Hansard, 1984-11-20

Under the provisions of clause 2(d) of Article 46 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, the following Members have been granted permission to be or to remain absent from sittings of Parliament (or any Committee of Parliament to which they have been appointed) for the periods stated:- Mr Tan Soo Khoon (Alexandra) - from 23rd October to 3rd November, 1984. Encik Mansor Haji Sukaimi (Kampong Kembangan) - from 27th October to 28th December,1984. Dr Tay Eng Soon, P.B.M. (River Valley), Minister of State, Ministry of Education - from 4th to 7th November and from 25th to 27th November, 1984. Mr Eugene Yap Giau Cheng (Mountbatten), Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour - from 6th to 8th November, 1984. Mr Lim Chee Onn (Bukit Merah) - from 6th to 8th November, 1984. Dr Ang Kok Peng, e.B.m. (Buona Vista) - from 6th to 8th November, 1984. Encik Wan Hussin Zoohri (Kampong Ubi), Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and the Minister for Culture - from 6th to 8th November, 1984. Encik Othman bin Haron Eusofe (Geylang Serai) - from 6th to 8th November, 1984. Mr Lau Ping Sum (Yio Chu Kang) -from 6th to 8th November, 1984. Mr S. Dhanabalan (Kallang), Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Culture - from 9th to 19th November, 1984. Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam (Sembawang), Minister for Finance and Minister for Trade and Industry - from llth to 13th November, 1984. Encik Sidek bin Saniff (Kolam Ayer), Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Trade and Industry and the Minister for Social Affairs -from 11 th to 13th November, 1984. Mr S. Chandra Das (Chong Boon) - from llth to 15th November, 1984, Mr E.W. Barker (Tanglin), Minister for Law and Leader of the House - from 14th to 17th November and from 21st to 23rd November, 1984. Dr Goh Keng Swee (Kreta Ayer), First Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Education - from 14th to 18th November, 1984. Mr Liew Kok Pun (Boon Teck) - from 18th to 21 st November, from 26th to 28th November and from 2nd to 27th December, 1984. Dr Lee Chiaw Meng (Tanah Merah) - from 21 st November to 22nd December, 1984. Mr S. Rajaratnam (Kampong Glam), Second Deputy Prime Minister (Foreign Affairs) - from 25th to 27th November, 1984. Mr Lee Yock Suan (Cheng San), Minister of State, Ministry of Finance - from 25th to 27th November, 1984. Mr Ong Pang Boon (Telok Ayer), Minis- ter for the Environment - from 28th November to 1st December, 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:- 8th November, 1984 (i) The Finance Companies (Amendment) Bill; and (ii) The Economic Expansion Incentives (Relief from Income Tax) (Amendment) Bill. YEOH GHIM SENG Speaker, Parliament of Singapore

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Culture whether the Singapore government gave any information to the Government of the Philippines or its Army about the movements of the late Senator Benigno Aquino before his arrival in Manila and, if so, what information was given.

Mr Speaker, Sir, on 19th August 1983, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs informed the Philippine Embassy that it had information that the late Senator Benigno Aquino had arrived in Singapore on 16th August and had already left on the morning of 19th August by Pan-Am bound for Hong Kong, San Francisco and Los Angeles.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as I understand the Minister to say the Ministry of Foreign Affairs had informed the Philippines Government, may I ask whether the Philippines Government or any agency made a request for his information and for his movements to be monitored?

Mr Speaker, Sir, nobody asked us but at that time there was considerable speculation as to when and how Senator Aquino would get into Manila. Since the Philippines is a friendly country, information about the arrival and departure of Aquino was passed on to the Philippine Embassy as normal diplomatic courtesy.

Does the Minister not realise that his answer does not really reveal anything? He is getting clever at this game. Would the Minister say what was the reason? Does the Ministry of Foreign Affairs pass on information to other governments every time one of their nationals passes through Singapore?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am afraid I cannot explain to the Member in anything other than simple English. I thought I was quite clear. I said we were not asked, and I gave the reason why we gave the information - that it was normal courtesy, since the Philippines is a friendly country, to provide such information in the light of the fact that there was considerable speculation about his arrival in Manila. Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the Member is pursuing a line where he is implying that there was something nefarious to what we have done. If so, he should state so.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am here to ask questions, not to answer questions. It is for the Ministers to answer questions here. Now, the Minister keeps saying "in the light", but what was compelling in this "light" that made it necessary for the Singapore Government to give this information?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I find it difficult to explain in any simpler language than what I have said. I have already explained very clearly why and what the circumstances were that led us to giving this information. He says his job is to ask questions. I am quite aware, Sir. One fool can ask more questions than a thousand wisemen can answer. But what is his line? He is trying to imply that there was something underhand about this information that we provided. If that is what he is implying, why does he not say so? I have got an answer to that.

Would the Minister answer the question, Is it the usual rule for his Ministry to supply information to governments every time a national of the country passes through Singapore? I asked that question and he has not answered that question.

Mr Speaker, this is really getting us nowhere.

No, it isn't.

I have stated clearly what the circumstances were. Surely, circumstances will vary from time to time.

What were the circumstances?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am sorry. We are not here to educate the Member for Anson. If he does not read the newspapers, he is not aware of what was happening in Manila. I think he was not aware because he has never shown any interest in events in the Philippines until he read a report in the Straits Times on the 13th of October, which was based on a draft report and which referred to the information that we had provided the Philippine Embassy here, The very next day, without waiting, he rushed to the nearest phone, I think, and telephoned in a statement saying that he intended to raise this question of the Government. He never showed any interest in the Philippines before, and if he does not know what the circumstances were in the Philippines before Aquino arrived in Manila, then I am afraid this House is not the place where he is going to be educated. He should go and read the newspapers for himself.

Is the Minister really so obtuse that he does not understand questions directed at him?

Obtuse questions will obtain obtuse answers.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we are not talking about the circumstances in the Philippines. What I want to know is what were the circumstances that prompted Singapore to supply this information? Secondly, may I know why his Ministry declined to comment on this when they were asked on the 14th whether this was true? Why conceal it?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not going to answer his first question because I have repeated more than once what the circumstances were. As to his second question, unlike the Member for Anson, the Ministry does not comment on newspaper reports based on reporters' speculations on drafts which were leaked in Manila. The official report was not out until the 24th of October. It was true. Has the Member read the Agrava Report? May I ask him - have you read the Agrava Report?

If it was true, why decline comment?

Let us go to the second Question. Mr Jeyaretnam.

asked the Minister for Finance and Minister for Trade and Industry whether he will make a statement on the acquisition by the Government company, Keppel Shipyard, of the shares in Straits Steamship.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have no statement to make on a purely commercial transaction which has already been fully reported in the press.

Does the Minister not realise that he has a duty in this, Keppel being a company in which the public are interested, their monies invested in it, it is a government-owned company. Does the Minister really think that he can get away without making any statement?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the acquisition by Keppel Shipyard of the shares in Straits Steamship was, as I have said, a commercial transaction which was done by a publicly-listed company taking over another publicly-listed company, and as such I see no need to make a statement.

Order for Second Reading read. 2.40 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Mr Speaker, Sir, although Singapore is a small country, we have attracted visitors from all over the world. Last year, 2.5 million foreigners visited Singapore from countries other than Malaysia. In addition, we have more than 150,000 foreign workers in Singapore on work permit. While we welcome the bona fide tourists and those who are legally working here, there are also a number of foreigners who have abused our hospitality and flouted our laws. The number of foreigners who were convicted for immigration offences in Singapore increased from 584 in 1981 to 1,207 in 1982 and 1,225 in 1983. The corresponding figure for the first nine months of this year was 1,553. In addition, many foreigners have also committed criminal offences in Singapore. From 1981 to 1983, a total of 7,565 foreigners were arrested for committing various criminal offences. The number of foreigners who come and commit crime in Singapore is rising. The present penalties in the Immigration Act are not sufficient to deter foreigners who intend to break our laws, or to effectively discourage people from harbouring or employing such foreigners. It is therefore necessary to amend the Immigration Act to provide for deterrent penalties for certain offences such as those relating to illegal entry, contravention of a Prohibition of Entry Order, illegal overstaying and harbouring or employing any person who has contravened our immigration laws. Clause 2 of the Bill seeks to enhance the penalty for illegal entry into Singapore. Offenders will be liable to imprisonment for a term not less than six months and not exceeding two years, and a fine not exceeding $6,000. It is necessary to prescribe a heavier penalty for this offence, as foreigners who resort to entering our country illegally are a threat to our society. If they are not caught and penalised, they will remain here illegally for a long time and also commit crime. We cannot afford to allow such illegal immigrants to sink their roots here and be a severe burden on our housing, social, educational, health services at the expense of our citizens. We must therefore take tough measures to discourage foreigners from coming in and remaining here illegally. The present penalty which is imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year or a fine not exceeding $4,000 or both, is not a sufficient deterrent. The number of persons prosecuted for this offence had risen from 79 in 1982 to 95 in 1983. Clause 3 increases the penalty for the contravention of a Prohibition & Entry Order to include imprisonment for a term not less than two years and not more than four years, and a fine not exceeding $6,000. The penalty is further enhanced in cases where the offender had previously committed any offence punishable with not less than three years imprisonment and who enters Singapore by using a travel document bearing a different name from that stated in the Order made against him. In such a case, he will be liable to imprisonment for a term of two years to five years and a fine not exceeding $10,000, and also to caning. This amendment to the law is necessary because the contravention of a Prohibition of Entry Order is one of the most serious offences under the Immigration Act. A Prohibition of Entry Order is only issued on foreigners who have committed serious offences in Singapore and they have to be kept out. Since 1978, a total of 83 persons who were issued with Prohibition of Entry Orders had re-entered Singapore illegally, Out of this figure, 46 were found to have commiffed further offences after their illegal entry into Singapore. The present penalty of imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding $2,000 or both such imprisonment and fine, is again manifestly inadequate. From January 1983 to September this year, 34 foreigners were convicted for contravening the Prohibition of Entry Order issued against them. Out of the 34 foreigners, 16 of them came in with new passports bearing different names. It is therefore necessary to impose a higher penalty, including caning, on foreign criminals who not only contravene Prohibition of Entry Orders, but also for their criminal deception. Such foreigners are obviously here to commit crime. They pose a danger to the security of our country, and we should not permit them to get away lightly when they are apprehended. Most of the offenders in the past were only fined between $400 and $2,000. The Bill also provides for enhanced penalties for overstaying in Singapore. Our liberal entry policy allows nationals of most countries in the world to visit Singapore without a visa. While we welcome the genuine visitors, we are also faced with a large number of foreigners who are reluctant to leave when their Social Visit Passes expire. Some who have come here from countries which are less well off than Singapore are tempted to stay on and work illegally. There are also cases of foreign workers who have resisted repatriation upon the expiry or cancellation of their work permits. If we do not discourage such foreigners from overstaying in Singapore illegally, there could be grave social repercussions for the country in the long term. Since they do not have a steady income from legal employment, some may resort to crime. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is necessary to ensure that our laws do not make it worthwhile for foreigners to prolong their stay in Singapore without a valid Immigration Pass. Under clause 4, if the period of overstay does not exceed 90 days, the penalty will be imprisonment not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding $4,000 or both such imprisonment and fine. This is similar to the existing penalty except that the maximum fine has been increased from $2,000 to $4,000. If the period of overstay is more than 90 days, the offender will be liable to imprisonment for a term of not less than six months and not exceeding two years, and a fine not exceeding $6,000. Foreigners who overstay for such a long period often do so wilfully and are likely to be working here illegally. Some may have no intention of going back at all if they are not caught and may even start to have families in Singapore if they stay here long enough. Perhaps they hope that by prolonging their stay here for a long time, they could eventually pass off as Singaporeans and make Singapore their permanent home. This will be most undesirable and is detrimental to the interest of our citizens. As Singapore is only a small country of 618.1 sq km with a very high population density, we can ill-afford to accommodate such foreigners, especially when most of them have no skills and cannot make any economic contribution to our country. A heavier penalty is therefore prescribed for long term overstayers. The Immigration Department can normally distinguish between those who overstay inadvertently for a few days, and those who do so intentionally without a valid reason. Usually only the bad cases are prosecuted while others are warned or given composition fines. In 1983 the number of over- stayers who were warned or given composition fines was 56,199, while the corresponding figure for the first nine months of this year was 55,180. 784 overstayers were prosecuted by the Immigration Department in 1983 compared to 1,382 from January to September this year. The Bill also seeks to amend section 36 of the Immigration Act to increase the penalty for the offence of unlawful return after removal. This is a serious offence as it involves foreigners who have been sent out of Singapore for various reasons, but choose to enter again illegally. The number of these cases rose sharply to 166 in 1983 compared to 39 in 1982 and only three in 1981. The present penalty of imprisonment not exceeding two years or a fine not exceeding $4,000 or both such imprisonment and fine is grossly inadequate. The proposed penalty will now include mandatory imprisonment for a term of not less than one year and not exceeding three years, and a fine not exceeding $6,000. The penalty for attempted unlawful entry will be imprisonment for a term not less than three months and not exceeding two years, and a fine not exceeding $4,000. The present penalty for abetting any person to enter or leave Singapore in contravention of the Immigration Act or Regulations is imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine not exceeding $6,000 or both such imprisonment and fine. The penalty for this offence will be enhanced to include mandatory imprisonment for a term not less than six months and not exceeding two years. Twelve persons were convicted for this offence in 1983 compared to four each in 1982 and 1981. In addition, the Bill seeks to enhance the penalty for harbouring or employing any person who has contravened the Immigration Act or Regulations. The existing penalty for these offences is imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine not exceeding $6,000 or both such imprisonment and fine. The penalty will now be enhanced to include mandatory imprisonment for a term not less than six months and not exceeding two years, so as to deter would-be offenders. Furthermore, a person who gives shelter to an overstayer of more than 90 days or an illegal immigrant, would be presumed, until the contrary is proved, to know that the person whom he has harboured is an illegal overstayer or an illegal immigrant. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is important to stress the seriousness of the offence because these people who are willing to offer shelter for the illegal overstayers or immigrants are in fact encouraging more foreigners to remain in Singapore illegally. They are the main source of the problem. The penalty for these offences must therefore be sufficiently deterrent so that it will not be worthwhile for anyone to harbour or employ any person who has contravened our immigration laws. The number of persons apprehended for the offence of harbouring increased sharply to 166 in 1983 compared to 57 in 1982 and 39 in 1981. Fifty-three persons were convicted of the offence of employing illegal overstayers or illegal immigrants in 1983 while 39 were convicted of the same offence during the first nine months of this year. Finally, the Bill also seeks to increase the maximum amount for compounding offences under the Immigration Act and Regulations from $100 to $500. 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. - (Mr Chua Sian Chin), Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 2.59 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, 'That the Bill be now read a Second time." At present, the eligible dependants of a pensionable officer are granted a death gratuity in the event of his death. The death gratuity amounts to: (i) one year's last-drawn salary; or (ii) the commuted pension gratuity, if this is greater. The commuted pension gratuity is equivalent to the retirement gratuity the officer would have received had he retired instead on the date of his death. The Government feels that the quantum of death gratuity for pensionable officers needs to be enhanced in view of the current difference in the rate of employer's CPF contribution between pensionable and non-pensionable officers. The employer's rate of CPF contribution for pensionable officers is 15% whereas it is 25% for non-pensionable officers. At least for death benefits there should be some parity between pensionable and non-pensionable officers. It is thus proposed to pay to the dependants of a pensionable officer who dies in harness a gratuity based on 10% of his last-drawn monthly salary for each month of service, as 10% is the current difference in the employer's rate of CPF contribution between the pensionable and non-pensionable officers. For convenience, the proposed method of computing gratuity will be referred to as the "10% formula". The gratuity shall be subject to a maximum of three years' salary. It shall also, as at present, be no less than one year's salary. Clause 2 of the Pensions (Amendment) Bill, 1984, provides for the death gratuity to be computed as proposed. Pension benefits computed based on the 10% formula amount to 1/10 of one month's salary for each complete month of service. However, in the Pensions Act pension benefits are reckoned in terms of annual and not monthly pensionable emoluments. Hence in the Bill the 10% formula has to be expressed as "1/120 of one year's pensionable emoluments" for each complete month of service. Sir, I take this opportunity to inform the House of a consequential amendment to the -retirement gratuity. If improvement is made only to the death gratuity, there will be the anomaly of a person being worth more when he is dead than when he is alive since the proposed death gratuity based on the 10% formula will always be greater than the commuted pension gratuity, which is the retirement gratuity. To rectify the anomaly, the retirement gratuity should also be based on the 10% formula. The Pensions Regulations, 1956, will therefore be amended accordingly. The retirement gratuity is, in fact, an advance against future monthly pension. At present, this gratuity is a lump sum payment equivalent to one-quarter of full pension for 12 1/2 years. The monthly pension is accordingly reduced to three-quarters of full pension for the first 12 1/2 years after retirement. After 12 1/2 years full pension will be paid. If the retirement gratuity is now enhanced by the 10% formula, the monthly pension for the first 12 1/2 years after retirement will consequently be reduced because of the increase in the sum advanced. The amendment to the Pensions Regulaions, 1956, will take effect on the same date as the Pensions (Amendment) Bill, 1984. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I wonder whether the 13th month payment is taken into account in his computation? It does not appear to be so. Therefore, there appears to be a slight discrepancy because the officer on CPF would have been paid 25% of this 13th month payment into his CPF as well.

Sir, there is no discrepancy. The 13th month payment is not pensionable.

I know it is not pensionable. But if the object is to make it equivalent to the CPF contributor, then it should be incorporated for this purpose.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the object is to enhance the rate of death gratuity in the event of a civil servant dying in harness. The object is not to make a strict equivalence.

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

Order for Second Reading read. 3.05 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Bill proposes to amend the Economic Expansion Incentives (Relief from Income Tax) Act to effect the investment allowance scheme announced in the 1984 Budget Statement, to encourage local companies to invest in new technology projects. Sir, many of the established local companies have accumulated substantial reserves through investing in traditional industries. With rising wages and increasingly stiff international competition, the local companies will have to diversify into new industries and services to maintain their growth. Some have already done so. For instance, National Iron and Steel Mills and Wearnes Brothers have gone into computer equipment; Fraser and Neave into using biotechnology methods to cultivate mushrooms; and ACMA into personal computers, However, these are few and far between. New technology industries are inherently more risky. Incentives must therefore be given to encourage our local investors to venture into new frontiers of technological advancement and help to broaden our technological base. The Bill creates a new Part, Part VID on "Investments in New Technology Companies" to deal with the incentive scheme for investments in new technology companies. Under the proposed scheme, a local company which invests in an approved new technology project can deduct its share of losses in the project against its other income, subject to a maximum of 50% of its equity investment. A company is defined as a local company if 50% or more of its equity is owned by Singapore citizens or permanent residents. The deduction will only be granted if the new project does not make any cumulative profit during the first three years. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, just a couple of points for clarification. As the Bill is presented, there seems to be the assumption that the so-called new technology companies have holding companies or parent companies which own them. What about companies which are new ventures altogether? Secondly, there does not seem to be a definition of "new technology" or what "new technology" implies. Clause 46zc(2) simply states: 'Where the Minister is satisfied that the technology, if introduced in Singapore, would promote or enhance the economic or technological development of Singapore, he may approve the company as a technology company and issue a certificate to that company subject to such conditions as he thinks fit.' I suppose that, for the purposes of implementation, he would have to draw up a set of criteria to determine the eligibility of such companies. I just wonder whether he has such a list available for this House right now.

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me answer the questions as they are asked in turn. First of all, with regard to entirely new ventures, if these are invested by a number of investors other than the parent company, it does not fall within this Bill. The particular feature of this Bill is that for a company which deliberately sets out to invest in new technology companies, then it would be entitled to deduct against its own profits a share of the losses of the company in which it has invested. For the second question as to what constitutes new technology, Mr Speaker, Sir, I would prefer not to define this too strictly at this stage. It is a matter of trial and error and, I think for the first few companies, the EDB and the Income Tax Department would be fairly generous with regard to the definition.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I suppose the Minister would be aware that there is a danger that a holding company, in its relationship with the new subsidiary, such as this new technology company, might be tempted because of the provisions of this amendment to engage in transfer arrangements, pricing arrangements, to make the new company bear the losses that might otherwise be borne by the holding company and therefore be entitled to the exemption under this provision. Coming back to my original question in point, surely the Minister would also be interested in promoting new companies apart from subsidiaries of present companies.

Mr Speaker, Sir, with regard to the first question, I have complete confidence that the reputation of the Income Tax Department is such that it would deter companies from undertaking the type of practice suggested by the Member for Whampoa. With regard to the promotion of entirely new companies, I would point out that we already have a very generous range of tax incentives to encourage the incorporation of new companies in Singapore.

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.

Order for Second Reading read. 3.13 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This Bill seeks to amend the Merchant Shipping Act (Cap. 172) mainly in the provisions relating to the manning of ships and certification of seafarers. The existing legislation governing manning levels and certification of seafarers is outdated. Regulations on certification have not been revised since 1955. Provisions on the manning levels were last drawn up in 1970. Furthermore, we were tied to the acceptance of UK regulations on certification even though the content and nature of our training have over the past years been modified to accommodate our local circumstances. The purpose of the Bill is therefore to bring our legislation on manning and certification in line with current shipping practices and safety requirements. The proposed amendments include only the key provisions while the detailed certification and manning requirements will be prescribed in regulations in order to facilitate their updating to keep up with continuing changes in shipping. As ships become more sophisticated with the introduction of higher technology, the training and manning standards will have to be constantly upgraded to enhance the safety of such ships and their crew. Singapore is one of the busiest ports in the world and has a sizable merchant fleet. Therefore, we must ensure that our standards are kept high. The regulations on certification and manning will be in line with the provisions contained in the 1978 International Convention on the Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW) which came into force on 28th April 1984. It is necessary also to ensure that our seafarers and ships meet the Convention standards and requirements so that Singapore ships will not risk delay or even detention in foreign ports. The amendments will enable Singapore to accede to the STCW Convention at the appropriate time. The Bill also proposes to consolidate all provisions on fees under one section to prescribe by regulations the fees levied for services rendered under the Act. At present, some of these fees are prescribed in the Act while some are prescribed in regulations made under the Act. Finally, Sir, in addition to the aforementioned amendments, the Bill contains a new section 339A tO forbid any unauthorized person from boarding a ship or remaining on board after being requested to leave. Such a provision will further enhance security on board ships in Singapore waters. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, before I comment on this Bill, I would like to declare that I am a Director of a shipping company. Sir, generally I support this amendment as it intends to replace certain obsolete provisions in this Act. I would only want to comment on clause 3, Mr Speaker, Sir, which empowers the Minister to make regulations. As the Bill stands, I have no quarrel but comment on the fact that the Minister can make a number of regulations. While making the regulations I would appeal to the Minister that his Ministry discusses it in some detail with the private sector, particularly the shipowners and the unions. Next, the Minister should also take into account our Open Registry policy. Whilst many countries are now seriously looking at reducing restrictions, we should not fall into the trap by adding on additional restrictions. Further, Sir, right now the shipping industry, as you probably know, is in the doldrums. If we put on any additional restrictions, it will impose very severe hardship on the industry. Lastly, as the Minister has already mentioned, on the question of improvements, the state of the art of ship-building should be taken into account. For example, there is a requirement right now that all ships must carry a radio officer. Modern ships are built in such a way that there are telephones and telexes. So really we do not need a radio officer. Sir, I support the Bill. 3.20 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, in rising to speak, like the Member for Chong Boon, I wish to seek clarification from the Minister on some of the provisions of clause 3 of the Bill. Section 10(1) of the Merchant Shipping Act is to be amended to empower the Minister to make regulations requiring ships to carry a certain number of qualified persons and seamen. As the Minister has explained, it is a step towards observing the recommendations of the STCW Convention. Like the Member for Chong Boon, I think that what is mote important would be the set of regulations which his Ministry intends to issue. So what would be the criteria to be observed in the setting of minimum standards of crewing? The setting of minimum standards of crewing is always a contentious issue, with shipowners and unions usually holding divergent views. I hope that the Minister would also heed the Member for Chong Boon's view that his Ministry should consult people in the private sector, the shipowners and unions, on this matter. Safety should be one of the main features to decide what standards of crewing we should adopt. While the Member for Chong Boon has also argued that we should take into account the prevailing state of the industry, I think that while that may be a factor to be taken into account, what is more important is that we should have the necessary number of crew on board to man the ship safely, to take the ship safely from port to port. Section 10(2) elaborates on the manner in which certificates of competency would be recognized. As explained, the Minister may recognize certificates of competency granted by foreign authorities. We may expect that standards of training and procedures of testing will vary from one country to another. Is it the intention of the Minister to make it known from time to time which certificates are acceptable? This is important because quite a number of our own seafarers have gone overseas to take their examinations. It would be a great waste of time and money if a person who has gone overseas to take an examination finds that his certificate is not recognized. This is particularly important because, from our information, about 40% of Singaporean deck officers currently hold foreign certificates. There is also an anomaly in the present practice of recognizing certificates of competency. For example, a Panamanian citizen holding a Panamanian certificate of competency is normally accepted as qualified to serve on board a Singapore registered ship. On the other hand, a Singapore citizen holding the same Panamanian certificate of competency is not considered as qualified to serve on a Singapore registered ship. So with the amendments proposed, is it the intention of the Ministry to correct this anomaly? After all, if the certificate is recognized, then the holder, irrespective of nationality, must be considered as qualified. The nationality of the holder and the standards required for the granting of a certificate are entirely different things.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we have been encouraging foreign shipowners to fly the Singapore flag, and I have been concerned with this matter ever since I was on the Estimates Committee quite some time ago. The first question is whether we have the capacity to look into he seaworthiness of these many vessels hat fly our flag. And now, do we have the capacity to certify the worthiness of the seamen who have to man these ships? It is some time since I looked at the figures but I have the distinct impression that (a) a great majority of seamen who manned these ships are foreigners; and (b) the absolute numbers of Singaporean seamen have been on the decline. So I just wonder whether we do have the capacity that I have alluded to.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I want to thank the three hon. Members of the House for their interest in the Bill. I would take the questions in the order in which they are raised. Sir, I want to assure the House that consultations with the employers and unions will be undertaken. It has always been the practice of the Marine Department to have consultations both with the employers and the unions prior to the promulgation of regulations. The Member for Chong Boon raised the question of the minimum standards required and how we intend to go about doing this. Sir, the regulations will be made, bearing in mind international requirements, international acceptance, and to ensure that the reputation of Singapore will in no way be affected. Sir, as I have stated earlier, Singapore is presently one of the world's busiest ports, with its merchant navy growing rapidly. Singapore is also well known worldwide for the very high quality of its manufactured products. And we have therefore a vested interest in ensuring that the services provided, and in this particular case, the services provided by the merchant navy, are also of a high standard. So these are some of the factors which will be taken into account in the drawing up of the minimum standards required. As for the specific issue of radio officers, it is the intention of the Ministry to ensure that this will be reviewed constantly. I am aware that radio officers are no longer operating just what was previously simply a radio and nothing else. Present methods of navigation include the use of the International Maritime Satellite System. So some of these qualifications also have to be looked into and upgraded. The Member for Kebun Baru also raised the question of the criteria. This has been answered a moment ago. His concern is that there should be more people on board a ship, notwithstanding the point raised by the Member for Chong Boon. Sir, as I have stated also in the reply to the Member for Chong Boon, the manning requirements will take into account what is the international practice so that the safety of both crew and ship will continue to be well looked after. Foreign certificates will also be reviewed. We will ensure that there is international acceptance. It is well known that certain countries have higher standards of testing and certification compared with others, and this will be looked into thoroughly. The Member for Whampoa asked if we have the capacity for the certification of seaworthiness of our ships as well as the capabilities of a seaman. I would like to assure him that we have. We have in Singapore numerous naval architects, and marine engineers with extensive experience in the field of shipping as well as shipbuilding and ship-repairing. The Member for Kebun Baru himself is a naval architect. We also have a nautical studies department in the Polytechnic which provides instruction and therefore we have the capability.

Sir, I think the Minister has not answered one of my questions, which is the question of recognition of certificates by nationality. If you are a Panamanian holding a Panamanian cenificate, it is recognized by the Marine Department as suitable for operating on board a ship; but a Singaporean holding a Panamanian certificate is not recognized.

Sir, I do not know whether there are as many marine institutes issuing certificates as there are universities in the world. I know that the National University of Singapore has perennial problems in deciding which certificates are worthy of the paper and ink they are written upon. So I would imagine that you would also have similar problems in determining the validity of marine certificates. But more crucially, Sir, the question that I would like to raise is whether the exercise is worth while to have these foreign ships register under our flag if (a) they are not employing a sufficient number of Singaporeans, and (b) they take up so much of our time in certification.

Sir, the practice of certification as mentioned by the Member for Kebun Baru will be looked into. Some of these aberrations have historical origins. They will in due course be resolved. As to whether there are as many marine institutes in the world like the number of universities or paper mills issuing certificates, there are fewer of these than there are universities and paper mills. The quality of the certificates issued by the various countries is by and large fairly well-known among the international shipping community.

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 Yeo Ning Hong). Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Resolved, "That at its rising today Parliament do stand adjourned sine die." - [Mr E.W. Barker].

Mr Speaker, Sir, this is most likely to be the last sitting of this House before the coming general elections. Election fever has hit this town. If it is the last sitting, then I think it would be appropriate for me to take this opportunity to thank Members and wish a warm farewell to those who will not be returning to this House after the general elections. Sir, of the 20 or more Members of Parliament who are stepping down, the longest serving Member is the Honourable the First Deputy Prime Minister. He was elected to what was then the Legislative Assembly of Singapore in May 1959 and has been returned unopposed in every subsequent general elections. Rumour has it that aspiring candidates stayed away from Kreta Ayer for fear of being beaten up by the Minister's supporters in the backlanes of Chinatown. It was he, Sir, who was responsible for reclaiming the swamps in Jurong. Today, Jurong is a vast, thriving and humming industrial estate. He is the man behind the Singapore dollar, a dollar that has grown from strength to strength ever since he first put his signature on our currency notes. After the separation of Singapore from Malaysia, he built up our Armed Forces into what it is today, a credible and formidable deterrent to any potential invader. He has had his finger in almost every pie. Today, he is responsible for the changes in our education policy. Not satisfied, he is now decimating our pig population in order to reduce pollution and put our land to better use. I need hardly add that he will be missed in this House. We remember his short answers, sometimes just an abrupt "No" to simple oral questions. He will be even more badly missed in Cabinet. Some years ago, the Prime Minister told me that Dr Goh would be retiring at the end of this term and asked me to try and persuade him to stay on. I did not because I think Dr Goh has done more than enough for Singapore. He is not here in this House today but will you join me in saluting him? Sir, at our next sitting, you will have to appoint another Deputy Speaker because the Member for Jalan Kayu has regrettably decided to call it a day. He has done admirably in your Chair whenever you were absent or needed a rest. Like you, Sir, we will miss him. Sir, I cannot refer to all those who are stepping down but perhaps you will allow me to refer to the oldest both in age and seniority amongst the Backbenchers. He has on many occasions, when not slumbering, injected life into our debates. His frequent interruptions have sometimes annoyed you, Sir, and on one occasion the Member for Anson who, I am sure, will miss the Member for Khe Bong provided he himself is not missing from this House. Sir, there are many others who are stepping down. I shall not go through the list. They can retire with the satisfaction of having served their constituents and Singapore. To all, I say, "Good luck and God bless." Over the years, I have answered so many questions and queries in this House. Allow me to just ask one question and I ask this of the younger Members: "Have you not had enough of me as Leader of the House?"

Sir, I beg to move. That Parliament do now adjourn. Question proposed. 3.39 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to claim the right to speak on the Motion for the Adjournment and to bring to the attention of this House an issue which concerns a considerable number of citizens, ie citizens living in the private housing estates. I am not just speaking on behalf of Serangoon Gardens constituency. There are many private housing estates in Singapore. In fact, according to one figure, there are more than 250 private housing estates in over 150 locations in the country. Mr Speaker, Sir, last year, the Police Department made a fundamental change in its policing system and adopted the Neighbourhood Police Post (NPP) system. From June 1983, neighbourhood police posts were set up in the Toa Payoh Division. After a year of its operation, the NPP system has been evaluated and the result has been very encouraging. The success of the initial programme has led the Minister for Home Affairs to announce that the Government has decided to implement the NPP system throughout the country. From 1st December, a police post will be established in each of the 12 constituencies in the Jurong and Paya Lebar Divisions. According to the Police Life Annual, 1984, about 50 police posts will be established in existing major HDB estates in the present phase from 1984 to 1988, and that 30 more posts will be built in new towns, such as Woodlands and Nee Soon in the final phase from 1989 to 1991. Mr Speaker, Sir, a striking feature of the NPP system is that the neighbourhood police posts are to be built in HDB housing estates only. As far as I am aware, there is no plan to extend the NPP system to cover private housing estates. In my view, this is a very serious omission. An efficient policing system is needed for private housing estates as much as it is needed for HDB new towns. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask the Minister why it has not been possible to extend the programme to private housing estates. Is the problem one of manpower, finance or space? If the problem is one of space, then I suggest that the Police Department discusses where to site the police posts with the members of the Citizens' Consultative Committee, area committee or residents' association. For example, in my constituency there are many housing estates - Serangoon Garden Estate, Tai Hwan Garden, Golden Hill Estate, Highland Garden, Richard's Park and Fortuna Garden. Surely, together with the community organizations, the Police Department can locate a convenient and strategic spot for the police post to be built. Mr Speaker, Sir, I hope the Minister would agree to the extension of the NPP system to the private housing estates because, in my view, these estates constitute in many ways a less secure environment than the HDB new towns. In a private housing estate, the housing units are spread out and many of them are located far away from the main roads, Street lighting is poor in many places and it is dangerous for young children, teenagers, senior citizens and others to walk the long distance from the main road to their houses, especially at night. In a private housing estate, you do not have a concentration of people living together. Furthermore, it is difficult for grandparents and relatives to stay close to the families, unlike the HDB estates where priority is given to multi-tier families to live adjacent to each other. Then, if both parents work and if the family has no domestic help, there is no one to look after the children and property in their absence. For these and other reasons, in my view, there is the need for the presence of the police officers to reassure the residents, and hence, the necessity to extend the NPP system to the private housing estates. The establishment of a police post in the private housing estate will enhance the security of the neighbourhood. The residents will feel a lot safer with the post just a short distance away. The residents can assist and cooperate with the police officers in crime prevention activities, They can accompany the police officers as they go about their house to house visits or on their foot and bicycle patrols. The residents' association or area committee members of the private housing estate can discuss various crime prevention measures with the police officers. In general, the extension of the NPP system to the private housing estates will strengthen the bond between the lawmen and the community. Mr Speaker, Sir, after all that I have said, the Minister may respond by suggesting that the private housing estates set up neighbourhood watch groups in the estates. In fact, in Serangoon Gardens Constituency, there are neighbourhood watch groups but they are not effective. This is because it is difficult to keep constant watch over each other's houses. It would be better if there is a police post nearby and the police officers can patrol the streets in the private housing estates regularly and involve the residents in their activities. Mr Speaker, Sir, I hope that the Minister will consider seriously my suggestion and decide to extend the NPP system to the private housing estates as soon as possible. 3.46pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I assure the Member for Serangoon Gardens that it is part of the plan to have police posts in private housing estates as well. I do not know where he got the information that there will be no NPP posts in private housing estates. I think he must have got the wrong information on this point. Although we will be having police posts in private housing estates, the priority of establishing these posts will be given to the public housing estates. And we have good reasons why it should be so. Perhaps I should say something about how we intend to establish these neighbourhood police posts throughout Singapore. After I have given the Member for Serangoon Gardens an idea of how we would go about it, I think he will be quite happy to know that Serangoon Gardens will not be left out. As I have recently announced, based on the very favourable results of the evaluation of the implementation of the NPP system in Toa Payoh Division, we have decided to extend the system to all constituencies. Each constituency will have at least one police post while the larger ones will have two posts. Police posts will be strategically located in the heart of residential areas so that the residents can conveniently have access to and from which police officers can be easily deployed. The main objective of the NPP system is to bring about closer rapport and interaction between the police officers and the residents. This is most important. The NPP system as I said is to service both the public and private housing estates. I think the Member for Serangoon Gardens does not know that, in fact, in the first implementation of the NPP system in the Toa Payoh Division, police posts have been established in the Thomson and Aljunied Constituencies which are serving both the public and private housing estates in the constituencies. If the Member had a chat with the Member for Thomson and the Member for Aljunied, he would have known that. Our plan is to establish, in all, 91 neighbourhood police posts to cover the whole of Singapore. However, owing to the physical and other constraints, it is not possible to set up and run police posts all at once. Besides having to build the posts, we need also to recruit police officers of the right calibre and to train them to work as NPP officers because this is a most specialized type of policing. Much as we would like to recruit as many officers as we can as soon as possible, we are limited to their availability and response to our yearly recruitment exercises. Thus we have no alternative but to implement the NPP system in phases based on a system of priorities after taking into consideration a number of relevant factors. As I said just now, we have decided to give priority of implementation of the NPP system to constituencies which have large public housing estates. Let me explain. The reasons are, first, as a result of our urban renewal and public housing programme, more than 70% of our population are living in high-rise HDB estates. We soon found out that our traditional method of patrolling these high-rise buildings was ineffective and inappropriate. We then tried vertical policing. It was found to be not a success because it was physically impossible for daily police patrols to cover a sufficient number of high-rise blocks to make their physical presence felt, and as a result there was hardly any interaction between the residents and the officers on patrol. In fact, it was this lack of success of policing high-rise apartment blocks that prompted us to rethink, and this made us finally to decide to make a fundamental change in our policing strategy and doctrine by adopting the NPP system. On the other hand, private housing estates of one-storey or two-storey bungalows or terrace houses as you find in Serangoon Gardens can still be effectively policed by our traditional methods of policing, although I must say that it is not ideal. We are now improving it by having more bicycle patrols. The objective of these bicycle patrols is to achieve a better interaction between the residents and police officers. As for the private high-rise condominiums, many of them have their own security arrangements, including deployment of security guards which effectively complements the police patrol. In other words, the need of our public housing estates is greater than the need of the private housing estates, be they high-rise condominiums or low-rise bungalows and terrace houses. Second, it is faster to build NPPs in HDB estates which have void decks. On the other hand, in constituencies which do not have HDB estates, NPPs will have to be built as independent structures. The search and reservation of such sites and the construction of the posts could take a much longer time. The third reason is, from our experience of the implementation of the NPP system in the Toa Payoh Division, we found that the presence of an infrastructure of grassroots organizations, especially the Residents' Committees, is crucial in ensuring the successful implementation of the NPP system. It is these grassroots leaders that have made it possible to achieve rapport and closer interaction between the residents and NPP officers so quickly, particularly by their accompanying NPP officers in their house visits. Thus HDB estates are given priority in the implementation of the NPP system. Basing on this consideration, the constituencies with private housing estates will be given special consideration for earlier implementation of the NPP system if they have established a sufficiently comprehensive infrastructure of grassroots infrastructure, such as residents' associations and/or neighbourhood watch groups. Constituencies with now housing estates, pens of which are still under construction, will not have NPPs until the estate is fully developed. Taking into consideration all these factors, we have planned to set up all 91 NPPs by 1989, earlier by three years from what the Member has said. Let me refer to the Serangoon Gardens Constituency. I believe there is one new public housing estate called Serangoon North New Town which is under construction and it will be completed by 1989. Although it is a public housing estate, the NPP post will not be established until 1989 for the reasons I have just stated. However, because of the large area and peculiar shape of the Serangoon Gardens Constituency, two police posts are needed. One is to be sited in the Serangoon Gardens Estate consisting of bungalows and terrace houses and the other in the Serangoon North New Town. The police post at the Serangoon Gardens Estate will be set up next year and, may I stress, provided there is a sufficient infrastructure of grassroots organizations, such as residents' associations coupled with neighbourhood watch groups, to help the smooth implementation of the NPP system in the Serangoon Gardens Estate. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That Parliament do now adjourn. Adjourned accordingly at Two Minutes to Four o'clock pm sine die.

asked the Minister of Defence and Second Minister for Health whether he is satisfied with the measures being taken by the three Services to ensure the safety of SAF personnel undergoing training, especially flying training.

Safety is always a major concern of the SAF. A good safety record is the product of a well run armed force. Competent commanders must design carefully conceived training programmes, to put troops through difficult missions in a graduated sequence. Demanding exercises must yield training value without endangering soldiers, and stringent monitoring must make sure everything goes as planned. Training safety is the hallmark of professionalism. The SAF has undertaken many specific measures to promote safety. Comprehensive training safety regulations are published, so that officers need not depend on experience and memory alone when conducting training. For certain units, such as airbases, and for all units during live firing exercises, safety officers are specifically nominated. They have no other responsibilities than to keep constant watch over the training troops. Their job is to stop any one from being carried away by the excitement of the moment, and doing something unsafe. In addition, the Services have inspectorate teams who monitor training activities, so that the headquarters staff will know quickly if anything is going wrong. If an accident does happen, prompt investigation and swift follow-up action ensure that any shortcomings revealed in our procedures and practices are put right. Such measures promote safety, but they cannot guarantee that accidents will never happen. When training for war, men and machines are pushed to the limits of their endurance. While the greatest care must be taken to see that they are not pushed accidentally beyond the limits, this must not be done at the expense of training standards. Realistic training must continue, because inadequately trained troops will suffer needless casualties in war. We cannot water down SAF training. These observations apply particularly to flying training and operations. The margins for error are finer, the consequences of mistakes are graver, and the risks are ever present. Yet we cannot stop flying. We must fly, but with competent pilots, in well maintained aircraft. Our pilot selection and training procedures are rigorous, and are constantly being improved. Only the best become fighter pilots. After they have been trained, they are required to maintain their skills at a high standard, so that they do not unwittingly hazard their aircraft or their lives in the air. Even the best pilots in the world can only fly safely if their aircraft are airworthy. The engine, the avionics, the weapon systems on board an aircraft, all must be conscientiously and meticulously maintained. This is the responsibility of engineers, technicians and ground crew, the large support staff required to put one pilot in the air. We have kept abreast of maintenance practices in other air forces, and have modified our own procedures and inspection routines to make increasingly certain that when an aircraft takes off, it is serviceable. MINDEF constantly monitors the accident rates of the various types of RSAF aircraft for indications of possible safety problems. So far, the trends have been reassuring. MINDEF intends to keep it that way.

The following Bills, which were passed by Parliament on 20th November, 1984, were assented to by the President on the date stated: 26th November 1984 (i) Immigration (Amendment) Bill; (ii) Pensions (Amendment) Bill; (iii) Economic Expansion Incentives (Relief from Income Tax) (Amendment No. 2) Bill; and (iv) Merchant Shipping (Amendment) Bill.