Hansard, 1982-12-03

Under the provisions of clause 2(d) of Article 46 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, the following Members have been granted permission to be or to remain absent from sittings of Parliament (or any Committee of Parliament to which they have been appointed) for the periods stated:- Mr Goh Chok Tong (Marine Parade), Minister of Defence and Second Minister for Health - from 7th to 9th September, 1982. Prof. S. Jayakumar (Bedok), Minister of State, Ministry of Law and Ministry of Home Affairs - from 7th to 9th September, 1982. Mr S. Dhanabalan (Kallang), Minister for Foreign Affairs and minister for Culture - from 7th to 9th September and from 19th September to 16th October, 1982. Mr Lee Khoon Choy (Braddell Heights), Senior Minister of State, Prime Minister's Office - from 7th to 9th September and from 17th October to 30th November, 1982. Dr Yeo Ning Hong (Kim Seng), Minister of State, Ministry of Defence - from 7th to 9th September and from 4th to 11th December, 1982. Mr Lim Chee Onn (Bukit Merah), Minister - from 7th to 9th September and from 13th to 18th December, 1982. Maj. Fong Sip Chee (Kampong Chai Chee), Minister of State, Ministry of Culture -from 10th September to 5th October, 1982. Encik Wan Hussin Zoohri (Kampong Ubi), Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Minister for Culture - from llth to 18th September and from 20th September to 30th October, 1982. Dr Ow Chin Hock (Leng Kee) - from 11th to 21st September, 1982. Mr Eric Cheong Yuen Chee (Toa Payoh) - from 11 th to 25th September, 1982. Mr Teo Chong Tee (Changi), Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Affairs - from 12th to 27th September, 1982 and from 29th November to 24th December, 1982. Encik Sidek bin Saniff (Kolam Ayer), Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Trade and Industry and Minister for Social Affairs -from 12th September to 10th October, 1982. Mr S. Rajaratnam (Kampong Glam), Second Deputy Prime Minister (Foreign Affairs) - from 12th September to 15th October and from 13th to 21 st November, 1982. Mr P. Selvadurai (Kuo Chuan) - from 22nd to 26th September and from 8th to 29th October, 1982. Mr Chor Yeok Eng (Bukit Timah), Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment - from 24th to 28th September, 1982. Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam (Anson) - from 25th September to 6th October, 1982. Encik Mansor Haji Sukaimi (Kampong Kembangan) - from 25th September to 10th October, from 20th October to 3rd November and from 22nd to 27th November, 1982. Dr Chau Sik Ting, P.B.M. (Thomson) - from 26th September to 22nd October, 1982. Mr Teh Cheang Wan (Geylang West), Minister for National Development - from 28th September to 2nd October, from 8th to 10th October and from 8th to 12th November, 1982. Dr Tay Eng Soon, P.B.M. (River Valley), Minister of State, Ministry of Education - on 1st October, 1982. Mr Sia Kah Hui (Paya Lebar), - from 1st October to 1st November and from 11th to 24th November, 1982, Mr Ng Kah Ting (Punggol) - from 3rd October to 5th November and from 8th to 24th December, 1982. Mr Lim Boon Heng (Kebu n Baru) -from 4th to 8th October, 1982. Mr S. Chandra Das (Chong Boon) - from 6th to 13th October and from 22nd to 29th November, 1982. Dr Yeoh Ghim Seng, B.B.M., J.P. (JOO Chiat), Speaker -from 7th October to 3rd November, 1982. Mr Phua Bah Lee (Tampines), Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Defence - from 7th October to 3rd November and from 15th November to 7th December, 1982. Mr Tan Soo Khoon (Alexandra) - from 7th October to 10th November, 1982. Mr Rohan bin Kamis (Telok Blangah) - from 7th to 25th October, 1982. Mr Lee Yock Suan (Cheng San), Minister of State, Ministry of National Development - from 9th to 24th October and from 15th to 28th November, 1982. Mr Hon Sui Sen (Havelock), Minister for Finance - from 15th to 18th October, 1982. Dr Augustine H.H. Tan (Whampoa) - from 23rd to 30th October, from 10th to 18th November, 1982 and from 24th to 29th January, 1983. Mr Tang See Chim (Chua Chu Kang) from 26th to 29th October, and from 4th December, 1982 to 2nd January, 1983. Mr Liew Kok Pun (Boon Teck) - from 28th October to 26th November, 1982. Dr Goh Keng Swee (Kreta Ayer), First Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Education - from 2nd to 22nd November, 1982. Mr Goh Chee Wee (Boon Lay) - from 3rd to 25th November, 1982. Mr Bernard Chen (Clementi) - from 4th to 13th November, from 2nd to 3rd December and from 7th to 17th December, 1982. Mr Sia Khoon Seong (Moulmein) - from 8th to 26th November, 1982. Encik Othman bin Haron Eusofe (Geylang Serai) - from 9th to 14th November, 1982. Dr Toh Chin Chye (Rochore) -from 12th November to 6th December, 1982. Mr Hwang Soo Jin (Jalan Kayu), Deputy Speaker -from 15th November to 5th December, 1982. Mr Chan Chee Seng (Jalan Besar), Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Trade and Industry - from 16th to 28th November, 1982. Mr Ch'ng Jit Koon (Tiong Bahru), Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister - from 16th to 29th November, 1982. Mr Chai Chong Yii (Bukit Batok) -from 16th to 21st November and from 30th November to 14th December, 1982. Mr Yeo Toon Chia (Ang Mo Kio) - from 20th November to 12th December, 1982. Mr Ong Teng Cheong (Kim Keat), Minister for Communications and Minister for Labour - from 21 st to 27th November, 1982. Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam (Sembawang), Minister for Trade and Industry - from 22nd November to 22nd December, 1982. Mr Ho Kah Leong (Jurong), Parliameritary Secretary to the Minister of Education - from 23rd November to 20th December, 1982. Mr Lau Ping Sum (Yio Chu Kang) -from 25th to 29th November, 1982. Dr Lee Chiaw Meng (Tanah Merah) - from 30th November to 21st December, 1982. Dr Lau Teik Soon (Serangoon Gardens) - from 1st to 20th December, 1982. Dr Ang Kok Peng, B.B.M. (Buona Vista) - from 1st to 8th December, 1982. Mr Chua Sian Chin (MacPherson), Minister for Home Affairs - from 1st to 24th December, 1982. Dr Wong Kwei Cheong, P.B.M. (Cairnhill), Minister of State, Ministry of Labour - from 5th to 23rd December, 1982. YEOH GHIM SENG Speaker, Parliament of Singapore

The following Bills were assented to by the President of the Republic of Singapore on the dates stated:- 3rd September, 1982 (i) Judges' Remuneration (Amendment) Bill; (ii) Civil Law (Amendment) Bill; (iii) Societies (Amendment) Bill; and (iv) Economic Expansion Incentives (Relief from Income Tax) (Amendment) Bill. 21st September, 1982 (i) Parliamentary Pensions (Amendment) Bill; (ii) Telecommunication Authority of Singapore Bill; 21st September, 1982 (iii) Charities Bill; (iv) Trustees (Amendment) Bill; (v) Residential Property (Amendment) Bill; (vi) Land Titles (Strata) (Amendment) Bill; (vii) Vigilante Corps (Amendment) Bill; (viii) Regulation of Employment (Amendment) Bill; (ix) Buildings and Common Property (Maintenance and Management) (Amendment) Bill; and (x) Parks and Trees (Amendment) Bill. YEOH GHIM SENG Speaker, Parliament of Singapore

asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider directing all Ministries that where they reject any application from a citizen or make any decision which impinges on the rights of the citizen they should give detailed reasons for their rejection or decision.

Mr Speaker, Sir, all Ministers and Government Ministries have made it a practice to explain their policies clearly so that people know the reasons for the rules which apply to their particular cases. Every major policy change is explained at length in Parliament, in the press and TV, in dialogues direct with voters in Meet-the-People sessions and through grassroots organizations. This is especially so when the policy affects large numbers of the public, such as housing, education, health, citizenship, entry permits or PUB rates. Every MP knows from his Meet-the-People sessions that voters seek his help not because they do not understand the reasons for the rejections of their applications or the decisions against them, but because they want to be made the exceptions to the rule, or to be able to jump a queue. They invariably believe that because of their special circumstances or because of their MP's pressure or the Minister's special connections, the rules could be bent for them. The Government's duty is to patiently but firmly convince such people that because the rules are not bent for anyone, all are better off. There is no failure of communication. The failure is in the human refusal to accept that they cannot be made exceptions to the rule.

Mr Speaker, Sir, whilst it is accepted that Ministers have explained their policies, would the Hon. Prime Minister accept that one of the fundamental principles of accountability to every citizen is that the Government explains in each particular case why it is unable to accept his application or makes a decision that may adversely affect his livelihood? For example, why his case does not come within the policy laid down by the Government?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Anson assumes that we have just started the science of government day before yesterday. The business of government has begun since the earliest tribes foregathered, and the business of representative government in Singapore has evolved since 1955 when I was first elected to this Chamber. There has been no government that has been more strenuous in its efforts in making the mass of the people understand why rules and regulations have been made and are applied fairly, equitably and impartially on everyone. The Member has been an MP for a year. He has met many of his constituents. He has written thousands of letters. Is there any particular policy he does not understand? If so, I am prepared to explain to him now all those aspects in relation to my Ministry, or he can put Questions to any Minister on what he does not understand. The policy is well understood. What he does not understand and will never understand is that the policy will not be bent.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I was not asking for the policy of the Government to be explained again and again and again. What I am saying is this: that a citizen must be told why his particular case does not fit in with the Government's policy. I have had letters from Ministries with one short sentence, "It is regretted that the application cannot be granted." Why not? As far as I could see, it came within the policy of the Government.

When the Member receives such a letter and if he genuinely and sincerely does not understand, come to this House and he will be told in great detail, "why not." I suspect he does know and I suspect his constituent also does know. And if he comes here, he will be demolished.

asked the First Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Education (a) how many firms there are in Singapore trading in gold and how many have folded up; and (b) whether there are plans to license such firms and their brokers.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there are two types of firms trading in gold. The first consists of members of the Gold Exchange of Singapore. There are 18 members of the Exchange and 17 associate members. In addition, there are a number of companies registered under the Companies Act who trade in gold not for physical deliveries but as speculative transactions. The exact number of these companies is not known but it is believed to be in the region of 40. Records in the Monetary Authority of Singapore show that three have closed down. The gold market operates in two forms - the official market which operates during normal office hours and the unofficial market which operates at night. The official market, run by members of the Gold Exchange of Singapore, handles a trading volume of about 28,000 ozs a day. The unofficial market, run mostly by non-members, handles a volume of some 400,000 ozs a night, though some of these transactions are bogus as I shall explain later. It is the unofficial market which is the subject of concern. The Registrar of Companies has no discretion to refuse registration to applications which ostensibly comply with the law. However, when it became evident that serious malpractices were taking place, a special legal device had to be resorted to. The Minister for Law, on the recommendation of the Monetary Authority of Singapore and the Attorney-General issued an order on 23rd September, 1982, designating 24 companies as "declared" companies under Section 195 of the Companies Act. This enabled investigations to be carried out on these companies. Strictly speaking, matters of this kind fall under the purview of the Commercial Crimes Division of the Police. But because of the complexity of the subject, the services of the Monetary Authority of Singapore were sought. Four Inspectors were appointed by the Minister for Law, two from the Commercial Crimes Division and two from the MAS. On 29th September, the inspectors raided the premises of the 24 companies and took possession of their books and documents. Preliminary investigations indicated that out of the 24 companies, five were already insolvent and 13 others, though not insolvent, were incurring losses. The investigations also showed that the methods of trading employed by these companies were questionable and could be detrimental to their clients' interest. The situation was further aggravated by the poor standard of internal controls in most of these companies. The inspectors are looking at specific companies in detail and reports will be put up to the Minister for Law as soon as sufficient evidence is collected to establish whether or not there is a case to wind up any of these companies. As examination of the affairs of these companies is proceeding, I can give only a brief outline of the general picture. It is a sad story. People who have plenty of money apparently believe that their money can be entrusted unconditionally to others whose credentials they have not checked. Mr Speaker, Sir, Members may not believe that Singaporeans are so trusting by nature but I assure them that the following extract from a contract between a client and a dealer is typical of business relations between them: 'The undersigned authorises Mr ABC as his agent and attorney-in-fact to buy and sell (including short sales) at any time and from time to time in his absolute discretion commodities, commodities futures and or options on margin or otherwise for the undersigned's account and risk. The undersigned hereby agrees to indemnify and hold you harmless from all costs due to losses (including legal) indebtedness and liabilities arising from all and any such dealings effected by the said Mr ABC on behalf of the undersigned which shall bind the undersigned absolutely.' Members may be interested to learn how the business is conducted. Business is conducted, as I said, at night and is usually brisk at between 11 p.m. and 3 a.m., when most honest Singaporeans are fast asleep. The reason is that the big commodity exchanges in New York and Chicago are then open on the other side of the globe. The basic trading unit is 100 ozs of gold and a client must put up between 5% and 10% of the cost of whatever number of lots he wants to speculate on. For example, for ten lots (1000 ozs), at current market prices, the deposit comes to between $40,000 and $80,000 in Singapore dollars. The usual minimum deposit is $10,000. The trading rooms have telecommunication connections (e.g. Reuters or AP-Dow Jones monitors) with the US exchanges and the current gold prices are shown on visual display units. These companies also have telex facilities connecting them with their overseas trading parties. Clients or their brokers take positions on the market - long or short. "Long" means you buy in expectation of a rise in the gold price; "short" means you sell in expectation of a fall. In neither case will you or need you ever be in possession of gold. You cover your position when you have decided you have made enough profit, or more likely, when you feel you have lost enough money for the night. Long positions are covered by sales, short by purchases. Whether you gain or lose, the broker gets his commission. Since he has discretionary powers, there is nothing to stop him from buying and selling several lots a night as this increases his commission which runs at US$40 per transaction of one lot. I have said enough to convince Members that the present position is not satisfactory. Legislation to regulate the gold exchange had been under study in the MAS and a draft bill had been prepared as long ago as two years. Regulating the market requires much more than licensing of gold traders and their brokers. This is a complicated subject and I must over-simplify. There are two ways of regulating the market - first by a regulatory body established by an Act of Parliament, second by a proper system of self-regulation. The Americans use the first method, the British, the second. Although the draft bill had been prepared a long time ago, I have hesitated in submitting it to the House. Let me explain the reasons. Market regulation is not an end in itself but a means to an end. Here the end is a flourishing gold exchange but it is far from certain that legislation will promote such an end. A market consists of private traders and its growth depends on, among other things, their enterprise and their ability to innovate and take risks as well as to maintain a high standard of reliability. Government regulation can bring about the second feature - reliability, but there is a danger that bureaucrats may strangle the market at birth. Bureaucrats the world over place a high value on order, system, uniformity and equity. They do not feel at ease in situations demanding enterprise, innovation and risk-taking. The second option, that is, proper selfregulation, appears to me a more attractive proposition, at least for a start. It will require joint action on the part of the MAS and the Gold Exchange of Singapore (GES). Such action could proceed along the following lines. First, when the examination of the 24 firms is completed, gold trading will be permitted only to those who are members of the Exchange. Those who are not members will have to apply to join the Exchange. Since traders will need access to telecommunications facilities, only accredited traders would be permitted to acquire and use telecommunications equipment for the purpose of trading in gold. Second, the GES will have to prepare a set of regulations governing trading pracices for the approval of the MAS. These regulations will ensure that the present unfair relationship in the contracts between client and trader will cease. The enforcement of these regulations will be a joint responsibility of the GES and the MAS. Third, the GES should establish institutional links between the Singapore Exchange and the New York or Chicago Exchange and other overseas exchanges. There are other matters of detail, but the above sets out the main outline of a possible solution to the present sorry state of affairs in the gold market. This solution may well be an interim one and it could well turn out that in the end legislation would be necessary. In that event, the necessary laws will be enacted with the advantage of practice and experience which we do not now have.

asked the First Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Education what is the rationale of the new policy of not recognising university qualifications achieved through part-time studies by education officers for emplacement on the graduate scale.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am replying on behalf of the First Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Education. There are many kinds of degrees from many universities which the Public Service Commission does not accept for emplacing a person in the civil service on the graduate scale. This is the prerogative of the PSC, one of whose concerns is to ensure that only qualifications which are appropriate and of suitable standard are accepted. In the case of the Education Service the primary concern of the PSC is that the degrees of persons accepted to become graduate teachers should be both relevant and appropriate for their work. The PSC recently reviewed the status of degrees obtained from external part-time studies and has decided that these degrees are no longer acceptable for appointments on the graduate scale in the Education Service. There are two reasons for this. First, part-time external degrees, almost all of which are done with the University of London External Degree Scheme, are essentially single subject degrees, for example, in Economics or Geography. On the other hand, PSC's policy of recruiting graduates for the teaching service is that they should have majored in at least two teaching subjects. This policy is to ensure that graduate teachers can be deployed to teach at least two subjects in secondary schools or Junior Colleges. With the existing graduate shortage, this policy is necessary. Secondly, part-time external degrees do not allow the student to attend lectures and tutorials, nor to interact with University Professors, tutors and fellow students. The part-time external degree course is mainly examination-oriented, even if the student is enrolled in a correspondence college. The quality of such a course must suffer when compared with a full-time degree course. For these reasons, the number of bursaries and scholarships for teachers to go to the National University of Singapore to do a degree has been increased. This year alone 160 such awards were made. At present there are over 400 teachers studying full-time for degrees at NUS. More awards will be made in the coming year.

Sir, in view of what the Hon. Minister of State has said, to cater for the Education Officers who wish to upgrade themselves with University education but who for various reasons, domestic and otherwise, could not undertake full-time University courses, would the Minister consider reintroducing acceptable part-time degree courses in our University?

This is a matter which the University itself has to consider in the light of the courses that they are already running.

Point of clarification, Sir. There are no part-time courses being run by the University.

There are part-time courses being run by the University, e.g. the MBA, or the Diploma in Business Administration.

Sir, I mean undergraduate courses. If a teacher is already a degree holder, my question is superfluous.

Sir, as I said, this is a matter for the University to consider, as it affects courses that are being run and also the standards which they want to maintain.

Sir, is there not today a serious shortage of graduate teachers in secondary schools, and how does this policy help to alleviate this problem? According to the Minister of State's reply -

Mr Sia, I wish you will give me your supplementary question.

I thought I have put my question.

It is a very long question.

How does it help to alleviate this problem? The other question that I want to ask the Minister of State is this. Supposing a teacher is willing to offer two major teaching subjects for the part-time degree course, would his Ministry consider a case like that rather than giving a blanket refusal not to recognise any degree even with merits just because the degree was obtained on a part-time basis?

Sir, there is a shortage of graduate teachers in our schools. That is true. With respect to the Member's second point, which is, if a teacher can do a degree by part-time means and do two or more teaching subjects in that course, I think this matter can be taken up as and when teachers do such a course.

Sir, does this policy not run counter to the Government's declared policy of encouraging our citizens to upgrade themselves?

Sir, there is indeed a call by the Government to members of the public to upgrade themselves through various means. But I think we should, in the case of the Education Service, consider this in the light of whether the upgrading is relevant and appropriate. A part-time external degree, for example, is appropriate for many fields of employment. But in the case of the Education Service, as I have explained, which requires that every graduate should have majored in at least two teaching subjects, it is not an appropriate degree.

Sir, I want to ask a supplementary question with vested interest. This concerns a teacher who upgraded himself or herself and got admitted into the University, but the teacher has got to forgo his or her salary. In the case of an SAF officer, if he is sent to the University, he does not have to sacrifice his salary. Why is there a discrepancy?

Sir, although this question was not directed to me, but since the SAF was raised, could I take this opportunity to reply?

Go ahead.

The point raised by the hon. Member concerning SAF scholars going to the university is but one of the very many schemes made available to assist our officers to upgrade themselves, I do not think it relevant in this particular context to compare one out of a whole range of possibilities against another scheme operated by the Ministry of Education.

Sir, as a matter of policy, is the Ministry of Education in favour of promoting part-time education at tertiary level?

Sir, where it is appropriate and where it leads to qualifications that can be accepted by the PSC, in principle, it is yes.

Sir, I have heard the reply from the Minister of State. He refers to other authorities which give me the impression that these authorities, like the PSC and the University, make the decisions. I appreciate the reasons. But what is the Ministry's view? I presume the Ministry submits its recommendations to the PSC or the University on such matters. I would like to know what is the Ministry's basic policy, because I can see the role that part-time education can play in upgrading the educational level of Singaporeans.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we have over the years supported on a case-by-case basis teachers who have done various types of courses to the PSC for consideration. Some of these cases have been accepted by the PSC and others have been rejected. As I said, the prerogative thus rests with them. But on our part we do support cases and these matters have been raised in this House before.

asked the Minister for Finance (i) how may applications have been received for grants from the Skills Development Fund and how many have been successful; (ii) how many workers have benefitted from these grants; and (iii) what is the breakdown of the categories of workers that have been upgraded.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as at 30th September 1982, 10,299 applications for training grants have been received, 8,377 or 81.3% were approved, 1,385 or 13.5% were rejected, and the remaining 537 or 5.2% were being processed. A total of 74,013 workers have benefitted from these training grants. Of the 74,013 workers, 22,931 or 31.0% were given training in technical skills, 16,673 or 22.5% in computer-related skills and 15,199 or 20.5% in supervisory and management skills. The rest are for specific skills required in the retail, hotel and catering, financial and other services.

asked the Minister for Home Affairs, from 1st January, 1981 to the latest convenient date, (a) how many complaints of gold and commodity trading wrongdoings have been received by the Police; (b) how many of such cases have been brought to court; and (c) how many trading wrongdoers have absconded with their clients' money and left the country. The Minister of State for Law and Home Affairs (Prof. S. Jayakumar) (for the Minister for Home Affairs): Mr Speaker, Sir, to-date, the Police have received nine complaints against gold and commodity futures trading companies. Two of them were received in 1981 while the rest were received this year. Five of the complaints were against brokers for trading on behalf of their clients without the clients' instruction or authorization. The Commercial Crime Division of the Police Force is carrying out exhaustive investigations into the complaints. If criminal offences are disclosed, prosecution will be instituted. Another three of the complaints were referred to the Police by the Monetary Authority of Singapore. The MAS had reason to believe that deposits placed by clients with three trading companies had been misappropriated or misused by officers of the companies. Acting on the complaints, the Police seized the books and records of the companies for examination. The three cases are still being investigated. The remaining complaint was against four foreign directors of a commodity trading company for absconding with their clients' deposits amounting to $1.28 million. Interpol has been asked to assist in tracing the four directors. Investigations are still proceeding and decisions on whether to prosecute any of the companies will be made after investigations are completed. The Government takes a serious view with regard to these complaints. As was mentioned by the First Deputy Prime Minister, apart from the investigations carried out on the nine complaints, the Member for Delta would be aware of the fact that the Minister for Law has appointed four inspectors under the Companies Act to look into the affairs of 24 gold and commodities futures trading companies. On 23rd September 1982, the books and records of the 24 companies were seized. The inspectors on investigating the companies will submit a report to the Minister for Law.

asked the Minister for Communications and Minister for Labour, for the convenience of residents of Telok Blangah and the neighbouring estates, when the Singapore Bus Service will introduce a direct bus service between the Bukit Merah Interchange and Ang Mo Kio Interchange.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Singapore Bus Service (SBS) is currently conducting a Comprehensive Bus Study. This study is reviewing the bus network for the whole island. New services will be created between places where sizeable demand can be identified. At the same time, existing services will be rationalized to minimize duplication and cut down wasteful provision. Special attention will be given to New Towns where there are no direct services at present. While every effort will be made to ensure that residents in New Towns do not have to make too many bus transfers, it is not possible to have direct bus service in every case. Demand will have to be the main consideration. The request from the hon. Member for Telok Blangah for a direct service between Telok Blangah and Ang Mo Kio New Towns will be looked into by SBS as part of the Comprehensive Bus Study.

Mr Speaker, Sir, would the Minister inform the House when this Comprehensive Bus Study will be completed?

Sir, the Comprehensive Bus Study is still being conducted by SBS with the assistance of the London Transport International as consultants. The Study is expected to be completed sometime early next year.

asked the Minister for Communications and Minister for Labour whether there are plans to improve the feeder Bus Services No. 226 and 228 which now serve residents in Neighbourhood 6 and 7 of Bedok New Town at Bedok Reservoir Road.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Services No. 226 and 228 have been improved considerably since they were first introduced, both in terms of frequency and the number of buses. Service No. 226 was first implemented in February 1981 with three buses operating at intervals of nine minutes during peak hours. Now it operates at intervals of our minutes during peak hours and nine minutes during the off-peak. Service No. 228 began operation in September 1980 with two buses operating at intervals of 11 minutes during peak hours. Now it has five buses operating at intervals of four minutes during peak hours and 10 minutes during off-peak hours. I can assure the hon. Member for Kaki Bukit that SBS monitors all services in New Towns on a regular basis. A recent survey showed Services No. 226 and 228 in Bedok to be adequate.

Mr Speaker, Sir, is the Hon. Minister aware that we have received numerous complaints that these two bus services do not keep to their frequency? The second question is that in response to queries and suggestions made by our Citizens' Consultative Committee to improve the services, particularly Service No. 228 to ply two-way, the SBS replied that it would consider implementing the two-way service if all the flats are fully occupied. But until now it has not been implemented yet. May I know whether the Minister would consider asking the SBS to carry out their promise?

Mr Speaker, Sir, on the first point raised by the Member for Kaki Bukit on Services No. 226 and 228 not keeping to their schedule, I can definitely ask SBS to look into this. With regard to his second point, I think this would probably come under the Comprehensive Bus Study that is being conducted. That is probably the reason why SBS has not been able to implement the suggested two-way service made earlier by his CCC members.

asked the Minister for National Development whether he has considered whether the policy of the Housing and Development Board to exclude certain categories of persons from applying for HDB flats and the recently announced policy of the HDB to deprive families and relatives of persons, who may be convicted of arson or vandalism, of their right to apply for or stay in HDB flats violate the articles in the Constitution which provide for equality of all citizens under the law besides being contrary to notions of justice among civilised societies.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am answering on behalf of my Minister. One of the Government's primary objectives is to ensure that Singaporeans have adequate housing. The Government's public housing programme provides flats for the lower- and middle-income majority, who cannot afford private housing. Today, 70% of the population live in HDB flats. The fact that public housing is so widely enjoyed does not mean that every citizen is entitled to a flat. Public housing is a privilege. It is not a right. The HDB has to make rules on eligibility to ensure that only those in need enjoy subsidized housing. Consequently, those whose household incomes exceed $6,000 per month and those who own private property are not eligible for public housing. Similarly, rules are made to deny certain categories of people the privilege of public housing. These rules prevent socially irresponsible persons from misusing public housing for such illegal purposes as prostitution and drug abuse. The rules also protect residents from the harmful actions of vandals and arsonists. Vandalism and arson are serious offences against the community. Those who are guilty of such offences should not be given the privilege of public housing. The HDB's eligibility and debarment rules do not violate the Constitution. It is absurd to suggest that these rules deny citizens the fundamental liberties enshrined in the Constitution or that they discriminate against citizens on g rounds of race or religion. Being responsible, the Government has to make rules to ensure that majority interests are protected against destructive minority actions.

Mr Speaker, Sir, my question was directed at the families or relatives of persons who might be convicted of arson or vandalism or other offences and who, the Housing and Development Board announced sometime ago, would be deprived of their right to continue to live in these HDB flats. Would the Minister accept that punishment is provided in the Act, Penal Code or otherwise, of persons who are convicted in the courts and there is the punishment for the offence? Where is the legislation in Singapore which says that such persons should also be deprived of his civic rights and not only him but also his family or his next-of-kin, his relatives? Would the Minister point to this legislation?

Sir, the HDB will of course consider each case of arson or vandalism carefully before deciding on appropriate action. For example, there was a recent case of a 13-year old girl who regularly urinated in a HDB lift in Telok Blangah before she was caught committing the offence by an HDB inspector. She was not of unsound mind but for some unknown reason she habitually dirtied the lift, much to the annoyance and discomfort of other residents who had to use the lift. As she was only a minor, the family was severely warned but not evicted. After the warning the offence stopped. I give the example to show that the HDB will, of course, consider the facts of every case. On the point whether there is any legislation enabling the HDB to make these rules and to debar these people, the answer is yes. It is in the Housing and Development Act. I have explained why we need to have rules to debar certain categories of people and to deny them the privilege of this housing. But the Member's original question was whether they iolate the Constitution. To that question, I have given my answer, which is, that they do not violate the Constitution.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Constitution provides that there shall be no discrimination as between one person and another on the question of any benefits that a citizen may be entitled to receive. There is, in the examples given by the Minister, discrimination between families who themselves have not been convicted before a court of law and other families. Where is the legislation for this?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not a lawyer like the Member for Anson. But, if I may repeat the last part of my answer, what I said was that it is absurd to suggest that these rules deny citizens the fundamental liberties enshrined in the Constitution or that they discriminate against citizens on grounds of race or religion. If the Member for Anson feels strongly that these rules do indeed violate the Constitution, he is free to take this matter to a court of law to let it be decided by the court.

asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether, in order to make full use of the land area in Boon Teck Constituency, there is any public housing programme for development of the large piece of circular land at Lorong 1, Toa Payoh opposite San Shan School; (b) if so, whether the Housing. and Development Board will consider building 5-room or executive flats there in order to provide a better socio-economic mix of public housing in Boon Teck Constituency; and (c) if the housing programme for that area has been finalised, whether the Minister will give details of it and indicate how the traffic flow in that part of Boon Teck Constituency will be modified.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the HDB plans to build about 400 units of 5-room and Executive flats on the piece of land at Lorong 1, Toa Payoh, which is vacant at present. The tender will be called in October 1983. To facilitate the development, part of Lorong 1 adjoining the site will be expunged and amalgamated with the vacant land. Traffic flowing from Lorong 1 to Braddell Road will be slightly diverted to the right before turning left into the slip road towards Braddell Road flyover. Traffic from Braddell Road towards Lorong 1 will flow in the opposite direction. To regulate the traffic flow, two traffic signals will be set up, one at the junction of Lorong 1 and Lorong 4, and the other at the junction of Lorong 6 and the slip road to Braddell Road. The HDB will send the Member for Boon Teck a plan of the proposed traffic circulation for his information.

asked the Minister for National Development whether the Housing and Development Board has any immediate plans to alleviate the acute parking problems for both cars and lorries in HDB estates like Ang Mo Kio.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the parking problem in Ang Mo Kio is a relatively recent one. Until two or three years ago, HDB residents have generally enjoyed adequate parking facilities. Since 1979, the number of heavy and light goods vehicles in Singapore has increased by 77%. The sharp increase of goods vehicles is the main factor swelling the demand for parking space in HDB estates. This is because more and more goods vehicles owned by businesses are driven home by employees after work and parked in HDB estates where the majority of them live. As a result, HDB residents who own their vehicles have to compete for parking space with residents who do not own the vehicles they drive. The HDB's surveys show that there are 17,400 light vehicles in Ang Mo Kio. About 71% or 12,300 are cars while the rest are light goods vehicles. The majority of goods vehicles are driven but not owned by residents. The present number of 16,200 car park lots in Ang Mo Kio would have been more than sufficient to cater for the cars had there not been so many goods vehicles. The HDB could not have anticipated the steep increase in demand for parking by goods vehicles when the plan for Ang Mo Kio was drawn up. It is not realistic for residents to expect the HDB to solve any parking problems in housing estates immediately when there is an increase in the number of vehicles. In some of the built-up estates, there may be insufficient land for additional parking lots. The only solution in such estates is to build multistorey car parks. But multi-storey car parks are very costly. To fully recover the construction and maintenance costs of such car parks, the HDB will have to increase the season parking fee from $15 to $164 per month for such car parks. Fortunately, Ang Mo Kio does not face the problem of insufficient space. The HDB will build more surface car parks there. A survey completed in October 1981 revealed an overall shortage of 1,200 car park lots. The HDB has begun construction on 1,246 off-street car park lots in various parts of Ang Mo Kio, of which 672 will be completed by the end of this year. The balance will be ready by March 1983. The HDB has also introduced 156 kerbside parking lots along Street 44 and 85 lots along Street 22. To relieve the shortage of lorry park lots, the HDB has provided 146 kerbside lots in industrial parks at Ang Mo Kio and another 19 lots along Street 12. These lots were completed between August and November 1982. Another 94 lorry park lots will be introduced in Ang Mo Kio Neighbourhood Ill by December 1982 and 15 at Industrial Park 11 by March 1983. Meanwhile, a long-term solution to the parking problems of goods vehicles is under study. The URA is conducting an island-wide survey to assess the extent of the problem. The results of this survey, together with studies conducted by an Inter-Departmental Committee comprising the URA, Traffic Police, Registry of Vehicles and Public Works Department, will form the basis for the formulation of a comprehensive island-wide parking policy.

asked the Minister for National Development whether the Housing and Development Board has any plans to increase car parking facilities in HDB estates like Radin Mas as the residents in these estates are facing acute parking problems.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the HDB is aware of the shortage of car parking lots in Radin Mas Constituency which covers Telok Blangah Neighbourhoods I and 11. Various measures have been taken to ease the parking shortage. For Neighbourhood I the HDB provided an additional 25 kerbside parking lots in April 1982. In Neighbourhood 11, 130 car parking lots and 10 lorry/bus parking lots were introduced along Telok Blangah Rise on 1st December, 1982.

asked the Minister for National Development what was the average waiting time for the allocation of rental and sale flats during the year 1981; and whether the waiting time will be reduced and, if so, what is the extent of reduction and the reasons why the reduction is possible.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in 1981, the average waiting time for 1- and 2-room rental flats was about 1 to 1 1/2" years and that for 3-room rental flats was 5 to 6 years. The average waiting time for sale flats was 3 1/2 to 4 years. The waiting period for rental flats is expected to increase to 1 1/2 to 2 years for 1-and 2-room units, and 7 to 8 years for 3-room units. On the other hand, the waiting period for sale flats is expected to shorten to 2 to 3 years after the backlog has been cleared. The Government's policy is to encourage home-ownership of flats. In line with this policy, the HDB has stopped construction of new rental flats. Applicants for rental flats will be allocated flats only when tenancies of existing flats are terminated. The waiting time for 3-room rental flats is very long because the supply of such flats is declining as more sitting tenants buy over these flats. Applicants who wish to stay in 3-room flats are encouraged to buy rather than rent them. In view of the shortage of 3-room rental flats, the HDB has closed its 3-room rental register on 9th September, 1982. The waiting period for sale flats is expected to shorten to 2 to 3 years because the HDB has accelerated its building programme and expects to complete 140,000 units of flats between 1982 and 1985. Various measures have been taken to speed up construction, including the introduction of prefabricated housing.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in estimating the reduction of waiting time in regard to the sale of flats, has the Minister of State taken into account the number of future resettlement cases that are likely to be given priority in flat allocation? And will this not lengthen the waiting time of the non-resettlement cases?

Sir, the answer is yes, the resettlement cases have been considered. But the point I want to make is that this is only possible after the present abnormal situation with a very long waiting list of 108,000 applicants has been cleared. After that has been achieved sometime in 1984-85, then we should revert back to normal. Members may recall that in the past the waiting period was as short as two years, or three years in some cases.

Sir, I wish to thank the Minister of State for his clarification. He has indicated that he anticipated a reduction to about two or three years' waiting time. I will go down to my Constituency and tell my constituents, "Don't worry about waiting because the waiting time will be reduced." But if it turns out that it can be lengthened because of resettlement cases, then I will have a difficult time explaining to my constituents. Can the Minister help us in this matter, so that when we tell them that the waiting time shall be reduced, it shall be two years, 5% either way?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I can only say that, of course, the HDB is doing its best to resolve the housing problem. The Member's question was whether this figure takes into account the resettlement cases. My answer is yes. But I cannot promise him that we will achieve everything because it depends on the rate of construction and so on. But the HDB will definitely do its best to cut down the waiting period.

Sir, is the Minister of State aware that there are some people who do not qualify for 1 - or 2-room rental flats? At the same time they do not have enough CPF funds to purchase 3-room flats, and this category of people will have to wait seven to eight years before they can get a rental flat.

Sir, this question has been dealt with previously and reported in the press. I think my Minister has clarified that, from the records, people who apply for 3-room rental flats, in fact, have an average income of about the same as those who buy 3-room flats. Some of the applicants who buy 3-room flats also do not have CPF. But it is a matter of self-discipline for these people. Many of them are hawkers and taxi drivers who fritter their money away. Our policy is really to try to encourage this group of people to save, and it is in their long-term interest to buy their own flat. Basically the Government is promoting home-owner-ship. So we have to adopt this policy. If these people are willing to save, they will be able to afford a 3-room flat.

Sir, would the Minister of State relent by allowing this category of people to rent 1- or 2-room flats?

Sir, the income ceiling for 1- and 2-room rental flats has already been raised, I think, from $500 to $800 and those applicants on the 3-room rental flats waiting list have been allowed to switch from 3-room to 1- and 2-room flats. 3.30 p.m. Pursuant to Standing Order 21 (2), Written Answers to Questions Nos. 13-22 remaining on the Order Paper are reproduced at the section 'Oral Answers to Questions Not Reached' (Cols. 313-26).

"to amend the Banking Act (Chapter 182 of the Revised Edition)", presented by the First Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Education (Dr Goh Keng Swee); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

"to authorise a sum of fifteen thousand million dollars to be raised by way of loan for the purposes of the Development Fund", recommendation of President signified; presented by Dr Goh Keng Swee; read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament and to be printed.

'to amend the Estate Duty Act (Chapter 137 of the revised Edition)", recommendation of President signified; presented by the Minister for Finance (Mr Hon Sui Sen); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

"to amend certain statutes of the Republic of Singapore", presented by the Minister of State for Law and Home Affairs (Prof. S. Jayakumar); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

"to amend the Military Manoeuvres Act (Chapter 232 of the Revised Edition)", presented by the Minister of State of Defence (Dr Yeo Ning Hong); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

3.35 p.m. Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The main objects of the Bill are to amend the definition of a "trade union" in order to set a new and positive direction for labour management relations; to amend the definition of a workman for the purpose of excluding associations of self-employed persons from the scope of the Trade Unions Act; to confer certain powers on the Registrar of Trade Unions in relation to the registration of trade unions, the auditing of union accounts and investigations under the Act; and to make provisions concerning the investment of trade union funds and the use of moneys collected by a trade union from its members for a specific purpose. The proposed amendments to the Trade Unions Act are explained in the Explanatory Statement to the Bill. I would like, however, to speak on the salient features of the Bill. Mr Speaker, Sir, the trade union movement in Singapore can be traced back to the period prior to the Second World War. There was no trade union as we know of today in Singapore in the pre-war days. But there were in existence societies in the form of trade associations, employees' or craftsmen's guilds and mutual aid organizations. However, no association which was likely to function as a trade union was allowed registration then. It was not until 1940 that the British colonial government, realizing the potential of organized labour in Singapore and in order to woo workers in support of its war efforts, introduced the Trade Unions Ordinance. This Ordinance was based on the British trade union legislation. Soon after the Ordinance came into force in 1941, war broke out and Malaya and Singapore were captured by the Japanese. With the return of British rule after the war, the Trade Unions Ordinance became operative and the first trade union was registered in October, 1946. Under the colonial rule, employers generally exploited workers to maximize their profits. In addition, there was hardly any system for resolving industrial disputes. The Communists and the pro-communists exploited the unhealthy economic and social situation then. They succeeded in infiltrating the trade union movement under the guise of protecting the fundamental rights and privileges of workers and of promoting their economic and social interests. But they did not practise what they preached, especially where promoting economic and social interests of workers was concerned. Instead, trade unions were organized to adopt a militant and confrontational approach against employers. We lost a few million man-days of work due to work stoppages during that period. Their aim was obvious. It was to damage the country's economy and sow seeds of discontent to foment the Communist revolution. The turning point came when a group of non-communist unions emerged to form the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) which opposed the Singapore Association of Trade Unions (SATU) formed by the pro-communist unions. Intense rivalry for workers' support developed between these two groups. The NTUC emerged as the eventual winner winning the majority support of organized labour. The defeat of SATU in 1963 paved the way for the development of a healthy non-communist democratic trade union movement. The trade union movement began to reorientate its attitudes towards management. Cooperation replaced confrontation and hostility. Harmonious industrial relations was one of the reasons why we succeeded in attracting foreign investment in our industrialization programme, The 1969 Seminar on Modernization of the Labour Movement organized by the NTUC brought the trade union movement to yet another plateau. The Seminar decided that trade unions should do more than just collective bargaining to improve terms and conditions of service of the workers. Trade unions should be social organizations as well, to look after the welfare and social needs of workers. Trade unions should also be committed to improving the quality of working life and national productivity in general. Mr Speaker, Sir, the industrial relations scene in the Republic over the past decade has been stable and harmonious. There was not a single strike during the past five years. This healthy situation could be attributed to the close tripartite cooperation of the workers, the employers and the Government, and the positive and co-operative attitude of unions towards management. By and large, unions no longer resort to industrial action as the means of resolving trade disputes. Unlike the trade unions of yester years, present day trade unions do not exist merely for the purpose of organizing or promoting industrial action or merely representing their members in trade disputes. In fact, their main role has been to regulate relations between workmen and employers for the purpose of promoting good industrial relations and improving the working conditions of our workmen. It is important that we continue to maintain and improve on these stabilizing and favourable factors to attract more and better investment so that the quality and life of our workers and our national economy can be further improved. While the trade union movement has kept pace with the development of the social and economic situation, the definition of a trade union in the Trade Unions Act has remained unchanged for about 40 years. Under the Trade Unions Act, a trade union means any association of workmen or employers with one or more of the following objects: '(a) the regulation of relations between workmen and employers, or between workmen and workmen or between employers and employers; or (b) the imposing of restrictive conditions on the conduct of any trade or business; or (c) the representation of either workmen or employers in trade disputes; or (d) the promotion or organization or financing of strikes or lock-outs in any trade or industry or the provision of pay or other benefits for its members during a strike or lock-out.' The assumptions on which the definition was based are British assumptions and are largely confrontational in approach. The definition is also negative. It allows workmen to form trade unions whose only objective is to promote, organize or finance strikes or other forms of industrial action. Members will no doubt know that in several western countries, this confrontational approach has stifled economic growth. We studied countries which are models of success in economic development, and looked at their trade union laws. These countries include Japan and South Korea. The underlying spirit defining trade unions under their laws is cooperation, not confrontation. We decided to amend the definition of a trade union under our laws based on the laws of those countries. Under the new definition in clause 2 of the Bill, a trade union means: 'any association or combination of workmen or employers, whether temporary or permanent, whose principal object is to regulate relations between workmen and employers for any or all of the following purposes: (a) to promote good industrial relations between workmen and employers; (b) to improve the working conditions of workmen or enhance their economic and social status; or (c) to achieve the raising of productivity for the benefit of workmen, employers and the economy of Singapore, and includes any federation of two or more trade unions.' Mr Speaker, Sir, the present definition of a trade union is no longer relevant and must be changed, given the new cooperative approach in labour-management relations today. The new definition of a trade union will enshrine in law the new directions for all trade unions to further improve labour-management relations. The present definition of a trade union also has other disadvantages. Even associations of employers which are not established for the purpose of regulating relations between workmen and employers, must be registered under the Act. Their objects are mainly to regulate relations between employers and employers, or to impose restrictive conditions in the conduct of any trade or business. There are, at present, a total of 39 such trade unions registered under the Act. These include associations such as the Kheng Keow Coffee Merchants Restaurant and Bar Owners Associations, the Singapore Firewood Merchants' Association and the Singapore Importers and Exporters Association. Sir, the registration of such associations under the Act does not serve any useful purpose. These associations can well perform their functions as societies under the Societies Act. When the new definition of a trade union comes into operation, they will cease to be trade unions. Mr Speaker, Sir, clause 2 of the Bill also amends the definition of a workman to exclude self-employed persons from the definition. The present definition of a workman includes self-employed persons such as newspaper vendors and musicians. Associations of self-employed persons are therefore required to register as trade unions under the existing Trade Unions Act so long as their objects include any one or more of the objects which I read out earlier. There are at present 11 registered trade unions of self-employed persons whose members include stevedores, lightermen, porters, musicians, newspaper vendors, shoemakers, etc. These associations are also not involved in the regulation of relations between workmen and employers because their members do not have any employers unlike those who are employed under a contract of service. Though they are registered as trade unions, they do not come within the scope of the Industrial Relations Act and therefore cannot avail themselves of the conciliation and arbitration procedures set up under that Act. Sir, as the registration of associations of self-employed persons under the Trade Unions Act does not confer any advantage on the members, it will be more appropriate for such associations to be registered under the Societies Act instead of the Trade Unions Act. The purpose of the amendment to the definition of a workman is, therefore, to exclude associations of self-employed persons from the scope of the Act. Some of these unions of self-employed persons, however, may have some members who are employees and who will continue to come under the amended definition of a workman. Officials of my Ministry have been meeting and will continue to meet the office-bearers of these unions to assist them in whatever way possible. Where the unions after reorganization do come under the ambit of the Trade Unions Act, they will be allowed to continue as trade unions. Associations of employers and self-employed persons, which will cease to be trade unions by virtue of the amendments in clause 2 of the Bill, will be given a grace period of one year in order to wind up their affairs and to settle and dispose of their funds. This is provided for in clause 16 of the Bill which is a transitional provision. Clauses 3 and 4 of the Bill empower the Registrar of Trade Unions to refuse the registration of any trade union if any of the rules is oppressive or unreasonable. Sir, a trade union need only have seven members to apply for registration under the Act. The application must be accompanied by the rules of the union. The rules of a union which are submitted at the time of the application for registration may include provisions which are unreasonable or oppressive in the sense that they impose undue burden on its members, for example, rules which are designed to protect the interests of the persons responsible for forming the union or which do not provide every member an equal right to be elected or appointed as an officer of the union. Unless the rules are subsequently amended by the general membership of the union, any person who joins the union after it has been registered will have no choice but to accept such rules. It is therefore desirable that the Registrar of Trade Unions be given powers to refuse the registration of a trade union if any of its rules are unreasonable or oppressive. The amendments in clauses 5, 6, 7 and 10 are consequential upon the amendments in clauses 3 and 4. Clause 12 of the Bill requires a trade union to obtain the consent, by secret ballot, of the majority of its members, if the union intends to use moneys collected from its members for any purpose other than the purpose for which it was collected. Sir, the rules of most, if not all, trade unions require persons who are admitted as members of the union, to pay an entrance fee and subscriptions at a monthly or other periodic intervals. However, a union may decide to raise funds for a specific purpose, for example, to purchase a building and request its members to make donations or contributions towards the fund. In such a situation, it is only fair that the union should obtain the consent of its members, who have been making contributions or donations to the fund, if the union decides to use the moneys for some other purpose because the moneys collected are not sufficient to purchase a building or the moneys are in excess to its needs. I would like to clarify that clause 12 of the Bill is not intended to apply to moneys which are collected by a union as entrance fees or subscriptions since they are not paid to the union for any specific purpose. The purpose for which such moneys are to be used or applied is a matter for the union to decide so long as the union complies with the provisions of the Trade Unions Act relating to the investment and expenditure of the trade union funds. It also does not apply to moneys which are allocated by a union for a specific purpose from the general fund of the union. Sir, under section 50 of the Trade Unions Act, unions are allowed to invest their funds in stocks and shares in such private or public companies, or in such other securities as approved by the Minister. With increasing membership since the 1960s, more and more unions are becoming affluent. Since the Seminar on Modernization of the Labour Movement in 1969, many of the unions have invested their surplus funds in union cooperatives which serve to improve the quality of life for workers. The amendment in clause 13 will allow unions more avenues to invest their funds, which will be in any investments authorized under the Trustees Act, in interest-earning deposits in banks or finance companies or in shares of co-operative societies established by any registered trade union. Sir, while the Trade Unions Act will provide more avenues for unions to invest funds, we should, on the other hand, tighten up the accountability of unions for such funds. This is to safeguard the interest of workers ultimately. The amendment in clause 14 will require a union to change its auditor after five years. This is to prevent complicity. However, in circumstances where it is advantageous to retain the same auditor and there is no danger of complicity, approval may be given by the Minister to the union to use the same auditor for more than five years. Our trade unions have generally been well managed. However, we cannot assume that this will be so at all times. The law must provide safeguards to protect the interests of members. Clause 15 of the amendment Bill will give powers to the Registrar of Trade Unions to call up accounts so that he can check the accounts, or to take action to remedy any wrongdoings quickly. The powers given to the Registrar of Trade Unions will enable him to call up an auditor for an explanation of his audit on the accounts of the trade union concerned, cause the accounts to be further audited, or where he finds it necessary, direct a trade union to change its auditor so that the accounts can be audited by other auditors to give an objective and better perspective of the financial position of a trade union. The Registrar of Trade Unions will also have powers to call up documents of the trade unions, so that he can be kept informed of union activities and to get a better understanding of the trade unions. This will help him to establish better rapport with trade unionists and employees of trade unions. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 4.00 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill which is to amend the Trade Unions Act. 1, as a trade unionist, consider the Bill as deserving of my support. To those who are not actively engaged in trade union affairs, the Bill may seem to be making significant changes to our system of industrial relations. During the 36 years that the Trade Unions Act has been in operation, the trade union movement has undergone so many changes that the Act is, in fact, out-dated. It does not accurately reflect the prevailing trade union practices. For example, trade unions in Singapore for the last decade have been responsive and co-operated with employers and the Government so as to serve the interest of members better. This responsive and cooperative spirit of the trade unions has, in no small way, contributed to the economic development of Singapore. Similarly, trade unions in Singapore have always accepted that the funds of trade unions belong to the members and must be used carefully and appropriately. For that reason, trade unions have long anticipated the provision of the Bill by prohibiting certain key officials of the unions from being trustees of the unions at the same time. In this way, the funds and assets of trade unions are protected. The Bill therefore merely makes the Act concur, though somewhat belatedly, with existing practices. My trade union colleagues and I have decided to give our support to the Bill because the changes proposed by the Bill are reasonable, necessary, and in the interest of workers who are members of trade unions. My only misgiving is that certain provisions of the Bill may, in their implementation, give rise to problems. I refer particularly to the new definition of "workman" in the Bill. In itself, the new definition is logical and reasonable. A trade union is an organization of either employers or employees. If a person is neither an employer nor an employee, he has no reason to be in a trade union. There are other forms of organizations, such as societies, which a person may join other than as an employer or as an employee. Unfortunately, if the Bill is passed, there will be groups of people who are neither employers nor employees as a result of the new definition of "workman". The people I have in mind are workers in the charcoal trade, musicians, and other similar groups of workers. They are not considered employees because the persons for whom they work choose not to view their relationship as that between employer and employee. There are many reasons for such a situation arising. One may be because of tradition. Another may be that the employer-employee relationship entails onerous obligations such as payment of contributions under the Central Provident Fund Act, While technically, these groups of people are not considered as employees, in practice, they are and they will be treated as such. Whatever may be the real reason for certain workers not to be considered as employees by those whom they work for, the new definition of "workman" in the Trade Unions (Amendment) Bill will adversely affect these workers. Under the prevailing Trade Unions Act, such groups of workers may still be formed into trade unions but under the Bill such workers would not be able to form trade unions because they are not employees. While I agree that the Trade Unions Act should draw a line between employees and other workers, I am also at the same time very much concerned that the effect of the Bill is to penalize those workers who are not employees, through circumstances beyond their control. My fear is that such workers are generally indistinguishable from employees working on a piece-rate basis. There is always a danger that unscrupulous persons may exploit the new definition of "workman" in the Trade Unions (Amendment) Bill as a loophole for anti-union activities against their workers simply by converting their employer-employee relationship into that of principals and contractors. Undoubtedly, the Minister for Labour is aware of such a danger. I trust that the Ministry of Labour will study the problem of these workers who cannot be trade union members because they are technically non-employees under the new definition of "workman" and devise effective solutions to the problem. A good number of these workers require the kind of help and protection that a trade union can give them. Other than this consideration, I am in support of the Bill before the House.

( In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to discuss the objects of the Trade Unions (Amendment) Bill. The proposed amendments are consonant with the principles and objectives of a new and modern trade union. These amendments should, therefore, receive the necessary attention and support. These amendments will enhance the already existing cooperation and mutual understanding between the workers and employers. The emphasis of this Amendment Bill is shifted from one of confrontation to one of cooperation and overall well-being. Union members will certainly agree with this change of principles for the promotion of good industrial relations, betterment of their well-being and status and the raising of productivity. These amendments also signify a positive approach for workers to improve themselves through training and for the acquisition of better skills. This would, in time, result in the upgrading of their own performance and provide the atmosphere for better wages and will benefit all parties concerned. As I said just now, these amendments open new vistas for mutual benefit and cooperation. Workers will possess this new attitude and spirit because the working environments are conducive to the acquisition of such characteristics. Under the new working climate goodwill, trust and loyalty of the workers are thus strengthened. They possess that feeling of having the same role to play in the progress achieved by their companies. Changes in the thinking of the workers would certainly bring about tangible changes in industrial relations. Such a situation will pave the way for a good industrial climate. The spirit of cooperation at the highest level will permeate through the entire infrastructure of the company. Examples of the prosperity of successful companies can be seen in Singapore now where all the employees, supervisors and management have good and cordial relations and who, in turn, furnish good feedback. In the light of my remarks, it is obvious that the introduction of the amendments is a genuine attempt to harmonize the Trade Unions Act with the real situation prevailing in our country. Nevertheless, I seek elucidation from the Minister for Labour concerning the new sections of the Amendment Bill. The amendments proposed under the new definition of a trade union in clause 2 reflect a change in the objectives of a trade union, I wish to seek clarification from the Minister for Labour as to why paragraph (d) of the definition contained in the Trade Unions Act has been deleted entirely from the Amendment Bill. Although the prevailing industrial climate is good, and the question of strike and the like has never surfaced or occurred for many years now - and hopefully strikes will not occur forever - yet I feel that paragraph (d), as contained in the Trade Unions Act, should be retained. In my opinion, paragraph (d) will act as a "shield" or "weapon" that can be used by trade unions if a need really arises. This can also provide as a bulwark to employers or individuals who deliberately obstruct trade unions from attaining their lofty ideals. I wish also to seek the assurance of the Minister for Labour that, with these amendments, managements will adopt a positive attitude and truly comprehend the objectives of trade unions and give due encouragement so that the lofty objectives under clause 2 of the Amendment Bill can be achieved, as this will benefit not only workers, trade unions but also employers, companies and the country as well. 4.12 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to oppose this Bill. But before I say any further, in view of your ruling in the last two sittings of this House, may I say that I do not have a direct personal pecuniary interest in this Bill, although my firm has acted and is still acting for workmen as defined in the Trade Unions Act or the Employment Act. May I proceed, Mr Speaker?

Yes.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Bill is entitled the "Trade Unions (Amendment) Bill". Mr Speaker, Sir, I would be happier if the Bill had been called the "Trade Unions Abolition Bill." An hon. Member: Very funny!

The Prime Minister is reported to have said not very long ago, Mr Speaker, in Suva when he was there after attending the Commonwealth Conference, that it was healthy to have the truth acknowledged. I say "amen" to that, and I think it is very healthy to have the truth acknowledged. And what is the truth as regards the trade union movement in Singapore today? Mr Speaker, Sir, only two days ago. I was talking to an old trade unionist and he said, "Mr Jeyaretnam, are there any trade unions in Singapore today?" "You tell me." This Bill, what it does, is to administer the last rites to the trade union movement, such as we have had in Singapore for the last 40 years or so. This Bill, once it becomes law, will put a stop to all genuine trade union movement in Singapore. What will continue is a mockery of the trade union movement: impostors, unions that are masquerading as trade unions in Singapore. I am aware, Mr Speaker, Sir, that I am not a trade unionist but I know enough to know that this Bill takes away all the objects and the purposes for which trade unions have fought all over the world to win for themselves. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Hon. Minister, in moving the Bill, referred to the definition in the Act and to the definition in the Bill. With your permission, Sir, I propose to go through this definition to show that what is proposed now is to take away the last bargaining rights that trade unions have in Singapore. Under the Act as it stands at the moment, the objects of a trade union are set out as: '(a) the regulation of relations between workmen and employers, or between workmen and workmen or between employers and employers; or (b) the imposing of restrictive conditions on the conduct of any trade or business; or (c) the representation of either workmen or employers in trade disputes; or (d) the promotion or organization or financing of strikes or lock-outs in any trade or industry or the provision of pay or other benefits for its members during a strike or lockout, and includes any federation of two or more trade unions.' Now all that is swept aside in one fell blow, Mr Speaker, Sir. And now, we have high-sounding objectives for the trade union movement in Singapore, and that is, to promote good industrial relations. Yes, we say "Aye" to that. The purpose of a trade union as defined in the Bill is: '(a) to promote good industrial relations between workmen and employers; (b) to improve the working conditions of workmen or enhance their economic and social status; or (c) to achieve the raising of productivity for the benefit of workmen, employers and the economy of Singapore, and includes any federation of two or more trade unions;'. Mr Speaker, Sir, the point in all this is, after this Bill comes into force, how are the trade unions in Singapore, to enforce their rights for their own members? If you look at the Act, Mr Speaker, Sir, the trade unions have a right to insist on "the imposing of restrictive conditions on the conduct of any trade or business". This is a necessary right for workmen. This is a right, perhaps they might find it necessary, to impose on the employer in the interest of health hazards or safety. If the employer is carrying on or asking them to undertake work which is hazardous or in conditions which are hazardous to their health or injurious to their safety, then trade unions as a body have a right to require that those conditions be removed, that there be restrictive conditions providing for proper safeguards, proper amenities for the workmen. That is taken out. The other thing that is taken out is "the representation of either workmen or employers in trade disputes." Well, that, Mr Speaker, Sir, is the primary object of trade unions. They are not there to hold tea parties for their workmen. They are not there to hold picnics for their workmen. Neither are they there to go into finance, into business or supermarkets, or the running of taxis. Their primary object is to represent workmen in trade disputes. Now, this new Bill takes that away. What are trade unions going to do? Hold parties, have their employers there, bow to their employers and say, "Yes, yes, yes"? Then the other object in the Act is "the promotion or organization or financing of strikes or lock-outs in any trade or industry". This, Mr Speaker, Sir, is another essential right of the trade union movement. It is the right of the workers to withhold their services from the employers, and that is the only way in which the workers can enforce their demands and their rights on the employers. Take that away from them, and they are no longer able to promote, to organize or to finance stoppage of work. What are they supposed to do? What do they do when the employer rides roughshod over them? Today, Mr Speaker, Sir, the workman is at the mercy of the employer. We have emulated, it would appear, the situation in Japan and other countries. I was reading in the papers a few days ago the account from a housewife who is an executive. She was talking about the conditions in Japan, and she said, "In Japan the employees are at the mercy of the employers." That is not me saying, Mr Speaker, Sir. It is someone who has lived in Japan. Why are we doing this to our workers in Singapore, our workers who have contributed to the economy of this country? Be it remembered, Mr Speaker, Sir, as was reported in the Economist sometime ago, that "our trade unions were the cradle of the independence movement in Singapore". Why are we doing this to our workmen? Why should we reduce them to the position of serfs and slaves? Mr Speaker, Sir, the Hon. Minister referred to the infiltration in the early days of the trade union movement - I take it, the 1940s, 1950s - by the Communists and pro-Communists who used the trade union movement, he said, for their ends. Mr Speaker, Sir, reference has been made, not once but several times, by leaders of the Government to those tumultuous days of the 1940s, 1950s and even the 1960s, and the suggestion has been made that we in the Workers' Party want to return to those old days of the 1950s and 1960s when there were wild men running about. Well, Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not know whether there were wild men running about, but I do know that there were a lot of men running about in Singapore in those days in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s. There was a new political party that had just come into existence, Mr Speaker, Sir. There was a lawyer who had just come back from England and he was leading the new party. He was the darling of the trade union movement in those days. He was the idol of the workers. And not only the workers, Mr Speaker, Sir, but the students in the University then, and all for a right cause. May I say here, Mr Speaker, Sir, that I for once cheered what was being done for the workers in Singapore. But it must be galling to the workers today. It must be adding insult to injury that the Government, which came to power on the backs of the workers in 1959, should now do this to the workers in Singapore. They who took the sword on behalf of our workers in Singapore in those days should now turn the sword on the workers themselves. I say, Mr Speaker, Sir, it is a betrayal of our working class and our workers in Singapore to whom, as I said, we owe a great debt. We owe a debt to them not only for being in the forefront of the independence movement for Singapore and which was eventually won for us by them. We also owe them a debt for our present prosperity that we now enjoy. May I say, Sir, that we in the Workers' Party are not ashamed of the role played by the workers in those days. We are not ashamed of what they did for Singapore and what they have done over the years. If anyone is ashamed, it would appear that the Government is ashamed. Mr Speaker, Sir, as I said, we owe the workers, our working class in Singapore, a debt. And let me say from this House that this debt will be repaid. We, in the Workers' Party, are committed to repaying this debt that we in Singapore owe to our workers and it shall be repaid, let me assure the workers in Singapore, whatever may happen today. It has been said, and as was reported by the Ministry of Propaganda at Times House which carried articles on the Trade Unions (Amendment) Bill, that confrontation is out, co-operation is in, and that has been the keynote of the address by the Hon. Minister and the speeches from the hon. Members who have spoken before me. But let us be realistic, Mr Speaker, Sir. You can only have co-operation between two equals. You then speak of genuine co-operation. Otherwise you speak of coercion. Where there is a stronger man and a weaker man, and the weaker man gives in to the stronger man, then there is no co-operation. There is no partnership. If you want co-operation from the workers, give them their rights and stretch out your hand to them in partnership. You do not denude them of all their rights. You do not render them impotent, powerless, and then talk of co-operation as between employers and workmen. Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill, as I said, takes away at one fell swoop the trade union movement as it has tried to exist over these years and is making a mockery. At least in Poland, Mr Speaker, Sir, the military rulers there have been honest. They have abolished and made it illegal for the independent trade union movement to function. But we go on with the sham of a trade union movement still in Singapore. Mr Speaker, Sir, I referred to the days in 1950s, 1960s, when the new party was then actively supporting, wooing the workers and came to power on the backs of the workers. Having got into power, having been put into the seat of government by the working class, not very long after, they began in the 1960s, after Singapore came out of Malaysia, a series of measures to denude the trade unions of their rights. Notable among these were the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill which came into force in 1968. Let it be said, Mr Speaker, Sir, that the Industrial Relations Act was passed by the Government after it had come to power on the backs of the workers. But in 1968, it decided things had to change. They had made enough use of the workers. They were no longer needed. So in 1968, the trade unions were excluded from including in their areas of negotiation with the employers several matters which were of vital importance to the trade union movement, matters like the employer's right of termination of the worker. The employer was given a free hand to terminate any employee regardless of whether he had worked five years or 15 years. So that we have in Singapore today the position of a worker who has worked, say, even for 20 years and all that the employer has to do is to, I have said this before, serve on him a notice saying, "We don't need your services any more. Here is four weeks' wages. Our magnanimity will only allow for four weeks' wages because the Government says so, and goodbye." That is one of the -

Point of order, Sir. I think we are referring to the Trade Unions (Amendment) Bill and not the Employment (Amendment) Bill. The hon. Member for Anson should confine himself to this Bill and not other Bills.

I am indebted to the Minister. But I am trying to confine myself to this Bill. I am talking about the Industrial Relations Act because that vitally concerns the trade union movement. It removed, from the sphere of negotiations between trade unions and the employers, these questions - questions of transfer, questions of employment, termination. These are matters on which trade unions are vitally interested. I shall not refer to the Employment Act which also came into force that year which, as in the article in the Sunday Times, provided less fringe benefits. They were being stripped of their fringe benefits. So began this systematic erosion of the trade union movement. And then was it last year, Mr Speaker, Sir, that there was an amendment again to the Trade Disputes Act which made it an offence, as I see it, for any leader of a trade union to sit down with his colleagues and talk about whether there should be a strike or not, under a definition in the Act. So they have been rendered, as I said, completely powerless now and they exist only as social bodies. And I think this was what the Hon. Minister was saying - that this was the new modernization policy for the trade unions, grand words, forgetting that in all this the workers were being systematically driven to the position of serfs in all these grand words that are being bandied about - co-operation. Mr Speaker, Sir,.there has been talk about the co-operation, as I said, between the Government and the trade unions. Someone talked about the symbiotic relationship. May I draw the attention of the Minister and the Government to the dangers of this close symbiotic relationship between the trade unions and the Government. If one looks up the definition of "symbiosis", one finds that it is specially applicable to an association where one lives within the other. And it would appear that the intention of the Government is that the trade unions should live within the Government. If that is what the Government wants, where is the independence of the trade union movement? Where is the independence? Where is the right of the workers to enter into trade disputes with the Government, which is perhaps the biggest employer of labour in Singapore? We have, as I have said before, something which is a first for Singapore (not a first of which we can be very proud, but a dubious first) where the chief executive officer of the trade union movement is also a member of the Cabinet of the Government. And we have in Singapore a number of advisers, officials in the NTUC in one form or another, all of whom come from the ruling Party and from the Government. Why is it necessary, I ask, for this Government to manacle the trade union movement in this manner? There is the danger, and it is this. This close relationship, this close identification, this swamping of the trade union movement by the Government and its officers, by its Ministers and other officials in the Government, may lead to trade union movement officers being taken to be speaking on behalf of the Government outside. And that is not desirable. Not very long ago, there was the Secretary-General of the NTUC calling for a boycott. It is a pity that he did not make it very clear that he was only speaking on behalf of the trade union movement and that he was not speaking on behalf of the Government. I do not know whether the Foreign Ministry is aware of newspaper reports that have appeared outside Singapore of a trade union official. I understand that he is an Assistant Director or Deputy Director in the NTUC in charge of industrial relations. There is a report that has appeared outside Singapore, Mr Speaker, Sir, that this gentleman with 10 others from the trade union movement in Singapore visited Israel last month to attend a dialogue/conference between Israel and Singapore. And according to the report, this officer is alleged to have told Israel that Singapore's sympathies were with Israel in the Lebanon war. This would appear to be contrary to the Foreign Ministry's statement that was issued, I think, in September of this year where the spokesman for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs deplored the massacre in Beirut. But this officer was quoted in this report to have said that Singapore's sympathies were with Israel in the war in Lebanon. And what is more damaging, Mr Speaker, Sir, is this report that he is alleged to have said - that Singapore was not really interested in the Arab countries except for their crude oil.

Mr Jeyaretnam, has this anything to do with this particular Bill?

He is out of order. It has nothing to do with trade unions. It is politics, Mr Speaker, Sir.

I am talking about the trade union movement and how it is at the moment, Mr Speaker, Sir, because of the way the trade union movement has been swamped, manacled. They are taken outside to be speaking on behalf of the Government.

We are dealing with the Trade Unions (Amendment) Bill.

The purpose is to ask that the trade union movement be freed from all this Government embrace, and that it should exist in Singapore as an independent trade union movement and be You don't speak for the Government." That is the whole point of my bringing this in, Mr Speaker, Sir. Otherwise the world outside, knowing what the situation in Singapore is, will take statements from leaders in the trade union movement as statements representing the views of the Government. Is the Government aware of this danger? This is the whole point of my bringing this in. He is reported to have said that we are not interested in Arab countries except in the oil. This could have a very damaging effect on Singapore's economy. An hon. Member: How?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I ask the Government: if it cannot see its way to allowing the trade union movement to continue to function as an independent trade union movement within Singapore, then it should state so publicly and change the Bill to call it "The Trade Unions Abolition Bill". That perhaps would reflect more accurately the explanatory statement which says: 'This Bill seeks to amend the Trade Unions Act in order to bring the Act up to date with the present conditions prevailing in Singapore'. Let us tell the workers that we do not want any more trade unions in Singapore. Let us be honest with them. Then at least they know where they stand, and at least the world will applaud us for being honest. But to continue with this sham trade union movement, all we are doing is to kill the trade union movement in Singapore. It does not do us justice, Mr Speaker, Sir. For that reason, I oppose this Bill. 4.47 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Trade Unions (Amendment) Bill. From my more than 20 years of experience and service as a trade unionist, I think the trend has changed. The days of wild-cat strikes, confrontation, fighting employers, banging tables, are out. Trade unionists in negotiating with the employers have to use their intelligence and also have to have facts and figures in the negotiation for a better collective agreement. The beauty of all this is that it is being moulded and guided by the NTUC, and the philosophy of the Government and the NTUC on the importance of tripartite cooperation, i.e. cooperation between workers, employers and the Government is the right thing. Because of tripartite cooperation, we have industrial peace, progress and prosperity in Singapore. The workers, the employers and the people of Singapore are enjoying the fruits of their labour. We have heard a lengthy talk by the Member for Anson. It is all utter rubbish. They are out of date. They are out of time, the changes that have occurred in Singapore. If we expect the Member for Anson to lead Singapore, I think the state of Singapore's economy will be less than $18-plus. The Workers' Party of Singapore - how many workers does he have in his Party? It is high time he changed the name of the Party. How many unions are in support of the Workers' Party?

Mr Speaker, Sir, on a point of order. I have been asked twice on a point of order. Is the Member speaking on the Trade Unions (Amendment) Bill or is he speaking on political parties at the moment?

I say "thank you" to the hon. Member for Anson. This is exactly what I am trying to show him -that he did not confine his talk to the Trade Unions (Amendment) Bill. But now he knows how to jump up. I will confine to trade unions. He has learnt a lesson.

Sir, I have to ask you to tell the hon. Member not to be so excited about the whole thing.

It is very interesting.

One does not have to be excited.

The Member for Anson was saying that the workers of Singapore have lost their rights, and become serfs and slaves. Do not talk nonsense. Be more intelligent. I was the General Secretary of the United Workers of Petroleum Industry for 17 years. There were no strikes at all in the oil company but negotiations, improvement of wages, improvement of conditions of service, improvement of fringe benefits, annual wage supplements from 2 1/2 months to 3 months. Do you mean to say my petroleum workers are serfs? Utter rubbish. Sir, I do not want to be lengthy and talk nonsense in this Chamber. I would urge the workers of Singapore to fully support this Trade Unions (Amendment) Bill. Then more investors will come, more jobs will be available and more money to go round. Everybody will be happy and we can enjoy life. 4.53 p.m.

Sir, I rise in support of the Bill, but before I comment directly on the Bill itself I cannot resist answering some of the serious and malicious charges made by the Member for Anson against the trade union movement in Singapore. As expected, he came up with his usual litany of criticisms against the Government and the trade unions in Singapore. He termed the trade unions in Singapore as sham trade unions. He talked about trade unions in other countries winning their rights and so forth. If he were to make comparisons between us and some of the more militant, more self-centred, more sectionally interested trade unions in the more developed countries of the world, I think we do not measure up to them. We have never said that we are that sort of a trade union movement; neither do we make apologies for the fact that we are not that type of a trade union movement. We are not a militant trade union movement for the sake of militancy. We are not trade unionists who look at issues from purely sectional trade union interest. We have often stated publicly since 1968 that we are trade unionists with a national perspective, looking at the interest of the trade union members, both from the trade union interests as well as the interest of the nation as a whole. It must be in this context that we view and we work, and we act and react on matters. What is so wrong about that? The Member for Anson is not the first, nor will he be the last, person to make such accusations against the trade union movement in Singapore. Not only today but as far back as 1968 when the trade unions supported the Employment Act, which he mentioned - with certain reservations which were subsequently removed when certain assurances were given by the Government - there were also accusations from people like him that the trade unions in Singapore were sham trade unions and that the trade union leaders sold out the trade union movement. We do not have to go into the arguments as to whether we sold out the trade union movement or the trade union members' interest. I think what has happened in the last 14 years since 1968 till now is an improvement in the standard of living of the workers of Singapore; how the trade union leaders, with courage, stood up and supported policies that are finally in the interest of the workers, in terms of getting them a secure job, good wages, good housing. Today in Singapore, not only do we say so, but people all over the world - I do not know but I am sure the Member for Anson travels a great deal - but I think all over the world people who have visited Singapore and who have read about Singapore have not only great admiration for Singapore in terms of its garden city image but also in terms of its standard of living and housing. For a small developing country, I think we have fared well. Nobody in Singapore is a serf or a slave. We in the trade unions have held our heads high, and in anything that we stand up in support of the Government we do so not because we are a stooge of the Government but because we believe in certain common goals and share in a certain common vision. Trade unions in the developed countries have all the rights. Do you know what happened in America? I think it is one of the freest countries, perhaps it is the freest country, in the world. Some two years back - I cannot quite remember the exact date - when President Reagan took office, the air traffic controllers in America went on strike. I think their union was closed down. The point I want to make is not that America has not got the freedom. I think nobody in his right mind can say that America has not got the freedom, but I think every right is in relation to the overall national interest. I think even a country like America, with its reputation of freedom, has got such rights related to the national interest. In this Bill that is proposed before this House today, there is nothing to say that trade unions cannot go on strike. In fact, the Secretary-General, after the announcement, in one of the functions publicly stated that the right to strike in Singapore for the trade unions is sacrosanct. The Ministry of Labour has assured us that the right to strike is not in any way taken away as a result of this amendment. The procedure to strike is incorporated in section 28 of the Trade Unions Act, which is not part of the provisions that are being amended. You can still go on strike. This has been said so. The Member for Anson has made some scurrilous remarks against the Straits Times for its three very good articles that it put up on these amendments. In those three articles I think it was also pointed out very clearly that, as far as the right to strike is concerned, everybody after reading the Straits Times reports will have no doubt in his mind that the right to strike for the trade unions still remains sacrosanct. There is no tampering of his right. But what is being encouraged, what is being pursued, what is being asked is that henceforth, especially after the past ten years or so when we have managed to work in cooperation and have found the fruits of this cooperation in terms of better wages, better job opportunities and so forth, we should make sure that this cooperation which is the key to our success, the key to our security not only for ourselves but for our children, is ensured for all times. I think we have a responsibility not only to the present generation of workers but to our children. And if the stability of the industrial relations in Singapore has helped to create this prosperity for Singapore - and there were certain conditions for this success - I think it is important that we, as responsible leaders whether from the Government or from the trade unions, must do whatever we can to ensure that these conditions are forever present so that we and our children can continue to live in prosperity with no sense of insecurity insofar as jobs are concerned. It is for this very ultimate, noble, national and important objective that we give our hands to the Government, and it is in that context that we support the Government. And what is so wrong about that? What is so immoral about that? How does that make us serfs and slaves? Of course, we are not equals with the Government in terms of power and strength.

It should be.

Singapore is not equal to America in terms of power and wealth resources. Singapore is never equal to America or to any big country in the world. But does it mean that cooperation cannot exist between Singapore and America and other big countries in the world? No, it is not necessary that we must be equal in all respects. Although we are not equal in terms of power and resources, we are treated with respect and dignity. I think our views, if they are cogent and valid views, will always be taken into account. It is on that basis that the Government continues to enjoy the support and the respect of the workers. On this question of sham unions, there are certain very fundamental things which indicate whether a union is a sham union or not a sham union. I have said this before: union leaders are elected by secret ballot. Workers are not compelled to join unions. They join of their own free will. So nobody is coerced into joining a union. The leaders are elected by secret ballot. It is their fundamental right to elect their leaders. Who do they want to elect, whether they are from the PAP and if some of them want to elect from the Workers Party, this is their right. And if they have exercised their right to elect Members of Parliament from the PAP and so forth, does it mean that they cannot exercise their right? The workers in Singapore have enough good sense to know that the people they elect, the people they appoint as advisors, are people who can help them to advance their interest. And what is so wrong about it? I think this is commonsense. This is perfectly legitimate. Is it not? The Member said something like the passing of this Bill is the last rite that will completely finish off all the trade unions in Singapore. I think he is being dramatic. He is not only dramatic but he is also not factual because the passing of this Bill will not change how the trade unions have behaved in the last 10 years and how they will behave in the next 10 or 20 years. But there will be this conscious effort to want to cooperate even further. We want to emulate the Japanese, not in everything but there are certain good points about the Japanese. Incidentally, the Member for Anson said that a friend of his mentioned that the Japanese worker is a slave to the employer.

There was a report in the papers.

I think my trade union friends in Japan will be most offended by that remark. I think the Japanese trade unions are amongst the strongest in the world where championing the rights of their workers are concerned. The rights and interests of the workers are well protected by the trade unions despite their very cooperative posture with their employers and the government. They are very proud of that fact. Perhaps the Mem- ber should visit some of the unions to see whether this is true, perhaps through the auspices of the National Productivity Board. He mentioned that the trade unions must exist principally for industrial matters, and he scorned at what the Minister said about the trade unions having expanded their role. In fact, he twisted what the Minister said. The Minister said that the trade unions today, after modernization, have expanded their role from being purely an industrial organization, a bargaining institution, to one that includes social objectives. And I said this at the last exchange with him over trade union matters. I said that as far as the trade unions under the NTUC are concerned, the paramount and fundamental task of the trade unions is still to advance and to protect the interests of the workers. But in addition to this fundamental right and task, there is an expanded role to create social and economic projects so that the workers not only will have the political but also the economic and social strength. In this way, the workers' influence is felt throughout Singapore, not just only in the industrial scene but also in the social and economic scene so that the trade unions will generally have carved for themselves through these activities a sphere of influence in the wider circle of Singapore's development. What is so wrong about that? Is that not progress? Nothing is static. It must change. We have made the best of the last 14 years through this cooperative effort. We want to make sure that perhaps the next 14 years will be even better than the last 14 years. Mr Speaker, Sir, can I now direct my comments on clause 12 of the Bill? Clause 12 of the Bill seeks to amend the principal Act to protect the special funds of a trade union. The proposed provision is not only necessary but also desirable to make a clear distinction between the general funds and the special funds of a trade union so as to prevent any confusion over the use of the funds to the detriment of the interest of the general membership of the trade union. However, it is necessary to distinguish between a special fund established by a trade union for a specific purpose through compulsory contributions levied on its members and a special fund set by a trade union through voluntary contributions solicited from members as well as well-wishers. Clause 12, as it is now worded, implies that the proposed procedure for sanctioning any change in the use of a special fund is applicable in all instances irrespective of whether a special fund is raised through compulsory contributions from members or through voluntary contributions from members as well as well-wishers. In the case of any fund raised through compulsory contributions from members for a specific purpose, it is not only right but also reasonable that any change in the use of such fund should not be effected except with the consent of existing members who have contributed or are contributing to it. Where a special fund is raised by a trade union through voluntary contributions from both members and well-wishers, different considerations should apply regarding the change of use of such fund. Often, such a fund is raised for an ad hoc purpose, such as to enable the union to sponsor special activities relating to the cultural, educational and recreational interests of its members. The general funds of a union may not be sufficient to finance these additional activities because of commitment to regularly recurrent items of expenditure such as administrative costs, the payment of staff salaries and the maintenance of union premises, etc. To finance the additional activities, a union may hold a flag-day, a walkathon, or any other fund-raising project. The fund so raised on a voluntary basis from among members and other persons would then enable a union to hold a special anniversary celebration, to host an international conference in Singapore, or any other worthwhile activity. More often than not, the fund so raised would be more than sufficient for the specific purpose for which it has been raised. The surplus may be a few hundred dollars or a few thousand dollars. To try to apportion such fund between contributions from union members and from non-union members would be a futile and pointless task. This fact is enough to suggest the consent of members is irrelevant to the disposal of the surplus fund. Another pertinent consideration is that in the case of a union with a membership of 10,000 or 20,000, the process of obtaining the consent of the general membership by secret ballot is likely to be irksome and time-consuming and also disruptive of work and production. The executive committee of a union, who are empowered under the constitution of the union to conduct the business and affairs of the union and whose actions and decisions are subject to a general meeting of members or a delegates' conference of the union, as the case may be, should be in the best position to decide how to dispose of any surplus of any special fund raised through voluntary contributions. The clause, as it stands, will require the change of use of any fund of a union to have the consent of general members by secret ballot irrespective of how the monies of the fund are raised. This is not practical and reasonable especially in respect of funds raised through voluntary contributions. I wonder if the Minister will consider favourably a suitable amendment to clause 12 of the Bill so as to make it more practical. 5.13 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not a trade unionist and it was not my intention to speak on this Bill. But after listening to the speech by the Member for Anson which is all a lot about nothing, I feel compelled to make a few comments in order to dispel the false notions that the hon. Member has tried to propagate by his speech. Speeches like the one he has just made and which insult the intelligence of workers in Singapore are not new to all of us. We heard them before - that there are no real trade unions in Singapore, that our workers have no right, etc. People like him belong to a different age, an archaic age of the past that preaches the course of collision to get matters done. But we know how different things are in Singapore. Sir, he displays a complete ignorance of the way industrial relations are conducted in Singapore. He ignores the fact that the basis of good industrial relations in Singapore has been the tripartite partnership between Government, management and workers. We said it time and again before, Sir, that this partnership, more than anything else, has ensured the success of our economy and assured for our workers the fruits of their labour. We had trouble-free industrial relations for many long years, and I say, let us keep it that way. Sir, the Member for Anson advocates the rights of workers. When you speak of rights, you must also talk of responsibilities, and I say our workers have their rights and they know their responsibilities, responsibilities to themselves, their families and their country. Perhaps he confuses these rights of workers with the free-for-all situation in other countries. Well, our workers are a disciplined lot and we are all proud of them for being so, and they know they have jobs while the rest of the world is wrapped in unemployment. In case he still does not know, there are three million unemployed in Britain, two million in West Germany, 2.2 million in France, half a million in Australia, and we have full employment in Singapore today. Sir, the Member for Anson claims to speak for the destiny of workers in Singapore. One thing I learnt after listening to his speech is that his destiny will not be to lead our workers. 5.15 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, my colleague, the Member for Moulmein, has appropriately defined the role of the trade unions in Singapore, and that role is to preserve, to protect and to enhance the welfare of Singapore workers. Throughout its history, organized labour in Singapore, in the form of the NTUC, has always been in tune with the aspirations of the workers; it has always been in the forefront when it came to preserving, protecting and enhancing the welfare of Singaporeans. The Member for Anson claims, in one breath, to be a champion of the workers in Singapore, but in another breath he condemns the NTUC for calling for a boycott. When a Communist union in Australia took protectionist steps against the interests of Singapore workers, the Member for Anson would have us sit idly by and allow ourselves to be trampled over. And he calls this protecting and championing the rights of Singapore workers. Let me briefly trace the record of the trade union movement in Singapore to put its role in perspective. When we became an independent nation, the role of the trade unions as a social economic force was transformed from the chaos preceding independence to that of building our own future, forging our own destiny, as co-owner of a new society and a new nation. At that time when we set about doing this task, it had first to battle the Communists and then the communalists. Our workers were not prepared to be placed under the repressive yoke of Communism or to allow chauvinists to tear our community apart and thus in the process prevent our people from achieving a better quality of life. In these struggles, the labour movement emerged triumphant together with the political leadership. That was when the NTUC was formed. When the NTUC was born, it represented a minority of organized workers in Singapore. Its leaders, however, were men of vision, who saw the interests of the workers in the context of the wider interests of the nation. Our workers quickly saw that it was the NTUC that was more successful in delivering the economic goods. Against a back-drop of poverty and mass unemployment, our workers opted for responsible trade unionism. There was an overriding need to create new jobs for the jobless and for the thousands that were added each year to the pool. Trade union members and their leaders were conscious of the need to create an attractive investment climate, for local as well as foreign investors. Had our trade union leaders uncritically echoed the slogans of their Western counterparts, as the Member for Anson would have us do, like "the right to work" and "fundamental trade union rights", and resisted the enactment of the Employment Act and the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act of 1968, the economy of Singapore would have been dealt a crippling blow and we would not have the kind of life that we lead today. No investor, either foreign or local, would have been convinced or persuaded to put his stake on Singapore soil. Fortunately for us, our workers demonstrated exemplary discipline. Parliament passed the two Bills, thus ushering in a new era of orderly and peaceful industrial relations. Investments came, new jobs were created, and soon the spectre of unemployment was laid to rest. Because our workers put long-term national interests before short-term sectional interests, we have all prospered and gained. The history of the trade union movement, as embodied in the NTUC, has been a record of responsibility. It is a movement in empathy with the aspirations of the workers of Singapore. Now in the current tight labour market, the task of trade unions lies in improving the capacity of workers for more productive work. The immediate goal is to give them higher skills suited for higher value-added industries and services, with a higher propensity for higher wages. To this end, we must consolidate the existing healthy industrial relations climate that has been brought about by the willingness of trade unions to make sacrifices during the past two decades for the wider interests of the nation. We have ascended the mountain of achievement. We have made commendable progress. We aspire to climb yet higher. The higher we climb, the more difficult is the terrain, the more hazardous are the dangers, and the harsher are the elements. To scale the next plateau of achievement, there is no place for fractious stand-offs among fellow travellers. On the contrary, we must forge a closer understanding among the climbers. Each one must support the other. A false step by any one member of the team could prove disastrous. To pursue the path that we have taken, we need new ground rules. It is in this context that we should view the proposed amendments to the Trade Unions Act. Our trade union movement has consistently acted responsibly and objectively. It has already pre-empted the amendments to section 2 of the Trade Unions Act, in seeking to promote good industrial relations, to improve the working conditions of workmen, to enhance their economic and social status, and to promote higher productivity. The proposed amendments, therefore, seek to formalize in legislation what is being practised by our trade unions. There has been a reference to the deletion from the objects of the trade unions of the right to strike and, in particular, the promotion, organization and financing of strikes. This deletion is sensible. Trade unions exist not for promoting or organizing strikes. Their central objective, as I have mentioned earlier, is to preserve, protect and enhance the welfare of workers. A strike is a course of last resort, to seek redress for injustice and inequity. It is a means to an end, not an end in itself. Trade unions will always have this recourse. We have made no amendment to section 28 of the Trade Unions Act. Trade unions will always have this course of last resort against errant employers who may need to be reminded from time to time to abide by the ground rules. The deletion of this reference to strikes does not imply that our unions will lose the right to strike. It must not be so, and it is not so. In case there is still doubt, I am sure that the Hon. Minister will be only too glad to reaffirm in this House that the right to strike for trade unions remains sacrosanct. Given the record of the trade union movement in Singapore since independence, we can be confident that any resort to strike action will be taken responsibly. Finally, I would like to seek a clarification from the Minister with respect to the proposed additional paragraph, section 14 (c), in clause 4 (a) of the Bill, which refers to the rules of unions that may be oppressive or unreasonable. I agree that the interests of workers must be protected, and it is the duty of Government to ensure that their interests are indeed protected. However, what oppressive" or "unreasonable"? What recourse would a trade union have if its members agree to accept those rules in its constitution, but these rules are deemed to be oppressive or unreasonable by the Registrar of Trade Unions? Mr Speaker, Sir, pending a clarification from the Minister, I support the Bill.

Order. I propose to take the suspension now and will take the Chair again at 6.00 p.m. Sitting accordingly suspended at 5.25 p.m. until 6.00 p.m. Sitting resumed at 6.00 p.m.

Debate resumed. Mr Jeyaretnam rose -

Under Standing Order 44, you are only entitled to speak once.

A clarification, Mr Speaker, Sir. May I clarify something? That is what I want to do.

All right. You may clarify but do not dwell on the same subject again.

I would not. It is in clarification of what I said about the right to strike, Mr Speaker, that I want to say something now. It has been claimed by the hon. Member for Moulmein, and I think by another Member, that this Bill does not take away the right to strike. But I said it did and I want to, if I may, with your permission, clarify why in my opinion it does take away the right to strike. If you look at the definition of "trade union" under the Amendment Bill, it can have one or other of these objects, and you do not find among these objects any provision for the promotion or organizing of a strike so that now, if you want to register a new trade union, the Registrar will require that the constitution or the rules of the trade union contain no provision for the organization or promotion or financing of a strike. He will say that is not one of the objects of the trade union under the Trade Unions Act. I know there is section 28. Under the existing Act section 28 talks of the right of trade unions to organize a strike. But you will come into this difficulty, Mr Speaker, Sir, because the Registrar may, after the passing of this Bill, require trade unions to remove from their objects, from their constitution, any clause which says that the trade union may promote a strike or organize or finance a strike. So you will find this object removed from the objects of the trade union set out in its constitution or in its rules. And once that is removed, then section 28 is completely of no help at all because you must look at the objects and if the objects say you cannot strike, well then, you cannot have recourse to section 28. This is why I said that this Bill removes the right to strike.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to support this Bill. I would like to make two comments. First, the new definition of "trade union" which will now have, as its principal objective, the regulation of the relations between workmen and employers to bring about, inter alia, good industrial relations between workmen and employers. In so far as this principal objective is concerned, this is nothing new. Our union leaders realize that they have the responsibility to develop a peaceful industrial relations climate so that our industries and businesses can prosper to the benefit of everyone. The type of unions which the Member for Anson is thinking of is not relevant to us. In any case, what have they achieved for their workers? They have created more unemployment, more suffering. Whereas in Singapore, in our experience, there is full employment. The quality of life of our workers has improved over the years. So over the past 20 years, we have been following this objective and we will continue to do so. Our union leaders have endeavoured to work closely with employers and managements to ensure industrial peace, which is so necessary for our economic progress and prosperity. They realize the crucial need to develop effective teamwork between employers and their workmen and between workmen themselves, as this will help to raise productivity and bring about a better quality of life for our people. Coming to the question of the right to strike, I think the amendments have not taken this away. Being a lawyer, I should think that the Member for Anson should have carefully read the Trade Unions Act. Part IV of the Act provides for this. He is deliberately trying to confuse the workers on what they have a right to do. He is trying to mislead them. The right to strike still remains and can be one of the objectives of a union. The Bill does not take this away. I would also like to touch on one other point which he made about a statement made by an NTUC official in Israel. This is a case of misreporting by the Jerusalem Post and later taken up by the international press. This officer has written a letter to the Jerusalem Post to put the position right. The Member for Anson should have checked the facts before mentioning them. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Minister for Culture (Encik Wan Hussin Zoohri) (In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, allow me to put forward my views concerning the amendments in this Bill which is being debated now. In my view, there are three reasons why it is necessary that the Trade Unions (Amendment) Bill should be introduced. Firstly, this amendment is appropriate and timely because it can be harmonized with the industrial climate which we are now experiencing. Secondly, in my opinion, this amendment if approved can ensure higher productivity which by itself will bring prosperity to our workers in particular and our country in general. Thirdly, I wish to add that with this amendment it goes without saying that trade unions will be protected from the activities of undesirable elements in the trade unions whose intention is to ride on the backs of the trade unions for their own ends. From the viewpoint of the spirit and content of this Bill, let not only a handful of trade unionists be conscious of this Bill, but it must be understood and practised by every member of a trade union. We are confident that the trade unions which have thus far achieved a high level of education and attained sophistication over the years will accept this amendment naturally and rationally. Earlier, the Hon. Minister who proposed the amendment said that we have offered our impression in regard to the changes that are taking place in South Korea and Japan. I feel that this view is not a 'yes-man' view, but because what has happened in those countries have brought benefits to the countries concerned as well as to their people. We are also informed that the Prime Minister of our neighbouring country has himself propounded the view that they are looking to the East, or Look East Policy. This is not because the Malaysian Government loves eastern countries but because it has been found that what have been implemented by those countries are correct, rational, and in keeping with changing times. I will not add to what has already been said by my colleagues in this Chamber, but I would like to give my views on a number of points raised by the Member for Anson. He has stated that in fact in Singapore there is no trade union in the real sense of the word. I admire his dexterity in twisting facts or in diverting attention from the real objectives and the noble aspirations of the people as embodied in the amendment. The real fact which he himself chooses not to see is that in Singapore there exists trade unions a la Singapore. The truth is that in Singapore there exist trade unions which have the characteristics of a Singapore identity. The fact is that in Singapore the workers and employers have realized that the old-type of unions are no longer relevant to the new era in Singapore. That is the real fact which the Member for Anson refuses to see and ignores. His views remind us that he is still clouded by the colonial mentality because the pattern of our trade unions was the result of what we inherited from British trade unions. And if we continue along that model, we will end up like the trade unions in Great Britain which have brought misery upon the workers there. Is the Member for Anson prepared to go back in time? Is not the Member for Anson aware of the proverbial Malay saying, "At every flood the sand is altered"? (The laws and regulations change with every new setup). A changing situation enables us to analyse the new situation. It is only in the concept of change and continuity that we will be able to vouch for our progress and stability. He also stated that Singapore workers are in a state of serfdom or considered as slaves. He forgets that the serfs that he referred to are enjoying a high standard of living, as evidenced by the fact that many of them own flats. Figures from the HDB show that year after year more and more workers from the lower income group own flats, and the percentage will rise from 70% to 80% in the years to come. Do not these workers, whom the Member considers as slaves, own properties, since they own flats? Does the Member for Anson not realize this fact? We say here and now that he deliberately does not want to see the facts staring in his face. Let me remind him that during a previous debate the Minister for Trade and Industry tabled concrete data to show that the level of prosperity of the people of Singapore has risen over the years. And the Member for Anson concluded his speech by charging that the amendment is the last rites for trade unionism in Singapore.-- However, unfortunately he does not want to accept the fact that as a result of this amendment a new lease of life, a new movement, will be given to the trade unions and that the workers will be able to face the challenges of the future. I see that he is a person who is certainly wise in matters of this nature, but I cannot reconcile myself that his wisdom falls far short of the arguments that he put forward in this debate. 6.16 p.m.

Sir, I would like to thank the various Members of Parliament, except the Member for Anson, for their support of this Bill. I do not intend to dwell at length on the subject as I have already explained in detail earlier and various Members have also touched on the various points mentioned in the Bill. I only want to answer a few points raised by Members, points where clarifications are being sought. The Member for West Coast is concerned about certain types of workers who are neither employees nor employers. As I have explained in my earlier speech, a trade union of self-employed persons has no recourse to conciliation and arbitration procedures laid down in the Industrial Relations Act because their negotiations with their principals concern mainly business issues. There is no employee-employer relationship. If self-employed persons are allowed to continue their association as trade unions, it will only give them a false sense of protection under the Trade Unions Act. There are altogether 11 existing trade unions of workmen which are likely to be affected by the change of the definition of workman. The members of these 11 trade unions, such as newspaper distributors, shoemakers, rattan workers, will not fall within the meaning of the revised definition of workman as they do not work under a contract of service. These trade unions, therefore, should not continue to be registered as trade unions. However, as the Member for West Coast has pointed out earlier, there are certain categories of such workers who, in practice, are workers. They are employees but they work under a certain arrangement that they do not come under this definition. My Ministry, as I mentioned earlier, is aware of this problem and has conducted a number of discussions with the office-bearers of these unions with a view to help them sort out this problem. If the members of these unions intend to continue their association as a society under the Societies Act, if they do not come under the new definition, the Ministry of Labour will give every assistance, where necessary, to help them in their application for registration as a society and in the transfer of assets to the new organization. For example, the musicians. Some musicians are actually employees, as in the case of the Singapore Symphony Orchestra. By the new definition, these musicians will be eligible to form unions and continue their association as a trade union. But there are other musicians who are self-employed. They would not come under the new definition. There is also another class of musicians who are on contract with night club managers or other operators. They are neither employees nor employers. We are in the process of sorting this out with these musicians to help them define whether or not they come under this new definition. In fact, since the introduction of this Bill the officials from my Ministry have met the officials of these 11 trade unions to find out ways and means to assist them. Besides these 11 trade unions of workmen, there are also 39 trade unions of employers who are affected by the change of definition of trade union. My officials have also met the officials of these unions, and they have been assured of the assistance of my Ministry. All those trade unions whose status will be affected by the change of definition of trade union and the definition of workman will be given a grace period of one year to wind up their affairs. Perhaps I should now turn to the points raised by a number of Members on the right of trade unions to strike. The hon. Member for Anson is full of surprises. He surprised me when he opposed the Bill totally while at the same time he submitted an amendment to this Amendment Bill. I thought he was going to support this Bill wholeheartedly with only an amendment to that particular clause 6. But now that he is opposing the Bill, I wonder whether he still wants to proceed with the amendment. Does it mean that if he proceeds with the amendment, he will support the Bill? I would like to explain, especially to the hon. Member for Anson, that removing the objective regarding strike and so on, from the definition of trade unions, does not mean that the rights are removed. It is only the objective that we are referring to. The right to strike, as he has explained himself, is contained in section 28 of the Trade Unions Act. It also appears in the Industrial Relations Act and in the Trade Disputes Act. The right to strike is the fundamental right of the unions. But that is not the objective - to strike. To strike is only a means to achieve the objective. He himself agrees that the new definition is all right with him. He has no qualms. He would buy them. The new definition of trade union means any association of workmen or employers whose principal object is to promote good industrial relations; to improve the working conditions of workmen or enhance their economic and social status; to achieve the raising of productivity for the benefit of workers. And yet he tells us that he objects to this Bill. To strike is the right of the unions, but to strike is not an end in itself. It is a means to achieve the end. I would like to assure Members for Kebun Baru, Geylang Serai and Pasir Panjang that the new definition of trade union, although emphasising the promotion of good industrial relations, does not in any way curtail trade unions the right to strike. The Member for Anson quoted an incident last year, before he was in this House, when I introduced an amendment to the Trade Disputes Act. He must have just simply read what was reported in the press. Obviously he did not read the Bill or the Act himself. My advice to him is that it is dangerous just to rely on the press report alone. The only amendment that I introduced last year was to replace the word "strike" in the Trade Disputes Act with the word "industrial action". That was what the amendment was all about. If he is again serious in proposing the amendment to clause 6 of this Bill, to leave out "Minister" and "High Court by Originating Motion", then, if approved, i.e. if we accept his amendment, it would make this Act totally incomprehensible. I will explain to him later on. As I have mentioned, the right to strike is there. It is the fundamental right of the trade unions. However, we have here the proper machinery in resolving disputes through collective bargaining, conciliation and arbitration. No effort must be spared to use this machinery. Should a trade union of workmen find it necessary to resort to strike or any industrial action to resolve a dispute, it must go through proper procedures to get the majority consent of the members concerned, by a secret ballot as provided in the Trade Unions Act and other necessary measures under any written law. I come to the point raised by the Member for Moulmein. I have heard him carefully. His arguments have merits. He is concerned about the practicability of going back to all members to get their consent for a certain type of fund collected through voluntary donations not only from members of a union but also from members of the public, in which case members of the union could also be regarded as members of the public. He has clarified a point that if funds were to be raised from members of a union through its rules and regulations in the form of a levy for a specific use, then if the union wants to change this use it must go back to the union members. I think he agrees that this is necessary and reasonable. We have no quarrel with that point. But he also raised the point about raising funds through a walkathon or other functions for a specific purpose, like organizing a conference or holding a productivity campaign, where the surplus fund or the balance, a marginal amount, could be channelled back to the general fund for other uses, then it may not be practical to refer back to all those members who have made contributions. I think he has a point there. If the Member for Moulmein could come up with suitable amendments to clause 12 at the Committee stage, I am prepared to consider them favourably. Question put: Ayes, 33; Noes, 1 ; Abstentions, 1. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Mr Ong Teng Cheong]. Bill considered in Committee. 6.34 p.m.

Clauses 1 to 5 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Sir, I beg to move, In page 3, line 19, to leave out "Minister" and insert "High Court by Originating Motion". The object of this amendment, Sir, is to give the trade union the right to appeal, from either the refusal of the Registrar of Trade Unions or from an order made by him under section 15 or his refusal to register a new rule, to the High Court rather than the Minister. This decision of the Registrar may involve fundamental rights of the workers to form themselves into a trade union or a combination of workmen. It is a right which they possess and, if that right is to be refused, then it is only proper that the refusal should be tested in a court of law to see whether the decision of the Registrar is in accordance with the law as enacted by Parliament. What the Bill does is to give this power to the Minister. I do not know what the machinery will be when an appeal is made to the Minister. But when there is an appeal made to the High Court, then the machinery is that both parties are before the court and the arguments are presented by either party in the presence of the other, and the right of reply is given. This is such a fundamental right in my opinion, Mr Speaker, Sir, that it should be vested in the courts. As I have said previously, speaking at other times, there is a tendency of this Government to invest Ministers, who are after all the executives, with all the powers and to take away the rights of the courts to pronounce on the legality or illegality of decisions made by the executive. This, in my respectful view, Mr Speaker, Sir, is all wrong. One of the important functions of the courts in a democratic society, as we proclaim to be - we hear this from the Government leaders that we are a democratic society - is to see that the executive functions within and under the law, and they can only do this if the citizen who is aggrieved by any decision of the executive is allowed to take it to the court and to challenge that. But what happens here is that you go from one member of the executive to another member of the executive. You go from the Registrar, who works under the Minister, to the Minister. So the citizen does not have this right of taking his grievance to the court. The Minister in reply said that he would attempt to show that my amendment would make the Bill incomprehensible. I realize what he was referring to because, if this amendment is allowed, then there will have to be a consequential amendment to section 18. That is purely a consequential amendment. It means changing the word "Minister" there to the "High Court".

Sir, any decision made by the Registrar under clause 6 must be an administrative decision, and any appeal to the Minister from the Registrar's decision and the consequent decision made by the Minister himself must also be an administrative decision. If the hon. Member for Anson says that some fundamental legal rights are involved in these decisions, there is nothing in this Act or in the amendment to prevent anybody from going to the law courts. They can still go to the law courts because there is nothing here which says that the Minister's decision shall be final. Even if the provision says that the Minister's decision shall be final, if any fundamental rights are infringed, any member of the public can still go to the law court for the purpose of asserting those rights. So nothing is really taken away.

Sir, looking objectively at the proposed amendment by the Member for Anson, from the trade union's point of view, I have my doubts whether the proposed amendment would really serve to help a trade union in a dispute with the Registrar of Trade Unions over his decisions. I am fully aware that it is always possible for a Registrar of Trade Unions to be unreasonable and to place obstacles in the way of trade unions in their normal functions. It is necessary, therefore, for the Trade Unions Act to provide for a competent authority for appeals against whatever unreasonable decisions made by the Registrar to be overruled. This higher authority can be the Minister in charge, or the High Court as the Member for Anson now proposes. Let us take the case of the High Court. Such course of redress will sometimes entail great expense in legal costs, and may put some unions in great pecuniary distress as a result of legal costs, where the legal disputes are long and protracted. The Registrar of Trade Unions will always be at an advantage because he has the vast financial resources of the Government at his beck and call, legal personnel in the employ of the Government will, on behalf of the Registrar, do battle with the legal counsel of any union in any court of law. Win or lose, the union will always be the poorer for it. To some people it may give great personal satisfaction to be able to haul the Registrar or, for that matter, other public officials, before a court of law. But such satisfaction is no consolation to a union unable to make the Registrar reconsider a disputed decision. At the same time, great legal costs are incurred. It would appear that the reference of any dispute to the High Court is not necessarily the best or most desirable course of action for any union to take. On the other hand, referring an appeal to the Minister may and can be most productive and useful in terms of result where a union has cogent and valid grounds for making an appeal. The Minister, in exercising his judgement and decision over any appeal, has not only to do justice to an appeal but also to ensure that justice is seen by the public to have been done to the appeal. If a decision of the Minister is patently biased and unfair, then not only he but the Government also will suffer the wrath of the people, and such wrath will be reflected in the voting at every General Election. This is the best check against any possible unfair decision of the Registrar of Trade Unions against trade unions who pursue valid and legitimate objectives. In considering an appeal against any decision of the Registrar, the Minister will consider not so much the technical aspect of the appeal but the substantial merit of the appeal. For this reason, I do not think I can support the amendment moved by the Member for Anson. It is implicit in such amendment that the Minister, who is elected by the people of Singapore and is responsible to this House, is not competent and conscientious enough to deal with appeals from the decisions of the Registrar of Trade Unions. It is also important to note, and as pointed out by the Member for Kuo Chuan, that even though the Minister's decision is final after the appeal has been considered by him, there is nothing to prevent any aggrieved person to take up proceedings in court against his decision by way of certiorari, or other remedies under the law. The amendment as proposed by the Member for Anson, if adopted, is likely only to benefit some legal practitioners in terms of case or publicity as their expertise and services will be required by any person, persons or trade unions that are aggrieved by the decision of the Registrar of Trade Unions. 6.45 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not intend to repeat what has been said. The decision of the Registrar may be to refuse registration of a trade union, to withdraw or cancel the registration of a trade union, or to refuse to register a new rule, or to alter any of the rules of a trade union. I would only like to say that matters of registration, withdrawal or cancellation of a trade union or the rules of a trade union essentially hinge on the question of policy and executive action. Hence, they can only be exercised by an executive body and not by the court. Accordingly, such decisions can only be made by a Minister responsible to Parliament and the electorate. As the Member for Kuo Chuan has explained, although an appeal on such matters is made to the Minister and his decision is final, it does not debar proceedings in court. I am afraid the Member for Anson is not serious when he proposed his amendment to the Amendment Bill. As I have mentioned just now, even if we were to approve this amendment, a lot of amendments to other provisions of the principal Act would have to be made. But he did not suggest them and, as it stands, I do not see how we can approve or even consider this proposed amendment. Question put: Ayes, 1 ; Noes, 36; Abstentions, 1. Amendment negatived. Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 7 to 9 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 10 -

There is a printing error in page 5, line 19. The word "respectivey" should read "respectively". This will be done. Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 12 -

Mr Speaker, Sir, in view of the Minister's favourable response to my point, I would like to get your consent and the general assent of hon. Members present to move an amendment to this clause without the requisite notice.

I give my consent. Is it the pleasure of hon. Members that the amendment be moved? Hon. Members indicated assent.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 6, lines 4 and 5, to leave out "by a trade union from its members for a specific purpose", and insert "for a specific purpose by a trade union from its members, which the members were liable to pay in accordance with its rules,". I do not need to advance the reasons for making this amendment, as I have already stated the reasons during my speech at the Second Reading of the Bill. Amendment agreed to. Clause 12 as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 13 to 16 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported with an amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 6.50 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." As a port happily situated at the junction of many international shipping routes, Singapore has traditionally relied on trade as a major source of economic activity. Whether channelling goods from one country to another, or exporting from its own manufacturing plants, Singapore has looked to the ready availability of overseas markets for its economic well-being. Seeking out these markets and developing them has been and must be the responsibility of Singapore traders. That is not to say that the Government has no role to play. But as well as having the drive to export, our traders must first know their overseas markets, have the products desired by such markets and ensure that they are of the right quality and price. Only then can the Government step in to help in export promotion. Currently, it is the Department of Trade which looks after trade development activities and represents our interest where necessary in regional and international trade organizations. The Department also supervises domestic trade and provides trade documentation services. However, the development of our trade, that is, identifying and exploiting overseas export markets, is perhaps the most important concern of the Department. In a world beset by economic uncertainties and changing market opportunities, the Trade Department, like our exporters, needs to continually adjust itself rapidly to changing circumstances in our export markets if its services are to be of value to our businessmen. That it has done so successfully in the past is evidenced by the fact that our exports at nearly twice our GNP in 1981 are among the highest in the world. However, it has been suggested by many of our manufacturers and traders that to enable our trade programmes to be carried out with even greater flexibility there would be some advantage in establishing a Trade Development Board which could better assist our manufacturers, especially local manufacturers, in their search for overseas markets. This Bill accordingly seeks to establish the Board with wide powers. The move to establish the Board is timely in view of the current world recession that has adversely affected our markets abroad. The Board should help to maintain our place in the world trading community by strengthening our export drive in overseas markets. The Board will be performing function similar to those of export promotion agencies in countries such as Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and Hong Kong. These agencies have had success in boosting the exports of manufacturers in their respective countries. It is hoped that our Board will be no less effective. I would like now to describe briefly the more important sections of the Bill. Part III of the Bill outlines the main functions and powers of the Board. These include the following:-

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of this Bill as it will ensure Singapore's continued economic development. But I would like to seek a point of clarification from the Hon. Minister, and that is on clause 6 (c) which provides the Board the power to engage in any commercial activity, etc. I wish to seek assurance from the Hon. Minister that should the Board decide to engage in any commercial activity, such activities do not impose an unfair advantage or competition over similar private enterprises.

Sir, I rise in support of the Bill. Amongst the functions of the proposed Trade Development Board is to represent Singapore internationally in respect of matters relating to trade. One of the most gripping matters affecting trade today must surely be the problem of trade protectionism. The concept of global free trade remains an ideal far from reality as governments, battered by economic recession and beleaguered by unemployment, struggle for political survival by putting up trade barriers in order to protect their own industries. The recent General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) Conference in Geneva concluded with only a vague written affirmation of free trade but, if anything, it looks as if the declaration was made only because the Conference went into extra time and the protagonists in Geneva were tired of all the oratory and paperwork. For no sooner had the dust settled down, after a long week of bickering when the nicety that accompanies the churning out of declarations at such conferences all but disappeared, when protectionistic reprisals started again. The December 1st issue of the Straits Times carried on the front page a story entitled "US and Western Europe closer to trade war". The following day, the same paper carried another story on its front page, this time entitled "Signs of trade war with Asia", a story highlighting another move by the European Economic Community to restrict imports of certain products from four East Asian countries. Trade protectionism is not new to Singapore. Our textile and garment manufacturers face all kinds of quotas and tariffs; we have seen barriers put up against our television sets. We have seen how the Australian and British Governments, unable to run their own airlines efficiently, sought to exclude our own national airline from lucrative routes with their ICAP policy. More recently, we have seen how the West Germans stooped down to the most crass of methods when their civil aviation authorities resorted to harassing passengers of Singapore Airlines, and all because our own national airline could provide a better service at a lower price than theirs. Perhaps the West Germans could take a cue from the Japanese in the art of conducting a trade war. Somewhere along the little grey area that borders between hypocrisy and what we now know as diplomacy, the Japanese have no shame in telling the world how open their market is to foreigners. The Japanese sell their products everywhere, but try selling something to the Japanese. Any businessman from Singapore to Timbuctoo will tell you that when you want to sell something in the Japanese market you come across all kinds of restrictions and regulations and a system of product distribution so complex that the foreign product is retailed at 10 times, or even more, its price in most other countries. The Japanese have devised in their own charming oriental way some fancy footwork around a myriad of complex regulations to exclude foreign products from their own domestic market. The Japanese sell their cars everywhere but when you try to sell a car to Japan you face all kinds of regulations that compel you to make so many modifications that even a Jaguar would become a Suzuki. And all this in the name of "Welcome to Japan". It is like putting a "welcome" sign on your front gate, but the path leading to the door of the house is so filled with booby traps that your visitor arrives mangled, battered, bruised and mutters "never again"! But if the Japanese have succeeded in some imaginative tiptoeing around rules and regulations without tripping so far, the French must take the cake for crudeness in the conduct of their trade war. Three different forms of protectionistic action taken by the French in the past months have been so crude that I feel that they have become more dense in the head than ever. The French deficiency in clear thinking started not long ago when they started to put quotas on imported low-priced watches from Hong Kong in order to protect its own watch industry. This strategy would have seemed less consequential had it not been for the fact that a large watch manufacturer in Hong Kong -larger than anything they have in France -used component parts imported from its subsidiary in France. Now this Hong Kong manufacturer, like all others, cannot sell their watches to France. The result is lower output of watches in Hong Kong, less import of parts from its own French subsidiary and lost jobs in France. Then the French decided to take on video tape-recorders, and the next piece of drama unfolded in a little town called Poitiers in France. French importers of video tape-recorders learned last month that their Government had suddenly announced that all imports had to go through the customs post at Poitiers. Nobody thought much about it for a day or two until it was discovered that Poitiers was a little town, tucked some 350 kilometres away from the nearest port and the customs post there was manned by only one person, who had to face the prospect of processing the import of some 80,000 units of video tape-recorders a month. The result has been a slow-down in the imports of video tape-recorders and the French Government has scored one more in the art of devising a very blatant non-tariff trade barrier. As if that was not enough, the French Government decided almost at the same time to make the French language compulsory in all business dealings with their country. And that means all documents have to be in French and all products sold to France have to be labelled in French. We all know the story of one of our manufacturers who had to laboriously unpack cartons of umbrellas and re-label all of them by hand, all because of a missing letter to suit the French requirements. And today anybody selling anything to France must provide all catalogues, contracts, order forms, delivery orders, invoices, banking documents, guarantee certificates and insurance certificates in French. I wonder how the French would feel if we tell them that in order to sell to us in future, they would have to spell Cartier, Christian Dior and Lanvin in Tamil. After all, Tamil is one of our official languages. But, Sir, I know it is not in our style to retaliate in such a manner. The watch manufacturers in Hong Kong have organized a boycott of French brandy in protest, but unfortunately it is a tactic that cannot work too well considering that brandy happens to be the No. 1 drink of the Chinese. But the action of the French Government must lead one to question their sincerity in committing themselves to the principles of free trade. Only last May, the French Minister for External Trade visited us and he signed an Economic and Industrial Co-operation Agreement, which included a "most-favoured nation" clause. But I wonder if today, in the light of the latest French action and that Agreement notwithstanding, whether or not trade relations between France and Singapore have not deteriorated. And even while the 88 members of GATT were negotiating in Geneva, according to the International Herald Tribune, another French Minister threatened to conduct "a counter offensive in the economic war". Sir, some politicians have a way of making dubious and illogical propositions in times of stress. To win votes, they say that it is better to pay more for cars built in your own country so that jobs can be kept. The saga of that little factory in France making watch components proves how wrong they can be. And if the French Government is now taking such delight at its own apparent ingenuity in devising so many non-tariff barriers, I am sure the 100 people who lost their jobs in this watch component factory are not finding it so funny. It is that same ingenious thinking that has no doubt led to the inhibition of free enterprise, to the nationalization of large enterprises and banks, to 2.2 million unemployed and to a much devalued currency whose one unit cannot even buy a bottle of coca cola today. When I was a student, my first lesson in economics was on the principles of comparative advantage and the division of labour. In simplistic terms, it means that one should specialize in what one does best and not to try to do everything. In that manner, everyone else would benefit, for each would then have a share of what the others were better at doing. Somehow, somewhere along the line, some people have forgotten the tragic lessons of the Great Depression and the War that eventually led to the thinking behind the formation of GATT, an organization whose very purpose is to prevent protectionist reprisals that would bring about the collapse of world trade. The Trade Development Board that would be set up with the passage of this Bill would have the unenvious task of convincing many others to adhere to the principles of GATT and free trade, to which Singapore is so deeply committed. Sir, I support the Bill.

May I indicate to hon. Members that the Moment of Interruption is at 8 o'clock, and we still have one Bill, two Motions and the Adjournment Motion to deal with. 7.12 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I shall attempt to be brief on this and may I assure the Minister that I am not opposing the Bill, although I do not suppose it would worry him very much even if I said I did. I support the Bill in principle and the objects in the Bill. All I want to do is to draw attention of this House to one or two matters in this Bill. First of all, Mr Speaker, Sir, on clause 4 of the Bill which deals with the constitution of the Board and the First Schedule to the Act. Again, may I say that this is no reflection whatsoever on the Minister who is going to be in charge of this. But it seems to me that the whole power is vested in the Minister. He appoints the Chairman, the Deputy Chairman and all the other members. And if you look at the constitution in the First Schedule, the Minister is again given the power not only to appoint but to remove any member or the Chairman or the Deputy Chairman without assigning any reason therefor. Mr Speaker, Sir, we do have in this country of ours Chambers of Commerce and other business houses. I wonder whether the Minister, in appointing members to this Board, will have consultation with these Chambers of Commerce. Does he not think that perhaps they should have some representation on the Board or should be consulted, because after all I am sure they are also interested in promoting trade overseas, and this Board which is to come into being is to help in this promotion of trade overseas. So I wonder whether the Minister would let this House know how he proposes to go about appointing the members to this Board. The other thing is clause 6 (c). This deals with the powers of the Board, Sir, and the hon. Member for Moulmein has referred to clause 6 (c) and, that is, that the Board shall have power to engage in any commercial activity.

I did not say that.

You did not? Sorry, I beg your pardon, a Member of this House. I see by clause 13 of the Bill that Parliament shall provide moneys for the functions of the Board and the Minister will make grants-in-aid out of these moneys provided by Parliament. My observation is this: should not Parliament be asked first, before the Board commits taxpayers' moneys in any commercial activity embarked upon by the Board? I have proposed an amendment to this Bill and I shall at the appropriate time move that amendment. The other provision is clause 11. Again, clause 11 gives the Board the power to impose "a levy on the export of such goods as may be specified in the order." Well, a levy is nonetheless a tax. Call it what you like - charge, levy, cess - it is a tax. Sir, it has long been recognized that it is for Parliament to levy any tax on its citizens, and it is only with Parliament's consent that any levy may be imposed on any citizens or companies in the country. I would ask the Minister to consider, when the Bill is in the Committee stage, whether he would accept the amendment that I have proposed which is, that the Board shall again seek the approval of Parliament before imposing any levy on goods. Finally, Sir, on the question of the transfer of employees. It does say that those who are in the employment of the Department of Trade "shall be transferred to the service of the Board on terms not less favourable than those enjoyed by them immediately prior to their transfer." Then it goes on to say that, until such time as regulations are made by the Board, the regulations of the Government shall apply. Sir, you are probably aware that Government servants enjoy a protection under the Constitution as to their tenure of service. What I would like to know from the Minister is, will this tenure be protected for Government servants if they are transferred into the employment of the Trade Development Board? 7.21 p.m.

Sir, I think there are quite a number of questions for me to answer. First of all, the Member for Toa Payoh asked whether there will be any undue advantage or unfair competition in the question of commercial activity that is contemplated. I can really assure him that as the Trade Development Board has been set up at the instigation of manufacturers and traders, there will be no such undue advantage or unfair competition. I think the intention is that traders, manufacturers, shippers and so on, will be among those who will be appointed to the Board. There will be between five and nine members appointed by the Minister. So I think they will be heavily represented on the Board. I think we can be sure that they will not set up any commercial activity which will compete with the private trading companies which are already in existence. A lot of the revenue which the Trade Development Board expects will come, I hope, from levies imposed on industries or exporters. For example, the Timber Industry Board is going to cease to exist and the levy which is now being imposed under the Timber Industry Board Act will, in future, be levied by the Trade Development Board. Therefore, I think those who are paying the levy will also, I am sure, insist upon the Trade Development Board not providing unfair competition to themselves. The Member for Alexandra has a very long discourse on trade protectionism, and I enjoyed his very able speech on this. The Trade Development Board will have to ace the difficulties which international. protectionistic tendencies pose, and I hope hey will be successful in doing so. No doubt they will display more initiative and imagination than perhaps Government servants. I hope that it will not be long before there is a restoration of the economic principles of comparative advantage and international division of labour. The Member for Anson has got quite a number of questions. He objected, first of all, to the Minister's powers. This is part of the general philosophy, I think, which is evident in all our statutory organizations. The Minister in charge of the Act is endowed with powers which are common to all these Acts. I think it would not be possible for changes to be made to this without going against the whole philosophy which has guided us in the drafting of the other Acts. This is perhaps in standard form. So I would suggest that this particular objection cannot be agreed to in this particular Bill without our having to consider its effect also on other statutory boards. So far as I am concerned, the Ministers have exercised their discretion under the various Acts which have constituted the statutory boards and they have performed their duties satisfactorily, and therefore I see no reason why we should make any change. Then on the appointment of members which is made by the Minister, he asked whether the Chambers of Commerce will be consulted. I have explained in my Second Reading speech that the Board was, in fact, formed at the instigation of manufacturers and traders, and I certainly think that their interests will be considered. They will be very heavily represented among the nine members, or even among the three, the Chairman, the Deputy Chairman and the Chief Executive Officer. The purpose of the Board really is to ensure that it is effective, and I think we can make use of all available expertise in Singapore. The Member for Anson has also touched on the commercial activity, under clause 6 (c). Such activity may perhaps be necessary when the Board operates its activities of expansion in overseas markets. For example, at a trade exhibition and so on, it may be that an exhibitor may want to show his goods in conjunction with other manufacturers and would want to authorize the Trade Development Board's repre- sentative there to sell his goods for him if there was any demand. In such cases the Board's representative will have to engage in some commercial activity. So I would assume that there should be some enabling power to allow him to do this. Whether there is a need to form a company or enter into a joint venture is a matter which should be considered in each particular case, and I think a reference to Parliament would be inappropriate because it is really cumbersome. There is a need for flexibility in the operation of the Board, and the purpose of forming the Board is to make it more flexible than a Government department. So I feel that if there is a need to refer to Parliament, as he has suggested, then it might be better not to have a Trade Development Board and allow the Trade Department to carry on its activities. He also asked the question whether Parliament should be asked before moneys are provided. The normal procedure is for grants and other provision to be made in the Budget every year, and since there is a debate during the Budget session which will touch upon whether the contribution or grant to the Trade Development Board will be appropriate, I feel there is no need for a specific application to be made. If there is a need for supplementary votes, that will also come up to Parliament. The other question which he touched on is that since a levy is a tax, should it not also come to Parliament? Not all taxes come to Parliament. For example, the Minister's power, which of course he does not like but which the Minister still possesses, for taxing imports and exports can be exercised without coming to Parliament. I would suggest that in the case of a levy by the Trade Development Board, which is a levy on its own members (and which no doubt Members strenuously resisted), it will be fully considered by the Trade Development Board members, who are also manufacturers and traders, and therefore there is no need really for the matter to come up to Parliament. If, in fact, it does pass through the Trade Development Board, I doubt there would be very extravagant levies by the Board on its own members. I would assume that, if anything, the Minister will be asked to provide more moneys from the Government budget than we can expect to get from levies on the exporters or traders. The final question he asked was whether, in the transfer of the Trade Department's employees to the Trade Development Board, they will be protected. The answer to this is that the procedure for transfer of staff to statutory boards is very well-known. They are usually given an option to transfer to the Board and on terms no less favourable than they enjoy in the civil service. If they do not consider these terms to be really as favourable, if their views differ from that of the Board, then they are at liberty not to transfer to the Board. They can be re-absorbed to other Government positions.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Mr Hon Sui Sen]. Bill considered in Committee. 7.33 p.m.

Clauses 1 to 5 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 6 -

Sir, I beg to move, In page 4, line 24, at end, to add - "(2) Before engaging in any commercial activity under the provisions of paragraph (c) of subsection (1), the Board shall obtain the approval of Parliament by resolution upon a motion presented to Parliament by the Minister setting out the commercial activity the Board intends to engage upon.". Sir, I have, in my speech on the Second Reading of the Bill, set out why I think this is necessary. I am not merely referring to the organizing of exhibitions overseas but this amendment gives the Board power to commit funds in the formation and participation of companies and entering into joint ventures with others. It is in that function that the Board should come to Parliament first, and get its approval before it undertakes any business ventures. Amendment negatived. Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 7 to 10 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 11 -

Sir, I beg to move, In page 6, lines 15 and 16, to leave out "the Minister" and insert "Parliament". As I explained in my speech at the Second Reading of the Bill, it is for Parliament and not for any other body, whether it be the Minister or anyone else, to levy or impose taxes. I would ask that this right of Parliament alone be preserved in this Act. Amendment negatived. Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 12 to 36 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. First and Second Schedules ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

7.40 p.m. The Minister of State for Law and Home Affairs (Prof. S. Jayakumar): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move the Motion* standing in the name of the Minister for Law as it appears on the Order Paper. *The Motion reads as follows: That, pursuant to Article 41 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, the salary of the Speaker shall be $17,400 per month ($9,500 on part-time appointment) with effect from 1st November, 1982. Sir, Article 41 of the Constitution provides, inter alia, that the Speaker shall be paid such salary as Parliament may from time to time determine. Following the revision of the consolidated salaries of the Ministers in 1981, Parliament determined, by a resolution of this House passed on 15th June 1981, that the salary of the Speaker should be $12,000 per month with effect from 1st April 1981. Consequent on the consolidation of the salaries for the civil service, by incorporation of the National Wages Council allowances from 1978 to 1981 into the salary scales with effect from 1st November 1982, the salaries of the Ministers were also similarly revised and rounded up to $16,700 per month with effect from the same date. To maintain relativities and following past practice, the salary of the Speaker should also be revised. The present salary of the Speaker of $12,000 plus the 1978 to 1981 NWC allowances of $5,323.14 total $17,323.14 per month. It is therefore proposed to revise and round up the salary of the Speaker to $17,400 per month with effect from 1st November 1982. Members are aware that the present Speaker has drawn only slightly more than half the salary determined for that office. He will continue to be paid in the same proportion to the full salary - hence my Motion that he be paid $9,500 per month for so long as he does not devote his full time to the office of Speaker. Sir, I beg to move. Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That, pursuant to Article 41 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, the salary of the Speaker shall be $17,400 per month ($9,500 on part-time appointment) with effect from 1st November, 1982.

The Minister of State for Law and Home Affairs (Prof. S. Jayakumar): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move the Motion* standing in the name of the Minister for Law as it appears on the Order Paper. *The Motion reads as follows: That, pursuant to Article 42 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, the allowance of the Deputy Speaker shall be $1,500 per month with effect from 1st November, 1982. Sir, clause (3) of Article 42 of the Constitution provides, inter alia, that the Deputy Speaker shall be paid such salary or allowance as Parliament may from time to time determine. With the revision of the salary of the Speaker last year, the allowance of the Deputy Speaker was revised from $500 per month to $1,000 per month with effect from 1st April 1981. Now that the salary of the Speaker is to be revised with effect from 1st November 1982, it is proposed that the allowance of the Deputy Speaker be also revised to $1,500 per month with effect from the same date. Sir, I beg to move. Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That, pursuant to Article 42 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, the allowance of the Deputy Speaker shall be $1,500 per month with effect from 1st November, 1982.

Resolved, "That at its rising today Parliament do stand adjourned to a date to be fixed." - (Mr Teh Cheang Wan).

Sir, I beg to move, That Parliament do now adjourn. Question proposed.

7.45 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have asked for or claimed this right to raise this matter on the Motion for the Adjournment because of the dissatisfaction that has been felt outside about the recent increases in the prices of HDB flats that were announced by the Minister for National Development on 23rd September, 1982, at a press conference. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister, in announcing the price increases, quoted what, he said, were the costs to the Board in the construction of the flats. He also said that these prices at which the flats were being sold were lower than the costs to the Board itself, i.e. the prices paid by the Board for the construction of the flats. And he said that if this trend were to continue the, Board would become bankrupt. I do not think any Singapore citizen wants the Board to become bankrupt. But what I would commend to the Minister is that the Housing and Development Board is a statutory board, set up and financed by taxpayers. Money is provided by Parliament for the construction of low-cost housing for the citizens. And being a public body charged with the responsibility of providing low-cost housing, I would commend to the Minister that the Board must be fully accountable to the public, to the taxpayers, for the prices that the Board charges for its flats. As I have said, the Minister has quoted figures, in his press conference, of the construction of the flats, but he has not, in his conference with the press, explained how these figures had been arrived at. What was the costing system that was adopted by the Board before these figures were arrived at? Mr Speaker, Sir, we fortunately have the Report of the Auditor-General on the Board's accounts and I will read from the Report of the Auditor-General on the 1981 accounts. This is paragraph 2 of his Report on the audit of the accounts. He says: 'The Board's existing accounting system does not provide for the costing of flats built by the Board and the leasing of land. There are no detailed records to show the unit cost of the flats and land. The Board has agreed to adopt a suitable costing system as soon as possible for the purpose of more informative reporting.' Further down, he also refers to the policy of the Board in not showing certain items in the Income and Expenditure Accounts. In his Notes to the 1980/81 Accounts again, he says: 'The Board is unable to follow the desirable method of deducting the cost of flats and land sold from the long-term assets in the balance sheet because the existing accounting system does not provide for the costing of flats and land.' So we have this report by the Auditor-General that the accounts do not show or cannot show the unit cost of the flats. He says: "There are no detailed records to show the unit cost of the flats and land." And he says, in paragraph 9 of his Report for the previous year, that as far back as 1978 consultants had recommended changes to the accounting system for implementation by the Board. I have asked questions, since I came into Parliament, as to when the Board was going to implement the recommendations made by the Auditor-General to its accounting system so that the accounts, as he said, reflected the true cost of the flats and land. The Auditor-General said this was necessary "for the purpose of more informative reporting." On 27th July at the Sitting of Parliament, the Minister said that the Board was consulting with several firms and would soon be appointing somebody to advise on the implementation of the Auditor-General's recommendations. I asked another question at this Sitting of Parliament. This was a Question for Written Answer. I have not got the answer with me at the moment, but I have looked at it shortly before I came here. It was delivered to my office. From there, what I gather is that no appointment has as yet been made but that the Board's officials are discussing the matter with a number of other accounting firms of international repute and, in consultation with the Auditor-General, will take steps to implement the Auditor-General's recommendations. As I have said, the Auditor-General said that this recommendation was made in 1978. We are now at the end of 1982. Why is the Board dragging its feet over this? If there are to be any increases in the prices of flats, should not the Board present these accounts as suggested by the Auditor-General? And then go to the public, come to this House and say, "Look, these are the accounts prepared to show the true cost of the flats. We cannot go on building these flats and selling them at the prices that we are selling now, and that we need to increase the prices." As I have said, no one let alone just this House, would want the Board to go bankrupt in its operations. We need the Board. But the Board has to justify its increases. In the press conference, the Minister talked to the press about most of the citizens or the flat buyers being able to afford the prices that are being charged. That is not the criterion. May I say to the Minister that, as a public body, the test should be how much does it cost the Board to build these flats, the cost arrived at after a true costing, and then the charges that ought to be made to the members of the public for the flats. The criterion is not that because the buyer is able to afford it, the Board can increase the price. That would be a completely wrong criterion to apply for the Board. There is the other aspect of it, and that is this. I would commend to the Minister that before any prices are increased, he should first come to this House and present the statement and the accounts, so that they may be debated upon before prices are increased. I would ask the Minister whether he would consider now, quite seriously - this is a very serious suggestion on my part - that the prices that had been announced be suspended. They can take effect from 1st October but be suspended until the Board has prepared the accounts for these flats which are under construction and for which the new prices are to apply. I am not talking about the flats that have already been built but the flats that are to be built and for which the new prices are to be charged. That should not take the Board a long time. Would the Minister consider suspending the implementation of the increases until a true costing to the Board of the flats, block by block, is prepared, so that this House and the public know the true cost of these flats to the Board?. 7.58 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this question of accounting has been heard in this House on many occasions, and I have repeatedly explained to the House the accounting system of the HDB. In fact, the HDB has discussed with the Auditor-General on the best way of changing the accounting system. The hon. Member for Anson must understand that the HDB houses more than 70% of the population and it has more than 400,000 accounts with the people who are living in HDB flats. The HDB also has another 100,000-plus accounts of people who have applied for HDB flats. So altogether there are more than half a million accounts. The HDB spends almost half the Government's Development Estimates, as it stands. I think, by the middle of the year the HDB has borrowed from the Government more than $5,000 million, an outstanding loan. So the accounts is extremely complicating. It is not a simple account like some political party with $18.

47. I read in the newspapers that, even then, it has found it very confusing. Just imagine, even with such a small sum, the hon. Member's party finds it very confusing. So the hon. Member should be the first one to understand the problem. When you are involved with more than half a million accounts involving millions of dollars, the accounting cannot be switched in a few months or to switch from one accounting system to another accounting system without creating a confusion. The HDB is a going concern and it is handling millions of dollars every day. For construction alone, the HDB is spending something like $5 million or $6 million every working day, just paying to the contractors for construction. And receiving instalments from several hundred thousand people who are living in HDB flats and who have outstanding loans to pay, and receiving service and conservancy charges from more than 400,000 account holders. We have explained this to the Auditor-General and, in fact, he has been keeping a very close touch with the HDB, talking and discussing with the HDB on the best way to switch the accounting system. So the HDB is not trying to avoid switching the accounting system. This is the reason why the HDB has been taking such a long time to switch the accounting system. In fact, the Auditor-General himself is not able to say, "All right, I recommend that you select this particular accounting firm to switch the accounting system." In fact, we both are constantly in touch and constantly discussing, and we hope that we are able to arrive at the best way of changing the accounting system because it is very complicated. And if the accounting system goes wrong, I think it can create a very serious havoc for everybody. I am not sure whether the hon. Member is really serious in suggesting that the selling price of HDB flats should be its true cost. What is the cost of the HDB flats? Is it the tender price of the flats that the HDB pays to the contractor and also the land cost, and charge the people? If the hon. Member is seriously suggesting that, then perhaps we carry out a pilot scheme for the people in Anson to pay the full cost. So that anybody in Anson who gets a new HDB flat, he pays the full cost. I am quite serious. And if the hon. Member for Anson is seriously suggesting that, then the HDB will charge the actual construction cost because the HDB calls tenders to build flats. There is nothing to hide. We have to pay the building contractor, so much, the sanitary contractor, so much, and the piling contractor, so much, etc. So there is nothing to hide about the construction cost. And also plus the land cost. Land cost, it is very simple. What is the market price of land? Let us take a piece of land which can build 100 flats, and we get the URA to offer it for sale. How many people are prepared to pay for the land to build 100 flats? If the people say they are prepared to pay $5 million, it means that the land cost for each flat is $50,000. Then we add the construction cost, maybe another $30,000 or $40,000. So each unit of 3-room flat to be sold to the people of Anson is $80,000, instead of what we sell in a New Town a 3-room improved flat for $21,000. So for Anson, to follow the hon. Member for Anson's suggestion, it is $80,000. If he is serious, I am prepared to carry out a pilot scheme for his constituents in Anson. They pay the full cost as suggested by the Member. And we can get public accountants to be nominated by the hon. Member, whatever name he suggests, to check or audit the accounts to say, "This is the actual construction cost paid by the HDB." As for the land cost, do not argue. The URA Sale of Sites can establish the actual land cost. So the full cost is the construction cost plus the land cost. The HDB will pay for the architect's fees, interest and other things. That will be a subsidy. The constituents in Anson will pay the full cost as suggested by their own MP. So I hope the hon. Member will consider seriously before we carry out a pilot scheme. Some hon. Members: He is serious!

If he is serious, we will carry out a pilot scheme along these lines. These are the points raised by the hon. Member for Anson. But I would like to add that the Government policy on housing has always been to charge the selling price that the people can afford. This has always been the policy of the Government. But since the hon. Member for Anson has suggested a different system, and as I have said earlier, maybe we can carry out an experiment for Anson Constituency along the lines suggested by him. On the selling price, the Government has announced on the 23rd September that the selling price of HDB flats would be increased by only 5%. For the future years, i.e. up to the year 1984, the increase in selling price of HDB flats would not be more than 7 1/2 % for the years 1983 and 1984. When we say "1984", it means that this price will be carried up to June 1985. Also, the increase in price for the 5-room flats would not be more than 10% for the next two years. That was the announcement on the increase in prices made by the Government. By making this decision to peg the increase in the selling price, the Government is, in fact, taking a great risk because nobody really knows what will be the inflation cost in 1984 and 1985. But the Government has actually committed itself to the selling price up to the middle of 1985. The policy of the Government has always been to price the flats within the means of the people. From our calculation of the incomes of the people, I think the selling price which Government has fixed up to mid-1985 is well within the means of all the applicants. The idea is that the CPF members need only pay the instalments for their flats from their CPF contributions. They do not have to dig into their savings. The monthly instalment payments for the loan which they borrow from the HDB for buying the flats will not affect their take-home pay. I wish to assure the House that the Government has, in fact, repeatedly ensured that the price of HDB flats will always be within the means of the people. Let us look at the lower income group who cannot even buy HDB flats and who are living in 1 -room rental flats. I would like to say that the monthly rental for the 1 -room improved flat was fixed at $30 in 1966. This is for rental plus service and conservancy charges. Today, 16 years later, this monthly rental is $44, including service and conservancy charges; an increase of only 40% over 16 years. It is common knowledge that the increase in rental for private housing in the last 16 years is easily five to 10 times. Sixteen years ago, perhaps the rental for a terrace house was only $200 or $300. Everybody knows that, including the hon. Member for Anson. Today, how much is the rental for a terrace house? It is 10 times, or at least five to 10 times. Maybe $1,500 to $3,000, depending on the locality. But for public housing, the rental has changed very little. In fact, the Government keeps on losing money because the rental includes service and conservancy charges, which means that the Government is taking care of cleansing work, repairs, redecorations, planting trees, etc. In fact, the $44 rental collected from tenants of 1-room flats by the Government is not even sufficient to pay for the maintenance cost. The rental has been increased by $14 in the last 16 years, from $30 to $44. As for the selling price of HDB flats, take for example a 3-room improved flat in a New Town which was sold for $7,800. I always take the smallest flat that the lower income people are buying. Today, the selling price of this 3-room improved flat is $21,000, an increase of 1.7 times. If we compare this to private housing, a terrace house or a semi-detached house, in 1968 and today, the difference in price is easily five to 10 times. Again, as you can see, the increase in the rental and selling price of HDB flats has remained extremely moderate, which means that it involves a continuous subsidy from the Government. But the Government policy on public housing has always been to ensure that it is within the means of our people. I think Singapore can proudly claim that perhaps we are the only country, whether developed or developing, to have housed more than 70% of our population. No other country is able to achieve this. The PAP Government can be proud of this record in the field of public housing. [Applause] Hon. Members: Hear, hear! 8.15 p.m.

The time allowed for the debate has expired. I adjourn the House pursuant to the Standing Order. Adjourned accordingly at Fifteen minutes past Eight o'clock p.m. to a date to be fixed.

asked the Minister for Finance if he will say in relation to the payroll tax (i) how much has been collected since the tax was first imposed; (ii) who is administering the monies; (iii) to what use the monies have been put; and (iv) whether any accounts have been published of the monies collected by way of the tax.

Payroll tax collections commenced in the Financial Year 1965, and up to the end of Financial Year 1981 have totalled $819.1 million. Like all revenues not collected for specific purposes, the monies collected by the Comptroller of Income Tax were paid into the Consolidated Fund. The Fund is administered by the Treasury, and is used for all the purposes authorised by the Constitution or by written law. Accounts of the payroll tax monies collected as of other general revenues are published in the Accountant-General's Annual Financial Statement.

asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether he will now give an assurance that Mr Ho Juan Thai will be allowed to return to Singapore if he so wishes and that he will not be arrested on his arrival for interrogation by I.S.D. officers and subsequently detained under the Internal Security Act.

The Government cannot give the assurance requested by the Member for Anson as it is tantamount to a request that Mr Ho Juan Thai be given immunity from the law. The Internal Security Act (ISA) is part of the law of the land and there is prima facie evidence on what Mr Ho has said and done to justify his possible detention under the ISA. Mr Ho Juan Thai, the defeated Workers' Party (WP) candidate in the 1976 General Elections, had played up gut issues on Chinese language, education and culture during his election campaign. At four different rallies he accused the government of "killing Chinese education" when he knew that the government's policy had all along been to give equal treatment to all four language streams and to encourage bi-lingualism. During a WP rally at Fullerton Square on 14 December 1976, he said in Mandarin: "And before they tried to kill Chinese education, they put forward the idea that English is very important in this industrial society. We do not deny the importance of the English language. But this should not be done at the expense of the destruction of Chinese language . . . . . ." Again, during a WP rally at Marsiling Road Car Park on 19 December 1976, he said in Mandarin: "What is PAP's another achievement in education? Their achievement is to kill Chinese education." He was out to incite the Chinese-speaking population and to stir up communal and chauvinistic emotions. Mr Ho knew the well-established and clearly stated policy of the government that action would be taken against those who exploit sensitive issues of race, language and religion that would pose a security threat in our multi-racial society. He also knew from the 1972 and 1968 elections that such action would be taken by the government after the elections. Thus on Polling Night, on his own initiative he immediately went into hiding. On Polling Night, 23 December 1976 when the police went to find him at Block 48A, 123X Dorset Road, Singapore 8, the address he had registered as his place of residence, they could not find him there. The police then looked for him at several other places he frequented including No 64D Nanyang Avenue. But he had managed to flee. The police wanted Mr Ho to answer questions relating to the speeches he had made, and to determine whether he was acting alone or in concert with more dangerous and violent men. In Mr Ho's letter which was published in the Straits Times on 14 October 1982, he said that he had championed the cause of Mr Tan Chay Wa, a communist terrorist tried and convicted for possession of a firearm and seven rounds of ammunition by the Malaysian courts, in his appeal for reprieve against the death sentence. Mr Tan was a district committee member of the underground Malayan National Liberation Front, a satellite organisation of the Communist Party of Malaya. This is an indication of Mr Ho's political sympathies and possibly, also his affiliations. No 64D Nanyang Avenue was one of Mr Ho's hideouts. It was next to No 58D Nanyang Avenue which was the official address of Mr Tan Chay Wa. Mr Tan was then wanted for arrest for involvement in Malayan National Liberation Front activities. The police subsequently ascertained that Mr Ho frequently went to Mr Tan's house. When he escaped from the police who went to look for him, he sought refuge in Mr Tan's house for two days. He subsequently telephoned a member of Mr Tan's family through a pre-arranged code to indicate that he had escaped safely. The above facts require clarification through the interrogation of Mr Ho. His agitation for the release of Mr Tan Chay Wa is not purely out of gratitude for harbouring him and aiding his escape. It is another matter to be clarified by interrogation of Mr Ho. As in other cases like the SPLO, the Workers' Party may have provided Mr Ho with the cover for things less innocent than providing constitutional opposition.

asked the Minister for Communications and Minister for Labour for what reasons the Registry of Vehicles refuses to issue new vocational licences for yellow top taxis or to permit the transfer of existing licences from their present holders to others.

Taxi vocational licences are still being issued by the Registry of Vehicles (ROV) to successful applicants to drive any licensed taxi including yellow-top taxis. A taxi licence is issued to a person to enable him to earn a living by operating a taxi. Taxi licences are made non-transferable to prevent trading in such licences. It would not be proper for holders of these licences to make large windfall gains out of them. In Hong Kong, where taxi licences are transferable, a taxi licence can fetch a high transfer value of more than HK$250,000 in the market. It is the practice of the Hong Kong Government to issue taxi licences by tender to the highest bidders. The bidding price for a taxi licence is more than HK$200,000 each. Thus taxi licences are owned by the few who can afford to put up large sums of money and who in turn must charge high rental. I do not think our taxi drivers would like to have such a system nor should we allow it.

asked the Minister for National Development what further progress has been made by the Housing and Development Board since the 27th of July 1982 to change its accounting system following the recommendation of the Auditor-General.

Since July 1982, the Housing and Development Board has held discussions with a number of reputable international accounting firms and has short-listed three firms to carry out preliminary studies. The firms have recently completed their surveys. They will be submitting specific proposals shortly for the implementation of a fully integrated and computerised financial and cost accounting system for the HDB. In all these arrangements, the HDB is working in close consultation with the Auditor-General.

asked the Minister of Defence and Second Minister for Health whether he will ask the proper authority under the Enlistment Act to ensure that those who are not called up for national service soon after they become liable for service are informed whether they will be called up and, if they will be called up, the likely date of their call up so as not to prejudice their chances of finding employment.

There are four national service intakes each year, at the end of March, June, September and December. MINDEF's policy is to enlist national service registrants at the first opportunity after they reach 18 years of age. They are given one to two month's notice. Generally, all male citizens, other than those who have been given notice of exemption from national service on medical grounds, can expect to be called up by 18 years 3 months. But there are two exceptions: the first comprises those who are deferred from national service for approved reasons like full-time study, temporary medical unfitness, and temporary financial hardship. They are enlisted soon after expiry of their deferment period. The second group comprises those who are deliberately called up later, so that there may be a spread of quality and quantity of national servicemen among the four intakes. They are normally enlisted before they turn 19. Any registrant who is liable for full-time national service but has not received his enlistment notice by 19, can always contact the Central Manpower Base to find out whether he will be called up. MINDEF has always been willing to inform the registrant, and even his prospective employer, his national service status. This arrangement has been working well. There is no compelling reason to change it. The Central Manpower Base cannot state definitely before a registrant attains 19 years of age, that he will not be enlisted for full-time national service. This is because the numbers required for each national service intake cannot be finalised many months in advance. Applications for deferment often come late. Some registrants want to repeat school examinations. Others who were medically fit have become unfit. The list goes on. For the same reason, the Central Manpower Base cannot specify the call-up date for each registrant, other than observe the general rule of enlisting as many as possible at the first opportunity after they turn 18, and of giving one to two month's notice of enlistment.

asked the Acting Minister for Social Affairs (a) following the recent call made by the Minister of State for Law and Home Affairs to Hindus to contribute to a central fund for the building of temples and other projects, will the Ministry of Social Affairs consider making arrangements for donations to be collected through the Central Provident Fund Board, as is done in the case of contributions made by Muslims for the building of mosques, which will be more convenient for those wishing to contribute rather than through the Post Office Savings Bank; and (b) whether accounts have been published of all monies collected through the Central Provident Fund Board from Muslims for the construction of mosques and of other monies collected directly by the Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura for various purposes and, if not, why not.

Contributions from Muslims towards the Mosque Building Fund are collected through the Central Provident Fund Board pursuant to the provisions of sections 75A to 75F of the Administration of Muslim Law Act (Chapter 42) and the Administration of Muslim Law (Mosque Building Fund) Rules, 1975. When these provisions were introduced, it was clearly intended that the concession was a special one and will not be a precedent for other religious or ethnic groups. It would be no less convenient for Hindus to make their regular contributions to the Hindu Endowments Board through the POSB. Leaders of the Hindu community are confident that they can raise the money they need for their projects by means of voluntary contributions made through the POSB. It will not be necessary therefore to introduce legislation to allow these donations to be collected through the Central Provident Fund Board. (b) The Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura does publish the accounts of all monies collected through the Central Provident Fund Board from Muslims for the construction of mosques and of monies collected for other purposes. These accounts are included in the Annual Report of the Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura. The report for the year 1981 has already been published and presented to Parliament. Appendix I

asked the Minister for National Development whether he is aware that sick residents who need to be carried by stretchers cannot get into the Housing and Development Board lifts and that patients on wheel-chairs have difficulties getting into such lifts; and whether the HDB has any plan to provide bigger lifts in the future.

HDB apartment blocks are fitted with standard 8-passenger lifts. These lifts can comfortably accommodate the wheel-chair. To accommodate stretchers, it will be necessary to install 26-passenger capacity lifts in apartment blocks. The initial outlay as well as the operating cost of these lifts will be substantially higher. In addition, lift shafts and motor-rooms will have to be enlarged if existing lifts are to be replaced. Unlike hospitals, the low frequency of use of stretchers in HDB blocks does not justify the high costs of installing and operating lifts big enough to accommodate them.

asked the Minister for National Development whether the committee that has been set up to look into the parking problems in housing estates has come out with any solution with regard to the parking of big vehicles like lorries, trailers and school buses in Housing and Development Board estates.

The objectives of the Highway Committee, which has representatives from the Traffic Police, Public Works Department, Registry of Vehicles and Urban Redevelopment Authority, are to study parking problems on an island-wide basis and to recommend a comprehensive parking policy. The URA is currently conducting a survey in consultation with the Highway Committee to determine the nature and extent of the parking problem for lorries, school buses and other heavy vehicles. The survey will be completed in March 1983. Pending the formulation of long term solutions to the problem and as an interim measure, the Highway Committee has recommended that overnight parking be allowed along public roads in HDB estates which have low vehicular flow. The URA will implement a pilot scheme for kerbside night parking of heavy vehicles in the Old Kallang Estate. The scheme will be effected in January 1983. If successful, it will be extended to other housing estates.

asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is the total number of lifts in the various Housing and Development Board estates; (b) how many complaints the HDB has received about lifts breaking down in each of the last five years; (c) what is the average lifespan of a lift; and (d) whether the HDB has plans to replace those lifts that break down frequently.

The total number of lifts in HDB estates as at the end of October 1982 was 5,518. (b) The number of lift complaints (including false calls) and lift breakdown rates over the past five years are as follows:- 1978 : 97,700 complaints; 1.18 breakdowns per lift per month 1979 : 102,970 complaints; 1.04 breakdowns per lift per month 1980 : 108,259 complaints; 1.04 breakdowns per lift per month 1981 : 106,523 complaints; 0.92 breakdowns per lift per month 1982 : 81,526 complaints; (up to Oct) 0.83 breakdowns per lift per month (c) For cost analysis purposes, the average lifespan of a lift is assumed to be 25 years. The actual lifespan may be longer if the lift is carefully maintained and regularly serviced. It is the HDB's policy to constantly monitor and improve the performance of its lifts. If a lift has excessive breakdowns, HDB engineers will investigate and determine whether it is more economical to refurbish the lift or to replace it. In 1980 for instance, the HDB studied and recommended the conversion of 261 Hitachi AC-1 lifts to the Hitachi AC-2 type which gives smoother rides and fewer breakdowns. Since the completion of the conversion exercise in early 1981, the performance of Hitachi lifts has improved from an average of 1.15 breakdowns per lift per month in 1980 to an average of 0.67 breakdowns per lift per month in the first half of 1982.

asked the Minister for National Development whether there are plans to increase parking facilities for both cars and lorries in Neighbourhood 5 of Bedok New Town.

Bedok Neighbourhood 5 has eight car parks and two lorry parks providing approximately 2,750 car parking lots and 230 lorry parking lots. The HDB's records from sales of season parking tickets reveal that generally, residents of the neighbourhood who drive their own cars are able to obtain season parking tickets. Every month, an estimated 30 residents who drive mainly company vehicles and goods vehicles are unable to obtain car parking tickets. Another 20 residents are unable to purchase lorry parking tickets. To alleviate the shortage of parking facilities, the HDB will provide another 50 car parking lots around Blocks 543 to 547 by May 1983.

asked the Minister for National Development if he will review the workings of section 48A (1) (b) of the Housing and Development Act (Chapter 271) with the view to exempting from the provisions of the said section -

Section 48A (1) (b) of the Housing and Development Act empowers the HDB to compulsorily acquire a flat if the owner, his spouse or any authorised occupier has acquired any other property. This section is necessary because public housing is subsidised and in high demand. It is therefore logical to restrict applicants to only those in genuine need of public housing and who cannot afford private housing. However, the HDB has been flexible and reasonable in the application of section 48A(1) (b). Three categories of property-owners have been exempted from the provisions of the section, ie -

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Culture whether Singapore has supplied the Khmer People's National Liberation Front in Kampuchea with arms and if so will he acquaint the House with what was supplied and the conditions of their supply.

I take it that this sudden and belated interest of the Honourable Member in the Cambodian problem, which has been with us for four years, is above board. I also take it that his question is meant to mobilise support for the Cambodians and not to provide the Vietnamese with information which is now denied them and which would be valuable to the Vietnamese to quell the growing pressure of Khmer resistance forces. The honourable Member should know that Singapore, together with ASEAN and the overwhelming majority of UN members, support the struggle of the Cambodian people to liberate their country from Vietnamese occupation. We have together with like-minded countries worked to bring political, diplomatic and economic pressure to bear on Vietnam. These efforts have helped the Cambodian patriots in their struggle against 200,000 well-equipped Vietnamese soldiers. The Vietnamese, for security reasons, have never disclosed the actual quantum of military assistance they receive from the Soviet Union and other socialist countries. If the Member for Anson is interested in helping the Cambodian patriots to free their country of foreign occupation, then how is public discussion of who is supplying arms to the Cambodian liberation forces and the "conditions of their supply" of any help? The Cambodians know who is helping them and how they are being helped. The Vietnamese do not know but would like to know. Vietnam would like to know if arms are being supplied to the resistance forces, who the suppliers are, the kind of arms being supplied, how they are supplied and the conditions of their supply. Public disclosure of such data can only help them. Who does the Member for Anson want to help?

asked the Minister for Trade and Industry why it is necessary for the Jurong Town Corporation to engage foreign consultants to upgrade its port facilities when expertise is available locally.

The foreign consultants, engaged by the Jurong Town Corporation, are here to provide advice on specialised dry bulk cargo handling equipment and not on the general upgrading of JTC's port facilities. To explain why these experts are necessary, let me describe briefly the operations of Jurong port. Jurong port specialises in the handling of dry bulk cargo like cement clinker, raw sugar, industrial chemicals, grain and scrap iron. These raw materials are used by industries located in the Jurong industrial estate. The volume of such dry bulk cargo which passes through Jurong port has increased from 50,000 tonnes in 1968 to 3.6 million tonnes in 1981 and is expected to grow further. Jurong port at present has ten large bulk cargo unloaders connected to a system of conveyor belts. Most of the existing equipment at the port were installed more than 12 years ago. JTC is now upgrading some of the equipment and also purchasing new equipment to expand the handling capacity of Jurong port. The foreign consultants engaged by JTC are specialists in their field and have been responsible for the planning of some of the world's largest dry bulk cargo handling ports. Their advice will help Jurong port to maintain a high level of efficiency in the handling of its dry bulk cargo operations. In the operations of Jurong Port and in planning for its expansion, JTC works closely with the Port of Singapore Authority and it is only when local expertise in a particular field is not available, that JTC has to resort to engaging foreign expertise.

asked the Minister for Trade and Industry what types and value of local and foreign investments have been secured or committed; and what is the estimated number of jobs which will be created by these investments, indicating the job-types, salary range and when these jobs will be available.

In 1981, the value of manufacturing investments committed was $1,929 million, made up of $1,330 million foreign and $599 million local investments. In the first 10 months of 1982, the value of manufacturing investments committed was $1,515 million made up of $1,035 million foreign and $480 million local investments. The bulk of foreign investment commitments in 1981 were for projects in the petroleum sector, oilfield equipment, electronics and machinery/machine components industries. Commitments by local companies in the same year were largely for upgrading and expansion projects in the shipbuilding and printing/publishing industries. The investment climate in 1982 has become more difficult because of the continuing world economic recession. Apart from petroleum projects, the investments committed in the first 10 months of the year were mainly for sectors which are still facing booming market conditions despite the recession. Examples are computers and computer peripherals, and fabricated metal projects (for the local construction industry). The commitments in 1981 and 1982 are expected to create a total of 28,400 jobs over a period of seven years. Nearly 80% of the jobs will be generated between 1981 and 1984 as follows: 4,000 in 1981, 6,400 in 1982, 7,800 in 1983 and 4,100 in 1984. The figures will increase if the Economic Development Board succeeds in securing additional investments in the next few years. It is not possible to specify in detail the job types and their salary. However, the range of jobs created can be expected to be broadly typical of an average manufacturing establishment. In view of the higher technological content and capital-intensive nature of the new projects, a large proportion of the jobs will require technicians, skilled and trained workers. The current average basic monthly salary of skilled workers ranges from $500 to $600. Those in supervisory grades can earn a higher salary of about $900.

asked the Acting Minister for Social Affairs (a) how many Muslims went from Singapore to Mecca this year; (b) how many Singapore Citizens, among them, died whilst on pilgrimage; and (c) whether there are better facilities planned by his Ministry for the pilgrims.

2,328 Muslims from Singapore went on pilgrimage to Makkah in 1982. 683 of them travelled by MUIS-sponsored flights and 1,645 went by other flights. Of the pilgrims who went by MUIS-sponsored flights, 17 passed away whilst on pilgrimage. 15 were Singapore citizens, 1 was a Malaysian citizen and 1 an Indonesian citizen. We do not know how many pilgrims who went by other flights passed away whilst on pilgrimage. Travel agents are not required to report to MUIS the death of their pilgrims in the Holy Cities. Just as the facilities for the 1982 pilgrimage were improved after obtaining feedback from pilgrims who went on the Haj in 1981, MUIS will soon be gathering feedback from the pilgrims who returned recently, on the facilities that could be improved. MUIS will pay particular attention to the adequacy of the medical and nursing team which accompanies the pilgrims. The team was strengthened this year with the addition of one medical officer. For the 1983 pilgrimage, MUIS will monitor the number of pilgrims registering to go on the Haj to determine whether the two doctors and four nurses provided are adequate or should be increased. The value of the medicines dispensed to sick pilgrims increased almost four fold this year compared to 1981 and the range of medicines provided was widened on the recommendation of the doctors and nurses. They will again be asked to recommend the types of medicines and the quantity to be supplied for the 1983 pilgrimage. MUIS rented two rooms in Makkah during the pilgrimage season this year for use as clinics to care for sick pilgrims. Preliminary comments received indicate that it is preferable to have one large clinic, more centrally located and better staffed to look after the sick. It is still too early to decide on the facilities to be provided next year. When all the details have been worked out for the 1983 pilgrimage, MUIS will disclose them to the pilgrims for their information.

asked the Acting Minister for Social Affairs what steps are being taken by his Ministry and the Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura (i) to implement the entire provisions of the Administration of Muslim Law Act; (ii) to prepare for the introduction of the Islamic Religious Knowledge subject to secondary school students; and (iii) to promote the use of better and appropriate syllabi and text books for the teaching of Islam for primary school students in mosques, "madrasahs" and other relevant institutions.

All sections of the Administration of Muslim Law Act except two have been brought into operation. The two exceptions are sections 81 and 82 which relate to the control of religious schools and the giving of grants to religious schools respectively. The proper implementation of the provisions of these two sections would require the setting up of a special unit in MUIS made up of at least two trained teachers to supervise and inspect religious schools, and a Board to conduct tests for teachers employed by the religious schools. It is the intention of the Ministry to bring these two sections of the Act into force as soon as suitable personnel can be found to staff the special unit and the Board. (ii) The teaching of Islamic Religious Knowledge in secondary schools is the responsibility of the Ministry of Education. To ensure that the subject is taught only by qualified Muslim teachers, the Ministry of Education has enlisted the help of the Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura in: a. identifying suitable Muslim teachers to teach Islamic Religious Knowledge; b. providing a properly structured training course for these teachers; c. drawing up a training programme relevant to the needs of the teachers; and d. identifying suitable teachers for the training course. MUIS has also been asked to recommend, and where possible prepare, textbooks and teaching materials. MUIS set up a special committee headed by the Mufti of Singapore to deal with the Ministry of Education's requests. 145 teachers were selected to attend a training course in teaching Islamic Religious Knowledge. This 45-hour-long course was completed on 30 October 1982. The teachers were required to sit for an examination at the end of it to test their competence. Those teachers who successfully completed the course by attending at least 90% of the lectures and passing the end-of-course examination will receive a Certificate of Participation issued jointly by the Ministry of Education and MUIS. (iii) The following steps had been and are being taken to promote the use of better and appropriate syllabi and textbooks for the teaching of Islam for primary school students in mosques, madrasahs and other relevant institutions: Syllabi After a detailed study of the religious education conducted in madrasahs, MUIS set up a committee to prepare a set of syllabi for primary school students. The syllabi prepared by this committee were distributed to all madrasahs and mosques in Singapore for implementation. Textbooks The Committee also carried out a survey of the textbooks used by madrasahs in Singapore. The survey disclosed that the schools were using different textbooks obtained from various sources. The Committee, however, was of the view that the textbooks were acceptable and it therefore recommended their continued use. The Committee will soon start a project to write textbooks to suit the Singapore context. Training Course for religious teachers MUIS has organised three training courses since 1973. All religious teachers from madrasahs, mosques and other relevant institutions were invited to attend these courses. The last course, which was held at Masjid Al-Muttaqin from 22 to 30 November 1982, was attended by 120 religious teachers. Syllabi and textbooks for use by pupils in the madrasahs were among the topics discussed in the course. Future Plans In the long term, the following steps are being considered by the Committee: a. Courses/Seminars More courses and seminars will be organised from time to time to meet the needs of the religious teachers. b. Review The textbooks and syllabi will be subjected to periodic reviews by the Committee which will submit its recommendation for consideration by MUIS. c. Visits The Committee will organise a series of visits to madrasahs and mosques to see how religious classes are being conducted. Dialogues with the teachers will be arranged during such visits.