Hansard, 1984-03-12

PERMISSION TO MEMBERS TO BE ABSENT 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:- Encik Wan Hussin Zoohri (Kampong Ubi), Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Minister for Culture - from 8th to 10th March 1984. Mr Chai Chong Yii (Bukit Batok) - from 16th to 30th March 1984. Mr Lim Chee Onn (Bukit Merah) - from 19th March to 3rd April 1984. YEOH GHIM SENG Speaker, Parliament of Singapore

(Announcement by Mr Speaker) In accordance with the provisions of paragraph (7) of Standing Order 87 and paragraph (5) of Standing Order 88, I have fixed the times for the conclusion of consideration of the heads of expenditure in the Main and Development Estimates of Expenditure for FY 84 in the Committee of Supply. These times have been notified to honourable Members and will appear in the Official Report. (Cols. 881 - 884) Official Report - MAIN AND DEVELOPMENT ESTIMATES OF EXPENDITURE FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1ST APRIL 1984 to 31ST MARCH 1985 (Cols. 881 - 884)

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS - PUNGGOL PIG FARMERS - (Dispossession) asked the First Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Education (a) what were the reasons for dispossessing the pig farmers in Punggol of their farms; (b) how many farmers have been dispossessed of their farms; (c) what has happened to the farmers who have been dispossessed; and (d) has any alternative livelihood been offered to them.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS - PUNGGOL PIG FARMERS - (Dispossession) Mr Speaker, Sir, no pig farmers in Punggol have been dispossessed of their farms. So the questions raised by the Member for Anson are irrelevant. Despite this, I shall take advantage of this occasion to explain Government's present thinking on pig farming. Pig farming is a highly pollutive industry, the animal producing excrement five times as much as a human being. A major review of pig policy was undertaken in 1979 when a decision was taken, on the advice of the Primary Production Department (PPD) of the Ministry of National Development, to install waste treatment plants in all pig farms as a means of reducing environmental pollution. Such plants are expensive to install and require a minimum size of farm. In effect, this means that small pig farms will have to close down. These farms are sited on Government land under Temporary Occupation Licences (TOL) with nominal annual rentals. In this way, they are thus subsidized. PPD's policy was to convert these small farms to large-scale commercial enterprises, paying economic rents and eventually installing waste treatment plants. They will be concentrated mostly in the Punggol area, and farms elsewhere will be phased out. PPD envisaged that by the end of 1986, there will be 70 commercial farms with a pig population of 650,000. With the exception of eight commercial farms (with a pig population of about 150,000) whose leases expire in 2005, all leases will expire in 1995. This pig population of 650,000 can serve Singapore's consumers if it is supplemented by modest imports from Malaysia. There are, however, three serious weaknesses in this policy. The first is a technical one - the reduction in the level of pollution. This is measured by the Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) which is the demand for oxygen by organic pollutants in the water. Raw pig waste with a BOD level of 4000 mg per litre requires more then 400 times as much oxygen as clean stream water which has a BOD level of less than 10 mg per litre. PPD aims to achieve a BOD level of 250 mg per litre as a preliminary target. This represents a considerable reduction in pollution level, from 4000 mg per litre. However, a BOD level of 250 mg per litre is not acceptable to the Ministry of the Environment, as it is the BOD level of raw human sewage. The second and third weaknesses are economic. Pig farming requires scarce resources, notably land and water. The scarcity of land in Singapore means that the proximity of pig farms is much too close to densely populated areas. As for water, the Ministry of the Environment estimates that 30 to 40 litres of water per pig per day will be required just to wash pig waste into the cesspits and treatment plants. Assuming that about half of the water used is PUB water and that a pig population of 650,000 is maintained, the amount of PUB water required to wash pig waste into cesspits and treatment plants works out to two to three million gallons per day. Finally, the high cost of constructing and maintaining the treatment plants. The capital cost of the treatment plant works out to about $120 per pig. PPD proposes to give a grant of $100 per pig to commercial farms. The operating cost could be $10 per pig, according to PPD, but the Ministry of the Environment believes it to be between $20 and $30 per pig. Both PPD and the Ministry of the Environment are agreed that the treatment of pig waste to a BOD level substantially below 250 mg per litre would make pig farming uneconomic. What PPD is doing is to levy a cess of $10 per pig slaughtered at the abattoir with the intention of using this money to subsidize commercial farms' expenditure on waste treatment plant. The cess was introduced on 1st January 1980, and the amount accumulated at the end of 1983 is $33 million. In effect, what happens is that the Singapore consumer is being asked to subsidize commercial pig farms in two ways. First is the cess of $10 per pig slaughtered at the abattoir. Second is the restriction on import of pigs, ostensibly on health grounds but, in reality, to maintain pig prices high enough to make commercial farms viable. The Government is making a review of this policy. Does it make sense to spend some $80 million on waste treatment plants to achieve poor environmental standards? If pig farms have eventually to go, why prolong the agony? Are we assured of reliable sources of live pigs from imports? Can we persuade the Singapore consumer to buy frozen imported pork at lower cost? On 11th February, I visited Bangkok to discuss with the Thai authorities possibilities of imports of live pigs and frozen pork. The Thai counterparts of PPD assured me that they could easily supply our market and would set up the health standards we require. A technical mission will visit Bangkok next week for a study of quarantine facilities, the state of pig farms in Thailand and other matters. The Government has also received enquiries from Indonesian businessmen about possibilities of setting up commercial pig farms in the Rhio Islands. The preliminary conclusion therefore is that it is possible to supply the whole of our pork requirements through imports, probably at a lower cost to the Singapore consumer. However, further studies have to be made before we can come to a firm conclusion. If studies confirm that imported supplies are the best solution, we have to decide how quickly we can phase out our pig farms and in what manner, that is, by administrative controls or by allowing market forces to decide the outcome by free competition. The question of compensation, if any, can then be decided. Returning to the Member's questions, 71 TOL pig farms in Punggol were informed on 8th April 1983, that they would have to be resettled. I have asked PPD to withhold action until the Government has reached a conclusion on the future of pig farms. Mr Speaker, may I comment on the general tenor of the Member's questions. First, the word "dispossessed" carries strong emotive overtones. It suggests a heartless government depriving the poor of the little that they have. How can anyone in his right mind see the PAP Government in this light? Over the last 25 years, we have created a stable and prosperous society with full employment and raised the standard of living four or five-fold. When we started in 1959, Singapore was a riot-torn city with endemic high rates of unemployment and wretched overcrowding. The last question betrays the Member's unstated major premise from which he addresses our economic problems. He asked: "Has any alternative livelihood been offered to them?" He believes that somebody owes the Singaporean a livelihood. This is a form of the welfare state syndrome which the Member has acquired because he believes that what the West does, Singapore must do likewise. We have repeatedly stated that nobody owes us a livelihood. We make our own livelihood by hard work, thrift and enterprise. The Government helps our citizens by its economic policy which ensures sustained and robust growth so that changes of occupation and employment, when these are necessary, can be made quickly and with minimum pain.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS - PUNGGOL PIG FARMERS - (Dispossession) Mr Speaker, Sir, a supplementary question for the Minister. But before I ask him the supplementary question, may I say that I am indebted to him for his lengthy exposition on pig farming and how it could be economically carried out. But I am a little surprised that the Minister should take umbrage at my question. He says no one has been dispossessed. But now I understand that there were 71 farmers who held licences on a TOL basis. I am indebted to him to learn that now action will be withheld. So do I understand the Minister to say that the notices to quit addressed to the other 70 will be withdrawn, because one of them committed suicide, as we know, after receiving this notice to quit. [Laughter] It is no laughing matter, Members. One of them committed suicide because he was distressed by this notice to quit. Am I to understand that the notices to quit served on the other 70-odd farmers had been withdrawn and that no precipitate action will be taken against them?

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS - PUNGGOL PIG FARMERS - (Dispossession) Sir, the Member for Anson is a lawyer by profession and he believes that, I assume correctly, from the legal point of view, that a notice to quit means action will be taken. I did say that the notices to the TOL pig farms were served on the farmers on 8th April 1983 which was nearly a year ago and up to now no action has been taken to ask them to quit. Even if the intention of Government to close down all these farms was carried out, time would be given to these farmers to adjust to the new situation. He asked for an assurance whether these notices to quit will be withdrawn. Obviously, from the tenor of my reply, it does not make sense to withdraw these notices and then later on to tell them, "You have to phase out your farms." Because my assessment is that the now policy would mean that not only the small farmers have to cease operation but the big commercial farms also. I cannot see under what conditions they can compete with imported supplies of pigs, if they are asked to maintain a standard of anti-pollution treatment plants acceptable to the Ministry of Environment. In short, the future of the Singapore pig looks to me to be very bleak.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS - PUNGGOL PIG FARMERS - (Dispossession) May I ask the Minister just one more question and, that is, has he considered bringing all these farmers into a son of cooperative so that they could farm more economically and meet the standards required?

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS - PUNGGOL PIG FARMERS - (Dispossession) Sir, I have not considered it; it is a rather astonishing idea. When large-scale and efficient enterprises are not expected to survive com- petition from imported pigs by reason of the cost of waste treatment plant, I cannot see how cooperatives can perform better. I think it is more humane that we allow the pig farmers time to adjust and move on to other jobs. May I draw the Member's attention to this fact. In 1975, there were 9,938 pig farms with 16,288 full-time workers. Last December, there were only 3,965 full-time workers. So in the meantime, we have more than 12,000 workers looking for other profitable ways of employment. I do not want to flog a dead horse, Mr Speaker, but when changes have to be made to let the economy grow, Singaporeans are enterprising; they do not need much help from the Government. There are opportunities and they will seize the opportunities. In this way, we make best use of our most scarce and valuable resources, that is, our human resources.

NEW RESTRUCTURED EDUCATION SYSTEM - (Report on progress) asked the First Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Education if he will respond to the call by Government backbenchers to present to Parliament a report on the progress and problems of the New Restructured Education System and whether there has been any shift in policy since its implementation in 1979.

NEW RESTRUCTURED EDUCATION SYSTEM - (Report on progress) Sir, when I addressed Parliament on the introduction of the New Education System, I promised to present a progress report. I have not kept this promise. It is not that there is nothing to report. The reason is that with the establishment of the Schools Council in February 1981 detailed progress reports have been made every month to the teaching profession, the newspapers and the public. Members of Parliament can receive copies of studies, progress reports and policy papers on application to the Ministry. In view of the continuous flow of a large volume of information available to MPs, I did not think it necessary to make a special report to Parliament. However, if sufficient numbers of MPs want a special report, I shall be happy to oblige. As regards the second part of the quesion, there has been no shift in policy since 1979, though various attempts have been made to improve the system.

NEW RESTRUCTURED EDUCATION SYSTEM - (Report on progress) Mr Speaker, Sir, supplementary questions. Obviously the Minister is very comfortable with his reply. But I am sure Members of his House are not comfortable with his reply. Is the Minister happy that his Ministry has brought remarkable changes to our Education system and has added more anxiety and uncertainty to many students, teachers and parents? Is he aware that his now education system has put labels on our society - Monolingual, Normal, Express, Special, and now Gifted? Is he aware of the consequences of labelling our population in future? Is he aware that Normal course students are unhappy that their chances of doing the GCE are very slim, and that the parents are even more worried when they learn of this fine-tuning of the streaming of the Normal course? Is he worried that the double-weightage given to Languages distorts streaming? Are there only slow-learners in the Normal stream? How many are there because of the double-weightage given to Languages? What has the Minister done to ensure that the child who does badly in Second Language but has good results in other subjects are not wrongly streamed? Is he aware that Monolingual classes are facing a disciplinary problem? Is he also aware that some schools are bogged down with too many pilot projects, that teachers are busy sorting out these pilot projects rather than sorting out the problems of students?

NEW RESTRUCTURED EDUCATION SYSTEM - (Report on progress) Dr Tan, would you let the Minister reply instead of going on?

NEW RESTRUCTURED EDUCATION SYSTEM - (Report on progress) Yes, I have given him a mouthful.

NEW RESTRUCTURED EDUCATION SYSTEM - (Report on progress) Sir, I am aware of all these problems. However, the Member has grossly exaggerated the extent to which these matters have caused difficulties and problems either to the children or their parents. Slow-learners there will always be under any system. Under the old system, the slow-learner has to learn at the same pace as the fast learner. The result is thousands of school children drop out. Enormous wastage we had then. We have reduced this substantially. As regards the double-weightage at PSLE both for passing and streaming purposes, we have carried out computer simulation tests to see what difference there would be if there were no double-weightage for languages; the difference is extremely minute. As for the Normal stream students at secondary schools not being able to do the GCE 'O' level, I would like to remind the Member that a fair proportion of Normal stream students, after they have finished Secondary 1, are able to join the Express stream. For the others, the better top, maybe 40%, maybe 50%, after doing their GCE 'O' level Normal, can go on to the 'O' level as we have now. The others will probably have the 'O' level Normal as their terminal examinations. Compare this with the situation where it is quite common for large numbers, thousands each year, to drop out of secondary schools. If a parent has a child that is below average in learning capacity, it does not matter whether the child is in the Normal stream in the present policy or whether he is in the same class as the bright boys, because in the end that child will do badly. However, we are giving him a better chance to do 'O' level in five years what he is expected to do in four. As for schools being deluged with work, with pilot projects, with workshops, the hon. Member has a very light ear to complaints from school principals and teachers. Schools must always be on the look-out for new methods of teaching, for innovation, for improvement. If they are not willing to improve on their professional standards, then they have no right to be in the profession. So I must ask him, when he listens to such complaints, to have not only a light ear but a discriminating mind.

NEW RESTRUCTURED EDUCATION SYSTEM - (Report on progress) The Minister mentioned about Normal course. Is he aware that his Ministry is trying to think for those parents whose children are in the Normal course, and whether it is wise to interfere too much with the aspirations of these people? And is he aware (i) that his perception of the expectations of the students and of the parents is not what the students and parents perceive, (ii) that their expectation is to do the GCE in five years, and (iii) that the Ministry just prepares them for the examination? And that is what is provided in the Report in 1979. Would the Minister like to comment on this?

NEW RESTRUCTURED EDUCATION SYSTEM - (Report on progress) Sir, when it comes to streaming at PSLE into the Express and Normal courses, special attention is paid to pupils in the margin, say, 21/2% below the cut-off point. The parents are asked whether they want their child to go to the Normal stream as the examination results indicate, or whether they want to go to the Express stream, and the Ministry complies with the parents' wishes. Where it is below the margin of doubt, the child still has a chance by performing well in Secondary 1 - and there are cases where for various reasons children who are below the band of doubt perform better than expected at Secondary 1 and they go to the Express stream. For the others, it is for their own benefit that if they have the capacity to do GCE at all, it is best that they do it in five years. I know there are ambitious parents in professional families who want to pressure their children, who think it is a loss of face that their child is in Normal course whereas the neighbour's child is in the Express stream. Which is more important? The parent's ego or the child's welfare? Think about it.

NEW RESTRUCTURED EDUCATION SYSTEM - (Report on progress) Mr Speaker, Sir, in his 1979 Report, the Deputy Prime Minister definitely gave parents the impression that all Normal course students would at least do the GCE in five years' time. But somewhere along the line the Ministry did some fine tuning to this particular course. I learned that about 65% to 70% of students in the Normal course would ultimately not do the GCE. Why is the Minister so impatient?

NEW RESTRUCTURED EDUCATION SYSTEM - (Report on progress) Sir, this is a very long and complicated subject. I suggest that we go to the next Question. If the Member wants a proper and detailed explanation, he can raise it during the Budget debate in the Committee of supply.

NEW RESTRUCTURED EDUCATION SYSTEM - (Report on progress) I will not be around. That is why I am asking all the questions today. Well, I can take it up at the next Budget. Is the Minister also aware that principals are unhappy because the salary of a principal is the same in many instances as a senior staff? And is he aware that some teachers do not want to become principals or vice-principals because of this salary structure?

NEW RESTRUCTURED EDUCATION SYSTEM - (Report on progress) Dr Tan, are you going on with the second Question, or are you going to the third Question now?

NEW RESTRUCTURED EDUCATION SYSTEM - (Report on progress) All these supplementaries are related to the second Question.

NEW RESTRUCTURED EDUCATION SYSTEM - (Report on progress) I thought you said you would take it up at the next Budget.

NEW RESTRUCTURED EDUCATION SYSTEM - (Report on progress) No. That is on the particular aspect of the Normal course.

NEW RESTRUCTURED EDUCATION SYSTEM - (Report on progress) Sir, can I ask you, on a point of order, whether the questions on details are relevant to the original Question which the Member raised?

NEW RESTRUCTURED EDUCATION SYSTEM - (Report on progress) Only to your answer.

NEW RESTRUCTURED EDUCATION SYSTEM - (Report on progress) It is relevant. It is related to the Minister's report. Of course, he did not give a very good and satisfactory report. So I am trying to dig it out from him.

NEW RESTRUCTURED EDUCATION SYSTEM - (Report on progress) Maybe on another occasion, Dr Tan.

EDUCATION POLICY ON ADMISSIONS AND STREAMING asked the First Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Education if he will assure the House that his Ministry's latest policy of admission to schools of their choice for graduate mothers, together with the policy of streaming students into Normal, Express, Special and Gifted streams will not eventually lead to the development of a class system in Singapore.

EDUCATION POLICY ON ADMISSIONS AND STREAMING Mr Speaker, Sir, no one can give the assurance the Member is seeking. Indeed, I doubt whether any education policy can prevent the development of a class system in Singapore or elsewhere. To be quite candid, I doubt whether it is possible to have a classless society which, I assume, is what the hon. Member regards as the ideal Singaporeans should try to achieve. I can, however, assure him that any identifiable class that may emerge will not be the result of the priority scheme. In a meritocratic society such as we have in Singapore, the children of graduate women are likely to be high performers and many will be at the top ranges of society, regardless of any entrance priorities or streaming in schools. Two great thinkers of the 19th century, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, believed that a classless society was not only desirable but also inevitable. This classless society could be achieved by the destruction of the capitalist system which, they said, was a system under which man exploited man. With the overthrow of the bourgeoisie, the ruling class of capitalism, exploitation of man by man would end. Everybody would be equal. True freedom would then be achieved under which, and I quote the Marxist bible, "the free development of each is the condition of the free development of all". Grand ideals, fine rhetoric! Capitalism has been overthrown in many countries - in the Soviet Union, in Eastern Europe, in the Peoples' Republic of China and in Vietnam. Has the classless society emerged there? If anyone believes this has happened, let him go there and see it for himself. As an economic phenomenon, a class system will arise when incomes earned in different occupations are not equal. It will also arise, if Professors Eysenck and Jensen are correct and parents pass on their genes to their children. No one has devised a system under which a primary school teacher earns as much as a doctor or a research scientist no more than his laboratory assistant. So economic inequalities exist. What is important is not that they exist but how they come about. If high incomes are earned through merit in free and fair competition, as in Singapore, no one can say that a class system that results from unequal incomes is necessarily bad. It is only when high incomes are derived from privileges based on nepotism, political connection or corruption, that the system is to be condemned. Now, I come to the specific points raised by the Member. As regards streaming, the rationale for this is generally well understood, except perhaps by the Member himself. I need not say more than that its purpose is to help the slow-learners who cannot cope with the rate of teaching which had hitherto been geared to the brightest, that is, those who can make the grade to 'A' levels in 12 years. As for the gifted programme, this is not a Singapore innovation. We follow the example of others such as the United States, Israel and, of all countries, the Soviet Union. The preference in school admission given to graduate mothers has generated much unhappiness, and understandably so. In a democracy, everyone wants to be treated alike and where a group is singled out for preferential treatment, strong reasons must be advanced. Why do we give preference to graduate mothers? The subject has been made sensitive because some people mistakenly believe that it is inspired by the conviction that only clever people can breed clever children. In fact, the President of the NUS Students' Union wrote to my Minister of State earnestly pointing out that it is untrue that only clever people breed clever children. No one can dispute this. Let me give Members what the Shell people call a "helicopter vision" of the problem. This is necessary because, viewed in isolation, the policy makes no sense. The root of our trouble is that while we have made enormous strides in economic modernization and in standards of living, our social customs and habits have not kept pace. The young Singapore woman who writes computer programmes is as competent professionally as her Western counterpart. Yet her attitudes on what constitutes acceptable norms of social conduct, especially in regard to sex and marriage, are closer to those of her mother than her adventurous Western sisters. The same holds true of the Singapore male, alas! When it comes to choosing a marriage partner, most display the male chauvinism of traditional oriental cultures. A docile woman is an asset, a highly educated one may be argumentative and this will not make for marital bliss. I need not labour this point. Now the outcome of such incongruous arrangements - social attitudes lagging behind economic performance - is that in 1983,60% of male graduates marry below their education level. The number of female graduates who do so is negligible. You may ask, "What is wrong with that?" If you take a short-term and myopic view, there is nothing wrong. The choice of a marriage partner is a personal act and outsiders, especially the Government, should not interfere. The Japanese think otherwise, but I will not pursue this line of argument here. If you consider the social consequences of current trends remaining unchanged, the results will be horrendous. I am not exaggerating. Consider these figures. Last year, 60% of the students admitted to NUS were women. Over 2,000 males who qualified for pre-university chose to go to the Polytechnics. If the trend persists and 60% of our male graduates continue to marry below their education level, then only 27% of our women graduates will eventually be married to graduates. Nearly all of the remaining 73% will remain unmarried. Consider another statistic. Graduate mothers produce nine times the number of gifted children than the general population, graduate fathers, alas, only six times. It does not now matter whether this is the result of nature or nurture, or both. Just calculate the loss to our society if three-fourths of our women graduates, some 2,200 each year, are added to the pool of unmarried. Reflect further on what we are doing. We educate our girls to the best of their ability, and it is a good thing we do so. But to the top three-fourths, that is, those who enter the NUS, we in fact tell them what Hamlet said to Ophelia, "Get thee to a nunnery". What sort of people are we if we consider such matters to be of no consequence? When the Government first expressed concern over this and sent a team to Japan to learn how the Japanese went about it, the episode provoked much merriment, even among some PAP MPs I regret to say. We believe that her people are Singapore's only asset. There is not a Minister or MP who has not repeated this almost ad nauseam. If our people are our only asset, the better the quality of future generations, the better our future will be. Especially is this so when outside sources of talented people, from China, India and Malaysia, are no longer as freely available as in the past. Members will recall that the Prime Minister once pointed out that he was the only Singapore-born person in the top seven in the protocol list. This will no longer be so a generation from now. Singapore must produce her own talented people, mostly on her own. How can we be complacent over a situation when three-fourths of our most talented women are likely to remain single? Whether Members believe that many children of graduate mothers are talented or gifted through nurture or nature does not affect the issue. The fact that their children are disproportionately over-represented amongst the gifted and the high performer cannot be disputed. The preference given to children of graduate mothers in school admission is only one of the policy measures the Government has to take. Other changes must be introduced to get the better educated women, both graduates, 'A' and 5 'O' levels, to bear their share of the next generation. The effect could be two-fold. First, we draw attention to the nature and magnitude of our problem. Second, the better educated the woman, the more we must help her to marry and have her children. We must also induce the rational Singapore male to ponder on his wayward past ways and to do better for himself and his children in future.

EDUCATION POLICY ON ADMISSIONS AND STREAMING Mr Speaker, Sir, I am sure the First Deputy Prime Minister must agree that this policy is discriminatory. It discriminates against children.

EDUCATION POLICY ON ADMISSIONS AND STREAMING Can I have your supplementary question, Dr Tan?

EDUCATION POLICY ON ADMISSIONS AND STREAMING Is the First Deputy Prime Minister aware that his policy of priority of admission to schools for children of graduate mothers is discriminatory? It discriminates against children of non-graduates. It discriminates against children of graduate fathers and non-graduate mothers. It discriminates against children of mothers who complied with our sterilization policy by ligating after having two children. And in view of this unfairness to most but 200 Singaporeans, would the First Deputy Prime Minister like to review this policy?

EDUCATION POLICY ON ADMISSIONS AND STREAMING Sir, I have gone at great length to explain why this policy is necessary. The Member is wrong in saying that those who had sterilized themselves in the past are being penalized. They are not. Under the rules, exceptions are made for them and they retain the status. As regards the other points that he raised, I think I have fully answered them. If he does not understand what I have said, I am prepared to give the text of my speech to him for him to read carefully and ponder in depth. Then he need not ask unnecessary supplementary questions.