Hansard, 1983-03-24

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:- Dr Yeoh Ghim Seng, B.B.M., J.P. (Joo Chiat), Speaker - from 25th March to 6th April, 1983. Encik Wan Hussin Zoohri (Kampong Ubi), Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Minister for Culture - from 4th to 1Oth April, 1983. YEOH GHIM SENG Speaker, Parliament of Singapore

asked the Minister for the Environment (a) when and where the Simon Road Hawker Centre will be relocated; and (b) whether the hawkers can be relocated en bloc to the new hawker centre.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Simon Road Market and Food Centre was alienated to the HDB under a comprehensive plan for the development of Hougang New Town. I have been informed by the HDB that the Market and Food Centre will not be relocated within the next two to three years as the HDB will not require this site within that period. In view of the large numbers of stallholders at the Simon Road Market, however, it is unlikely that the stallholders will be relocated en bloc.

asked the Minister for Home Affairs, in view of the statement made by Mr Tan Chay Wa shortly before his death, whether he will now withdraw his allegation that Mr Ho Juan Thai was actively connected with Mr Tan Chay Wa and that the Workers' Party has provided cover for subversive activities and, if he is not prepared to withdraw his allegations, will he order a public inquiry into this serious allegation against this political party.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Anson has over-reacted to my written reply to him on 3rd December, 1982 on Ho Juan Thai. To refresh his memory, I would like to recapitulate what I had conveyed to him earlier in my written reply. I had stated that there was prima facie evidence to justify Mr Ho Juan Thai's possible detention under the Internal Security Act and that Mr Ho's championing of Mr Tan Chay Wa's cause was an indication of Mr Ho's political sympathies and, possibly, also his affiliations. I had also stated that this and the fact that Mr Ho sought refuge in Mr Tan Chay Wa's house for two days to escape arrest "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 (Singapore People's Liberation Organisation), the Worker's Party may have provided Mr Ho with the cover for things less innocent than providing constitutional opposition." The Member for Anson has now produced a statement by Mr Tan Chay Wa which Mr Tan gave on 16th January 1983 before his execution. The Member for Anson had not, however, disclosed how he came into possession of this new statement of Mr Tan Chay Wa. In the statement, Mr Tan claimed that Mr Ho did not have 'the slightest organisational relationship' with him and that he "absolutely did not know Ho Juan Thai and had never seen him". On the contrary we have evidence that casts very grave doubts on Mr Tan Chay Wa's claim. The Malaysian authorities had informed us in 1979 that when Mr Tan was arrested by the Malaysian Special Branch, he gave the following statement on Mr Ho Juan Thai and I quote: 'Since 1976, a Nanyang University graduate named Ho Juan Thai stayed at Nanyang Avenue area in Singapore. He stayed near our house and used to borrow telephone. In 1977 (sic), Ho Juan Thai stood in general election on a Workers' Party ticket. As he gave a prejudicial speech during public rally, the police came to arrest him at his rented place. Ho escaped and hid in bush, and was wet because of heavy rain. Subsequently, he sought refuge in our house for two days. Before departed our house he mentioned that he was going to look for his friend (details not known) in West Malaysia. If he was not arrested he would telephone by hitting at the telephone 3 times which meant he had safely escaped police arrest. Later, Ho Juan Thai did make such call.' Why should Mr Tan Chay Wa discuss Mr Ho Juan Thai at all in his statement to the Malaysian Special Branch if he did not know Ho as he claimed? From his statement Mr Tan Chay Wa clearly had intimate knowledge of Mr Ho Juan Thai, how he had avoided police arrest, was harboured in his house for two days and escaped safely to West Malaysia. Mr Tan Chay Wa was an important cadre of the CPM underground organization. He remained steadfast to his communist ideology even up to his execution. It was therefore natural for Mr Tan, a communist, to do a good turn for Mr Ho Juan Thai by disclaiming any underground organizational links with him. Mr Tan had good reasons to do this out of gratitude to Mr Ho who had, through FUEMSSO, tried very hard to save him from the gallows. It also made good sense to him to use his last breath to protect and defend Mr Ho his ardent supporter. By doing this, he would also be advancing his communist cause. According to the communist ideology, it is justifiable for any of its followers to use any means including telling a lie and even committing murder to advance the communist cause. A staunch communist terrorist does not believe in afterlife but only in the existence of this world. The facts I have stated clearly substantiate my conclusion set out in my written reply of 3rd December 1982 to the Member for Anson, and I quote: "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". However, no action was taken against the Workers' Party in the case of the SPLO because our Internal Security Department came to the conclusion that the Party (meaning the Workers' Party) had provided the cover more out of ignorance and foolishness rather than deliberate subversive intent. So the Workers' Party was given the benefit of the doubt. There is no necessity to hold a public inquiry as suggested by the Member for Anson for it would be a sheer waste of time and public funds.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister, I thought, would ask how I got the statement. Is the Minister saying that it is not a genuine document? Would he answer that, first? Is he saying that it is not a genuine document that emanated from Pudu Prison?

Mr Speaker, Sir, as a lawyer he should know that it is a non sequitur, it does not follow. I am just asking how did he get hold of this document. I did not say that I have doubts as to the genuineness of that statement. I have doubts as to the truth of that statement.

As usual, we never get any direct answers to direct questions in this House. It is always a merry-go-round the bush, here we go. Mr Speaker, Sir, would the Minister -

Are you not doing the same thing?

Would the Minister agree that it is highly wrong for him to hide behind the privilege of this House and to make unfounded allegations against this man, Mr Ho Juan Thai, and the Workers' Party? If he says he has got prima facie evidence or facts, why is he not prepared to appoint a public inquiry into these allegations? We are ready to face them. When we ask for an inquiry, it is always refused.

Mr Speaker, Sir, he accuses me of not answering the question. When I have asked the question, he does not answer. How did you come in possession of that document?

Mr Speaker, Sir, with respect, I am asking the question and the Minister has to answer.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think that is a very childish answer.

Answer my question.

Well, I am going to answer your question. As far as the Government is concerned, we are not hiding behind the privilege of this House. It is quite clear that - from my answer which has been set out - there is no necessity of a public inquiry because it is obvious that it is a waste of public funds and time. As I have stated, we have put all the facts before this House. We have got a statement of Mr Tan Chay Wa which indicates that he knew Mr Ho Juan Thai because he had given details of how he escaped; and that was a statement given immediately after he was arrested in 1977. Then we had this case of Ho Juan Thai coming up, I think it was sometime last year. There had been refutations of what we had stated about Ho Juan Thai who had fled from Singapore because he refused to submit himself to interrogation by the Police for what he had done during the election time, i.e. trying to raise communal emotions and accusing the Government of killing Chinese culture, education and language. We say that we have a prima facie case against Mr Ho Juan Thai. But the Member for Anson says, "Why cannot you give him immunity from the law?" By law, I mean not the rule of law which the Member for Anson has in mind.

Your rule of law!

But the law of Singapore passed by this Parliament. It is not my rule of law. It is the law passed by this Parliament and the ISA is part of the law. Are you challenging the authority of Parliament? Is the Member for Anson saying that the ISA is not part of the law of Singapore which has been passed in Parliament? No answer. How can we give such an undertaking? To do so, it will be abdicating -

Answer my question.

Of course, I am going to answer your question. We will be abdicating our responsibility if we give such an undertaking. Our point is that before we move, either under ISA or to charge him in court, we want him here so that he can be questioned. We cannot give any undertaking of immunity from the laws of this land which have been passed by Parliament. If the Member for Anson is a good supporter or Ho Juan Thai is a good supporter of him, why does he not persuade Mr Ho Juan Thai to come back here and face the music, i.e. face the law of this land which has been passed by Parliament? He is a lawyer and he should know better.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister makes, may I say, wild allegations not only about Mr Ho Juan Thai's alleged involvement with Mr Tan Chay Wa but also about his going into hiding. We challenge him to hold a public inquiry on these allegations. He now says it will be a waste of time. Am I to understand that he thinks that a public inquiry will be a waste of time because he will have no evidence to bring forward? Is that why it is going to be a waste of time? It is not a question of whether Tan Chay Wa knew Ho Juan Thai. The question is: Was Ho Juan Thai involved in any communist subversive activities? That is the question. An hon. Member: Why did he run away?

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I refer to the question which is posed by the Member for Anson. He asks: '... if he is not prepared to withdraw his allegations, will he order a public inquiry into this serious allegation against this political party [i.e. the Workers' Party]. Can he clarify this? Is he asking for an inquiry to clear Mr Ho Juan Thai or an inquiry into the Workers' Party? We say that an inquiry into the Workers' Party is a waste of time.

I say order an inquiry into your allegations against Mr Ho Juan Thai and the Workers' Party. We will answer them. Go on, and order it.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as far as the Workers' Party is concerned, I do not think we need to incur a waste of public funds to hold an inquiry. Even their accounts, I believe, have been looked into by the Official Receiver. I think that is also a waste of public funds. If we would want to hold an inquiry into the Workers' Party itself, although the end of it may not be good for the Member for Anson I think -

Why do you not go on and order it?

Why should we waste public funds because the Workers' Party's antics are so obvious to the public? Besides, as far as Ho Juan Thai is concerned, why should we hold a public inquiry to clear him? He is a fugitive from Singapore. What we are asking him to do is to come back and be interrogated and face the law of this land. To hold an inquiry into Ho Juan Thai is a waste of time and public funds. It is something so ridiculous that I do not think I need to say anything further. Why should we have an inquiry into Ho Juan Thai? Who is he? He is a fugitive who has escaped arrest after having made certain statements accusing the Government of killing Chinese culture and arousing the emotions of the people. In fact, the Member for Anson should be very grateful that the Government statement on the SPLO has exonerated his party because our Internal Security Department came to the conclusion that if ever they had given cover to the SPLO it was more out of foolishness and ignorance.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I assure you that I shall not get up after this. But may I just ask the Minister whether he has now made a complete turnaround. He says the Workers' Party has been exonerated by the ISD. So why is he seeking the privilege of this House to make allegations against the Workers' Party?

There again, I think the Member for Anson is either hard of hearing or he refuses to understand what I have stated. I said that as far as the Singapore People's Liberation Organization's instance is concerned, they have been exonerated. But as far as Ho Juan Thai is concerned, we are still waiting for him to come back,to be interrogated. I still stand on my statement that they may again have provided cover for subversives like Mr Ho Juan Thai. I hope that is clear enough.

It is not.

I think we have spent a lot of time on this Question. Next question.

asked the Minister for Communications and Minister for Labour whether he will consider (a) an extension of the Singapore Bus Service concession passes to those Singapore citizens between 55 and 60 years old; and (b) the removal of the restricted use of the concession passes which presently can be used only during off-peak periods.

Mr Speaker, Sir, SBS has to draw a line somewhere when giving concessions to senior citizens. Sixty years and above makes sense as many of those who are between 55 and 60 years old can be expected to be economically active in present-day circumstances. This is also reflected in the fact that the retirement age for civil servants is now 60. The purpose of the concession is to encourage our senior citizens to lead a more active social life. This should be done during the off-peak hours when there is considerable spare capacity on the buses, Extending the concession to the peak hours is not desirable as it would then put additional strain on existing bus capacity.

Mr Speaker, Sir, would the Hon. Minister request SBS to consider the two issues at a later stage, say, maybe in one or two years' time?

Mr Speaker, Sir, as I said, SBS has to draw a line somewhere. Sixty years is a fair line to draw because even in the UK and US concessionary passes are given to women who are 60 years and above and for men 65 years and above. I think SBS's line at 60 years is a fair one.

asked the Minister for National Development if he will consider the construction of carparks in the business area in Serangoon Garden Estate.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the URA will consider building a car park on the vacant plot of land adjacent to the Serangoon Gardens market. Paid parking will have to be introduced to cover the construction and maintenance costs of the car park and to prevent motorists from monopolizing the limited parking space. Paid parking will also have to be introduced for all parking space, including kerbside parking, in the business area in Serangoon Gardens. It would be pointless to build a car park if motorists avoid it to enjoy free parking nearby. The new car park will then not help to solve the parking problem. On the other hand, paid parking, together with a new car park, should ease the parking problem in the Serangoon Gardens business area.

Mr Speaker, Sir, will the Minister of State consider consulting the Serangoon Gardens CCC and the area committee members with regard to this question of paid parking?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I will ask the URA officials to consult the hon. Member as well as his community leaders on this question.

asked the Minister for National Development if he will provide details of the proposed development on the two plots of vacant land beside Block 119 Aljunied Crescent and the expected date of completion.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as the Member is aware, there are three vacant plots of land around Block 119 Aljunied Crescent. The largest one, opposite the swimming complex at Aljunied Avenue 2, will be developed as an extension of the Town Centre. The development will include shops, offices, and HDB Area Office and a multi-storey car park with 250 lots. The project is expected to be completed in mid-1985. The two other pieces of land next to Block 119 are located along Aljunied Crescent. Both land parcels are not earmarked for any specific development, but are reserved for use according to future needs.

Mr Speaker, Sir, will the Minister of State ask the HDB to allow the other two plots of land to be used as a fitness park until it is time to develop them?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I will ask HDB to consider this suggestion.

asked the Minister for National Development, in view of the heavy traffic, whether an overhead pedestrian bridge will be built at the junction of Jalan Lokam and Upper Paya Lebar Road and, if so, when.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Public Works Department will be constructing a pedestrian overhead bridge in the vicinity of Jalan Lokam to facilitate pedestrians crossing the busy Upper Paya Lebar Road. The bridge will be ready by the end of this year.

asked the Minister for National Development (a) if he will give an undertaking that immediate steps will be taken to have the empty stalls in the market at Lorong 1 Hougang New Town occupied; and (b) if he will grant the requests of existing licensees in other markets, who have now moved to Hougang New Town, for stalls in Hougang New Town to be given to them in exchange for their present stalls.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the market stalls at Hougang Avenue 1 will be allocated to stallholders presently operating at the market at Block 176 Lorong 2 Toa Payoh, which is affected by the development of the Toa Payoh MRT Station. The stalls will be balloted and occupied in April 1983. Existing licensees in other markets may apply for transfer to the market at Hougang Avenue 1, provided vacant stalls are available after the demand from resettlement cases has been fully satisfied.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have heard of the transfer of stallholders from Toa Payoh to Hougang about two months ago, but apparently it has not been soon enough because the market was ready about three months ago. Perhaps the Minister could say that the transfer will be done as soon as possible.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the market was actually completed in June last year. It was held back at the request of the authorities because of the need for resettlement facilities in view of the construction of the MRT. As I have said in my answer, the allocation will now be done in April and the stalls should be occupied by April, that is, next month. I hope that will be soon enough for the Member.

"to repeal the National Statistical Commission of Singapore Act 1971 (No. 27 of 1971)", presented by the Minister for Trade and Industry (Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam); read the First time; to be read a. Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

3.04 p.m. Order read for resumed consideration in Committee of Supply [7th Allotted Day],

Head V (cont.) - Resumption of Debate on Question [23rd March, 1983], "That the sum to be allocated for Head V be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead VB-02 Object Group 3110 of the Main Estimates." - [Encik Wan Hussin Zoohri]. Question again proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, since I have a related amendment No. (4)*, may I speak now?

Yes, you can carry on.

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me first say that I support the proposals made by the Member for Kampong Ubi yesterday. I would like to ask the Minister whether there will be an improvement in the services to be pro- vided by the Majlis Ugama Islam to the Muslims who will be performing their Haj this year. Could the Minister also indicate what are the implications of the Saudi Government's new conditions on travel and the grant of visas to pilgrims? Finally, I would like to ask the Minister to indicate how MUIS monitors the performance of the local syehs or pilgrim brokers, and whether they are providing satisfactory services to the pilgrims under their charge. I would like to suggest that MUIS considers an arrangement with the Saudi Arabian embassy here to draw up a list of recommended syehs in Makkah and our local pilgrim brokers should only engage those syehs in Makkah who are on this list.

( In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am taking this opportunity to congratulate the Muslim Religious Council of Singapore (MUIS), the supreme body in Singapore administering Muslim religious affairs in the Republic, for its judiciousness in the discharge of its ever-increasing role and functions from year to year. MUIS's ability and capability to tackle its multifarious activities, such as the Mosque Building Fund, Fitrah (Tithes) collections and matters pertaining to the performance of the Haj pilgrimage, are already public knowledge and recognized by the Muslim community in particular. I understand that MUIS is presently considering and planning several new projects which will benefit the Muslim community in the Republic. One of the feasibility studies undertaken by MUIS is the construction of an Islamic Centre. Undoubtedly the construction of the proposed Islamic Centre will receive a good response from the Muslim community in Singapore, particularly from existing Muslim associations and organizations throughout the length and breadth of Singapore. In the light of the foregoing, I seek further information from the Hon. Acting Minister for Social Affairs concerning the Singapore Islamic Centre. First, what is the basic objective of the proposed Islamic Centre, and how could it further enhance the bonds of harmony between the Muslim organizations in Singapore for the furtherance of missionary activities? Secondly, what paraphernalia and facilities will be available at this Centre, and eventually who will be administering the Islamic Centre? Finally, where is the source of the Construction Fund and, subsequently, the source of the fund for the Administration of the Islamic Centre? I hope the Hon. Acting Minister can furnish the information that I seek.

Mr Speaker, Sir, first, may I congratulate the Muslim Religious Council (MUIS) for their good work done to-date? An example that I want to highlight is its Annual Report for 1981. Sir, I am saying this as a student of accountancy and not based on hearsay or anything like that. The Report is both informative and accurate. So they should keep up this good work. MUIS has been making records. But then records are made to be broken. Such is life. Sir, in speaking on this amendment, I would like to do three things: make an inquiry, submit an appeal, and propose a suggestion. Enquiry Computers is now a buzz word in Sing- apore and computerization is moving ahead in all areas. I notice that certain aspects of Muslim services have been computerized. For this reason, would the Minister elaborate on the progress of the computerization programme for Muslim services, particularly in Fitrah collections and related areas and whether he is satisfied with the progress. Appeal Sir, to a Muslim, the Haj or the pilgrimage to Makkah is a divine command and must be made at least once in a life-time for any Muslim who is financially and physically able to do so. At the same time, while performing the Haj, the Singaporean pilgrims are also proud of our country and of the amenities and facilities provided by the Muslim Religious Council (MUIS). This fact is apparent and is written on their faces in Makkah while they are there and when they safely arrive in Singapore after performing the Haj. However, many of them asked me why we are not using our national carrier, Singapore Airlines, to transport the pilgrims to Jeddah. Sir, I could feel their sense of pride in Singapore and SIA, but I could also sense their disappointment when told that it is purely for economic reasons that our pilgrims are not travelling on our national carrier, SIA. There has been much talk about how good SIA is and how competitive it is with the international carriers. However, I find it difficult to believe that the SIA's quotation for the journey to and from Jeddah for our pilgrims all these years is much higher than the other international carriers' quotations. To top it all, SIA is unduly fastidious with conditions which are totally uncalled for. I questioned why SIA is not competitive in its quotation. I questioned why SIA has to lay down all these conditions when the other international airlines do not. I am not asking SIA to quote below what the other airlines are quoting, although it would appear to be in order as quoting on a cost recovery basis would be in line with a contribution to the national pride and identity of Singaporeans. Sir, I am not asking SIA to make a loss. All I am asking is, can SIA not make less or no profit on the Haj flights? Furthermore, I wish to point out that the Haj occurs only once a year. I do not think SIA would go bust on the Haj flights. I do not think they will lose their shirts, neither do our Singapore Girl lose her smile. Now that the Saudi government has rightly taken the stand for the benefit of the pilgrims that only the national carrier or the Saudi Airlines can carry pilgrims, I hope SIA will not take this as a chance to be almost monopolistic. I, therefore, appeal to SIA to reconsider the position and it would be greatly appreciated and would put Singapore's national identity firmly in the minds of our pilgrims. I would also urge the Minister to use his good offices to assist MUIS in the negotiation. Suggestion Sir, in the Minister's recent constituency tour, he mentioned in reply to a question that a scheme to assist Muslims to save in order to perform the Haj is being considered. First, I must congratulate the Minister for considering such a well appreciated scheme. In this respect, we are lucky that we have a good neighbour who has a great wealth of experience and expertise in such a scheme. This good neighbour is our closest ASEAN neighbour, Malaysia. Sir, Malaysia has a very successful scheme which they have perfected to a 'T'. They have tuned it to a fine art. This scheme is known as Lembaga Urusan Tabung Haji (LUTH) or popularly known as Tabung Haji. Therefore, I suggest that we should learn as much as we can from Malaysia and I am sure they would be most happy to share their experiences of their Tabung Haji. I know that due to prevailing conditions, we may not be able to implement the scheme in toto but with the usual Singaporean ingenuity, I am confident that we could modify the scheme to suit our situation. Towards this end, I feel that MUIS should consider sending a team to Malaysia to learn more of their project. At the same time, we can also learn what other good things that they may be implementing to enhance our own Muslim services, e.g. maybe the Islamic bank. This would in turn lead to even better and closer relationship with our ASEAN neighbour. We have been looking west and we have been looking east for science and technology. Now, I think it is time we should consider looking north to our Malaysian neighbour to learn from their experiences in Muslim services in particular, their Tabung Haji scheme. We may also look south to another ASEAN neighbour, Indonesia, for a mutual exchange of ideas to improve our Muslim services.

( In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to add to what has already been expressed by my colleagues regarding the Haj services organized by MUIS. At the outset, allow me to extend my appreciation and congratulations to MUIS for the initiative and vigour on the part of the MUIS officials in discharging their tasks with perseverance and dedication, particularly the medical officers and nurses for the services rendered to the Singapore pilgrims last year in Makkah, Medina and Mina. They fulfilled their duties par excellence, having regard to the fact that the holy land was acutely congested and the difficult conditions under which they had to work. May Allah shower them with His blessings for their good work. 3.15 p.m. MUIS has rented two rooms for use as a clinic located in Makkah where the Haj pilgrims gather. As has been suggested by the Member for Kampong Ubi, it is desirable to secure a much larger area for the medical officers and nurses to do their work. As the number of Haj pilgrims from Singapore is about 2,000 yearly and they do not live at the same place in the Holy land, it is considered adequate to provide only one clinic, but it should be sufficiently large in size and be centrally located and within easy reach of the pilgrims. The clinic should be adequately staffed and provided with sufficient medical supplies. Since the medical officers are required to visit sick pilgrims, there is therefore a need, as suggested by the Member for Kampong Ubi, for a vehicle to be provided specifically to the medical unit. Last year, I discovered that the medical officers travelled in the same bus used by the pilgrims to move around; for instance, from the airport to Makkah. As they carry medical supplies and other paraphernalia, it is preferable that they are provided with a chartered vehicle for their exclusive use. Whatever suggestions are made to improve the Haj services in the Holy land, I think these can be translated into action only if MUIS has the necessary funds. According to MUIS financial statement of accounts as contained in its 1981 Annual Report, MUIS spent $29,222 for pilgrimage affairs. If the number of pilgrims is about 2,000, the provision for each pilgrim works out to only $15. I hope that the provision for pilgrimage affairs can be raised. I would like to draw the attention of the Hon. Acting Minister that the provision made to the Singapore Sports Council for inter-constituency sports amounted to $341,250.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we are debating Muslim services and not the Sports Council.

Compare the provision for sports which is $50 per person but for the Haj pilgrims it is only $15 per person. I recommend that this provision be further increased in order to enhance the Haj services in the Holy land. According to newspaper reports, as of this year all prospective Haj pilgrims are required to register their names with MUIS and they will be issued visas by the Saudi Arabia's Charge d'Affaires in Singapore and further they will be transported to the Holy land by either Saudi Arabia's national airline or Singapore International Airlines. Hopefully, these new regulations will benefit and streamline as well as upgrade the management of Haj pilgrimage by MUIS for the good of all prospective Haj pilgrims. Can the Hon. Acting Minister give an assurance that these new regulations will not inhibit or burden the Muslim community from performing the Haj pilgrimage this year and will not result in increased costs or expenditure all round? From the verbal complaints that I received from the Haj pilgrims who returned to the country and also from my personal observations whilst I was in the Holy land last year, I concluded that the role played by the Sheikh Hajis or pilgrim brokers in Singapore and also in Makkah and Medina will determine how the pilgrims will fare during their sojourn in the Holy land. Therefore, the requirement that all Sheikh Hajis must register with and obtain licences from MUIS is most welcome in order that the organization of Haj pilgrimage can be further enhanced. I would like to know what are the conditions attached to the licences to be issued to people aspiring to be Sheikh Hajis or pilgrim brokers. I hope that those who eventually qualify to become Sheikh Hajis will comprise people with sufficient experience and can be depended upon to provide good services and have contacts with Sheikh Hajis in the Holy land in whom we can put our trust. May I refer to the suggestion by the Member for Telok Blangah concerning the setting up of the Tabung Haji or the Haj Fund. I remember vividly that in 1970, 1972 until 1974, in the course of reading Hansards, the intention to set up the Tabung Haji was discussed and debated in this House. And if the same intention persists, I request that the Hon. Acting Minister give an indepth consideration before going ahead with the proposal because it is vital that we earn the confidence of the community towards MUIS, so that whatever we want to do can be carried out and the objectives realized.

Mr Chairman, Sir, first of all, I would like to thank the Members for Kampong Ubi, Geylang Serai, Pasir Panjang, Telok Blangah and Kaki Bukit for the accolades they have given to the Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura (MUIS). MUIS will do its very best to give Muslims in Singapore the services they deserve. Sir, as most of the speakers have touched on pilgrimage arrangements for this year's Haj, I shall attempt a general reply not only to all the points they have raised but also on other aspects of the arrangements which they and the Muslims in Singapore ought to know. First of all, let me deal with one other issue raised by the hon. Member for Kampong Ubi. Sir, the Member wants to know the reason for the increase in grant to MUIS for FY 83. The grant to MUIS for FY 83 is $623,000. This is $178,000 or 40% more than the grant given to MUIS in FY 82. The Expenditure On Manpower (EOM) takes up $391,800, an increase of $63,100 or 19% over the FY 82 allocation. The Other Operating Expenditure (OOE) amounts to $231,200, an increase of $115,200 or 99%. The increase in the grant to MUIS for EOM is the result of the revision of staff salaries, the consolidation of NWC awards and the upgrading of one post of Clerical Officer to Executive Officer to be departmentally designated "Assistant Mufti". There are several reasons for the large increase in the grant for OOE. $58,000 has been approved for MUIS to publish a book on Muslims in Singapore for distribution internationally. $10,000 has been allocated for MUIS to rent a room in Makkah for use as a Medical Clinic for pilgrims, and $18,000 will be spent on a Word Processor. Another $6,600 has been approved for the maintenance of the official car provided for the use of the President of MUIS. Sir, the Member for Pasir Panjang wants a clarification on the objectives of the proposed Islamic Centre to be developed by MUIS. He also wants to know how best the Centre, when built, can help Muslim organizations in Singapore, how it will be financed and how to ensure that the Centre will be properly utilized by the Muslim public. Sir, for the past one and a half decades, Muslims in Singapore have experienced problems in getting a suitable venue for religious functions involving large numbers of participants. They have expressed the need for an Islamic Centre so that major functions sponsored by local Muslim organizations could be centralized at a place which they can proudly call their own. MUIS is aware of the need for an Islamic Centre and after many years of exploring the proposal to build one, has finally decided that there is a strong case for one to be built for use by members of the Muslim community in Singapore. MUIS was successful in obtaining a piece of land behind the Muhajirin Mosque at Braddell Road for the proposed Centre. How can the Centre help the Muslim organizations in Singapore? The Islamic Centre, Sir, will have a multi-purpose hall, auditorium, lecture rooms for conferences, seminars, training courses, talks, forums, etc. The Centre will also serve the general educational and other social needs of Muslim organizations as there will be meeting rooms, office spaces for rental, guest rooms, Quran study rooms and library. The provision of guest rooms will help solve accommodation problems encountered by Muslim organizations when inviting foreign Muslim religious dignitaries to give lectures in Singapore. Non- political organizations can also apply to make use of the Centre's facilities for their activities or functions on payment of a fee. It is hoped that the Centre will become the focal point for all major "dakwah" activities in the Republic. With such activities centralized in the Islamic Centre, it is expected that there will be closer rapport among Muslim organizations in future. There will be a management committee made up of experienced Muslim personnel to ensure that the Centre is properly utilized, administered and viable. When will the Islamic Centre be ready? Sir, a firm of architects has been appointed by MUIS to design the Centre and execute the project. Discussions have been held between MUIS officials and the architect concerned and plans have been drawn up for the proposed Centre. These will be submitted to the relevant authorities for approval and construction will commence as soon as the plans are approved. The project is expected to be completed in 1985. How will the Islamic Centre be financed? The proposed Centre will cost about $5 million. Presently, MUIS has about $3 million to meet part of the construction cost. MUIS will obviously have to work hard to raise the balance required. How to ensure that the Islamic Centre is properly utilized by the Muslim public? Sir, the objective of building the Islamic Centre is to place its facilities at the disposal of non-political Muslim organizations. A management committee will be formed to ensure that the Centre is properly utilized and that there is a fair allocation of its facilities to the Muslim public who apply to make use of them for their functions. 3.30 p.m. Next, I shall turn to the issues raised by the hon. Member for Telok Blangah. First of all, the Member wants to know if I am satisfied with the computerization programme of the Muslim services. He then appeals to the Singapore Airlines to lower its fare to Jeddah so that pilgrims can fly SIA for their Haj. Finally, the Member suggests that we should learn from our neighbouring country about the scheme to facilitate Muslims to perform the Haj. But, first, let me deal with the computerization programme of the Muslim services. Sir, a new format was adopted for the computerization of the "fitrah" records in 1980. Each year, before letters are issued to heads of households advising them of the amount of "fitrah" they have to contribute, the records of those whose particulars have changed in the course of the year, are first updated. 195,957 particulars stored in the computer in 1980 were updated in 1981. The "fitrah" records have to be constantly updated because of changes in the particulars of "fitrah" payers. A major exercise was carried out recently to change the addresses of all Muslims living in high-rise buildings following Government's decision to re-number highrise buildings. Plans are also in hand to computerize the records of the Registry of Muslim Marriages and the Syariah Court. It is expected that the system will be implemented towards the end of this year. Computerization of these records will help in a faster retrieval of information and more timely generation of data and reports for management use. To answer the question from the hon. Member for Telok Blangah, I am satisfied with the progress of the computerization programme in respect of the Muslim services. On his suggestion that we should learn from neighbouring countries, I can only say that MUIS is always prepared to consider schemes which could be adapted to suit the needs of Muslims in Singapore and this includes Tabung Haji of Malaysia. Now I shall turn to the favourite subject of pilgrimage arrangements, but before I proceed to answer the points raised by hon. Members I would like to inform the rest of the House what this pilgrimage arrangement is all about. Sir, from this year onwards, all pilgrims going on Haj will be required to register with MUIS before Haj visas can be issued by the Saudi Arabian embassy here, and have to travel either with SIA or the Saudi Arabian Airline (SAUDIA). They will not be allowed to travel with any other airline. In other words, Sir either they travel with their national airline (which is SIA in the case of Singapore pilgrims), or with SAUDIA. This is a requirement of the Saudi Arabian Government and is applicable to all pilgrims the world over. Having briefly stated the new scheme introduced by the Saudi Arabian Government with effect from this year's Haj, I shall now attempt to answer the points raised by hon. Members. I shall divide the subject into a number of broad headings. First, benefits of the new arrangement to Muslims in Singapore. Sir, the benefits under this new arrangement are: (a) All pilgrims will pay the same return airfare agreed to with the two airlines. The fare for this year will be $2,100. MUIS will need to work closely with only the two airlines on matters affecting travel arrangements for pilgrims. (b) As all pilgrims will have to register with MUIS before they can obtain their visas from the Saudi Embassy, MUIS will know the exact number of pilgrims performing the Haj this year and in subsequent years. (c) In cases of death, MUIS can expeditiously relay the news to the relatives or next of kin whose addresses will now be known to MUIS through the registration. (d) MUIS will be able to decide the number of medical and nursing personnel required to take care of the Singapore pilgrims in the Holy Land and the amount of medical supplies that the team will have to bring along with them. (e) Pilgrims travelling either by SIA or SAUDIA will fly direct to Jeddah with a short stopover in either Dhahran in the case of SIA or Riyadh in the case of SAUDIA. They will no longer have to disembark at Bangkok or any other city enroute to catch a connecting flight, which they had to do previously when they flew other airlines. The question is, will this new directive by the Saudi Arabian Government cause inconvenience and pose problems for the pilgrims? Sir, MUIS does not envisage that there will be any inconvenience caused to pilgrims because of their having to travel by SIA or SAUDIA this year. SIA has had experience in transporting MUIS pilgrims on the Haj from 1975 to 1978. MUIS was satisfied with the in-flight services rendered by SIA during that period. The Airline had shown that it was sensitive to the requirements of the pilgrims especially in the food provided, in the seating arrangements on board for families and relatives travelling together, and in the provision of as many Muslim cabin crew as possible. As SAUDIA is the national airline of the Saudi Government, it is likely that facilities at Jeddah Airport will be readily available to them. Next question, can MUIS cope with the handling of such large numbers of pilgrims? So far 557 persons have registered with MUIS to go on the Haj this year. More are expected to register in the coming months. MUIS is confident that it will be able to take care of the larger number of pilgrims this year with the experience gained in previous years. Although the number of pilgrims who joined the MUIS-sponsored flights in 1982 was only 675, the actual number of Singapore pilgrims taken care of by MUIS in the Holy Land was about 2,300. The increase in the workload for MUIS this year will be in the registration of pilgrims, seeing to their inoculation and other preparations before departure. The workload of MUIS staff in Jeddah and in Makkah, Mina and Madinah, the three Holy Cities, will not be increased much because MUIS has been taking care of all the Singapore pilgrims in the last few years, irrespective of whether they went on MUIS-sponsored flights or not. Number of applications for pilgrim brokers' licence. Sir, 64 applications for the pilgrim brokers' licence were received by MUIS on the closing date of applications. They are being processed now by MUIS and successful applicants will be informed of the outcome next month. MUIS will ensure that only those who have the requisite experience in pilgrimage work and who have been rendering satisfactory services in the past will be given the licence. Will the pilgrim brokers be inconvenienced as a result of the new arrangements announced by the Saudi Arabian Government? The role of pilgrim brokers remains unchanged under the new arrangement. They will continue to provide personal service to those pilgrims who prefer to have pilgrim brokers run errands for them. Will MUIS ensure that the number of pilgrims taken care of by any one pilgrim broker is not too large to manage? Sir, in this respect MUIS cannot prevent any Sheikh in Makkah from taking care of too large a number of pilgrims. MUIS can only appeal to our pilgrim brokers in Singapore not to engage the services of a Saudi Sheikh whom they know is unable to provide the pilgrims under their care with satisfactory accommodation, food, and transportation because he (the Saudi Sheikh) already has a large number of pilgrims under his charge. In this respect, Sir, I will ask MUIS to find out from the Saudi Embassy here whether or not it is possible for the Saudi Government to draw up a list of Sheikhs in Makkah from which pilgrim brokers in Singapore can choose, as suggested by the Member for Geylang Serai. Have there been any adverse comments from pilgrims or pilgrim brokers about the new arrangements? The answer is no. There have been no adverse comments from Muslim members of the public on the new procedures to be adopted this year for the Haj. Pilgrims are aware that it is to their advantage to register with MUIS before going on the Haj as they will be taken care of by the medical team should they fall ill. Moreover, Sir, MUIS welfare officers are also on hand to help them should they encounter any problems during the Haj. On the medical team of MUIS, the Member for Kaki Bukit and the Member for Kampong Ubi commented that the space used as the clinic is too small. I quite agree with them, Sir, that the medical team accompanying the pilgrims on the Haj last year did not have a large enough clinic in Makkah to work in. According to reports I have received, the space available was rather crammed for the two doctors and the four nursing officers. But I was told that the clinic was air-conditioned, which helped to relieve somewhat the crowded atmosphere in the room. For this year, Sir, a sum of $10,000 has been approved for rental and I hope MUIS will be able to rent larger premises for use as a clinic with this increased provision. Bigger premises will ensure that there will be proper examination rooms for the doctors and a recovery room for sick pilgrims who need constant attention of the doctors and nurses. Another facility that the medical team needs in the Holy Land as suggested by the Member for Kaki Bukit, and I think the Member for Kampong Ubi as well, is transportation. However, I have been told that there are no motor vehicle rental firms in Makkah. Nonetheless MUIS will try to find alternative ways to secure transportation for the medical team. I think I have answered all the points. 3.45 p.m.

Sir, I am encouraged by the almost point for point reply by the Minister, and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head V be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead VC-01 of the Main Estimates. A survey showed that only about 30% of married women in Singapore are economically active. Of the 70% who are economically inactive, most of them have indicated that child care and housework were the main reasons for their decision not to enter the workforce. Sir, with the current shortage of manpower in Singapore and the decision to phase out foreign workers, the Government must provide all the necessary incentives and encouragement for the women to come out to work. Provision of good child care services is indeed one of the best ways to attract women to take up part-time or full-time employment. With the present high cost of employing a baby-sitter and the gradual phasing out of foreign workers, more of our women will find it rather unattractive to seek a job unless good and less expensive child care services are available. I must say that to-date the Government has not provided sufficient support, in particular, financial support for the development of child care centres in Singapore. In Japan, for instance, the Government provides 100% of the capital cost for the setting up of public child care centres and finance 50% of the operating cost. In Singapore, the Government is taking the reverse course. As we can see from the Budget allocation, Government's financial support for child care centres is diminishing. Sir, the Government must regard its financial expenditure on child care as an investment on child development which is part of the total educational and manpower development programme with consequential social and economic benefits. Expenditure on child care must not be considered as a welfare cost, though the programme is administered under the Ministry of Social Affairs. I think it is time the Government reviewed its position and policy on child care in the light of our country's rapid social and economic development. Sir, let me give another example. In Japan, great attention was placed on the training of the child care personnel and nursery teachers. Full-time training is available at the universities and colleges. In Singapore, needless to say, such training facilities have been given lowest priority. Training courses are only organized on an ad hoc basis. Sir, I believe that as part of our overall strategy to develop the full potential of our scarce manpower resources and to encourage women's participation in the labour force, we must seriously examine the positive support that the Government must give for the setting up of more child care centres. May I suggest the Hon. Minister consider the following proposals: (1) To provide full financial support for the setting up of child care centres run by non-profit making organizations and to substantially finance the operating expenditure; (2) To provide regular training to upgrade the quality of pre-school and child care personnel; and (3) To incorporate the planning of child care centres in new towns so that suitable sites (or even void decks at HDB estates) can be reserved for such centres.

Sir, first, I must say that the Government has been providing support for the development of child care centres in Singapore. In his speech, the hon. Member for Boon Lay made three suggestions. He suggested that we provide financial support for the setting up and operation of child care centres. Sir, since July 1980, my Ministry has been reviewing the current system of subsidies to NTUC for the operation of its child care centres, the training programmes for child care centre staff, and development plans for child care centres, among others. At present, only NTUC centres receive a Government subsidy. The other voluntary organizations which run child care centres have not sought assistance from the Government for capital or recurrent costs but have relied on their own fund-raising activities to subsidize costs. I believe they have good sponsors. Currently, subsidies to NTUC are given on a per centre basis. My Ministry has reviewed this system of granting subsidies, and is working out a system whereby subsidies would be given on a per capita basis. In considering Government subsidies for the operation of child care centres, however, my Ministry must take account of budgetary constraints. As a first step, therefore, only children attending NTUC child care centres will be considered for the proposed per capita subsidy. My Ministry will consider giving capital grants of $20,000 for each new centre set up by voluntary organizations. In fact, the NTUC has already received $60,000 for its three new centres at Ang Mo Kio, Bedok and Clementi. This will serve as an incentive to voluntary bodies, and as an indication of support from Government. Regarding the second suggestion on regular training to upgrade the quality of pre-school and child care personnel, my Ministry is fully aware of the importance of training for child care centre personnel. We have, since 1980, enlisted the assistance of the Institute of Education in conducting child care courses for centre staff. My Ministry has also run courses on infant care. During the three-year period 1980-82, nine infant and child care courses were conducted for 214 staff. The Institute of Education is not able to conduct more child care courses on a regular basis. The Institute's function is to train teachers, not child care staff. Nevertheless, it has gone out of its way to accommodate our requests for training in spite of its limited resources and competing priorities. In view of the urgent staff training needs faced by the various organizations, my Ministry has undertaken the coordination of child care courses from 1983 onwards. We project that we shall be able to run at least three child care courses, and one specialized course for an estimated 100 child care staff per year. One course is already in progress. For more advanced training, we shall have to look abroad as local expertise and facilities are very limited. My Ministry and the various organizations concerned are exploring the possibility of sending staff overseas for advanced training, with a view to forming a core of trainers who would eventually take over the training function. Sir, on the third suggestion raised by the Member, I am pleased to inform him that my Ministry has reached agreement with the Housing and Development Board in that the Board would identify the location of suitable premises for child care centres in the newer public housing estates and to reserve such premises in the estates under construction. All new child care centres in public housing estates will be located on HDB void deck space. The Member for Boon Lay has also made some very pertinent observations about the current status of child care service in Singapore. My Ministry is fully aware that the availability of reliable and good child care services would have an important bearing on our success in attracting women to come out to work. My Ministry is also aware that a range of services should be available to meet the special needs of children of different ages as well as parents' preferences and work commitments. Since 1980, therefore, my Ministry has: (i) implemented the Family Day-Care Scheme which has so far successfully made care arrangements for 1,432 children, and has built up a pool of 3,664 care-givers whose child care services are available to working mothers; (ii) my Ministry has explored and initiated other day-care schemes, such as a Holiday Care Programme and Before-and-After School care for primary school-going children of working mothers; and (iii) my Ministry has also actively encouraged the development of child care centres, resulting in 15 new centres being opened during the period 1981-82. By the end of 1982, the aggregate capacity of all child care centres was 2,114 which represented an increase of 93.9% over the capacity as at the end of 1980. This has improved the ratio of child care places to numbers of pre-school children from 1:300 in 1979 to 1:130 currently. My Ministry's policy with regard to the establishment of child care centres is that the centres must provide good quality child care services which would enhance the all-round development of the child. However, we wish to point out that a woman's decision to start work is also determined by factors other than the mere availability of child care facilities. The Survey of Married Women (1979) revealed that among the economically inactive women who were prepared to work, the inducements that would motivate them to do so were: attractive wages; availability of part-time work; having relatives to look after the children; and greater flexibility in working hours. 4.00 p.m.

Sir, I must thank the hon. Parliamentary Secretary for his positive response to the several points that I have made. On the question of financial subsidies, the Parliamentary Secretary said that the Government will provide $20,000 for the setting up of each centre. But I do hope that the Government will not only provide capital grant but also sufficient financial assistance to meet part of the running cost of the child care centres so that the staff of the centre can concentrate on improving the quality of child care service rather than waste their time on fund-raising projects. We can, of course, operate child-care centres without any form of Government subsidies, but the question is, at what cost? We can try to meet the full operating expenses by charging a higher fee for the child care service. But this goes against the policy of the NTUC to provide child care services at a cost which is within the reach of our working population and to maintain the fee at a level which our working women will continue to find it worthwhile to remain in the workforce. Sir, I do not worry for the so-called specially qualified married women. They can afford to pay higher charges. In any case, they are well taken care of by the Minister for Trade and Industry. But while the Minister for Trade and Industry is taking good care of these specially qualified married women, can I appeal to the Acting Minister for Social Affairs to take good care of those not-so-specially qualified married women? They are a bigger number. Sir, in his reply, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary mentioned about the holiday care schemes and the before-and-after school care programmes, etc. May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary for further information on this matter?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the point raised by the hon. Member for Boon Lay has been noted and we will look into it further. The hon. Member also wanted to know what the two projects are about. Sir, with your continued patience, allow me to elaborate or give detailed information not only for the hon. Member for Boon Lay but also for the hon. Members of the House as well.

You will be very brief, Mr Teo.

Yes, Sir. The holiday care programme was implemented on a pilot basis at the end of the year vacation 1982. It was jointly organized by the Ministries of Social Affairs and Education. The objectives of the holiday care programme were: (1) to provide care for children who would otherwise be left without adequate adult supervision during the holiday period; (2) to provide a programme of activities which would enhance the all-round development of children and also to provide guidance for appropriate and constructive use of leisure time; (3) to organize recreational activities and individualized self-selected activities. The programme was targeted at school-going children aged 6-12 years whose parents (either both or single) are working and those who would otherwise be left without adequate adult supervision during the hours when their parents are at work. The programme was conducted over a four-week period from November to December 1982, from Mondays to Fridays from 9.00 a.m. till 5.00 p.m. each day. It was conducted at the Bedok South Primary School and the Ang Mo Kio Primary School. It catered for a total of 200 children, i.e. an enrolment of 100 children at each venue. Regarding the second project, i.e. the before-and-after school care projects, the objectives of this project are: (1) to provide places where children can go to during the hours before and after school when there is no adult supervision at home; (2) to provide opportunities for the children's educational development through the provision of tutorial aid and other informal learning activities; (3) to provide opportunities for socialization and positive relationship development among the children and between the children and the staff when the latter could serve as substitute adult models in place of the children's parents. Sir, we have approached a voluntary organization looking after children to undertake this project. They have agreed to do so, but we would like to do a feasibility study first. When this comes about we would be pleased to inform the hon. Member for Boon Lay.

Sir, I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for his reply. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head V be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead VC-02 of the Main Estimates. Sir, this Subhead as set out in the Budget is for Welfare Services for the Aged, Vagrant and other Destitute Persons, and it is about them that I wish to speak. Before I come to the particular needs that I wish to bring forward to the attention of the Minister, may I make an appeal not only to the Minister but also to the Government - that the Government would make an effort not just to take a superficial view of a human being as to whether or not he is of economic worth, but to see beyond the wizened body of a destitute, an old person, a vagrant, the human dignity that was in that person and is still there, as a child of God, and that that person, whether he is economically productive or not, still needs our compassion and care as a human being. Sir, on his last ministerial rounds on Sunday, I think the Minister mentioned there were adequate homes for the aged. That may well be so. I am not going to challenge him on that. But I understand that there is an acute need for Homes and beds for the chronic sick. I am told, on good authority, that there is an acute shortage of Homes and beds to take care of the chronic sick, not just the aged who are able perhaps to look after themselves but the chronic sick who are unable to look after themselves and who need some extra care and attention from others. I am told that besides the Government chronic wards at the Woodbridge complex, the other Home that does take them is the Home for the Aged Sick. Some of them are also taken by the Little Sisters of the Poor, the Sree Narayana Mission Home for the Aged and the Kwong Wai Shiu. I am told that this is grossly inadequate, so much so that there are about 100 of them in the Woodlands Home for the Aged. I am told that the facilities at the Woodlands Home for the Aged are completely inadequate to look after the chronic sick. I was told that a year or 18 months ago there was also the problem about staffing. I do not know whether it has been alleviated to any extent. The problem then was that the attendants who were being employed to look after the chronic sick were not being paid the same rate as the hospital attendants and so the Home was not able to get proper attendants to look after the sick. Sir, I would like the Minister to say what provision is being made or will be made to look after the chronic sick in our midst. I understand that an organization (I believe it was the Rotary) had suggested the setting up of a hospice for those who are terminally ill in Singapore. I would commend that to the Minister and to the Government. These institutions, as the House probably knows, have now been established in several countries, particularly in the UK and the United States, and they serve a very real need in looking after persons who are terminally ill. They are not hospitals but are hospices with amenable, pleasant surroundings, and with the minimum of care to look after them. Has the Government any ideas about this? I understand that the suggestion that was made was not favourably received by the Ministry. I would like to know why. What is the objection to the setting up of a hospice in Singapore for those who are terminally ill? Should the Minister not be thinking along those lines instead of burdening Homes which are already stretched to look after the chronic sick with inadequate needs and facilities. One other thing that has been brought to my attention is the need for what has been described last year in the Budget debate as the half-way homes. These homes are for those who are not too mentally ill to be patients at the Woodbridge Hospital and yet not well enough to be looked after by their own families at home. They fall between two stools. The Woodbridge Hospital would not keep them because they are not that mentally ill that they should stay in the hospital, but they constitute a danger in the homes where they live. I am told that there are quite a number of them in one of the Homes for the Aged Sick. They constitute a problem to the other residents. I am told that this institution has appealed to the Government to take them away and look after them somewhere else. The Home has been told, "You admitted them. You look after them." It seems to me a very indifferent, casual attitude of the Government. There is a real need for Homes to look after people who perhaps are not too ill to be in a mental hospital but cannot be kept in their own homes. I would like the Minister to say whether any progress has been made. I think some mention was made at last year's Budget debate about these half-way Homes. I would like to know whether any progress has been made in setting up these half-way Homes. Again, there is something else that I brought up last year and this again concerns institutions which are being charged, I am told, commercial rates for the supply of water, electricity and other services, Why do we have to burden them with this? They are not commercial institutions. They are doing a valuable service. Why are we not giving them the help? One other matter is that, Sir, I am told that under our law if any charitable institution or Home does not use up 80% of its donations or funds received for the year, then it will attract income tax on whatever donations it receives. I would ask the Minister to look into this. I think it is most unfair. Why should these institutions not be allowed to build up their funds if they do not spend all of it in the same year? Sir, I would like to pay tribute in this House not only to the staff in the Government Homes but to the institutions which are rendering a much needed, valuable service to our community. They need some help from the Government. And when I say "the Government", they need help from our society. We who are able to earn our own living or are able to look after ourselves need to help them. It is no good lecturing them, as I said before, lecturing our citizens about the need to look after the aged and the sick. We have to set an example, and when I say "we", the Government must set an example because we elected the Government. The Government is responsible to the society and we expect the Government leading us to set the example so that others may follow. 4.15 p.m.

Mr Chairman, Sir, first of all, I shall deal with the need for Homes for the Chronic Sick as touched upon by the Member for Anson. There are at present two hospital wards for the chronic sick run by the Government with a total capacity of about 150 beds. As quite rightly mentioned by the Member for Anson, in addition to these two wards, there are also other Homes for the Chronic Sick run by the Society for the Aged Sick, the Sree Narayana Mission and the Franciscan Nuns with a total capacity of about 600 beds. In response to a call by the Ministry of Social Affairs, a number of voluntary charitable organizations are planning to set up Homes for the Aged Sick and among them are: (1) the Phor Kar See Home. They will be setting up a Home for the Aged Sick with a capacity of 100 beds. This Home is scheduled for operation next month. (2) Next, we have the Bible Presbyterian Welfare Services. They too are planning to set up a Home for the Aged Sick. As you know, Sir, this Aged Sick Home, to be called the Ling Kwang Home for Senior Citizens and with a capacity of about 50 beds, will be completed by the end of this year. (3) The third group which has responded to our call is the Methodist Welfare Services. They are planning to run a Home for the Aged Sick with a capacity of about 30 beds at St. George's Road. (4) The Lion's Club of Singapore too has responded to the call and they are planning to set up a Home for the Aged Sick with an initial capacity of about 100 beds in Toa Payoh Rise. They have assured the Ministry that they are prepared to expand as and when the need arises. (5) The fifth group which has responded to our call is the Singapore Buddhist Welfare Services. They are setting up a Home with a capacity of about 30-40 beds to be operational in 1984. Apart from these five voluntary charitable organizations which have positively responded to the call by the Ministry to set up Homes for the Aged Sick, the Salvation Army which is essentially a Home for the Aged has also begun to admit chronic cases into their Lee Kuo Chuan Home for the Aged. Mr Chairman, Sir, with these various projects in the pipeline, the need for Homes for the Aged Sick will be met at least for three to four years, beyond which there is definitely going to be an increase in demand, and we will have to look into it again when the time comes. My Ministry will closely monitor the demand for admissions to Homes for the Aged Sick and the supply situation. We will also work closely with voluntary charitable organizations on the admission criteria to prevent abuse by families who might deposit their aged sick parents to these Homes at the slightest excuse. The Government's philosophy is that institutionalization should be resorted to only as a last resort. The Government will encourage and continue to coordinate the provision of home-help services such as the nursing services provided by the Home Nursing Foundation and the Neighbourhood Befriender Scheme. All these facilities will enable families with sick members to care for them in the family home. Of course, there are also disabled persons with behavioural problems and they can be quite a strain on the families. These are the ones for whom families would request institutional care - particularly those families with mentally retarded members. For this category of disabled persons we have, for the time being, the Tampines Home run by the Singapore Association for Retarded Children. This Home provides a period of respite to the families concerned while their mentally retarded children or members are being looked after by the Home for a temporary period of two or three months. Once the patient recovers, he or she will be sent back to his/her family again, and then in comes a new patient to be looked after by the Home. The Member for Anson also touched on the inmates of the Woodlands Home for the Aged. As far as the Woodlands Home for the Aged is concerned, 48 of the inmates require personal care such as changing and assisting to the toilets; these are the non-ambulant. 100 of them are semi-ambulant. Those who require nursing care will be sent to the chronic hospital at Woodbridge Hospital. The Member also spoke of an institution which is being asked to pay for the water it consumes at commercial rates. As far as I know, an institution is usually asked to pay for the water it consumes at commercial rates only if the institution also includes a private residence e.g. home of the Matron, and a common water meter is used. But if the organization or people running the institution apply for a separate water meter for the Home, then it will not be asked to pay for the water it consumes at commercial rates. It will get some concessions. With regard to the Member's suggestion that I take up the case of charitable organizations having to spend within the year 80% of the donations received or else the money would attract income tax, this is being looked into by my Ministry as a result of appeals from charitable organizations in Singapore.

I am obliged to the Minister. Would he touch on one or two other points that I mentioned in my speech? Is there provision of adequate staff at this Woodlands Home for the Aged to look after the 100 semi-ambulant people? There was this problem sometime ago about not getting proper attendants to deal with them. Secondly, my suggestion about the Government thinking on the setting up of a hospice. The Minister has not said anything about that. I am told an approach was made to the Ministry by a charitable organization.

Sir, with regard to the adequacy of staff in the Woodlands Home for the Aged, at this point of time I am satisfied with the number of staff running the Home. The Member for Anson said that a charitable organization has applied to the Ministry to set up an hospice. That application has not come up to me yet. I do not know when this application was made by the organization. Could the Member tell me when?

I told you it was Rotary who made the suggestion. I do not know whether it is a charitable organization.

If it is an hospice, then it should come under the purview of the Ministry of Health rather than the Ministry of Social Affairs. Anyway, if the Rotary Club had written to the Ministry of Social Affairs to set up an hospice, then it has not come up to me for consideration. So I do not know whether the Member wants to check if it was the Rotary Club and whether they had written to the Ministry of Social Affairs or to the Ministry of Health for consideration.

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

Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head V be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead VC-03 of the Main Estimates. Sir, this Subhead deals with welfare services for the physically and mentally disabled persons. It is largely the educaion of children who are physically and mentally disabled that I wish to speak on his amendment, Sir. Some days ago, I referred the Minister of State of Education by way of a supplementary question to a statement made by the Chairman of the Singapore Association for the Deaf that the Ministry of Education had said that it was not responsible for the education of the children in the deaf school. The Minister of State's reply was that the Chairman could say what he liked but that the Ministry was supplying teachers to this school. Sir, I raised this matter last year and I understand the situation has not improved. I understand that there are about 19 teachers seconded from the Ministry of Education. But of these 19 teachers, only four are qualified to teach deaf children. So if we are considering the teaching of deaf children, we have only got four trained teachers. Although the others may be qualified as teachers, they are not specially trained teachers to teach the deaf. Besides these four specially qualified trained teachers, they have the normal qualified teachers, and then they have 16 who are not even normal qualified. I can understand the frustration of the Chairman of the Association for the Deaf when he made that statement. 4.30 p.m. Sir, I think we must face up to this problem fairly and squarely. Whose responsibility is it to educate our disabled children? Is it primarily the responsibility of the Government? Are we going to abdicate that responsibility and pass it on to institutions? I say, Sir, and I am sure the Government will agree, that it is primarily the duty of the Government. So why is the Government not taking over its responsibility for the education of not only the deaf children but also the other disabled children, for example, the mentally retarded children? I think there should be no running away from this responsibility by the Government. I am told, Sir, that not only do they lack proper teachers at this school, they also do not have the necessary equipment. The story is the same as it was last year, as it was the year before, and as it was the previous years. How long are we going to go on with this state of affairs, neglecting these children? As I said last year, Sir, their parents pay taxes. Why should not their children be given the education like any other children? It is not, as the Chairman pointed out, that they cannot be educated. They are educable. Why are we not educating them? Why are we neglecting them? Again, as he pointed out, they are of economic worth to this community and to our country if they can be educated. So why are we neglecting them? Why are we allowing them to go to waste? Sir, I am told - I think I read it myself - that there is a plan to start a course for the training of teachers to teach disabled persons, physically or mentally disabled persons. But I am told that this institution, when it is set up, will not be the sort of institution that is set up in other countries. I am told that the certificate that they will get - this is the Ministerial statement, I understand - will not be the same as the certificate for normally qualified teachers. Sir, we do not have to go very far. We only have to go across the Causeway and what do we find there? There the Government has taken over the responsibility for the education of all children, whether they be mentally or physically disabled, or whether they be normal. I am told that they have an institution for the training of specialist teachers for teaching children who are deaf, blind, mentally retarded, or who are not like other normal children. I am told they do it by, first of all, allowing the teachers to go through the normal training course of three years, or whatever the number of years it may be. Then when they get their certificate as normal trained teachers, they spend a year outside and then go back to this institute of specialist teacher training for another year to get another certificate. Then they become specially qualified to teach the deaf or the mentally retarded or the blind. What is wrong with us doing that? Why can we not set up a proper institute to train teachers to teach the deaf? Again I must pay tribute to those institutions which are struggling, struggling to do something for the community. And what is the Government's attitude to this? "Oh, it is your problem. It has nothing to do with us." I say, Sir, it is scandalous. They are struggling. Let us take over the responsibility from them. I am told that they do not have any speech therapist, nor do they have an audiologist to fit the hearing aids for the children. I was talking to some people from the School for the Deaf and they said that when they had to show people from other countries around they feel quite embarrassed having to point to the lack of facilities, lack of trained staff, lack of everything, to carry out their tasks. Why do you cause them this embarrassment? Why can we not set aside some of our monies to provide proper equipment for these schools; and to provide proper teachers? There is the vocational school that they run. I am told they lack even the basic furnishings, not to mention the specialist equipment. Again, I ask, Sir, why are we doing this? These children are already under a handicap, why should they be further handicapped by us? Why should they be pushed further down into the drain? Should they not be lifted up and brought up so that they can be integrated with the rest of society and make their contributions? If you neglect them, then they are going to be a burden in their later years and that will add to the cost. So let us do something for them now so that they would not be a burden later on. But let us not just look at the problem from their economic worth. I am not suggesting that you just look at it from the economic worth. Look at it from the point of view that they are children, they are human beings, and they are entitled, as I said earlier, to our compassion, our help -

Your 10 minutes are up, Mr Jeyaretnam.

Sir, as far as the Ministry of Social Affairs is concerned, we have been providing instructors to the Singapore Association for the Blind and the Singapore Association for the Deaf. In addition, Sir, we provide an annual block grant and per capita grant to meet the recurrent expenditure of the respective Associations. As far as the Disabled Persons Section of my Ministry is concerned, Sir, it generally directs its welfare services to the 15-44 year age group, as this is the category of disabled persons who are most suitable for employment. Since the special education of disabled children comes under the purview of the Minister of Education, my colleague, the Minister of State of Education, has consented to reply to all the questions raised by the Member for Anson.

Sir, I think it is quite evident from what the Member for Anson has said at great length that he did not listen to my reply to the Question for Oral Answer raised by the Member for Ayer Rajah last week. Short of taking over these special schools, physically and in every other way, the Government is indeed providing as much as it can to help these schools to function and to help their man- agement committees find the means to run these schools, and the Government will continue to do so within constraints, such as the shortage of teachers that we already face in the whole education service. But let me just reiterate for the benefit of the Member for Anson the things that are being done so that he will not feel so emotional in his plea on behalf of these schools which, as I have said, are receiving a great deal of assistance from my Ministry. To start with, we have seconded to these schools a total of 94 teachers. I must add that this is at great cost to the Ministry because we are short of teachers, In the case of the School for the Deaf which has been the main subject of his plea, he is incorrect. He says that my Ministry has seconded 19 teachers. In fact, that School has been receiving 22 teachers for many years. And with the enrolment of 305 students, they have a very favourable pupil-teacher ratio of 14:1. We do not at all begrudge sending teachers to teach the deaf, the blind, the educationally sub-normal, the retarded, because we recognize that. We have not only provided teachers for all these schools but we have also provided physical amenities, including school buildings. Several of the schools are running in buildings which are leased by the Ministry to them at very nominal rates. I have said that if more of these schools require premises, we would be more than willing to help them look for such school buildings. In fact, at this very moment the Singapore Association for Retarded Children are getting the Griffiths Primary School from my Ministry to help them in their programme. He talks about taxpayers' money as if children who go to these schools are not enjoying financial support in anyway from the Government. As I said in my reply to the Member for Ayer Rajah, children who go to these schools are subsidized by the Government to the extent of $1,626 per child. This is 41% higher than the subsidy that we spend on children who go to regular schools. 4.45 p.m. Let me come to the heart of the matter which is, should the Government or should not the Government take over these schools? Quite apart from the fact that we are already providing a great deal of support for the running of these schools, I think we recognize that these schools have needs which are specialized, in many ways different from those of normal schools, and that the people in the management committees are able to bring to such schools their personal knowledge and attention which may be lost if these schools become part of a large and, in some ways, bureaucratic educational system. These schools would do better in their present position where they are independent and autonomous, where they can make their own decisions in the best interest of their student that independence and autonomy would be lost and that would be a loss for the schools. As far as teacher training is concerned, many of our teachers who are seconded to these special schools have either received training prior to their posting to the schools or, on joining the schools, they receive additional training, quite often provided by the Association responsible for the school. The course that I mentioned, that the Institute of Education is planning to run at the request of these special schools, is to enable additional training to be provided not only for the teachers sent by the Ministry but also for the teachers whom these school themselves employ. The Associations informed us that many of the teachers that they employ lack training and would benefit from some form of training, and so the Institute of Education is working out with the Associations some form of training which would meet this need. With these remarks, I cannot accept at all the Member's allegation that the Government is doing nothing for the special schools and that we are neglecting them. He has no basis for his remarks.

Sir, I do not think I said that the Government was not doing anything. What I am saying is that what you are doing is hardly adequate. Talking about these schools, I have said that there are only about three or four who are really qualified to teach the deaf. The rest are not qualified. The teachers may be qualified to teach normal children but not to teach disabled children. What are you doing about that? Then I ask about the course that they are going to run. Would that certificate be inferior to the certificate that is given by the Institute of Education for teachers in the teaching service? You would not get the best if you are going to give an inferior certificate. Then I asked about the equipment that is being provided. I agree that perhaps the teaching of these disabled children should be left to some private institutions which may be able to give personal care and attention to them. I agree it may be, and I do not think they will evade their responsibilities. The society will not evade its responsibilities. But what the society does expect is that the Government, appreciating that they have come forward to help, will do its part; and this is their complaint, that the Government is not doing its part. I have talked about the lack of equipment. Would the Minister of State agree that only two classrooms are fitted with the necessary equipment, and I am told that even there the equipment is some years old. The rest of the classrooms are not fitted with proper equipment. Why cannot we help them out and fit them with proper equipment? Why cannot we help them to get an audiologist or a speech therapist? Give them the help and they will do the work and turn out these children to be useful citizens of the community. I was not saying that you were not doing anything. My complaint is that what you are doing now is not enough by any means and there is a lot more for you to do.

Sir, concerning the Certificate for Special Education, the Member is already saying that it is an inferior certificate or implying that it will be. We say that it is a different certificate from the Certificate of Education. The contents of the course are different. The kind of pupils that the teachers are going to teach are different. There are special needs. Nobody is saying that the Certificate for Special Education is inferior. It is different. Anyway, the details are still being worked out. So let us not pre-judge the issue. As far as the equipment for the School for the Deaf is concerned, as far as I know, we have not received any request for equipment for their vocational centre. They have to their credit raised a lot of money to build that centre and we have not received any request or complaint that the centre is not adequately equipped.

Sir, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The following amendment stood on the Order Paper Supplement - Mr Ng Kah Ting: (8) That the sum to be allocated for Head V be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead VC-04 Object Group 3310 of the Main Estimates.

Amendment No. (8), Mr Ng is not here. Amendment No. (9), Mr Jeyaretnam.

Sir, this time I turn to Public Assistance. Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head V be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead VC-04 of the Main Estimates. This, as I said a little while ago, concerns public assistance. Sir, I hope the Minister would not jump up from his seat. Last year I asked the Minister whether he would let me know by how much the public assistance was reduced by this Government after it took power, and I am afraid I am still waiting for his answer. But I am not going to talk too much about that. I am going to talk about the withdrawal of public assistance in two cases and both of them come from my own constituency. I am not suggesting that it has been withdrawn because they come from Anson. The first concerns a woman of over 70 years old, Sir, who has no dependants to look after her and she was resettled from wherever she was living into this block in Jalan Bukit Merah in Anson constituency. And because she is single, the HDB told her that she would have to find somebody else before she could be allocated a one-room flat. So she set about it and with the help of friends found a man who works on a bumboat, I am told, and he said, "All right. Yes, I need a place to put my head down, so I will come along and live in your flat." She made a statutory declaration that he was her adopted son and that satisfied the HDB and she was given this flat. Then the Ministry of Social Affairs descended on her and they said, "Oh, you have got a man living here. He is looking after you, is he not?" This man, I am told, only earns about $300 a month which is hardly enough for himself. She was asked to call at the Ministry of Social Affairs and there she was asked to sign a statement saying that she agreed to the withdrawal of her public assistance. She did not get her public assistance for the following month. So she came to see me. She said, "I am not getting my public assistance. They have stopped sending me my public assistance." So I wrote to the Ministry and I got a reply saying: 'Her request to withdraw from public assistance was accepted.' These are the words of the Ministry, "Her request to withdraw from public assistance was accepted." Sir, I find it a little incredible that this woman made a request that her public assistance be withdrawn. However, I have seen her after that, and she said she did no such thing. You might say that she was telling a lie. I do not know. But was it really necessary, I ask, for this public assistance of $80 to this poor woman who is over 70 years, with no other persons to look after her, to be withdrawn? Is it a drain on our economic resources? That it was costing this country to give her $80 a month as though that was a princely sum? So what is she to do now? She tries to eke out a living picking up tins, this and that. Last year there was a big uproar because I said "there are some people who are starving." You go and ask her how she tries to live, That is one case, Sir. 5.00 p.m. There is another case that just came to my notice last night, fortunately. I did not have to dig through my other old letters. They were a husband and wife. They also have a daughter - I think they have other children who are married away - but this daughter is not well. The husband was drawing public assistance. He died about two years ago, I am told. Then when the wife asked for public assistance to be given to her, it was refused on the ground that, "Oh, you have got a married son living somewhere else, and so you cannot get public assistance." You were giving public assistance to her husband. He died. She is left without any means of support. She is over 70 and you do not give her public assistance. What rhyme or reason is there? So she came to me and asked, "Do you think you can do something about it?" I said "Yes, I can always try", as Oliver Twist did to get a little more. So I tell the Minister that I shall be trying. He will be getting a letter from me. But I would ask that the Ministry do give some consideration for human suffering, human needs, and not merely consider whether the $80 can be saved or not for Government revenue. In the case of the woman who has a bumboat man living with her, the reason given was that she had somebody living with her. He said, "Yes, sometimes I buy provisions for her." Is that an adequate reason for withdrawing her public assistance? I can tell you of a number of other cases, but I do not propose to do. I would ask the Minister to restore the public assistance that was given to this woman and which was withdrawn sometime last year because, according to the Ministry, she requested withdrawal from public assistance. I can give you the statement that she made to me when she said that she never did anything of that sort. But I am not going to ask you to hold a public inquiry into it. I am asking you to exercise - I keep calling it - compassion, to show some compassion for the needs of our people.

Sir, first of all, let me settle an old score with the Member for Anson, and that is his query whether there was a reduction in the Public Assistance (PA) rates after this Government took over. If I can refresh his memory, Sir: his question to me a year ago was whether I would confirm that there had been reductions in the rates after 1973. For the information of the Member for Anson and for the information of the rest of the House, PA rates prior to 1973 were, if the Member for Anson would care to take down -

Yes.

First of all, we need five columns. The PA rates prior to 1973 were: Dependants Maximum Head of Over 16 Under 16 per Household Wife yrs of age yrs of age Household $ $ $ $ $ January 1962 21 10 8 5 90 January 1973 28 18 12 12 70 In fact, the 1973 rates were actually higher than the rates in 1962 for each of the four categories of recipients, namely, Head of Household, Wife, Dependant below 16 years of age and Dependant above 16 years of age. However, while the 1962 rates allowed payment for up to a maximum of 12 dependants if they were under 16 years of age or 7 dependants if they were above 16 years of age, the 1973 rates and all subsequent rates up to the present day only allowed payment for a maximum of 4 members in each family. For this reason the maximum amount payable to a household in 1973 was, therefore, lower than in 1962. Moreover, to continue a scale of PA rates which allowed payment for more than 4 members of a family would not have been in keeping with the Government's family planning policy. Let me reiterate to the Member for Anson once again that this Government is pragmatic and honest. We are not ashamed to admit that there was a decrease in the maximum payable per household. There is nothing to hide. We have introduced far more stringent measures than the meagre reduction of $20 of the maximum allowance payable to each household. I hope I do not owe him anything more as far as PA rates are concerned. Before I go on to answer the rest of his questions, let me, first of all, inform him that all recommendations for withdrawal of Public Assistance as a result of reviews by the Public Assistance Section of my Ministry are carefully considered by the Public Assistance Review Committee (PARC) at its monthly meetings. Chaired by me personally, membership of the PARC comprises my two Parliamentary Secretaries, three Members of Parliament and senior officials of the Ministry of Social Affairs. Besides reviewing cases, fresh applications which are assessed by officials as unsuitable for the grant of PA are also referred to the PARC for a decision. In addition, Sir, the PARC considers all appeals for reconsideration made by hon. Members on behalf of their constituents, including the Member for Anson. Hon. Members are welcome to refer appeals to this Committee. I can assure the Member for Anson that his cases will be heard by this Committee as well. Next, I will try to inform the Member how a recipient of PA signs the statement of withdrawal. In the course of investigating applications for Public Assistance or reviewing existing cases, applicants or recipients who have the means of support and are not in need of Public Assistance usually withdraw their applications and request the Ministry not to make further investigations into their family lest they be embarrassed if we find out how much they earn. Sir, the usual practice is to record a voluntary statement of withdrawal from the applicant or recipient to this effect. The signed statement is usually witnessed by a family member, or his relatives or friends in the presence of the applicant or recipient. If there is any feeling on the part of the Member for Anson that the Ministry harasses or coerces any applicant or recipient into making a statement, this is not so. Sir, in 1982 a total of 390 cases voluntarily withdrew from public assistance. Let me come to the next case of the lady with the bumboat man. Sir, since the Member for Anson did not disclose the name of this lady, I shall do likewise. Let us call her Madam X. Madam X, a widow aged 79, was an itinerant cake hawker. She stopped work in 1971 due to old age. She went back to China to visit her only son in 1971 with her life savings of about $7,700. She returned to Singapore after spending three to four months in China where she had exhausted all her savings. She applied for Public Assistance in 1972. As she was reported to be without means of support, she was assisted with PA with effect from February 1972. She was then living alone at Block 28, 219 Jalan Membina Barat. Her case was reviewed in September 1982. Investigations revealed that Madam X had shifted to her present residence at Jalan Bukit Merah on 1st July, 1982, to live with one Mr Y, who was recorded in the HDB tenancy list as her adopted son. Mr Y, a bachelor, is a bumboat driver with no fixed employer. He has a declared income, as the Member put it just now, of $350 per month nett and is supporting Madam X who is also in receipt of Robin Welfare Aid at $30 per month from my Ministry. Later Madam X and her adopted son called at the Ministry to request a final payment in October 1982 and to withdraw from Public Assistance. In view of the above findings her request was acceded to. Her voluntary statement of withdrawal from Public Assistance was witnessed by her adopted son. I have got it here. It was thumb-printed by Madam X. Her thumb print is there. Sir, on 5th November, 1982, the Member for Anson wrote to me to ask for the restoration of Madam X's Public Assistance without delay and that all monies withheld from her over the past weeks be refunded to her. The Member believed that the sum of $30 is not enough for Madam X to maintain herself. He also stated that if he made the facts of the case known publicly, which he did (it was reported in the Straits Times), Singaporeans would hang their heads in shame of the Government's action in taking away Public Assistance of $80 per month from a poor, old, lonely woman of 78 who has not a single relative or anyone to look after her. And he himself admitted just now that he did not know whether Madam X told him a lie or not. I am telling him now that Madam X told him a lie. 5.15 p.m.

About what?

About signing the withdrawal letter. She told you that she did not sign, and you admitted that you did not know whether she was telling the truth or not. I am telling you now that she was not telling you the truth. As regards the second case, since the person concerned came to see him only last night, therefore, I cannot make any comment. As he said just now, he will be writing to me on this case. I will give my judgment when I receive his appeal.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am indebted to the Minister for his answer. If I brought this woman to his place (not to his home, but to his Ministry) and she makes a request that her allowance be given back to her, would he restore it, please? If she says, "I signed that letter but now I do really want this money", would the Minister give it back to her?

Sir, under the circumstances she is now in, the answer is no.

Then why tell me that her public assistance was withdrawn because she made a request for it to be withdrawn? That was what I was given to understand. I read out the letter, "as her request to withdraw from Public Assistance was accepted." It would appear that the basis of the withdrawal was her request. I am now saying that if she says, "I am sorry, I made a mistake in making that request. I really need that money." Would you give it back to her, please?

Mr Chairman, Sir, the Member must be busy studying the five columns of figures I gave him earlier since he did not seem to be listening to my explanation. As I have explained just now, in the course of investigating applications for Public Assistance or reviewing existing cases (Madam X comes under the second category i.e. review of existing cases), families of the persons concerned would normally request the Ministry not to make further investigations into their backgrounds for fear of being embarrassed as a result of the investigations. So they would normally say, "Okay, fair enough, we are now able to support ourselves. We want to withdraw." So we ask the person concerned to sign a withdrawal statement.

I am sorry. May I put a final question to the Minister, please? Suppose she says she does not mind the Ministry making an investigation. Would the Minister then give it back to her?

Mr Chairman, Sir, the Public Assistance rates are fixed as a percentage of minimum household expenditure. In this particular case of the lady and her bumboat son -

He is not her son.

Whatever it is, she has used that person to get tenancy of an HDB flat.

The HDB told her to do that.

I am not too sure. I hope the Minister for National Development is here to answer that. The HDB would never do such a thing: asking the applicant to get someone to be called the adopted son. I doubt it! Anyway, coming back to Public Assistance allowances, the rates are fixed at a certain percentage of the Minimum Household Expenditure determined by the Statistics Department of the Ministry of Finance. For a two-person household, the Public Assistance Allowance is $110 a month and that represents 50% of the Minimum Household Expenditure. So for this particular old lady, if her adopted son earns a declared income of $350, it is more than what a two-person household needs. Therefore, she is not entitled to the Public Assistance Allowance. Even if the Member were to appeal to me, even if he were to bring her to my office or anywhere he wants me to meet her, the answer is still no.

Sir, I am not withdrawing the amendment. I really feel sick about the whole answer.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived. The following amendments stood in the name of Mr Ng Kah Ting -

Amendments (10), (11) and (12) have been withdrawn. Amendment (13), Encik Saidi.

Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head V be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead VD-01 of the Main Estimates. Sir, total budget provision for the Sports Programme for FY 83 is $14,565,000 and out of this amount $11,900,000 is provided as a grant to the Singapore Sports Council. This grant is about $3 million more than that provided for FY 82. I believe the SSC has an estimated income of about $6 million per year. As reflected in the statement of accounts for the year ended 31st March 1982, it is actually $6,724,648. With this income and Government grant, the SSC would have a total of about $17 million to spend on sports programmes towards achieving the objective of promoting mass participation in sports as a means of building a healthy and rugged society. I am curious to know from the Hon. Minister to what extent has the SSC achieved this objective. And is he satisfied that we have motivated many Singaporeans to take up sports of one kind or other to the extent that we can call ourselves a sports-loving nation? It is encouraging to note that the promotion of sports at the grassroots level has made progress by the inclusion of swimming as one of the eight inter-constituency tournaments being organized in 1982. A total of 7,220 persons participated in these tournaments and the SSC spent $341,252 on subsidies on these tournaments. To my mind, this works out to about $5,000 being spent for each constituency for the participation of 100 persons in the tournaments. I believe that if this $5,000 is given to my constituency, I am confident that the Constituency Sports Club (CSC) could organize sports and games, competitions and tournaments involving a higher number of participants in the constituency. I have the impression that there is no glamour or excitement or interest among our people to participate in these interconstituency tournaments. The number of spectators at most of these tournaments from my observation is not satisfactory. Nobody really cares whether his constituency is participating or represented in any particular inter-constituency tournament. I would like to suggest that perhaps the SSC review the constituency sports programme, such as how it is being organized and so on, to enhance its effectiveness at promoting grassroots involvement in sports. Perhaps there should be more concentration on helping the CSC in organizing intra-constituency mass events and tournaments. If the Hon. Minister is satisfied that we have motivated many Singaporeans to take up sports of one kind or other to the extent that we can call ourselves a sports-loving nation, is it not time that we considered the question of trying to produce outstanding sportsmen or sportswomen in any particular sports or games? At present, I understand that it is left to the individual national sports associations to develop their own sportsmen. The SSC spent about $246,585 on subsidies to sports organizations. The Singapore Sports Council should consider formulating a long-term programme to raise the standard of certain sports or games so that we will be able to produce outstanding sportsmen. According to the reports of the Parliamentary Budget debates of 1973 to 1979, there was so much discussion on the utilization of the National Stadium. Many Members felt that when the National Stadium was completed, it was going to become a white elephant. But later after the establishment of the "Kallang Roar" as a result of the Malaysia Cup matches, there was a feeling of satisfaction that the National Stadium was fully utilized. At present, I understand Singapore is not participating in the Malaysia Cup tournament. I therefore believe that it is only during such occasions that many Singaporeans visit the Stadium. May I know from the Minister what plans or steps are being taken by the SSC to ensure that the National Stadium will not turn out to be a white elephant?

Mr Chairman, Sir, I will be very brief. I have taken note of all the suggestions made by the hon. Member for Kaki Bukit on how the SSC should go about doing things, and I will certainly direct the SSC to consider them. But I disagree with the Member for Kaki Bukit that the National Stadium is a "white elephant." Since 1976, the Singapore Sports Council has earned revenue sufficient to pay for the upkeep of the National Stadium. The utilization rate of the National Stadium in 1982 was 244 bookings. The Football Association of Singapore hosted a number of tournaments in 1982. They were the Lion City Cup, the Asian Youth Tournament, the Merlion Trophy and the Asia-Oceania Final Qualifying Match of the World Cup Tournament. And these matches accounted for some periods of usage of the National Stadium in place of the Malaysia Cup. On the usage of the covered area, the exhibition space under the gallery of the National Stadium was fully utilized for commercial rentals except for an area of 170 square metres which was used regularly as a reception area for seminars and rhythmic exercise classes. Two of the fringe car parks have been converted for overnight bus parking while one area, Car Park D, has been converted to house four fast-food restaurants.

Sir, since the Minister has given the assurance that the National Stadium will not become a white elephant, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $36,014,840 for Head V ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $5,770,000 for Head V ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.

I shall now deal with the remaining heads of expenditure in respect of which no amendment stands on the Order Paper Supplement. In respect of the Main Estimates, they are Heads B, C, D, E, G, H and X. I propose to take those heads of expenditure en bloc.

Question, "That the sums stated for those heads of expenditure which appear in the last column of the Schedule of Estimated Expenditure under the Main Estimates on page 17 of Paper Cmd. 2 of 1983 stand part of the Main Estimates," put, and agreed to.

In respect of the Development Estimates, the remaining Head is Head E.

Question, "That the sum of $1,535,600 for Head E stand part of the Development Estimates," put, and agreed to. Question, "That the sum of $7,011,131,420 shall be supplied to the Government under the heads of expenditure for the public services shown in the Main Estimates for the financial year 1st April, 1983 to 31st March, 1984, contained in Paper Cmd. 2 of 1983," put, and agreed to. Question, "That the sum of $7,788,607,100 shall be supplied to the Government under the heads of expenditure for the public services shown in the Development Estimates for the financial year 1st April, 1983 to 31st March, 1984, contained in Paper Cmd. 2 of 1983," put, and agreed to. Resolutions to be reported. Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply have come to certain resolutions. First Resolution reported - "That the sum of $7,011,131,420 shall be supplied to the Government under the heads of expenditure for the public services shown in the Main Estimates for the financial year 1st April, 1983 to 31st March, 1984, contained in Paper Cmd. 2 of 1983." Second Resolution reported - "That the sum of $7,788,607,100 shall be supplied to the Government under the heads of expenditure for the public services shown in the Development Estimates for the financial year 1st April, 1983 to 31st March, 1984, contained in Paper Cmd. 2 of 1983."

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That Parliament doth agree with the Committee on the said resolutions."

Question put, and agreed to. Resolutions accordingly agreed to.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." In accordance with Article 145 of the Constitution of Singapore, heads of expenditure to be met from the Consolidated Fund other than statutory expenditure have to be included in a Bill to be known as the Supply Bill. The purpose of the Supply Bill before Members is therefore to give legislative approval to the appropriations from the Consolidated Fund to meet expenditure in the financial year, 1st April 1983 to 31st March 1984. The heads of expenditure and the sums that may be incurred in respect of each head are shown in the schedule to the Bill. These have been approved by the House in the Main Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year, 1st April 1983 to 31st March 1984, and appear on page 17 of Command Paper No. 2 of 1983. The Supply Bill, when approved, will empower me to issue warrants, authorizing expenditure up to the amount for each head as shown in the Bill to be paid out from the Consolidated Fund. Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Third time.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second and Third Readings read.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The purpose of this Bill is to make provision in accordance with Clause 2 of Article 145 and Clause 2 of Article 147 of the Constitution of Singapore for additional expenditure in excess of the provision authorized by the Supply Act, 1982. The additional sum has been scheduled as a Supplementary Main Estimate which has been considered and approved by tHe House as Command Paper No. 1 of 1983. Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Third time."

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 5.40 p.m.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The purpose of this Income Tax (Amendment) Bill is to give legislative authority to the income tax concessions announced in the 1982 Budget Statement. Opportunity has also been taken to include two other amendments to the existing legislation. It was announced in the 1982 Budget Statement that the ceiling of the capital allowances for company registered motorcars would be increased from $25,000 to $35,000 with effect from 1st April, 1982. Clauses 2, 3, and 5 of the Bill amend Sections 14, 19 and 20 of the Income Tax Act to provide for this. Another concession is the extension of the accelerated depreciation allowance of 33 1/3% over three years to lessors for equipment leased to lessees who would be eligible for the accelerated depreciation had they purchased the equipment themselves. This applies to equipment purchased on or after 1st April, 1982. The accelerated depreciation allowance is also granted to non-industrial enterprises which install approved energy-saving equipment on or after 1st January, 1982. Clause 4 amends section 19A of the Income Tax Act to make provision for these concessions. Clause 7 amends section 39 of the Act to allow the whole amount of statutory contributions to the Central Provident Fund and other designated approved pension or provident fund schemes to be exempt from tax with effect from Year of Assessment 1983. Where such contributions exceed $5,000, no further tax deduction will be allowed for life insurance premiums and other voluntary contributions to superannuation schemes. Where they do not exceed $5,000, the maximum amount deductible for contributions to the Central Provident Fund and approved pension or provident funds and life insurance premiums is $5,000. Clause 7 also provides for the increase in the aged dependant relief from $750 to $1,000 with effect from Year of Assessment 1983, if the parent, grandparent or great grandparent does not have an income of more than $1,500 a year. I now move on to the two minor amendments to the existing legislation. Clause 2 of the Bill also makes consequential amendment to section 14 (1) (e) of the Income Tax Act as a result of the increase in the rate of employers' Central Provident Fund contributions from 201/2% to 22% effective from 1st July 1982. Presently, Singapore accepts and computes taxable profits of a non-resident shipping or air transport enterprise based on the ratio certificate issued by the tax authority of the country of residence if that country adopts a similar basis of assessment. If the certificate is not issued or is unacceptable, the non-resident enterprise is assessed on 5% of the gross freight. Clause 6 amends Section 27 of the Act to provide that the ratio certificates issued by the foreign country will be acceptable to the Comptroller of Income Tax only if that country also accepts similar certificates by him. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Sir, I just want to make a comment on clause 7, in particular the provision to increase the relief to $1,500 a year allowed to a tax-payer for maintaining a parent, a grandparent or a great grandparent who is living with him. There are two conditions which underlie this allowance. First, the parent or grandparent concerned has to live with the taxpayer; and secondly, the parent or grandparent concerned has to have an income of not more than $1,500 per year. I believe that many retired people would have $15,000 to $20,000 in the bank and interest on this sum would give an income of $1,500 or more. Therefore, I would think that if people are honest not many people would benefit from this particular provision. Furthermore, many tax-payers are supporting their parents or grandparents but are unable to live together with them and therefore do not benefit from this provision. Would the Hon. Minister consider relaxing these two conditions?

Sir, the simple answer to that is no, for the purpose of this Bill. This Bill merely enacts legislation to implement the 1982 Budget concessions. If he wants this to be considered separately at a different time it would be possible, but I am not sure whether the Minister responsible for the Budget at that time will be prepared to give a satisfactory answer to him.

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

Order for Second Reading read. 5.43 p.m. The Minister of State for Law and Home Affairs (Prof. S. Jayakumar): Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, male offenders between 16 and 21 years of age are at present sentenced upon conviction to detention in the Reformative Training Centre, for treatment and rehabilitation. Such offenders are detained in the Centre for a period of about 18 to 36 months. Subject to good behaviour during their period of reformative training and upon approval by the Board of Visiting Justices, the trainees are released conditionally and placed under the supervision of an Aftercare Officer from the Ministry of Social Affairs, until the expiration of four years from the date of the sentence. Sir, Members will recall that we have introduced Day Release Schemes for drug addicts in 1979 and Criminal Law detainees in 1981. I am happy to inform the House that the results so far have been encouraging. The Ministry of Home Affairs now proposes to introduce a Day Release Scheme for reformative trainees so that they can be attached to employers outside the Reformative Training Centre during their period of training. Under the Scheme, the Visiting Justices will periodically select trainees for training in blue-collar trades. Trainees, who have been in the Reformative Training Centre for one year and who have completed their three-month institutional training at the Centre, will then be released to work during the day but return to the Centre in the evenings. Those on good behaviour will be allowed to go home during the weekends after the first three months of such Day Release. After completing the initial three-month training at the Centre and on satisfactory completion of their nine-month on-the-job training under the Scheme, the detainees may also be released on supervision. The proposed Day Release Scheme will equip the trainees with a skill which they can gainfully employ upon their eventual release and prepare them for such release. While working outside, they will receive market wages which will be credited to their POSB accounts. Should any of them misbehave, his leave for employment will be cancelled. It will be a test of their ability to stay away from trouble and to become law-abiding and responsible citizens. To implement the Day Release Scheme for reformative trainees, it is necessary to amend Schedule D of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Bill now before the House seeks to do this. The Bill also seeks to amend the proviso to subsection (1) of section 399 of the Criminal Procedure Code which relates to the fee payable for copies of proceedings furnished by the Courts. The present fee of 20 cents for each folio of 100 words with a minimum of $5 was fixed way back in 1937. It is now proposed to increase the fee to 50 cents for each folio of 100 words with a minimum of $10 or such other fee as may be fixed from time to time by the Minister. Sir, I beg to move. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Prof Jayakumar]. Bill considered in Committee.

Clauses 1 and 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 3 -

Sir, may I seek a clarification on clause 3?

Yes, please.

As I understand the Minister, this is to enable these persons detained at the Reformative Training Centre to be employed. Will they be given any discretion as to where they are to work, or will they be directed to places selected for them by the Superintendent or the Visiting Justices? Will they be given any discretion?

Sir, my understanding of the matter is that, of course, the individual desires of the persons in the RTC will be taken into account. But the most important thing is the training to which they have shown an inclination to and which they have successfully completed in the institutional training phase of their stay in the RTC.

Just one more question. The Minister mentioned about blue-collar workers. I take it that this would not include the Building Construction Brigade. Will it or will it not?

The Member for Anson should know that the Construction Brigade, as explained in press statements and other occasions, concerns persons in the national service. But here, we are talking about persons who are in RTC upon a court order, and the two instances are therefore quite different.

Therefore they would not be sent to the Construction Brigade.

They would not be in the Construction Brigade but they may be employed by employers who may be in the Construction industry, which is a separate thing altogether. Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 5.53 p.m. The Minister of State for Law and Home Affairs (Prof. S. Jayakumar): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, on behalf of my Minister, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." As the House is aware, the present Edition of the Laws of Singapore was published more than 12 years ago and since then a great deal of new as well as amending legislation had been enacted. It has, therefore, become a matter of some urgency that a new Edition of the Laws should be prepared and published as soon as possible incorporating all the changes and amendments in our laws that have taken place during this period. It is important that our laws should be kept up to date and made more easily accessible to the legal profession, the public service, the business community and the general public. Accordingly, this Bill seeks to provide the necessary legislative sanction for the preparation and adoption of a new system of law revision whereby our laws can be continually revised and kept up to date. A Law Revision Commission was constituted in March last year and has already embarked on the task of preparing the new Revised Edition of the Laws. This Bill is the result of the recommendations of the Committee new Revised Edition of the Laws. Secondly, there will be a continuous revision of the Laws on an annual basis to keep the new Edition up to date. The new system envisages that the Acts will be printed in the form of loose booklets for insertion in appropriate binders. This will be advantageous since the Edition will be kept up to date by the removal of those Acts which have been extensively or substantially amended and the substitution of fresh booklets incorporating the amendments. New booklets will also be issued in respect of Acts subsequently passed dealing with new subject matters. Further, it would avoid the necessity of reproducing in the publication of a subsequent Revised Edition of the Laws a great number of Acts which have not been amended and are not likely to require amendments, thus providing considerable saving in costs by dispensing with the unnecessary reprinting of unamended Statutes. Another advantage is that there will no longer be any need for a major and comprehensive revision of our laws after every interval of 10 or 15 years as previously has been the case. Instead once the new Revised Edition of the Laws is completed and published, there will be a continuous revision to be carried out annually whereby fresh booklets will be issued for new Acts or existing Acts which have been substantially amended. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the innovations contained in this Bill should make it easier for our laws to be kept up to date and should help users of our statutes to ascertain the current statutory position on the law relating to any particular subject more easily than before. Sir, I beg to move. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Prof Jayakumar]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we are nearly coming to the end of a long and lively debate. There have been some moments of merriment, others when Members were serious and others when some got excited. Sometimes the sparks flew across the Floor. But some speeches were so boring and dull that hon. Backbenchers sitting in the front were sent almost into a state of blissful snoring slumber. The debate began in the Committee of Supply when the Member for Rochore expressed curiosity about the work going on in our garden. As far as the garden is concerned, I have made only one suggestion and that was, we should plant clumps of bamboo because bamboo, swaying with the wind, softens the harshness of the stone and cement you see around us. The Speaker rejected my suggestion because he said that bamboo attracts snakes. Perhaps he was thinking of the Garden of Eden where you have Adam and Eve and the serpent. But thanks to Mr Speaker, we have no serpent in our garden. We do not even have an Eve in this House. Sir, half of our population comes from the fairer sex. I cannot speak on your behalf or on behalf of the other Members. But after listening for so long to the voices of merely males in this House, I say it would be a refreshing change if we had an Eve in this House. But that will have to wait until the general elections.

When is that?

Oh, I do not know. Or the next by-election. Meanwhile you, Sir, will have to continue to put up with us and with some of our antics which you, Sir, and Mr Speaker, have handled with considerable patience. I thank you, Sir.

Resolved, "That at its rising today Parliament do stand adjourned to a date to be fixed." - [Mr E.W. Barker].

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

6.02 p.m.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have a Motion on the Adjournment but I hate to spoil the effect of the speech from the Leader of the House by moving this motion. I wonder whether we can have a compromise. May I have leave to raise this matter on the Motion for the Adjournment, this right given to me, at the next sitting?

As it is already on the agenda, I think you should proceed.

If you like me to proceed, all right, I will proceed then. It is just that I did not want to spoil the effect of the speech made by the Leader of the House. I am sorry I have to keep you, Sir, and the Members back to listen more about the state of our schools and the education of our children. But I asked for this right to speak because I had tabled an amendment under the estimates of the Ministry of Education but the guillotine time was reached before I could speak and, therefore, I was not able to say what I wished to say then. That is why I have asked for the right to raise this matter on the Motion for the Adjournment. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we have heard about the shortage of teachers in our schools. We heard it only this afternoon when we were talking about the supply of teachers for the special schools for our mentally and physically disabled. I tabled a question for the Minister of Education not very long ago about the number of relief teachers who were being employed by the Ministry and I was given a written answer - my question was for a written answer - that there were 1,032 relief teachers employed on the average every month in 1982. I had asked for a list of all schools where they were employed and I was told that this was not possible to be supplied. About 422 schools in the State employed relief teachers at one time or other in the year, but the majority served for less than one year. I was not told very much about the manner in which the relief teachers were recruited and about their terms and conditions of service. But it is not on their behalf that I am talking. I ,am talking on behalf of the children who are being educated and of our education service. But I would like to say something about the manner in which the relief teachers are recruited. I understand that they are recruited just as one recruits casual labour. Anyone has only to ring up a school and say, "Have you got a position for a relief teacher?" and he is told, "Yes, we have got a position for a relief teacher. You come along." And even if the person has the GCE 'O' level or 'A' level for just one subject, he will be given a class to teach, and he is told that he will be paid daily according to the number of days he teaches. Being daily paid, the relief teacher can stay away if he does not feel like turning up for school on that particular day. What is more, I am told that the relief teachers are given the extended classes or the monolingual classes. In fact, these children really need greater care and attention than the normal children. But it is these children that these untrained teachers, who are just picked up as it were, are put to teach. So the teaching of these children, for whom I thought special care is being taken, is neglected. Not only are these relief teachers just taken in a haphazard manner, but they also work whenever they feel like it and stay away if they do not feel like teaching on those days. I am told that there is no supervision over the work of these relief teachers. There is no record of work that they are required to submit and neither is there any supervision over their teaching nor is the record checked. Sir, I do not want to run down these relief teachers. They are meeting a need. Although the answer from the Ministry suggests that most of them were employed for less than a year, I am told that some of them have been teaching for two to three years as relief teachers. They have their own grouses. But, as I have said, I am not here to speak on their behalf. Some of them say that they are dedicated teachers and they have applied to be taken on for training but they have been refused. The question is, if they are good enough to teach for three years, why can they not be trained or given some training? But what are we doing with our children's education? I want to know from the Ministry what is the cause of this, it seems to me, acute teacher shortage in our schools. I was listening when the estimates for the Ministry was being debated, and the more I listened the more convinced I became that there is something very wrong with our education system in this country. With all due respect to the systems engineers who have put into plan the education system in our schools, there was a letter, Sir, which appeared in the Straits Times on 2nd February which highlights the problem. I am told that this is quite common in most schools or, perhaps not most, in many schools: classes left without teachers, children not having teachers to teach them. Here is a letter which carried 103 signatures and this was a plea from students. They say: 'Last year, 42 first batch Secondary 3 pupils from the technical stream in our school were idle most of the time in class during technical periods because there were not enough teachers (except from February to June). Attempts to get a teacher for us, made by some considerate teachers and the principal, proved fruitless. This year, the same thing has happened. Some 39 Secondary 4 and 74 Secondary 3 students from the technical stream are without a technical teacher. What is going to happen to those who are taking the GCE "O" level examination?' Well, they may ask, and I ask the question for them, what is going to happen to them if you are preparing them for the GCE 'O' level examination when you do not provide them with the teachers? And they go on to say: 'Our school needs a qualified technical teacher urgently to make up for lost time. The Ministry of Education should ensure that there are enough teachers for students, otherwise all the important years that a young student should spend on studying will be wasted.' These are students voicing their views, and how right they are. This evening I was talking about the disabled children. But it looks as though we are also not paying enough attention to the education of our other children. What is wrong? There must be something wrong if we have an acute shortage of teachers? Is it not time that we sat down calmly to try and analyse, make a proper diagnosis of the sickness in our education system? What ails it? Instead of implementing ad hoc changes every two or three years, I would propose to the Minister very seriously that it is time we had a commission. I know I suggested a commission earlier this afternoon and it was refused. But this is a very serious matter because, as I have said, the education of our children is a sacred trust and we owe them a duty. They did not ask to be brought into this world. We brought them into the world and we owe them this duty as parents. We have got to see that they get the best education. There was a statement that was referred to by the Chairman of the Singapore Association for the Deaf. The statement, I think, was made by the First Assistant Secretary-General of the ruling party at its conference last year - that it was a duty to give our children the best education that is possible. As the Chairman said, he echoes that. It is no good making statements, but what are we doing about it? We are collecting from our children in the primary schools, what is it - $3 I am told, although we maintain the myth that education in the primary schools is free. I am told that each child in the primary school is paying $3 and a child in the secondary school is paying about $9.

50. We are collecting enough but it would appear that we are not delivering the goods. That again, I say, is dishonest. I saw sometime ago about the teachers' union trying to arrange for private tutors for children. There is a great demand now in Singapore for private tuition for our children. Let me say that private tuition would be unnecessary if we taught the children in the schools. And, of course, if we are going to leave it to private tuition, then it must be obvious that only the children from well-to-do families are going to benefit. Is the Ministry of Education abdicating its responsibility to teach our children and leaving it to parents to educate their children through private tuition after collecting fees like $3 and $9.50 from the children? I say that is dishonest. Let us have a commission. Let us hear the views of the parents. They will tell us what is wrong. I have heard from some parents. They tell me about the lack of teachers. They tell me about the extracurricular activities, the over-doing of these activities into which their children are drawn, the time that is spent outside school having to attend this function, that function, the national celebrations. But all at the expense of educating the children. They will tell us what is wrong. Let us also listen to the teachers. Why are we not attracting enough people into the Education Service? Why are teachers deserting the Education Service? I say, Sir, that would seem to me to be the first priority now in this country to get our Education Service and the teaching of our children back on the right lines. I do not have to say this. It is recognized by everybody that we were providing a good Education Service. We were teaching our children properly in the past. We were turning out children who were able to read and write well in the language that they were educated. We know now and this is no secret. The Government makes no bones about hiding it that the standard of English has come down. I can go on and on. Somehow our standard of teaching has deteriorated. Why? What is wrong? I would ask whether the Ministry will now forget about its own plans, forget about what systems engineers have to say, forget what all its experts have to say and listen. It is good to listen sometimes. And listen to the people that matter, listen to the parents. Even listen to the children. I think if we tell the children to come forward and tell us what is wrong, they will do that. For instance, this letter in the Straits Times. Listen to them and listen to the teachers. Why do we not do that? Then having listened to them, perhaps we can then evolve a plan to teach our children so that we may be proud of them when they leave the schools. Of course, I do not have to say they will then be worthy citizens of this place, contributing to the growth of this society. So my plea today is that we set up without very much delay a commission and listen to people who will tell us what is wrong with our education system. 6.20 p.m.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Member for Anson, as to be expected, wanders over a very wide range of things, mouthing pious platitudes if I may say. And he reveals his ignorance about education and what is going on in our education system. Let me ask him: where did his children go to school? Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

What does he know about the education system when his children never went to any of our schools in Singapore? He sent them abroad and he sent them to the United World College, What does he know about education in Singapore? He talks as if he knows a great deal about what is going on in the classroom. He casts a slur on our teachers and he sneers at them by saying they are not teaching well, they are not doing a good job in our schools. That is what he is saying.

A point of clarification Sir.

Are you giving way, Dr Tay?

I am not giving way. The Member talks about something being very wrong with our education system. Let us have the facts. Let him substantiate the statements and I hope in future he will do so because I am not giving way to him to say anything now. But where are his facts? He makes innuendoes about ad hoc changes. He makes innuendoes about the Ministry and its systems engineers, casting slurs again on highly professional officers that we have in the civil service. Obviously, he does not know anything about the Goh Keng Swee Report that was debated for four days in this House. I do not believe he has even read it. He has not understood the background in which education has evolved in this country and the changes that have had to take place because of this evolution. We are a country that has undergone rapid changes in the last 20 years. First, we have four language streams, four types of schools in Singapore. We have evolved to a bilingual system. We have had a growing trend of parents who wanted to send their children to English-medium schools and so there had to be changes. Teachers had to be recruited to meet these changes. School buildings had to be put up at great speed. All these changes have had to take place. And the Member is saying that the Ministry of Education is making changes, making changes. If we did not make these changes, we would not be where we are today. Let us look at the facts rather than listen to innuendoes which the Member has just been spouting. The fact is, even in the last four years with the implementation of the new education system, there is already a perceptible reduction in the number of pupils dropping out from our school system. Only a few days ago, I gave some information on this. There has been a three-fold reduction in the number of primary school pupils dropping out of the system. In the secondary school system which has only reached Secondary 1 and 2 as far as the new system is concerned, there is already a five-fold reduction. We are beginning to see improvements. He talks of the old system as being wonderful and so on. It had its flaws because it went through rapid evolution. There was loss due to failure. I think he does not know what he is talking about when he tries to make comparisons between now and the past. On the subject of relief teachers, I do not believe that there is any education system in the world that does not have to have relief teachers to meet their contingencies and their needs. It is not a situation that we are entirely happy with because, first, it represents a shortage of teachers that we have. Secondly, even if we do have the full complement of teachers, the need for relief teachers will still exist because we have teachers who have to go on maternity leave, we have teachers who have to go on sick leave, study leave and so on. These short-term interruptions in staffing have to be met, and one of the ways is to have relief teachers. The selection of relief teachers is done with some care, minimum 'O' level. In fact, the majority of relief teachers who join our teaching force have 'A' levels. They are students. Many of them have 'A' levels who are waiting for entry into the University. For the six months of the year, they are available as relief teachers. And they come at a period of time which meets the needs because in the first month or so of any school year, there are adjustments that have to be made because of the movements of students from one school to another from the previous year and also of transfers of teachers from the previous year. So their service is indeed welcome for that one month or so. On the whole, relief teachers are doing a pretty good job in our schools. In fact, many of them do go on to join the Institute of Education to become trained teachers. Roughly, about half the number of students taken in by the Institute of Educa- tion each year to be trained as teachers have had relief teaching experience in the past. So this is an indication that the relief teachers who are in our schools are persons of some ability. Granted there are relief teachers who do not have the minimum requirements for entry into the Institute of Education. There is a very small number of them. Their service in teaching is not long-term. They do leave. The Member spoke about charging $3 for primary school pupils and $9.50 for secondary school pupils, as if this is something which is very wrong; as if it is wrong for Government to charge students a nominal fee to come to school. Let me inform him that the $3 that is paid by primary school pupils goes into the School Fund. It is called Miscellaneous Fees and it is used for many of the things that go on in the school, for ECA activities, for art materials and so on. This is something which no parent would grudge because it is going immediately to the pupils for their benefit. I reject completely his suggestion that there should be a commission of inquiry on education or a commission on education. I think it is a typical approach that this Member has taken in this House on almost any issue that is beyond his comprehension. He calls for a commission, a tribunal, to look at the whole thing.

We are prepared to listen.

Read the blue book. Has he read the Goh Keng Swee Report of 1979? I would pass it to him now. It does not just contain recommendations. It contains also the history of our education and the issues on education. I think it would be very educational for him.

Dr Tay, you have about two minutes to conclude your reply.

Thank you, Sir. Sir, given that the Member for Anson has come up with a hotch-potch of issues on education betraying his lack of depth of comprehension of education, all I can say is that he needs some education himself. We will be happy, as patiently as possible in the future, to educate him and enlighten him on any aspect of the education system that we have. We have an open system. We are prepared to explain all our policies in public and we have done so in this House repeatedly. The Question having been proposed at two minutes past Six o'clock p.m. and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr Deputy Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. Adjourned accordingly at Thirty- two minutes past Six o'clock p.m. to a date to be fixed.