Hansard, 1984-10-19

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 Sidek bin Saniff (Kolam Ayer), Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Trade and Industry and the Minister for Social Affairs - from 28th August to 15th September, 1984. Dr Goh Keng Swee (Kreta Ayer), First Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Education - from 31st August to 4th September, from 21 st to 26th October and from 30th October to 5th November,1984. Mr Lim Chee Onn (Bukit Merah) - from 31st August to 1st September, from 9th to 15th September and from 8th to 10th October and from 19th to 21st October, 1984. Mr Liew Kok Pun (Boon Teck)-from 1st to 3rd September, on 16th October and from 20th to 23rd October, 1984. Mr Rohan bin Kamis (Telok Blangah) - from 2nd to 5th September and from 20th to 28th October, 1984. Encik Saidi Haji Shariff (Kaki Bukit) - from 4th to 8th September, 1984. Dr Ang Kok Peng, B.B.M. (Buona Vista) - from 8th to 14th September and from 2nd to 6th October, 1984. Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam (Sembawang), Minister for Finance and Minister for Trade and Industry - from 15th to 29th September, 1984. Mr Ong Pang Boon (Telok Ayer), Minister for the Environment - from 18th to 20th September, 1984. Mr S. Dhanabalan (Kallgng), Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Culture - from 19th September to 8th October, 1984. Mr S. Rajaratnam (Kampong Glam), Second Deputy Prime Minister (Foreign Affairs) - from 20th September to 29th October, 1984. Mr Lai Tha Chai (Henderson) - from 23rd September to 4th October, 1984. Mr Goh Chee Wee (Boon Lay) - from 24th September to 3rd October, 1984. Encik Othman bin Haron Eusofe (Geylang Serai) - from 24th September to 15th October, 1984. Dr Lau Teik Soon (Serangoon Gardens) - from 25th September to llth October, 1984. Mr Lee Yock Suan (Cheng San), Minister of State, Ministry of Finance - from 2nd to 7th October, 1984. Mr Lee Yiok Seng (Bukit Panjang), Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development and Government Whip - from 2nd to 7th October, 1984. Dr Yeoh Ghim Seng, B.B.M., J.P. (Joo Chiat), Speaker - from 2nd to 7th October, 1984. Mr Yeo Toon Chia (Ang Mo Kio) - from 2nd to 7th October, 1984. Encik Wan Hussin Zoohri (Kampong Ubi), Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and the Minister for Culture - from 2nd to 7th October, 1984. Dr Tan Cheng Bock (Ayer Rajah) - from 2nd to 7th October, 1984. Mr Lau Ping Sum (Yio Chu Kang) - from 2nd to 6th October, 1984. Mr S. Chandra Das (Chong Boon) - from 2nd to 15th October, 1984. Dr Lee Chiaw Meng (Tanah Merah) - from 7th to 17th October, 1984. Prof. S. Jayakumar (Bedok), Minister for Labour and Second Minister for Law and Home Affairs - from 8th to 10th October, 1984. Dr Ow Chin Hock (Leng Kee) - from 8th to 12th October, 1984. Mr Chai Chong Yii (Bukit Batok) - from 8th to 23rd October, 1984. Dr Augustine H.H. Tan (Whampoa) - from 10th October to 10th November, 1984. Encik Abbas Abu Amin, P.P.A. (Pasir Panjang) - from 23rd to 24th October, 1984. Mr M.K.A. Jabbar (Radin Mas) - from 3rd to 11th November, 1984. YEOH GHIM SENG, Speaker, Parliament of Singapore

The following Bills were assented to by the President of the Republic of Singapore on the date stated: 11th September 1984 (i) The Monetary Authority of Singapore (Amendment) Bill; (ii) The Small Claims Tribunals Bill; (iii) The Road Traffic (Amendment No. 2) Bill; (iv) The Housing Developers (Control and Licensing)(Amendment) Bill; (v) The Housing and Development (Amendment) Bill; (vi) The Administration of Muslim Law (Amendment) Bill; and (vii) The Central Provident Fund (Amendment) Bill. YEOH GHIM SENG Speaker, Parliament of Singapore

asked the Minister for National Development if the Housing and Development Board will consider completing new flats with tile, marble or parquet floorings so that buyers can move in immediately on receiving the keys.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the HDB will continue its existing practice of providing floor finishes for the kitchens and bathrooms of newly-completed flats, but will not extend standard floor finishes to other rooms. Any standard floor finish provided is unlikely to satisfy the wide range of tastes of flat buyers. Most of them want to select finishes according to their individual preferences and budgets. The HDB's existing practice allows them this flexibility. The provision of standard floorings for kitchens and bathrooms is necessary to reduce damage to these wet areas, and hence minimise the possibility of water leakage. Even then, the HDB's experience shows that many owners hack up the standard kitchen flooring and retile them after the minimum 3-year period during which retiling is prohibited. Flat owners have to bear the cost of repairing any damages to the kitchen and toilet floors as a result of hacking. The HDB feels that owners are likely to replace standard floor finishes in other rooms if these are provided. This practice is a waste of both materials and labour. The provision of floor finishes in itself will not enable flat buyers to move in immediately, as there will be other renovation works required, like repainting of walls, installation of window grilles, etc. In contrast to conventionally built flats, HDB's prefab flats are completed with tiled flooring. This is because the industrialized method of construction requires floor finishes to be cast at the same time as the prefab floors. Owners of prefab flats are not allowed to hack up the floor for retiling, as this may cause damage to the joints resulting in possible water seepage. Flat buyers therefore have the choice of selecting prefab flats with floor finishes that are suitable for them or opting for conventionally built flats and carrying out their own floor finishes.

Mr Speaker, Sir, a supplementary question. Is the Minister not aware that times have changed and continue to change? There are already so many complaints from flat buyers against the sub-contractors. I have here just two samples, one from the Singapore Monitor and the other from the Straits Times. One heading reads, "Angry flat owners want their money back", and the other heading, "Contractor vanishes before jobs are completed". So I say that the times have changed and that the flats in Tampines are welcomed by the buyers because the floors are all done up nicely. The number of people -

What is your supplementary question, Mr Sia?

I wonder whether the Minister is aware that times have changed and that the people buying the flats in Tampines -

Well, let him first answer about times having changed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, yes, I am aware.

So is the Minister not going to consider that since times have changed therefore the policy has got to be changed too? Follow up with the times.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the hon. Member did not pay much attention to what I said just now. I said that flat buyers have the. choice of selecting prefab flats with floor finishes, ie those who want finishes that are suitable for them, or opting for conventionally built flats and carry out their own flooring finishes. In other words, the buyer has a choice. For those who want flats with finishes, HDB has built flats with finishes. For those who do not want them, they can opt for the conventional type of construction. So they have a choice.

asked the Minister of Defence and Second Minister for Health whether the impending resignation of Brigadier Lee Hsien Loong from the Army was known or expected when he was promoted to that rank.

Mr Speaker, Sir, promotions in the Singapore Armed Forces are decided through a strictly defined set of procedures. The present procedures were published in the March 1982 issue of the Pointer, a publication for SAF officers. The factors considered in a promotion are performance on the job, potential for higher level appointments, character, and recommendations of superiors. The SAF has a system of regular annual promotion exercises. The process begins around February and ends in June. Promotions are effective from 1st July of the year in question. In the 1984 promotion exercise, the SAF Promotions Council recommended a number of promotions including Col Lee Hsien Loong. That recommendation together with others were accepted by the Minister. It was made irrespective of any contemplated resignation because the decision to promote is made purely on the basis of the officer's capacity to contribute to the SAF. Furthermore, unlike the situation in the civilian sector, SAF regulars who leave active service are still members of the SAF. As reservist officers or NCOs, they can expect to play as important a role or, if they upgrade themselves, even a greater role than when they were in active service.

Mr Speaker, Sir, a supplementary question. If the resignation of the officer was known at the time the promotion was considered, may I ask the Minister what was the urgency in promoting him, if he was going to resign from active service in the Army? Is it not possible for him to have gone on the reservist strength and then be promoted through that, if he was found suitable for promotion?

Mr Speaker, Sir, as I have explained, the promotion of officers in the SAF depends on a number of factors: his experience, character, contribution to the SAF. In the case of Col Lee Hsien Loong, he was found worthy of promotion this year by the Promotions Council, and he was accordingly recommended for promotion. I have no reason to disagree with the recommendation of the Promotions Council. There was no need whatsoever to defer the promotion of a good officer who richly deserved to be promoted this year.

Would the Minister be good enough to say how long this officer had been in active service in the Army before he was promoted to the rank of Brigadier? And would the Minister be good enough to say whether this has its parallel in any other army in the world except perhaps in armies which have taken over from their colonial masters?

Mr Speaker, Sir, had the Member for Anson listened carefully to my reply, he would have learned that promotion in the SAF depends on merit amongst other things. As to how long the officer has served in a particular position, it is not relevant. The officer can be serving in a position for any number of years, but if he lacks the potential to manage bigger responsibilities, he will not be promoted. I suggest the Member for Anson secure a copy of the March 1982 Pointer where he will get all the answers to the open system which we run in the promotion of officers in the SAF.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask the Minister if he will be good enough to answer my questions. My question, I repeat, is how long has this officer been in active service in the Army before he was promoted, and whether this has a parallel in any other army? And if I may add another question to it, would the Minister say whether the officer was promoted so that he could be advanced in his political career, so that he could be appointed Political Secretary to the Minister of Defence? Was that the real reason for his promotion?

Sir, as the former Defence Minister, may I be permitted to make some observations. I consider this supplementary question from the Member for Anson to be totally unworthy of a Member of this Parliament. He, by aided innuendo, suggested that the promotion of Brig-Gen Lee was motivated by unworthy considerations, such as a move to accelerate his career in the political field or by virtue of his relationship with the Prime Minister. I challenge the Member to make this innuendo outside the privileged walls of this House and we will see whether or not he will get away with a libel suit.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I was going to make the same line of answer to the Member for Anson, and I am pleased that the First Deputy Prime Minister has stood up to do what I would have done.

Mr Speaker, Sir, am I, in this House, not entitled to this information? What is so secret about this that the information cannot be given in this House? It is not a question of making any innuendoes.

All the facts he wanted have been given by the Minister. What he wanted to do is, by innuendo, to suggest that there is some secret skullduggery going on. I suggest that he makes his accusation in the open.

I still have the Floor. I am not here to make innuendoes. I am asking questions and I say the House is entitled to this information; not the House alone but the people at large in Singapore. The information has not been given. The information is, how long has this officer been in active service in the Army? Secondly, has this got a parallel in any other army? Thirdly, I want a categorical answer whether he was promoted to advance his political career?

The career of Brig-Gen Lee is well-known to the public. It has been published in the newspapers. Why then does he come out with all this drivel, other than to impute improper motives?

Sir, I object to the term "drivel" as spelt out by the First Deputy Prime Minister. He should know better as a Member of this House. May I ask the Minister whether he would agree to a Committee of this House inquiring into this promotion?

Sir, if that is not drivel, I ask you, Sir, as an independent observer, whether that is not the most nonsensical question ever to come up from a nonsensical MP?

Mr Speaker, Sir, you, as the Speaker may disallow any question if you thought it was improper, and I have not heard you disallowing the question. I am asking the question whether the Minister will allow a Committee of this House to look into this promotion, to see how many other officers were passed over.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there is no need to set up a Committee to investigate what the First Deputy Prime Minister called "drivel". I would repeat what the First Deputy Prime Minister has said. If the Member for Anson seriously believes that there has been any wrong-doing in the promotion of any officer in the SAF, he should have the courage to state this outside the House and not suggest this within the House so that he could be protected from any libel suit against him.

Do the Minister and the First Deputy Prime Minister not realize that it is not a question of them assuring that everything was done perfectly, properly? It is a question of the public being told, so that it is seen to be done properly. That is one of the first principles of public administration and of justice.

Sir, since that was not a supplementary question, may I be allowed to comment briefly on that. When we form a Committee of the House to inquire into an activity of the Government, the assumption must be that there has been something improper. In this instance, where is the impropriety? The Member for Anson has been trying, through devious means of questioning, by innuendo, to suggest that there is something improper. Well, let us have it from him and hear him say so outside this House where he will have no defence of privilege. When I said that that was a drivel, he just stood up to confirm that what I said beats his record for nonsensical outpourings.

Do the Minister and the First Deputy Prime Minister not realize that it is only harmful to the Administration if these details are not made known to the public?

Sir, this is getting most tiresome. So I will just say this - that Brig-Gen Lee Hsien Loong has proved himself in so many ways, both inside the Army and outside the Army, to be a person of outstanding quality. When the Member for Anson says the public are worried, he is again talking nonsense. The public is aware of the qualities of this young man.

Have you anything to hide?

What did you say?

Let us go to the next question, Mr Jeyaretnam.

asked the Minister for Social Affairs if he will make a statement on the recent outbreak of cholera in the Woodlands Home for the Aged.

asked the Minister for Social Affairs (a) what were the causes for the outbreak of cholera and subsequent deaths in the Woodlands Home for the Aged; (b) whether he is satisfied with the hygienic conditions of all the "Homes" in Singapore; and (c) what measures are being taken to prevent recurrence of similar situations.

Mr Speaker, Sir, since Questions 3 and 4 are related, may I be permitted to answer them together?

Yes.

Thank you, Sir. Mr Speaker, Sir, the recent outbreak of cholera in the Woodlands Home for the Aged was caused by the introduction of cholera bacteria into the Home from an outside source. A resident helper in the kitchen was infected through consuming contaminated food brought to him by a relative. He developed diarrhoea on 14 August and was diagnosed to be suffering from cholera on 18 August. Up to 7 September, a total of 21 residents were infected with cholera and 76 were identified as carriers. Four of the cholera victims died. The causes of death were 'acute myocardial infarction' and 'acute cerebral infarction' in an 85-year old resident, 'cardio-respiratory failure' in an 82-year old resident, 'acute intestinal gangrene' in a 75-year old resident and 'acute gastroenteritis' in a 90-year old resident. It can be seen that two of the four victims died because of their frailty and low resistance to the cholera bacteria. Mr Speaker, Sir, certain newspapers have given wide publicity to the outbreak and attributed the spreading of the disease within the Home mainly to the unsanitary condition of the toilets. While a few toilets serving the male residents were defective at the time of the outbreak and some others were not quite clean, these were in themselves not the main cause for the spread of the disease in the Home. The frailty of most of the residents in the Home, many of whom are incontinent and have poor control over their bowels, were a more significant factor. It was unfortunate that an infected resident helper in the kitchen was not detected as a cholera victim and isolated until after several days. He was the initial source of the spread of the cholera. My staff have done what they could within the available manpower resources of the Woodlands Home for the Aged. Mr Speaker, Sir, the relevant issue to consider here is whether we can afford to deploy a staff force to ensure at all times personal hygiene and complete cleanliness of the toilets and premises of these Homes. Although the State has a duty to care for the residents in these Welfare Homes, I am of the view that we must do the best with the resources available. Measures taken to prevent recurrence of similar situations The Member for Chong Boon has asked what measures have been taken to prevent recurrence of similar situations. Mr Speaker, Sir, this incident in the Woodlands Home was an unfortunate one. The Home has been in existence for 20 years and there has hitherto been no epidemic or even food poisoning. Nonetheless, we have taken several immediate measures to prevent recurrence of a similar outbreak. Only freshly cooked food is allowed into the Homes. All residents and food handlers are made to wash their hands before touching food and drinks. All food handlers will be screened regularly by the Ministry of Health. A new working procedure for minor repairs has been introduced which allows the Superintendent of the Home to get the work done by any nearby contractor if the term contractor appointed by PWD fails to respond to a request for minor repairs within a reasonable time. The existing PVC toilet cisterns will be phased out and replaced by heavy duty ones. Hygienic Conditions of the Homes The Ministry of Social Affairs runs three Homes for the aged and destitutes and nine Homes for children and young persons. I am satisfied with the hygienic conditions of these Homes. Frequent inspections we conducted by my staff and by members of the Boards of Visitors appointed by the Director of Social Welfare. For the long term, my Ministry has instituted a thorough review of all its institutions. The review may result in the relocation of some Homes to more appropriate localities with purpose-built facilities.

Sir, I would like to ask the Minister why the toilets were in an unsatisfactory condition in the first place.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the problem of dirty and choked toilets is not. peculiar to Woodlands Home for the Aged only. It happens almost everywhere. Maybe I should draw the attention of the Member to an article which appeared in one of the September issues of Sunday Times. I cannot remember the date. In fact, this article was written by an employee of the Straits Times. She bemoans the fact that we Singaporeans have not been educated in our toilet habits. According to her, even young, healthy office workers dirty the toilets no matter how new the environment of the office and the toilets may be. Even in the Straits Times, according to her, although the toilets are about two years old, the handles to the water closets are already breaking and repairs to choked toilets have been less than prompt. Only a couple of days ago we read in The Monitor that the sanitation in the toilets of NUS has improved after the Member for Whampoa brought it up at an exhibition last week. Sir, the problem with the Woodlands Home for the Aged is that, as I mentioned in my answer earlier on, most of the 600-plus residents are old, incontinent and have poor control over their bowels. But we will do our best with whatever resources available.

Mr Speaker, Sir, would the Minister answer the question that was asked of him by the last Member, and that is, how long have the lavatories been not functioning properly in this Woodlands Home for the Aged before the cholera outbreak was detected? Secondly, has the Home adequate staff to cope adequately with bedridden patients, people who are unable to take care of themselves in their bowel movements or their habits, or are they just left to look after themselves?

To answer the first question, repairs were done almost immediately after it happened.

How long were they malfunctioning?

As I replied to the Member for Chong Boon, because of the fact that the residents are old, frail and incontinent, dirty and choked toilets occur frequently and we attend to them as soon as we can. To his second question, with the present staff to resident ratio of 1:12, 1 think we can manage with the problem. We have been managing this for the last 20 years. We will continue to manage. We will do our best with the resources available.

Would the Minister appoint a committee to inquire into the conditions at the Woodlands Home for the Aged before the outbreak of cholera and the causes that led to this outbreak?

The answer is no. I have my Boards of Visitors appointed by the Director of Social Welfare and they consist of members of the public. They visit the Homes regularly, not only the Woodlands Home for the Aged but all the other Homes under the Ministry. There is no need for any committee of inquiry.

Would the Minister say whether he has made any inquiry, whether through his Boards of Visitors or through his officials, and if he has, will he make public the report of this committee or Board that inquired into it?

I have inquired into the events that led to the cholera outbreak, and the answer today is a report of that report.

asked the Minister for Social Affairs whether there are any definite plans to build a modern "Indoor National Stadium" in Singapore in the very near future and, if so, what are the details of the proposed Indoor Stadium.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am pleased to inform the Member for Chong Boon that my Ministry supports the proposal by the Singapore Sports Council to build a modern international indoor stadium at Kallang Park, near to the National Stadium. Estimated to cost $45 million, the Indoor Stadium now proposed will have a capacity of 15,000 to cater to sports activities, conventions, family entertainment shows, exhibitions, cultural and other events. The arena will accommodate two basketball and eight badminton courts which can also be used for all other indoor sports. The Stadium will conform to specifications of international standards which include unobstructed views from the galleries and air-conditioning. There will be special lighting for different sports and at different illumination levels, public address system with controls to different areas, matrix scoreboards, adequate changing rooms, showers and toilets for players and spectators. We will also have supporting facilities for staff and members of the media. A feasibility study conducted by the Singapore Sports Council indicates that the proposed international Indoor Stadium should be well utilized. The better facility might encourage sports and other organizations to organize more international, regional and national games competitions, good family type entertainment and cultural performances.

Sir, I would like to thank the Minister for the good news and I am sure all Singaporeans welcome the move to have an Indoor Stadium. I would just like to ask when this fact will become a reality.

As soon as it is possible.

asked the Minister for Labour and Second Minister for Law and Home Affairs whether he will rescind the decision to impose the flat $120 levy on foreign maids in view of the fact that the measure is clearly inconsistent with the Government's objective of encouraging more married women to work.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the decision on the flat $120 levy cannot be rescinded. The foreign workers levy, including the levy on foreign maids, is not new. It was introduced in 1982 when it was decided to take certain foreign workers off the CPF Scheme. At that time, it was clearly explained that the main purpose of the levy was to discourage the indiscriminate recruitment of foreign workers. When the 30% ad valorem levy was introduced in 1982, the position of married working women was recognized. First, the minimum of $150 was not applicable to foreign maids. Secondly, foreign maids were among the categories not affected by the 1984 deadline for the phasing out of foreign workers from non-traditional sources. This distinction continues to be made. Thus the $120 flat levy is still lower than the previous 1982 minimum of $150. It is also much less than the $200 flat levy payable for other foreign workers which incidentally will be increased in stages to $350 in April 1986. The previous 30% ad valorem levy was clearly insufficient to deter indiscriminate recruitment of maids or to curb the increase in their numbers. In the first six months of this year alone, there was an increase of nearly 5,000 foreign maids, much more than the total annual increase for the previous year of 3,000 which was already high. Many who had no genuine need for domestic help were recruiting foreign maids. Others were deploying them for unauthorized work. Under-declaration of wages in order to pay a lower levy was also increasing. These problems will become more acute as local incomes increase; the low cost of foreign maids will lead to an ever increasing demand. There is no inconsistency between the $120 flat levy and the objective of getting more married women to join the workforce. The availability of a foreign maid was never intended to be, and must not be, the sole means to induce more married women to work. There are now 106,900 married working women aged between 30 and 49 years. The argument that all or most of them should have maids is untenable. In addition, there are another 183,800 married women aged 30 - 49 who are now not working. If most or all of them are to be allowed maids in order to persuade them to work, we will then have about 300,000 maids in Singapore. The principal reason for encouraging more married women to work is precisely to reduce our dependence on foreign workers. It would therefore be defeating our objective if the entry of married women into the workforce itself swells the foreign worker population. In many other countries, such as Japan, USA and Europe, their female labour participation rate is higher than Singapore. Yet foreign domestic maids are not available. In Singapore, too, the use of all other alternatives must therefore be continually explored and encouraged: child care centres, creches, parents-in-law, foster services and so on. If foreign maids were available to every married working woman, not only will the number of maids proliferate to unmanageable levels, worse, there will be no pressure or need felt to actively develop these alternatives.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have three supplementary questions but I wish to ask them one at a time. The first question is: would the Minister say whether parliamentary sanction was obtained for this levy on foreign maids?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like the Member for Anson to point out any rule in the Standing Orders which requires me to obtain parliamentary sanction. And he should also indicate whether he is aware that the concept of the levy was introduced in 1982 and whether he, from the time that he was in this Parliament, has ever queried this in the Budget statements when he had ample opportunities to raise this query.

Does the Minister not appreciate that the fact that I had not raised it in 1982 does not make my question now invalid or untenable? Would the Minister please answer: where is the legislative sanction for this levy on foreign maids?

Mr Speaker, Sir, maids are brought in under conditions applicable to work permit regulations. Does the Member not know that an amendment to the Regulation of Employment Act was passed to impose the levy?

Would the Minister be good enough to refer to the section in the Regulation of Employment Act which says hat the Government may impose a levy?

Sir, I know that ignorance of the law is not an excuse. But in the case of a person who is legally trained, I think that cannot be an excuse.

What are your other two questions, Mr Jeyaretnam?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I still invite the Minister to refer to the section. I should be very pleased to see what the section says. The other two questions are these. First, does the Minister really think that the levy had to be raised or imposed so as to restrict the number of foreign maids coming into Singapore? Does he not think that it is a specious answer? Is there no other way of controlling the entry of foreign maids other than by imposing a levy? Is the Minister really suggesting that work permits are being issued ad lib to everybody who cries for one foreign maid? Are there no conditions restricting the issue of work permits for foreign maids? I would ask the Minister to think carefully about these questions. Does he not think his answers are specious? Secondly, may I ask was this levy imposed because it was another source of revenue for the Government? And if so, why does the Government need this money, and is it not another tax?

Mr Speaker, Sir, l think we can now understand the points raised by the First Deputy Prime Minister if there was any doubt earlier. I have already pointed out that he was ignorant of the law when he thought he had a brilliant legal point. Now, his other two questions are meaningless. The Member for Anson must really make up his mind. He cannot blow hot and cold. On one occasion a few months ago, he took up the cause and argued vigorously for the displacement of all foreign workers. He made allegations here that the Government policy and foreign workers here were affecting our own workers. Now a 100% turnaround - asking for different measures which would encourage more maids to come to Singapore. So he should make up his mind. What is his position? What is his Party's position on foreign workers?

May I for the last time in this House appeal to the Minister to answer the questions? What has all that he has said got to do with the questions I asked? Is he not capable of comprehening the questions? Will he please answer them?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think all of us have taken note of his prophetic statement. Let me say that it is pointless to answer his questions when the full elaboration of the rationale and the reasons for this levy have been spelt out by myself today as well as in the press release and other pronouncements made earlier.

asked the Minister for Labour and Second Minister for Law and Home Affairs whether he is aware that the more restrictive attitude adopted by the Work Permit Division of the Ministry of Labour in the processing of work permit applications, in respect of both new and renewal cases, is beginning to cause difficulties to many businesses and will he assure the House that, for certain categories of workers where local recruits at economic wages are not available, the Ministry of Labour wilt continue to be flexible in approving applications.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as all hon. Members are aware, since 1979, the Government has been urging employers to reduce their dependence on foreign workers. The economic, social, political and other reasons for this have been explained on many occasions. As a start, we have gradually phased out unskilled foreign workers from non-traditional sources except those who are required for work in the construction industry, the shipyards and as domestic servants. Most of the non-traditional source workers in the other sectors will have left by the end of this year and the remaining by 1986. Our present plan is to phase out the remaining unskilled foreign workers by 1992 as gradually as economic forces will permit us. If we are to proceed with reduction of our dependence on unskilled and untrained foreign workers, it is necessary for us to start taking action even now as, otherwise, the transitional difficulty will become even more severe. Obviously, the first measure that we have to take is to control the overall stock and be restrictive on the number of new foreign workers who are being admitted. We have been doing this for some time. However, with the recent pick-up in manufacturing activities because of the world economic recovery and with the accelerated public housing building programme reaching its peak, there has been an unusually heavy demand for workers and for foreign workers during the last few months. To accommodate the demand by these two vital sectors, we have to take a more restrictive policy in processing work permit applications from other sectors in order to hold down the overall number. My Ministry does appreciate that the more restrictive attitude towards new work permit applications will cause difficulty for some businessmen. However, these are transitional problems which ire less painful when adjustments are made early. Employers who do not make serious efforts to reduce their reliance on foreign workers will find it even more difficult to adjust later. My Ministry, however, will try to be as flexible as possible in processing work permit applications from employers within the constraints of our long-term goal of reducing reliance on unskilled work permit holders and the constraint of ensuring that numbers are kept at manageable levels. I wish to assure the hon. Member, in this regard, that my Ministry is, for the time being, flexible in allowing employers to renew the permits of their existing foreign workers other than those who are from non-traditional sources and are due for repatriation. Employers should however bear in mind that they will ultimately have even less foreign workers to solve their labour problems. They should therefore make adjustments before it is too late.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on his proposed plan, disclosed at the National Day Rally, to amend the Constitution to provide for the President of the Republic of Singapore to be elected by the electorate and his suggestion that the person to be elected should have held office as a Minister in the Government.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have no further statement to make at this stage. What I could, I have said at the National Day Rally. It is obviously not in our national interests to leave our reserves unprotected. A small task force is studying the details, implications and consequences of the proposals for a blocking mechanism through an elected President with the power to withhold his consent before any reserves, not accumulated during the period of office of an incumbent Government, are used. When finalized, a paper will be presented to Parliament, probably after the next general elections.

Would the Prime Minister be good enough to say, considering what he said in this House in the July sitting that one must not tinker with the Constitution too often, when did he have this brain wave, after the July sitting and before the August 9 National Day? And if he did have this brain wave, did he consult any constitutional experts or advisers about this brilliant plan of his?

Sir, the subject has been discussed between me and my colleagues in Cabinet for over a period of two years.

Does the Prime Minister consider that the reserves that his Government has accumulated (and credit to them for that) are the special property of the People's Action Party?

No, Sir. I think they are the special property of the voters of Singapore against whose CPF assets these reserves are stacked.

Would the Prime Minister explain the significance of the remarks that he made at the National Day assembly that any new government - and I see that the Prime Minister is having nightmares of another government taking over - would he explain the significance of the remarks that the government that takes over should not have access to any reserves that it itself has not accumulated? Those remarks can only be significant if one assumes that the reserves so far accumulated are the special property of the People's Action Party and no other government may touch them.

Sir, I have taken note of the slant of the argument that the Member for Anson is against the reserves being blocked. I am quite sure that when the time comes, if he has the opportunity, he will be able to persuade the people of Singapore that these amendments are unnecessary.

Again, may I ask the Prime Minister, he seems to be suffering from the same malady as his Ministers, would he answer the question? Does he consider that these reserves are the special property of the People's Action Party?

He has already answered the question.

You are not listening!

Secondly, does the Prime Minister not think that these proposals are perhaps unique to Singapore or will be unique to Singapore? And may I ask him again, what constitutional theory has told him that this is possible?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Anson should listen to the answers he has solicited. I told him that the reserves do not belong to the People's Action Party. They belong to the people of Singapore. I have not consulted any legal experts. There are very few countries in the world that have these reserves. Therefore the question has not arisen. We can easily reduce ourselves to the state of the majority and the question will not arise. It has arisen because we are a minority, and I think it should not be beyond the ingenuity of people who have brought us into this unique position to make sure that, in so far as is humanly possible, no act of negligence or stupidity should pass unnoticed before the reserves are run down. The mechanism is quite simple, the implementation is quite complex. That is why there has been this long period of contemplation as we weigh the practical implications of our proposed methods, There will be ample opportunities for debate. There will be ample opportunities for those who oppose to say so. I believe, in the end, that such a mechanism will be in the interests of Singapore, will be passed and, if practically contrived, will not impede the effectiveness of an elected government.

Would the Prime Minister not agree that this plan, as he seems to admit, would be unique to Singapore, another first for Singapore? And since it departs from any other constitutional theory of government, it should be put to the people rather than to Parliament. And if it is to be put into practice, there should be a referendum on this.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we cross our bridges when we come to them. First, a White Paper, then a proper debate, then a referendum and many other things besides; all the processes and the procedures necessary for such an entrenched clause will be dutifully and faithfully followed.

3.21 pm

"to amend the Immigration Act (Chapter 81 of the Revised Edition)", presented by the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Chua Sian Chin); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

"to amend the Pensions Act (Chapter 55 of the Revised Edition)', recommendation of President signified; presented by the Minister for Finance and 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.

"to amend the Economic Expansion Incentives (Relief from Income Tax) Act (Chapter 135 of the Revised Edition)", recommendation of President signified; presented by 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.

"to amend the Merchant Shipping Act (Chapter 172 of the Revised Edition)", presented by the Minister for Communications and Second Minister of Defence (Dr Yeo Ning Hong); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

Order for Second Reading read. 3.25 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time". Finance companies operate much along the same lines as commercial banks. They, too, take deposits from and lend money to the public, though finance companies cannot offer current account facilities to cus- tomers. However, unlike commercial banks, their operations are basically confined to the domestic market; they do not open branches overseas nor can they deal in foreign exchange and gold. There are currently 34 finance companies operating in Singapore. Out of these, 11 are owned by local banks, five are owned by foreign banks and 18 are independently-owned. Finance companies command a substantial share of the domestic market. As at June this year, total deposits of non-bank customers with finance companies amounted to $4.8 billion. This is about one fifth of domestic non-bank deposits of $26.5 billion placed with commercial banks. At the same time, loans extended to non-bank customers by finance companies amounted to $5.7 billion, about one-sixth of the domestic loans of $35.7 billion granted by commercial banks to non-bank customers. The existing Finance Companies Act came into effect on 10th January 1968 and, except for a few amendments made in 1969, the Act has remained unaltered. However, the operations of finance companies have expanded substantially during this period of time. Over the decade or so from 1974 to June 1984, the aggregate capital funds of finance companies have increased by five times from $209.5 million as at December 1974 to $1.1 billion as at June 1984, and their total assets have increased from $1.4 billion to $6.9 billion. The range of activities that finance companies engage in has also broadened considerably. The recent amendment to the Banking Act aimed to rectify the inadequacies that then existed in the Act. Generally, most of the provisions of the Finance Companies Act are similar to those of the Banking Act before it was amended. It is therefore necessary that the Finance Companies Act be amended to bring it in line with the revised Banking Act, so that it would provide for effective supervision of finance companies. I will now deal with the main provisions in the Bill. The amendments to the Act will, in general terms: (i) provide for an expanded definition of financing business; (ii) ensure that control of finance companies would not pass into undesirable hands; (iii) set more suitable limits on credit facilities that a finance company may extend to its customers; (iv) improve the Authority's supervisory powers over finance companies; and (v) enable the Authority to have stricter control over the audit of finance companies. The first amendment widens the definition of financing business. The activities of finance companies have traditionally been that of collection of savings and term deposits and the channelling of such funds to hire-purchase and mortgage financing. However, the business of finance companies has evolved to include more sophisticated activities such as leasing and factoring. As such, the definition of financing business has to be amended to empower the Authority to prescribe certain operations as financing business. To ensure that finance companies do not pass into undesirable hands, the next set of amendments appearing in clause 4 would empower the Authority to control: (i) a takeover of a finance company by the intended acquisition of not less than 20% of its shares; (ii) arrangements by which outside parties would be able to determine the policy of a finance company; and (iii) the acquisition of substantial shareholdings, ie interests in 5% of the voting shares of a finance company. These amendments are the same as the amendments that have been recently effected for the Banking Act. The next set of amendments, parallel to those effected for the Banking Act, seek to ensure that finance companies adopt high prudential standards and do not over-commit their resources. The amendments appearing in clause 7 would have the effect of: (a) changing the existing limit which a finance company may grant credit facilities to a single customer or group of connected customers by lowering the aggregate percentage from an amount in excess of 60% of the capital funds of the finance company to 30%; and (b) limiting substantial loans to an aggregate amount which does not exceed 50% of its total credit facilities. A substantial loan means, in general terms, a credit facility granted to a single customer or group of connected customers which in the aggregate exceeds 15% of the finance company's capital funds. It is recognized that the capital funds of individual finance companies vary substantially. Currently, they range from as low as $2.7 million to a high of $296.4 million. As such, finance companies with more modest capital funds might very well find that they would have to raise more capital in order to comply with the amended prudential limits. They can do this either by having shareholders inject more capital into their operations or by merging. Finance companies will be given a grace period of two years to comply with these new prudential limits. The amendment proposed in clause 8 is designed to ensure that finance companies conduct their investment activities in a prudential manner. This provision empowers the Authority to exercise a measure of control over finance companies which seek to diversify into other undertakings to an undesirable extent. Accordingly, it provides that finance companies shall not enter into agreements to acquire interests of 20% or more in any company without obtaining the approval of the Authority. To enable the Authority to exercise prudential supervision on a group basis, clause 8 also sets out provisions empowering the Authority to require a finance company to aggregate its assets, liabilities or profits, with those of any of its subsidiaries or related companies. The next group of amendments appearing in clause 10 seek to enhance the Authority's powers of control over finance companies. Existing provisions in the Banking Act confer on the Authority powers to move in and take control of the bank if, for example, it is insolvent or found to be carrying on business in a manner detrimental to the interests of depositors. Under these provisions, the Authority can assume control of the bank, issue an order effecting an immediate change in the bank's management and appoint some other person to advise the bank in the proper conduct of its business. In this way, the Authority can ensure an orderly withdrawal of funds and the integrity of the bank's assets. These provisions will be incorporated into the Finance Companies Act. An important amendment in the Banking Act was the introduction of new provisions to enable the Authority to extend the role of external auditors so that the auditors could play a supplementary supervisory role. This amendment is also proposed for the Finance Companies Act and appears in clause 12. The other amendments made by the Bill do not warrant any special mention in addition to what has been stated in reference to them in the Explanatory Statement. Sir, I beg to move,

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

Order for Second Reading read. 3.36 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." It is proposed under the Bill to amend the Economic Expansion Incentives (Relief from Income Tax) Act to effect the following economic policies which were announced in the 1983 Budget Statement. (i) Extension of various incentives provided under the Act to non-manufactured products and services; and (ii) Extension of the investment allowance incentive to non-manufacturing companies for their water conservation projects. Sir, the Economic Expansion Incentives Act applies at present to only the manufacturing industry. We have in recent years been actively promoting activities like engineering and consultancy services, industrial design, biotechnology projects and computer services. These have been identified as areas of future economic growth. The Bill creates two new Parts - Part IIA and Part IIIA - to extend pioneer status tax relief and expansion incentives to cover the knowledge-intensive activities which we would like to encourage. The following activities will qualify for incentives under these new Parts: (i) any engineering or technical services including laboratory, consultancy and research and development activities; (ii) computer-based information and other computer related services; (iii) the development or production of any industrial design; and (iv) such other services as the Minister may prescribe. Investment allowance for water conservation projects is currently restricted only to manufacturing companies. The amendment to section 46B of the principal Act extends the incentive for investment allowances to a company which proposes to carry out a project for the purpose of reducing its consumption of potable water. This amendment will encourage non-manufacturing companies, such as hotels and shopping complexes, to invest in plant and equipment that will reduce their potable water consumption. Sir, the opportunity is also being taken to make certain technical amendments to the principal Act. Section 20 of the principal Act is being amended to change the base year for calculating expansion incentives. Currently, a company which qualifies for expansion incentives enjoys tax exemption on the additional profits it makes after the expansion. The reference used is the company's profit for the accounting year during which the expanded capacity comes on stream or the preceding accounting year. The amendment allows the average profit for the three years preceding the expansion to be used as the reference. Section 46A of the principal Act is also being amended to broaden the definition of "fixed capital expenditure" for the purpose of investment allowances to include expenditure incurred on the acquisition of any know-how or patent rights. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I just want to seek an expla- nation from the Minister on this Bill. He says that the Bill is to amend the Economic Expansion Incentives (Relief from Income Tax) Act and to implement two new tax incentive schemes and also to make certain technical amendments. I just want to know why is it necessary that we should proceed with the Second Reading of this Bill when at the commencement of business the Minister had just introduced a second amendment Bill to the Economic Expansion Incentives (Relief from Income Tax) Act. Why could not the second amendment Bill be incorporated into this first amendment Bill, or why could not this first amendment Bill wait until the provisions of the second amendment Bill are ready and we debate the whole thing together? Can I please have an explanation?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am afraid the answer is a very simple one. We were unable to get all the amendments ready in time to enable all the amendments to be incorporated in this present Bill and, rather than wait until we were able to finalize all the amendments, we decided to proceed with the amendments which have been finalized and agreed with the Attorney-General's Chambers. I regret that it was not possible to have a neater arrangement.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thought I also heard the Minister say just now that this was to implement the schemes announced at the Budget meeting. The Budget meeting was sometime in March and now it is October, i.e. seven months ago. Surely, all these amendments could have been incorporated into one amendment Bill so that we could discuss them together rather than coming to Parliament in bits and pieces. Personally, if for no other reason, the Minister should really ask his technical staff to get on with the work or wait until we have got everything together and then come here for a debate rather than coming o Parliament in bits and pieces and ask us to approve this Bill now and then the second amendment Bill at the next sitting which could be any time seven days after the second Bill is published. I just do not see why Parliament should be asked to sit at different sittings debating amendments to the same Act.

Sir, the answer is very simple. Times change and we must change with it. Taxation Bills are difficult Bills and while my officials have done their best in order to try and incorporate all the changes that are necessary, I am afraid that I cannot assure the Member that it will ever be possible for me to put forward a perfect Bill which will incorporate all the amendments that we wish to introduce. Indeed I think it will be inadvisable to do so because it will mean that we have reached a stage of stagnation and that my Ministry at least would have no new ideas.

Sir, you must pardon me if I pursue this line of argument. This amendment Bill was first published on 24th August and we are now having another amendment Bill which would again be debated. I am sure the Minister has got simple explanations. The explanation is convenience of his technical staff. But how about the convenience of Members of Parliament? I also appreciate that the Minister cannot incorporate all the amendments at one go but the time difference between two amendment Bills is really far too short. He is asking us to swallow this, saying "it is not possible." The time difference is too short. Today is the 19th October and the first amendment Bill was introduced on 24th August. Let us have some sense of urgency or proportion.

Sir, for the benefit of the Member, I would say that the second amendment Bill which I introduced today deals with a subject which is quite different from the present subject. It would have been possible for me to hold up the second amendment Bill until next year so that I would not have given the Member cause for concern or to be upset today. But I felt it was unwise to do so and that, as and when the amendments are ready, they should be presented to Parliament. And I see no reason for holding up any amendment just to make sure that it gives the appearance that we have thought out everything. But I would assure the Member that we will, of course, try and incorporate and be as expeditious as possible in presenting the necessary amendments to Parliament. And certainly, Sir, it is not my intention to waste Parliament's time or the time of Members unnecessarily.

Mr Speaker, Sir, on the Minister's assurance that he would do so, I withdraw my objection. I pursued the argument just now because he said he could not assure Parliament that he would not do the same thing the next time.

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

3.47 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move the Motion* standing in the name of the Minister for Law as it appears on the Order Paper. *The Motion reads as follows: That this Parliament, in accordance with section 4 of the Foreshores Act (Chapter 270), approves the reclamation by the Government of that portion of the foreshore at Punggol containing an area of about 685 hectares as shown coloured pink on the plan marked "LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLAN NO. 2/84", which is deposited in the Land Office, Singapore. Sir, to create additional land stock for public housing, the Housing and Development Board has studied the feasibility of reclaiming more land at Singapore's north-eastern coast. The study, carried out in consultation with the relevant authorities, such as the Port of Singapore Authority, Public Utilities Board, Jurong Town Corporation, Sewerage Department and the Primary Production Department, has shown that another 685 hectares of land at Punggol can be reclaimed. This is shown, coloured pink, on the plan marked "LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLAN NO. 2/84" a copy of which is displayed in the Library of this House for the information of Honourable Members. This reclamation will be in addition to the 277 hectares off Punggol, coloured yellow on the plan, approved for reclamation by this House at its sitting on 4th March, 1983. The areas to be reclaimed are in the shallow waters off Pasir Ris, Punggol and Jalan Kayu. Areas 2, 3 and 4 in the plan will be used for public housing, while area 1, being adjacent to the Serangoon sludge treatment works, will be used for refuse tipping, and industrial and recreational purposes. The proposed reclamation will not affect the navigational channel. The reclamation works will be carried out in phases over a nine-year period from 1985 to 1993. Area 2 where the Punggol Fishing Port is located will be reclaimed last to give the fishing port a useful lifespan of almost 10 years. The fishing port will be relocated to a nearby location on the reclaimed land when reclamation works have been completed. Other consequential works required are the extension of the effluent out-fall pipes from the Seletar and Serangoon Sewerage Treatment Works and the preparation of new refuse tipping ground at Area 1. The total cost of the project inclusive of the consequential works has been estimated at $874 million. About 76 million cubic metres of fill will be required for this project. Half of the fill can be taken from the HDB development sites in Woodlands, Tampines, Pasir Ris, Yishun, Seletar and Zhenghua and the overburden soil from the quarries at Bukit Timah areas. The other half will be imported from external sources. Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Parliament, in accordance with section 4 of the Foreshores Act (Chapter 270), approves the reclamation by the Government of that portion of the foreshore at Punggol containing an area of about 685 heatares as shown coloured pink on the plan marked "LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLAN NO. 2/84", which is deposited in the Land Office, Singapore.

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

asked the Prime Minister (a) what is the number of government scholars who have been given employment over the last three years; (b) whether these scholars have been employed in the public or private sectors; and (c) are there any plans to release more of these scholars to the private sector.

The number of government scholars given employment in the last three years from 1981 to 1983 was 522. Of these, 506 were given jobs in the public sector i.e. Government Ministries, the SAF, the Singapore Police Force and Statutory Boards. 16 were released to government-owned companies and companies with government participation in the private sector. Whilst government scholars are expected to serve their bonds in the public sector, PSC has from time to time released scholars to the private sector to meet its manpower requirements in specialised areas such as Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering for which locally trained personnel are not available. PSC will continue to consider releasing scholars to the private sector depending on the priority of needs of the public and private sectors.

asked the Prime Minister the reason for the recent amendment to the Parliamentary Elections (Posters and Banners) Regulations 1976 requiring that all posters to be displayed at elections shall have affixed to them the stamp of the Returning Officer and will the Returning Officer issue the stamp before the elections.

The number of posters that can be displayed at designated places for every constituency at elections is prescribed by the Returning Officer who notifies candidates of the authorised number of their respective constituencies after acceptance of nominations. To enforce this requirement, all posters displayed at elections shall have a stamp bearing the official mark of the Returning Officer affixed to them. The official mark of the Returning Officer will be issued to the candidates after the close of nomination at the various Nomination Centres.

asked the First Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Education if he will say whether the teaching staff library services and other facilities at Pre-University Centres are comparable to those provided for Junior Colleges or are they poorer.

Most of the teaching staff in the Junior Colleges and Pre-U Centres are graduates, i.e. 92% and 88% respectively. The pupil-teacher ratios are also similar, namely 16.6 to 1 in Junior Colleges and 22.8 to 1 in Pre-U Centres. Students in Junior Colleges are taught en masse in lecture theatres and in tutorial groups of 20-25. In Pre-U Centres, students are taught in class groups of up to 40 per class. All Junior Colleges and Pre-U Centres enjoy the same scale of provision for their libraries, namely, 15 books per student.

asked the First Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Education (i) if he will give the cogent reasons for the recent ruling that only students who scored an aggregate of 8 points in the G.C.E. 'N' level examinations would be allowed to take the G.C.E. 'O' level examinations against the advice of school principals that it should be 12 points; (ii) why was the announcement delayed until two weeks before the students took the 'N' level examinations; and (iii) whether the ruling would result in the transfer of more students to vocational training.

The Member for Anson has not comprehended the issue. There is no change in the criterion of allowing a pupil to go on to Secondary 5 Normal to attempt his G.C.E. 'O' level. It stays at 8 points to be based on the first language and two other subjects, with a minimum of grade 3 for the first language. The change announced on 29th August, 1984 concerns only the criterion to allow a pupil to repeat his G.C.E. 'N' level examinations in school. The criterion recommended by a committee of principals was based on an aggregate of 12 points for first language and 2 other subjects. Subsequently, studies based on the results of specimen Cambridge G.C.E. 'N' level papers administered to our pupils showed that the criterion should be changed to 9 points. The timing of the announcement before the examinations would not have adversely affected the pupils. The announcement was concerned only with the criterion for repeating the G.C.E. 'N' level in school. No student preparing to sit for an examination would be doing so just for the purpose of repeating it. A survey carried out by the Ministry of Education among the Secondary 4N students before the announcement showed that two-thirds of the students were in favour of either going on to skill training or joining the job market. Many school leavers today recognise that vocational training will lead to a good job and a career as a skilled worker. With or without the announcement, many would be opting for vocational training.

asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) if he will give the number of foreigners employed in Singapore on employment passes as at 1st August, 1984, in the following sectors: (i) oil industry; (ii) manufacturing industry; (iii) construction industry; (iv) transport, services and other related activities; (v) banks and finance companies; and (vi) business houses; and (b) if he will state what considerations govern the granting of employment passes.

As at 31st July, 1984, there were 25,230 foreigners on employment passes in Singapore. The breakdown of the figures as sought by the Member is not available. A foreigner whose basic salary per month is more than $1500 may apply for an Employment Pass to work in Singapore. Graduates with recognised tertiary qualifications will be considered for Employment Passes even if they earn less than $1500 pm. Employment Passes are granted to those who can be of economic benefit to Singapore. They must be able to contribute to our economic growth and progress. When there is a doubt about the applicant's professional standing or technical competence, the Immigration Department will refer the application to the relevant vetting Ministry or Department for advice. Each application will be considered on its own merits.

asked the Minister for Health (a) if he will give the number of medical practitioners registered in Singapore each year from 1971 to date under sections 9(l)(c) and 9(3) of the Medical Registration Act; (b) how many of them are still working in Singapore and (c) of those still in Singapore how many are in (i) Government hospitals; (ii) private hospitals; and (iii) private general practice.

The numbers of medical practitioners registered each year, from 1971 to date, under sections 9(l)(c) and 9(3) of the Medical Registration Act, are given in the Appendix below. Of the 131 medical practitioners registered under section 9(l)(c) of the Act, 69 are still working in Singapore. 49 are in Government hospitals, 17 in private practice, 2 in the Singapore Armed Forces, and 1 in the Singapore Family Planning and Population Board. A total of 374 medical practitioners were registered under section 9(3) of the Act since 1973. These were either medical experts who came to impart their skills to our doctors, or medical trainees or scientists who came for research or postgraduate study. At present, 21 are still in Singapore, and all of them are in the Government hospitals. Appendix DOCTORS REGISTERED UNDER SECTIONS 9(l)(C) AND 9(3) OF THE MEDICAL REGISTRATION ACT YEAR SECTION 9(1)(C) SECTION 9(3) ______________________________________________________________ 1971 1 ) ) Not ) Available 1972 3 ) 1973 13 8 1974 10 26 1975 9 24 1976 7 15 1977 13 57 1978 11 42 1979 11 28 1980 8 40 1981 12 41 1982 14 30 1983 11 41 1984 8 22 ______________________________________________________________ TOTAL 131 374 ______________________________________________________________

asked the Minister of Defence and Second Minister for Health (a) whether the inquiry into the loss of the BAC Strikemaster plane of the Republic of Singapore Air Force (RSAF) on the 8th of May 1984 has submitted a report on the loss and, if it has, will the Ministry of Defence make available to the House the report; (b) whether any investigation or inquiry has been made into the loss of the Hunter plane of the RSAF on the 17th of May 1984 and, if so, with what results; (c) how many planes belonging to the RSAF have been lost over the last ten years; and (d) whether he will make a statement about the loss of the two planes and whether the RSAF has taken any steps to guard against such losses in the future.

It is established parliamentary practice in the United Kingdom, on which ours is based, not to disclose information which jeopardises essential defence interests, including operational defence matters, Also following British practice, the Ministry of Defence does not publish Board of Inquiry reports. Doing so would raise security problems. These considerations apply with particular force to RSAF matters, since details of airforce operations are naturally not for public disclosure. Nevertheless, each time a major aircraft accident occurs, the Armed Forces Council convenes a Board of Inquiry to investigate the case thoroughly. No difficulties are glossed over, and any shortcomings uncovered are put right. This was the case with the Strikemaster and Hunter accidents, for which Boards of Inquiry were convened on 10th May, 1984 and 26th May, 1984 respectively. Everything practical which can be done to guard against aircraft losses is already being done. Accidents, unfortunate as they are, can never be completely eliminated, but the accident rate will be kept to the minimum.

asked the Minister of Defence and Second Minister for Health if he will make public the report and findings of the Singapore Armed Forces Board of Inquiry into the death of Pte V. Rajendran of the Singapore Armed Forces on the 9th November 1983.

PTE Rajendran's death was the subject of Coroner's Inquiry No 2801/83. This was a public Inquiry under the law, All facts relevant and material to his death were before the State Coroner, who made his findings on 15th September, 1984. In addition, the Armed Forces Council convened a Board of Inquiry into the death of PTE V Rajendran. The law provides that the record of proceedings of a Board of Inquiry held pursuant to the Singapore Armed Forces Act, 1972, and Regulations made thereunder, are privileged. No person is entitled, as of right, to a copy of the record of proceedings of any Inquiry. Following British practice, the Ministry of Defence does not publish Board of Inquiry reports. Besides security objections in some cases, there could also be legal difficulties, because the witnesses appearing before a Board of Inquiry are not protected by the same rules of evidence which apply in the courts. Accordingly, it is inappropriate to make public the report and findings of the Board of Inquiry on the death of PTE V Rajendran. However, I recognize that the death of a serviceman, especially a national serviceman, is a matter of grave concern, not only to my Ministry, but also to the general public. I can therefore state that in the case of PTE Rajendran, the Board of Inquiry's findings were consistent with the Coroner's findings. In particular, both findings confirmed that the deceased died of bronchopneumonia, and that there had been no ill treatment. To ensure that no serviceman is exposed to unnecessary risk during his military service, the SAF has published training and safety directives, prescribing how training should be conducted, and what specific safety precautions must be taken. There are also medical and evacuation instructions which explain what should be done in case a serviceman is injured. These directives and instructions are strictly complied with. Whenever a serviceman is killed or seriously injured in service, the Armed Forces Council, chaired by the Minister of Defence, convenes a Board of Inquiry to investigate the matter. The Board is chaired by a senior officer from a different unit, or even from a different Ministry, who has nothing to do with the incident. It investigates not only the immediate cause of the death or injury, but also the training the serviceman was involved in, and whether remedial or disciplinary actions are called for. The Board reports directly to the Armed Forces Council, which follows up the case with the full resources of the Ministry of Defence.

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Culture whether the proposed merger of the newspaper publishing companies in Singapore was directed or initiated by the Government and, if not, whether the Government had any say in the proposed merger.

The proposed merger of the newspaper publishing companies in Singapore was neither directed nor initiated by the Government. When the idea was mooted by the publishing companies, the Government raised no objections. The merger makes sense. The two publishing houses will have to spend $20-30 million a year for the next few years in a long and fierce circulation war. This does not include the capital expenditure of over $50 million on duplicated plant and equipment which will be incurred by both sides. Its outcome will be uncertain. Singapore may at the end of the day still end up with only one newspaper in English and one in Chinese. In April 1982, the newspapers were restructured to ensure the long-term viability of Chinese newspapers and to upgrade the standard of journalism in English newspapers through competition. The objectives remain unchanged. The merger has guaranteed the long-term survival of the Chinese newspapers. The profit made by Lianhe Zaobao within the Singapore News and Publications Limited (SNPL) will be spared the cost of the circulation struggle. The Government still believes that Singapore will be best served by having more than one English newspaper.

asked the Minister for Finance and Minister for Trade and Industry what are the functions and responsibilities of the Social Development Unit and what is the amount of money that has been expended on the work of the Unit since it was set up.

The 1980 census highlighted the fact that an alarmingly large number of better educated ladies remain unmarried. The factors contributing to this trend are:-

asked the Minister for Finance and Minister for Trade and Industry what steps are being taken by the Government to strengthen control over the diversification activities of government-owned or government-controlled companies.

Most of the companies, which are owned or controlled by government, were set up in the 1960s and early 1970s. The companies were established principally to satisfy economic policy objectives prevailing at the time. Every dynamic enterprise makes appropriate responses to changes in external conditions. Government companies are no exception. Many of them launched activities which were related to their main line of business or specialisation. Those companies have by and large done well. A few companies may have strained the definition of related activities. Those companies are now being curbed and all companies have been reminded that they should not stray too far from their core businesses. I wish to assure the Member that the Ministry of Finance takes a close interest in the affairs of government companies. Every quarter I chair a meeting of senior government officials which reviews, in some detail, the performance and major activities of government companies. Reports on the progress of the companies are submitted to Cabinet regularly. In addition, I make it a point to visit periodically the major companies which are owned or controlled by government. With the above steps I am satisfied that there is adequate supervision over the diversification activities of government-owned or government-controlled companies. It would, however, not be desirable, in my view, to hobble government companies to such an extent that the managements are inhibited from making normal commercial decisions without reference to the Ministry of Finance.

asked the Minister for Social Affairs (a) how many Singaporeans went on the Haj in 1984 through arrangements by the Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura; and (b) whether there were any problems encountered by them and how were they resolved.

2,947 pilgrims performed the Haj this year through the Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura (MUIS). (b) Our pilgrims and also those from other Southeast Asian countries encountered problems as a result of the Muassasah system introduced for this region by the Saudi Ministry of Haj and Endowments this year. The Muassasah is an agency set up to coordinate arrangements for pilgrims from a specific country or region. The objectives of the Muassasah system are: i. to upgrade the standard of service for pilgrims; ii. to regularise the fees charged by the Makkah syehs; iii. to prevent pilgrims from being overcharged by unscrupulous syehs; iv. to eliminate the annually recurring problems of water shortage, poor transportation service and poor quality of food provided; and v. to group pilgrims of the same country together so that they can be better looked after. Among the problems encountered by the pilgrims were poor accommodation, inadequate supply of water, difficulty in obtaining food and poor transportation service. MUIS is collating information from pilgrims, pilgrim brokers and the team of Medical/Welfare officers who accompanied the pilgrims during their Haj on the problems they encountered. MUIS will then take up the pilgrims' problems with the relevant Muassasah agency so that these may be resolved.

asked the Minister for Social Affairs what is the present position in the building of Al-Amin Masjid at Telok Blangah Way.

The Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura (MUIS) is working closely with the architects of the Housing and Development Board on the brief for Masjid Al-Amin which will be built at the junction of Telok Blangah Way and Telok Blangah Rise. Once this has been finalised, building plans will be prepared by the HDB architects and submined to the Development and Building Control Division for approval. Tenders for the construction of the mosque will be called by the HDB sometime in 1985.

asked the Minister for Labour and Second Minister for Law and Home Affairs whether the Ministry of Labour offers assistance for disabled people who seek employment and, if so, what assistance is given and what are the major problems facing employment prospects for the disabled.

The Ministry of Labour, through its Employment Service Department, provides assistance to disabled persons who seek employment if they are Singapore citizens or permanent residents. Since 1977, the Department has found employment for a total of 667 disabled persons. Besides direct placement services, the Department also administers a Disablement Resettlement Scheme to assist disabled persons to be gainfully employed. Under this Scheme, the Department arranges job training for disabled persons and subsequent employment. Since 1977, 212 disabled persons had completed their training under this Scheme and were found employment. From the experiences of the Department, the major problems facing employment prospects for the disabled are the same as that for handicapped persons. Employers are reluctant to employ them for fear that being less mobile and dexterous, their work would be affected. However, job placement officers from the Vocational Assessment and Placement Centre of the Singapore Council of Social Service, Ministry of Social Affairs, Ministry of Education and Ministry of Labour are continually exploring job opportunities for the disabled.

asked the Minister for Labour and Second Minister for Law and Home Affairs whether the Ministry of Labour will give work permit holders from non-traditional sources in small retail and service shops a further reprieve of one to two years in order to overcome the shortage of these workers.

Work permit holders from non-traditional sources were only allowed into Singapore as a temporary measure. Hence, in January 1982, the Government announced its plan to phase out these unskilled foreign workers as and when their permits expire except for construction, shipyards and domestics. The employers referred to by the Honourable Member have therefore been given ample notice and have had adequate time to adopt measures to reduce their dependence on unskilled foreign workers. Many employers have already done so. Those employers who are still having the workers cannot, therefore, be given further extensions of one to two years.

asked the Minister for Labour and Second Minister for Law and Home Affairs whether the Ministry of Labour will give approval to unions for check-off to be in force for the duration of a collective agreement without the necessity of going to members for check-off, to be signed every year.

The matter regarding the interval for renewing check-off authorization is now being reviewed by my Ministry in consultation with the NTUC and a decision will be taken after this review has been completed.

asked the Minister for Labour and Second Minister for Law and Home Affairs (i) the number of work permits cancelled or not renewed for each of the months January to September 1984; and (ii) the number of work permits renewed or given for the same months.

The work permit statistics sought by the Member are not available.