me but to try and register the protest here in this House on behalf of the thousands of our citizens who feel very dissatisfied at the health care that is provided by this socialist government of ours. Sir, we have heard, and it has been mentioned tonight, about Singapore becoming a regional medical centre, a great institution as a medical centre. But, of course, that is designed to attract people from the neighbouring countries who cannot get the same care and treatment in their own countries to come here. That is all very well. It is economically productive for Singapore. I have got nothing against that. But it is not on behalf of these people who come here and are able to pay the charges at Mount Elizabeth Medical Centre or Gleneagles or the other private medical hospitals that I am speaking of. I am speaking of our own people who find it a crippling burden at the moment to provide health care that they need for themselves and their families. May I, Sir, commend to the Minister and to the Government that the Government owes a primary duty, first of all, to its citizens and not to the promotion of Singapore as a medical centre to provide care for non-citizens just because they will be bringing their money here to spend it. Sir, may I disabuse the hon. Members of this House of the misconstruction that is always put on anything that is said by my Party; the capacity for misconstruing everything that is said seems to be limitless. It has never been my Party's statements or proposals that there should be free medical care accorded to everyone regardless of whether he is a millionaire or whether he is a worker earning only $300 a month. That has never been advocated by my Party, and I would like the Hon. Minister and others to disabuse themselves of this fallacy. What we are saying and what we have said over the years is that the medical charges in Singapore, for those who are unable to pay them, impose a burden on them, in some cases a crippling burden, which results in their putting off going to the hospital seeking medical care at the earliest possible opportunity, thinking "Oh. perhaps this will pass off. I will wait. I can't afford the money now. I'll wait and see if it gets any more serious." It does not need very much thinking to see that if this is encouraged the cost will increase in the end. The longer you leave attending to any ailment, the chances are that later on you will be finding yourself having to pay more. It is for these people that I am speaking tonight, Sir, not as I said for those who can afford medical care at Mount Elizabeth and other private institutions. They can look after themselves. Let us not forget that sickness is not a respecter of wealth. It does not only attack people with money. It attacks the poor and the rich alike. The question is, when it attacks the rich and the poor, what do we do? Do we say, "Yes, rich man that you are. We have got the best facilities for you. Come along. We will treat you. We will provide you with the best medical care that is within our means. And you, poor man, we are sorry. We don't have the facilities, the means, to look after you." Is that what we want in our society? We have heard not only today but the other day in this House about the inadequate number of kidney machines to deal with people who suffer from renal failure. The suggestion was made in this House that they should be allowed to use their CPF savings to buy machines. I for one minute do not advocate that. CPF savings are meant for their old age, and if they are asked now to pay for their medical treatment out of CPF savings, then what is to become of their dependants in old age? I say, Sir, that it is the duty of any government in this age and time to provide adequate health care to its citizens, particularly and specially to citizens who are unable to provide this health care out of their own pockets. To fail to do that would be to fail as a society. 6.45 p.m. Let us not forget something which has often been said here and outside about our only resource, our own people, and the need therefore for us to see that the only resource that we have in this country is properly maintained and looked after so that we may continue on this road to progress. Sir, we have heard something about this -

Mr Jeyaretnam, you have just one minute to go.

But I have got two amendments, Sir. May I not go on for twenty minutes?

Under Standing Orders, if you combine the two amendments you still have only ten minutes.

Sir, with your indulgence, may I take them as separate, one after the other, and carry on the whole -

I am afraid, under the Standing Orders, it is stated very clearly here.

I suppose I must not waste this one minute in trying to dispute this. Sir, why is the Government fighting shy of introducing a state health insurance? We now hear of something of a savings plan. That is not a health insurance scheme. A minimum standard of state health insurance would be cheaper in the long run. We have the example of several countries which have health insurance. We have the example of the British national health service. An hon. Member: Boo!

I know. I know all the boos about the British national health service.

Your time is up, Mr Jeyaretnam, I am sorry.

Sir, it is a pity that the Member for Anson did not have the extra 10 minutes, otherwise I would have more ammunition to aim at him. I shall help him, nevertheless, by asking him some questions so that he can have the opportunity to come up and clarify. First, I find the term "poor" rather nebulous. It is useful for politicians to catch a few votes but useless for analysis and management purposes. Perhaps the Member for Anson could let us know what is his definition of "poor". I was in Kuwait some years ago. The driver that was assigned to me to drive the Chevrolet drove a Volkswagen to work and was complaining about his state of poverty. Poverty in India means salvaging for food from trash cans and begging in the streets. When you talk about "poor", what exactly do you mean? Can the Member for Anson please enlighten us? This would give him some time to air whatever views he would have.

I am grateful to the Minister. May I start with the definition of "poor" that the Minister and his Ministry would seem to apply in granting free medical care and treatment. As I understand the Minister, at the moment free medical care and treatment is accorded to those who are drawing public assistance, those who are destitute. They are not just poor. They are destitute. We were told the other day that the public assistance allowance has now been increased to $170 for a family of four. They are not poor. They are destitute. I should have thought that by the cost of living here in Singapore today, anyone drawing less than $600 or even more for a family of four would find it very, very difficult to make ends meet. It is those people that I am concerned with. Why do we have to point to other countries and say, "Look. There they are starving." Let us talk about the situation here. Just because they happen to be starving in India or another place, there is no justification for any of our citizens to starve here. Let us stop this fallacy about pointing to other countries. It is these people, Sir, - I put it at $600-$700 but I would even take it higher-who find the cost of medical care and treatment a burden on them at the moment because of so many other calls on their moneys.

Sir, we can take it that the Member's understanding of "poor", i.e. those who are in need of subsidized or free medical services, will be those whose household income level is below $600 or $700. Would this be the same group of people who aspire to buy cars? The Member for Anson was making a point, I think two days ago, that the lower income group aspires to buy cars. Would this be the same group of lower income Singaporeans that he is talking about?

Sir, I am not aware that a great many of our citizens who are earning a combined income of $600 or $700 are owning cars.

Sir, neither am I aware that those falling within this group are in a position to buy cars. But in the debate here the other day on public transportation, the Member for Anson was making a point in favour of car owners and I believe he was trying to show as much sympathy as possible for them.

Higher up the scale.

But he was using the term "lower income" Singaporeans who aspire to buy cars. Was he serious when he made the statement, or was he aiming at something else? Anyway, we need not debate the point, That is not the fundamental point.

You have not answered the point.

But I would disabuse you of the notion that free medical service is available to only those on public assistance or the truly destitute. There are people, in fact, with incomes around the $600 level whom we have looked into depending on the merits of each individual case and have decided that there are justifications for fee remission. While we subsidize heavily C-class hospital beds, it is considered that there are some people in Singapore who, because of their financial situation, are unable to meet even this low subsidized fee, and when such a situation comes to our attention we ask our medical social workers to investigate and free medical service is given on each justifiable case. Perhaps I can answer the question better, Sir, by giving a few examples. These are real examples, not just statistics. An hon. Member: Not rumours.

Case number one. An 85-year old Indian Singaporean was admitted to Sembawang Hospital and stayed there for about five months sometime last year. He was suffering from chronic ulcer of the left foot and chronic obstructive lung disease. The patient is a widower. He was living with his daughter, son-in-law and a 15-year old grandson. In this case he was on public assistance for several years but this was stopped in January 1980 when his daughter started working. However, his daughter was subsequently medically boarded out as a sweeper. She was then, at that point of time, receiving treatment for a chronic skin disease at the Tan Tock Seng Hospital. The patient's son-in-law worked as a sweeper earning about $350 per month. Unfortunately, he.was a habitual drinker and had received warnings about his poor job performance due to frequent drunkenness. His grandson did odd jobs on and off and earned about $100. So here there is a family with an income of about $450. The fee remitted amounted to $2,176. The case was looked into and the fee was remitted.

That is not the point.

We will come to that by and by. I will give another example of a Chinese patient, aged 15 years. He comes from a family of six, consisting of his 50- and 45-year old parents, two brothers and two sisters in school. They were living in a shophouse. His father was unemployed since 1978 because of his sickness due to hypertension, while his mother worked as a cleaner earning about $310 per month. His elder brother was a first year student in the Nanyang University at that time. His second brother worked as a welder earning $290 per month. The total family income was about $600 per month. This boy was in hospital for about three months. The size of his bill amounted to $1,190 and this was also remitted. The Member for Anson in his usual form made the allegation that the Government has failed to look after the needs of Singaporeans. But before that, in my own assessment, the Member for Anson has changed his attitude somewhat towards medical care. He is now saying that medical care should not be made available free to all, but only to those who belong to the poorer group.

I never said that.

You have heard him, Sir, and he said that he has never said that. He is an honourable man, a god-fearing Christian. I have got his "Towards a Caring Society" published in 1976 and sold for a dollar. Nothing is for free! Under the paragraph on Health, this is what his Party aspires to achieve. In case he has forgotten what he has written, let me quote it to him: 'The Party is committed to immediate repeal of the charges that are now being levied at Government hospitals and clinics regardless of the capacity to pay of those seeking treatment.' What does this mean? "The capacity to pay" means whether you earn $1,000, you earn $600 or you earn nothing, you are entitled to free medical service. An hon. Member: But he said he never said that.

That is right. [Interruption]. The Party objective went on to say: 'The Party would take active steps to introduce a free health service for all citizens without any discrimination based on wealth.' 7.00 p.m. Of course, there is the usual political catch. 'Today because our poor cannot afford to pay for the basic medical treatment, the rich with all the wealth will get the best treatment available in the country. The Party is committed to changing this.' What is the meaning of free medical service or free health service for all citizens without any discrimination based on wealth?

Read on the whole lot.

I have gone through it. To be fair to the Member, I will read the whole section on Health. 'The Party plans to take medical services to the people and to establish hospitals and clinics in various parts of the island to avoid hardships to our citizens in having to come all the way to hospitals in the city.' That, we should not find too much fault with. 'The Party is also concerned with the dissatisfaction felt by doctors and the medical staff in Government hospitals and will take steps to remedy the conditions with which dissatisfaction is felt.' Again, we cannot quarrel with that. That is all that is said about health. So I am surprised, or maybe I should not be, about his position on free medical service. I think a few days in Parliament have changed the thinking of the Member for Anson for the better. I do not know whether the Member for Anson is good at figures but, according to the data which I have here, those earning less than $750 household income comprise only 34% of the population. If we make our services free to all regardless of their capacity to pay, it means we are opening it up to a greater percentage of the population who earn more than $750. That was the point I made earlier in the day when I talked about those who can afford overloading the system to the detriment of the poor. Has the Government neglected the population, in particular the poor? We should not just affirm that we have, because that would be following the practice of the Member for Anson who simply asserted lie after lie hoping that the lie will become true.

What lies?

Sir, perhaps I should pass this copy, through you, to the Member for Anson, in case he has forgotten.

Read the whole lot.

The whole lot will bring me to taxation and land acquisition which I think it is not necessary for me to do so. Members who are interested can borrow a copy from me later on. There was no copy-right, so we have photocopied it. [Laughter] It is a serious matter. Let me go on. I would like to offer irrefut- able evidence, hard evidence, to show that this Government has taken good care of the population, not just the rich, the middle income group, but every one in Singapore. One hard indicator of impoverishment and poor medical services is the infant mortality rate, infants who die within the first year of birth. If you have a high infant mortality rate, that is an indication of an impoverished society with an impoverished medical service. For Singapore for the year 1951, before the PAP took over, the infant mortality rate was 75.2 per thousand population. In 1960, just one year after the PAP had taken over, it dropped to 34.9 per thousand. In 1980, it was 11.7 per thousand. This in itself means nothing. We should compare it with the experience elsewhere to see whether we belong to the group that has better medical services or the group that does not have them. The infant mortality rate for the United States is 13. Just remember that for Singapore it was 11.7 or 12. For West Germany it is 15; Australia, 12; Japan, 8 (amazing) and the UK, 13. For the developing countries, Taiwan it is 25, Malaysia, 44; Philippines, 65; Indonesia, 91; Thailand, 68 and India, 134. Let me offer another hard evidence: maternal mortality rates, that is, mothers who die during childbirth. In 1951 it was 1.6 per thousand for Singapore. In 1960 it was 0.4 per thousand. In 1980, nil. Never before have our babies been so healthy, so well fed. If the Member for Anson does not believe me, I suggest he holds a baby show in Anson so that he can see for himself whether my claim that never before have our babies been so healthy and so well fed is true. [Laughter] If he does not want to hold one in Anson, the Member for Khe Bong can invite him to one which can be held in any constituency which he may choose. [Laughter] I would make another claim. Never before have our people better prospects of living to a ripe old age. This would put paid to whatever allegation anyone makes that we are not looking after our population, especially the old. If we do not look after our old, Singaporeans would not have a life expectancy rate of 71 years. Had we not been looking after our population, the Member for Anson would not be here to talk about it because there would be no people who would live beyond the age of 60. There would have been no old people in Singapore, or very few of them. For the developed countries, the life expectancy rate of the United States is 74; West Germany, 74; Australia, 73; Japan, 76 and United Kingdom, 73. For Singapore it is 71. And do not forget that we are in the tropics, not in the temperate zone. Our ASEAN neighbours have a life expectancy rate ranging from 50 to 61 years. So we are 10 to 20 years ahead in terms of living to a ripe old age in Singapore as compared to our neighbours. In India, 52 years; in other words the moment you are born in India, you will live 20 years shorter than those born in Singapore. That is their life expectancy. I believe the Member for Anson has at least one good doctor friend. He can ask the doctor friend or doctor friends whether he or they can produce any health indicators to prove that we have not taken good care of our people. If he has any evidence, let him produce it. If we use $600 or $750 as an indicator of those who should be given hospital services at a cheap rate -

Free.

I thought it was not for free just now. Now it is for free. Does he not know that the percentage of C-class beds in the hospitals has been 83% for over 10 years until last year? We have taken steps to reduce it to 71% this year. 83% of our hospital beds belonged to the C-class rate where the quantum of subsidy was 90%, $7 per day in C-class, which means a subsidy to the tune of 90%. Anyone in Singapore can have access to the C-class ward. Hence, the reason for the very high percentage of beds in C-class. Those earning more than $750 were also taking advantage of C-class rates. Hence, our taking steps to lower the proportion of C-class beds from 83% to 71% last year. At the same time, we also felt that there was a demand for better class wards, the B2 and A1 wards. The 90% subsidy excludes the capital cost. The cost of providing one bed is $200,000. Of course, we have got to amortize it over a period of years. The capital cost is $200,000 per bed, and this has not been taken into account in the calculation of the subsidy for patients in C-class. If 10% fee recovery is too high, then perhaps the Member for Anson is advocating that it should be made free for all citizens. But I have lost track of his thinking. It has somewhat befuddled me. On the one hand, he said that it should not be provided for free and, on the other hand, he has been shouting, "free". So I do not know his real position. We are not a give-away society.

But you are, to the rich.

Those - [Interruption]. Sir, I believe I should not be conversing with the Member for Anson. If I do so, I should do so through the Chairman in the appropriate manner. We are not a give-away society and we have no intention of giving away our society through free medical care for all regardless of the capacity to pay. We are conscious that there is a group of Singaporeans who through no fault of their own sometimes cannot afford to pay for the subsidized rates. But the way to take care of this problem is to give them a conscious specific subsidy and not to have a system that is so generalized that anyone can take advantage of it, even those who can afford to pay the token rate. A generalized subsidy system is unfair. It would only overload the system and in the end the strain must break it. Our approach is to give free medical attention to those who deserve it, including those on public assistance or in social welfare homes. In the last 2 1/2, years, fee remissions were given to 2,743 in-patients and 9,324 out-patients. These patients were treated free in the hospitals. 7.15 p.m. We have a school health service that also screens students and those who are under-nourished or appear to be under-nourished are given free feeds, Ovaltine, sugar, groundnuts, milk, eggs. Quite a few students who appear under-nourished - maybe there is no relation between their under-nourishment and their household income but they appear under-nourished - are put on these health foods under our school health service. And I should not forget to mention free spectacles and free dental service to the poor students. The Member for Anson showed concern for the poor, the chronic sick and the aged sick. May I ask, through you, Sir, whether he has visited Trafalgar Home and the Woodbridge Hospital where we have quite a few hundred chronic sick patients?

They are sending them to private institutions because they are overcrowded. I've heard that.

I think once again, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, that that is based on rumour.

It is not.

If the Member for Anson does not believe me, he can apply for a place in Woodbridge and he will find he can get a bed in Woodbridge. [Laughter]

Very funny!

I am not being funny because there are places available in Woodbridge and people are not turned away to private homes. I have checked this again and again with the Director of Medical Services and I have myself visited Woodbridge. That is the position as of now. There are places available in our chronic sick hospitals, Woodbridge and Trafalgar Home. And this can be easily checked by making an application. If the Member for Anson is genuine in his concern for the aged sick, then it is a laudable concern because the problem of the aged sick is indeed a very serious one. And I am not drawing any conclusion. If it is just a ploy to win a few votes, then I think he would have demeaned himself by using the poor, the chronic sick as political cannon balls.

That is how you use the workers.

But he is an honourable man, a god-fearing man, and I have no reason to doubt the sincerity of his compassion. I mentioned just now that the problem of the aged sick will become a more and more serious problem in the years to come. In 1957, only 4% of the population were over 60 years old and the number was 55,300. This is not the figure of the aged sick but simply of people over 60 years old. In 1980, the absolute number had gone up to 173,622. By the year 2000, we would have a population of 270,000 people over 60 years old. So the problem of the aged sick must increase over time, and we should move in to anticipate - as we are now doing and as we have, in fact, done earlier - the problems which will loom in the years to come and solve them before they become a real problem. No society can call itself civilized if it does not take care of its old. It is a barbaric, uncivilized society that turns its back on its elders. Caring for the old, particularly the infirm and chronic sick, is first and foremost a family responsibility. Institutional care must be the last resort as it can never replace the warmth and comfort of the family home. It must never become the first choice. It is all too easy to shunt aged parents and grandparents into state institutions and we must not make it easier by thoughtlessly encouraging this. We must guard against the transfer of responsibilities from the family to the society. If our society ever becomes one where the old are discarded like old socks, then it is a society not worth preserving or working for. Our philosophy in resolving this problem is this. Each family must be encouraged and facilitated to look after its elders. The effort must begin at home with parents looking after the young, teaching them the tradition of filial piety through their own example of looking after their parents. They must set the example of looking after their parents if they hope their children would look after them when they become old. The schools must play a part; hence the teaching of moral and religious education. Even the HDB can help by giving priority in its allocation to three-generation families and also through its mechanism of joint balloting. It is recognized that sometimes circumstances are such that the children are unable to look after their parents, not because there is no abiding tie between the children and the parents but because of personal circumstances or maybe the aged are without children, relatives or friends. To take care of such difficult or unfortunate situations, we would like to encourage voluntary organizations to take a more active role. These institutions manned by volunteers have that extra warmth which state institutions cannot hope to match. The Chinese clan associations have always looked after their aged sick, the infirm and the destitute. It is an obligation born out of comradeship and the spirit of mutual help as a migrant group close ranks in a strange foreign country. Various temples and churches also play their part. We want to work together with these voluntary organizations much more closely in the future to take care of the problem of those who may not have families to look after them. My Ministry together with the Ministry of Social Affairs is looking into this. I hope no one will claim the credit of forcing the Government only now to look into the problem of the aged sick. In May 1980, when I was the Minister for Trade and Industry and long before I had any inkling that I would be transferred to the Ministry of Health, I suggested to the Minister for Social Affairs to set up a committee to look into the care of the aged. That was as far back as May 1980. The committee completed its report in September 1981. I believe his Ministry is looking into the recommendations with a view to implementing the recommendations in the report. I want to come back, Sir, to the question of free medical service, subsidies, and suggestions of more welfare. In the debate in Parliament so far, the Member for Anson, if I read him correctly, wanted to achieve an efficient and comfortable public transport. He wanted the public transport to be nationalized. He did not quite use the word "subsidy". So I might have read him wrong.

Nationalize public transport.

With or without subsidy?

Wholly subsidized.

Nationalized and, of course, the services will have to be provided cheaply to the public, not just efficiently. We have no quarrel if it is cheap and efficient. But if it is inefficient and cheap -

We are discussing health now, not transport.

- then we are all in trouble. This has a relevance, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, because we cannot talk about subsidy or free services in isolation. The Government governs the whole country. If we want to have free medical services, cheap transport, heavily subsidized housing, lower taxes, higher income reliefs for the poor which also apply to the rich - An hon. Member: Money from the sky!

- and we want to pay the doctors and nurses better and, of course, those in Divisions I, II, III and IV better, the sums just do not add up. So there is a relevance between what I am touching on in transport as well as housing and the other areas which do not concern health. "Profits" appears to be a dirty word to some people. But "profits" is not a dirty word. "Losses" is a dirty word. "Surpluses" is not a dirty word. "Deficit" is a dirty word. Without profits and surpluses, how is the SBS going to get the capital to buy new buses and improve the services for the public? There is no need for the PUB to make a profit because the PUB has no shareholders. No one receives any dividends. But it must make a surplus every year in order to pay for future development. Most of us here are fathers, I believe. Our instinct is to work hard and save for our children unless we are totally incompetent, lazy and irresponsible, so that our children will have a bright future. Every primary school child knows the story of the grasshopper and the ant. The ant worked throughout summer to save food for the winter. Unfortunately, we in Singapore have got to work like ants, saving food for the future. The grasshopper played in summer, living on subsidies, and perished in winter. The Workers Party owes Tay Boon Too a big sum of money. It teeters and totters on $18.47 in its account. I think there is a lesson here for us. If an aspirant to political power cannot manage the financial affairs of his own party, never trust him with SBS, PUB, HDB or the health service. The reserves which these institutions have accumulated for future expansion and for the benefit of the next generation will be down to $18.47 very quickly. We will then be sorry but it will be too late. 7.30 p.m.

Mr Goh, may I just remind you that guillotine time for your Ministry is 7.50 p.m. There are still three speakers to go.

Well, may I just make one final point, that my colleagues and I have every intention of building on the efforts of the first generation leaders so that our children and our children's children will have an even better life. We will do this through hard work, prudent management of the economy, the health services, our resources and savings. We will not throw Singapore away to charlatans, opportunists and irresponsible scallywags. They have a lot of bluster but no bite.

Mr Jeyaretnam, would you withdraw your amendment?

No, Sir. May I just borrow the manifesto from the Minister to explain our position? [and crossed the Floor.]

We are running short of time, Mr Jeyaretnam.

Sir, if one reads the whole of this programme under Health, one can see what our concern is. Our concern is, as we say here: 'Today whilst our poor cannot afford to pay for the basic medical treatment, the rich flaunt their wealth to get the best treatment available in the country. The Party is committed to changing this.' Our concern here in this programme is with the poor who cannot afford to pay for the treatment.

Mr Jeyaretnam, would you like to withdraw your amendment?

No, Sir, I am not. I wanted to explain because I have been told that we are lying all the time. I am saying that if one looks at this programme one can see what is our concern. Our concern is with the poor who cannot afford to pay for their medical services.

Mr Goh, do you still like to reply?

Sir, I think we can ask the press to publish the whole section on Health and let the public be the judge.

Yes, let the public be the judge.

Yes, with that, would you like to withdraw your amendment?

No, Sir. Question put, "That the sum to be allocated for Head P be reduced by the whole sum in respect of Subhead PC-02 of the Main Estimates."

Division, Sir. The Committee divided: Ayes, 1; Noes, 42; Abstentions, 1; Absent, 31. Ayes Abstentions Jeyaretnam, J.B. Hwang Soo Jin Noes Absent Abbas Abu Amin A. Rahim Ishak Ahmad Mattar Barker, E.W. Ang Kok Peng Chai Chong Yii Chan Chee Seng Chen, Bernard Chandra Das, S. Cheong Yuen Chee, Eric Chau Sik Ting Chiang Hai Ding Chin Harn Tong Chor Yeok Eng Ch'ng Jit Koon Chua Sian Chin Dhanabalan, S. Conceicao, J.F. Goh Chee Wee Fong Sip Chee Goh Chok Fong Goh Keng Swee Ho Kah Leong Hon Sui Sen Ho See Beng Howe Yoon Chong Jabbar, M.K.A. Jek Yeun Thong Jayakumar, S. Lau Teik Soon Koh Lip Lin Lee Chiaw Meng Lai Tha Chai Lee Khoon Choy Lau Ping Sum Lee Kuan Yew Lee Yiok Seng Ng Kah Ting Lee Yock Suan Ong Pang Boon Liew Kok Pun Ong Teng Cheong Noes (cont.) Absent (cont.) Lim Boon Heng Phua Bah Lee Lim Chee Onn Rajaratnam, S. Mansor Haji Sukaimi Selvadurai, P. Othman bin Haron Sia Kah Hui Eusofe Tan, Augustine H.H. Ow Chin Hock Tan Soo Khoon Rohan bin Kamis Tay Eng Soon Saidi Haji Shariff Teh Cheang Wan Seah Mui Kok Toh Chin Chye Sia Khoon Seong Yeoh Ghim Seng Sidek bin Saniff Tan Cheng Bock Tan Keng Yam, Tony Tang See Chim Teo Chong Tee Wan Hussin Zoohri Wan Soon Bee Wong Kwei Cheong Yap Giau Cheng, Eugene Yeo Choo Kok Yeo Ning Hong Yeo Toon Chia Question on the amendment accordingly negatived. The following amendments stood on the Order Paper Supplement: Mr Ng Kah Ting: (6) That the sum to be allocated for Head P be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead PD-02 of the Development Estimates. Mr S. Chandra Das: Dr Chau Sik Ting: (7) That the sum to be allocated for Head P be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead PF-01 of the Main Estimates.

Mr Ng Kah Ting is not moving his amendment. Mr Das.

I am not moving, Sir.

Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head P be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead PF-01 of the Main Estimates. Sir, in spite of what I said earlier, let there be no doubts in the minds of all that ours is a caring Government. I have never had any difficulty with fee remissions on hospitalization for my needy constituents. I would not use the word "poor". We do have a very compassionate Minister for Health who is sensitive to the health problems of the needy. Here I am not referring to his free offer of a bed in Woodbridge Hospital but rather to his positive reply to my earlier amendment. Sir, I shall be brief. An important area where preventive medicine programmes can be developed is in the health care of the working population. In the Ministry of Health, we have the Maternal and Child Health service for mothers and children, the School Health Service for the school children but none for the working population. I am aware that the Ministry of Labour is responsible for the health of the workers and, at the plant level, the companies through their contracted company doctors directly take care of workers' health. I am not suggesting that the Ministry of Health create another department to be responsible for workers' health. What I am suggesting is that at the national level, say, in the 20-year National Health Plan, thought and directions on preventive health care programme for workers over the next 20 years be outlined and detailed, if possible. The exclusion of the health care of so important a segment of our population, namely, the industrial population, from the pages of a National Health Plan would so reduce the scope of coverage as to render it not comprehensive enough to qualify as "national". But its inclusion will not only enhance the reputation of the National Health Plan but more importantly, it will guide the direction and development of proper preventive rather than solely curative health care programmes at the local factory level in the years to come. What I am really advocating is that when the National Health Plan details are announced in the near future, I would like to see a substantial portion of its contents devoted to a developmental strategy for preventive medicine programmes and not a skimpy and hackneyed statement of intention that the Ministry will emphasize on preventive medicine but lacking direction and substance for implementation. 7.45 p.m.

Sir, the Member for Thomson is a level-headed person and my Ministry will take up his timely suggestion to make mention of the comprehensive preventive occupational health programme in the National Health Plan.

In view of the Minister's level-headed reply, I beg to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The following amendments stood on the Order Paper Supplement: Mr Ng Kah Ting: (8) That the sum to be allocated for Head P be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead PH-02 of the Development Estimates. Dr Wan Soon Bee: Dr Tan Cheng Bock: (9) That the total sum to be allocated for Head P of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100.

Mr Ng Kah Ting is not moving. Amendment No. (9), Dr Tan has spoken. Dr Wan.

I am not moving, Sir. The sum of $321,725,430 for Head P ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $46,453,100 for Head P ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head O -

Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 0 be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead OB-01 Object Group 1210 of the Main Estimates. Sir, in moving this amendment I just want to find out from the Minister whether there is a sustained recruiting and training programme to build up a core of career diplomats to man our overseas missions. It seems to me that we are seriously shorthanded in running the overseas missions. We still have to appoint a few parliamentarians to head overseas missions and quite a number of our heads of missions have to be accredited to more than one country. Sir, I moved a similar amendment in the Budget debate in 1978. In his reply to me, the then Senior Minister of State for Foreign Affairs gave me a lengthy description of the virtues of appointing parliamentarians to be heads of our overseas missions. Sir, honestly I was not impressed by the reply. He also informed the House that we had five parliamentarians as heads of missions out of a total number of 17. Today we still have four parliamentarians as heads of overseas missions. Sir, I am not saying that elected MPs should not serve in overseas missions. I just wonder if the Ministry has worked hard enough to recruit and encourage capable Singaporeans to join the foreign service. Maybe the terms and conditions for foreign service are not attractive enough. Sir, I want to know the total number of career diplomats in overseas missions, and I also want to know how many heads of missions are accredited to more than one or even two countries.

Sir, can I have permission to speak on this amendment instead of my Amendment No. (2)*.

As we are running short of time, are you speaking along the same lines?

Similar lines, Sir. I gather there are at the moment 15 heads of missions serving Singapore overseas and covering about 19 missions. Out of these 15 heads of missions, only one is from the career diplomatic service while 14 others come from the public and private sectors. Sir, the Foreign Ministry was established in 1966 and I am told the career foreign service in 1972, I am a little concerned that right now only one person from the career service is holding the appointment of head of mission. Whilst I admit that it was necessary to fill the post earlier with outsiders I think it is time now for the Ministry to think in terms of a permanent career foreign service. I am certain that if the Ministry of Foreign Affairs wants to attract top talent in the foreign service, then the opportunities available must be spelt out very clearly. I will be interested to know what plans the Minister has to appoint career diplomats as heads of missions. Sir, during the debate last year I suggested to the Minister for Foreign Affairs that he should be more bullish in acquiring properties both residential and for chancery in overseas countries, particularly in key capitals. However, I am pleased to note that this year the Ministry is requesting $12 million for the purchase of properties in overseas missions. I would still urge the Minister to take an even more liberal approach and would be pleased if he could inform this House what new properties were purchased during last year and what new properties will be purchased in the Financial Year 1982. Further, whether the Minister is in a position to inform the House what additional missions will be opened during the course of this financial year.

Sir, can I take the easier part first of the points made by the two Members, i.e. the Member for Chong Boon and the Member for Delta. First, on the question of properties, I informed the House in March last year that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs owns overseas properties amounting to $73.2 million at original prices. Since then the Ministry has purchased staff residences in London, New York, Manila, and also additional office space for the chancery in Washington. These purchases cost $10 million. In view of the high cost of rentals in New York and London, my Ministry accorded priority to the purchase of staff accommodation in these two cities. The total value of the properties owned by the Ministry at original prices is now $83 million. For the next financial year the Ministry will be studying the possibility of purchasing office premises or residences in Bonn, Washington, Geneva, and it will also be commencing construction of the chancery in Canberra and New Delhi. The sum of $12 million, which has been provided in the estimates, is expected to be adequate. My Ministry's objective is to purchase as many properties as possible which we need to occupy in order to fulfil our overseas representation. While we want to be bullish, we cannot purchase all that we require overnight. We have to go about this job selectively and judiciously. On the question of new missions, Sir, my Ministry is in the process of establishing a new mission in Brunei and this will be operational in the new financial year. On other missions to be established, it is somewhat premature at this stage for me to make a categorical statement. Coming to the other points made by the Member for Delta and also by the Member for Chong Boon on plans within the Ministry to recruit new officers and to have more professionals as heads of missions, my Ministry has sustained the recruiting programme. It recruited 41 diplomatic officers in the past three years. However, as with all other Ministries, we have a large number of resignations. Thirty-three officers resigned, obviously because of the wide disparity of income between the private and public sectors. The salary revisions that were announced in the House last week, as well as the salary revisions under consideration for other Division I and II officers, should reduce the attrition caused by resignations. The Ministry will then be able to consolidate its position and improve the staffing both in headquarters as well as in the overseas missions. My Ministry is very conscious of the need to improve terms and conditions of service if we are to attract and retain talent in the foreign service. Improvements have already been made in several areas, such as various types of allowances paid to our overseas serving officers as well as better training opportunities in universities overseas, better accommodation and so on, and the Ministry is now engaged in a study together with Treasury to consider increases in the cost of living allowances. We hope that these improvements, together with other improvements that are in the pipeline, will make the Ministry a more attractive place to work in. The Ministry at present has 111 career diplomats in the headquarters as well as overseas. This is out of a total establishment of 184 posts. Twelve of the remaining posts are filled by officers seconded from the Civil Service, another 17 are filled by contract officers and the remaining 44 posts are vacant. There are 71 officers serving in diplomatic appointments abroad. Of this, 50 or 70% are career foreign service officers. Of the 20 so-called "outsiders", 14 are heads of missions. There are 19 posts of heads of missions and at present one is filled by a career officer, our High Commissioner in Canberra. Steps have been taken to appoint another three career officers as heads of missions within the next few months. These will be in Manila, Geneva and Bonn. These heads of missions will be assuming duties, as I said, within the next few months. The Foreign Service has at present 17 Superscale officers. More, of course, will be promoted to Superscale grades. Officers who are in these grades, i.e. Superscale grades, are considered eligible for appointment as heads of missions, and more will be appointed in the near future. Nevertheless, I must reiterate what I have mentioned previously in the House - that while we hope to fill more posts of heads of missions with career officers, we will continue to appoint persons from the university, from politics and from businesses and other sectors of the population if they are found to be effective envoys to promote and protect the interests of Singapore. [Interruption]. We will consider that in due time. Thirteen heads of missions are accredited to more than one country. This is not an unusual practice, especially for a country like Singapore with limited manpower. The constraint of manpower does not permit us to establish missions in every country that we want to have missions in. At present, only four of the 19 posts of heads of missions are held by MPs. They are serving in London, Bonn, Jakarta and Wellington, and though the Member was not impressed with the explanation given by the previous Minister of State, I am afraid I will have to repeat those explanations. The truth may not be acceptable but it has to be stated. An MP need not serve only his constituency. He must also serve his country. I think all Members will agree. He should not be denied the opportunity of serving his country abroad, particularly where political and economic benefit can be generated for Singapore as a whole. We live in an interdependent world where countries have to interact with each other and in this respect a country which has no natural resources is even more dependent and economically linked to the world. The ambassador has to protect and promote his country's interest. He has to lobby, win support, influence people and so on. And no one who has the qualities to do this job, to serve his country as an ambassador, should be excluded just because he is a Member of Parliament. It is true that MP's service abroad will entail absence from his constituency, but I think we all know that every Member of Parliament has got his colleagues to help take care of his constituency and the constituency is not neglected. I think the example of Ulu Pandan is a good one where although the MP has been away others have pitched in to help and have been able to take care of the constituents and even raise enough to put up a spanking new community centre. The MPs who serve abroad are also given opportunities to come back to Singapore as often as possible to attend to functions in the constituency or to keep in touch with progress and problems in the constituency.

Order. Moment of interruption. Thereupon Mr Deputy Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply has made further progress on the Main and Development Estimates for the financial year 1st April, 1982 to 31st March, 1983 and ask leave to sit again tomorrow.

So be it.

Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn." - [Mr Dhanabalan]. Adjourned accordingly at Eight o'clock p.m. Table - INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ON SERVICE & CONSERVANCY (Cols. 1603 - 1604)