MAIN AND DEVELOPMENT ESTIMATES OF SINGAPORE FOR THE - FINANCIAL YEAR 1ST APRIL, 1985 TO 31 ST MARCH, 1986
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, let me first take the easiest one. The Member for Chong Boon asked whether there is a plan to consider amalgamating the Hindu Advisory Board with the Hindu Endowments Board. The two Boards have very different roles really. The Hindu Advisory Board was set up to advise the Government on Hindu affairs, Hindu religion and customs, and the Hindu Endowments Board was set up to oversee the temples and the properties managed by the temple officials. This proposal to amalgamate the two Boards was made about 10 years ago and at that time it was decided that since the roles of the two Boards were quite different the decision was to keep the two Boards separate as they were. But since the Member brought this up again, I will ask my Ministry officials to look at this proposal and see whether we should integrate the two Boards. The Member for Potong Pasir talked about library services, and he said that in UK, if you want to,borrow a book from a branch library or a sub-branch, and the book is not available, arrangements would be made for the borrower to get the book from the central library. The situation in UK is slightly different. The branches and the central library are quite far apart, whereas in the case of Singapore, we are just 16 by 24 miles and it is not difficult to go from one branch to another to borrow a book. But I agree with him that we should have as many libraries as possible so that our children would have enough opportunities to go to the library and read or borrow books to read at home. For his information, perhaps he may not be aware, we currently have a central library. We also have a number of branch libraries. One in Queenstown, one in Toa Payoh, one in Marine Parade and one in Bukit Merah. There are plans to build an Ang Mo Kio Branch and a Bedok Branch. But in addition to these branches and the central library, we also have 10 mobile library service points. These mobile library vans do go out to loan books to the residents. On top of that, we have, what we call, part-time branches which means that they only open a few days a week, and part-time branches are currently found in Whampoa, Jurong and Bedok. Currently, there are enough library service points for the members who want to use the library. But as our population and student population gets bigger, of course, we will then do a review to see whether the supply is adequate to serve the needs of the people. Back to the Member for Leng Kee. I also share with him his view that we want to have a culturally vibrant society. We have had 25 years of Culture Ministry. Why do we now abolish the Culture Ministry? We have not really abolished the Ministry. What we did was to integrate part of the functions of the former Culture Ministry into a new Ministry called the Community Development Ministry which incorporates part of the old Social Affairs Ministry. Is it important to have the word "Culture" in the name of a Ministry? Just look at the Thais, for example. In Thailand they are very rich in culture, very strong in religion, yet they do not have a Ministry of Culture or a Ministry of Religion. What they have is a Ministry of Education that looks after both culture and religion. We have had 25 years of HDB building. We know that housing is very important. 80% of our people live in HDB flats. Yet we do not have a Minister for Housing. We have a Ministry of National Development. More than 50% of our population are under 35 years old, very young people. Yet we do not have a ministry of youth. But it does not mean that youth is not important. As my Minister said, we will look at his suggestion and see whether we should have the word "Culture" added to Community Development. But what is important really is the role and functions that are being carried out by the Ministry rather than the name itself. Although we do not have a Culture Ministry the number of activities under the Cultural Affairs Division has not been reduced. In fact, it has increased. Last year, there were about 314 activities organized by the Culture Ministry, be they drama, dances, operas, exhibitions, shows, festival of arts and so on. This year, we have 241 activities. Last year's number of 314 included 116 activities of the festival of arts programme. This year, we do not have a festival of arts. So if you net the figure, that means we had 198 activities. So this year we have 241 activities. The number of activities has not actually been reduced. We will continue to pursue our position as the catalyst, as the leader for promoting arts and culture in the country. 3.00 pm We have a five-year plan which has recently been endorsed, not approved by the Ministry of Finance. Every year we will submit our proposals to the Ministry of Finance for funds. Under the five-year plan, there will be an average expenditure of about $10 million for the Cultural Affairs Division, and this compares very favourably with the previous expenditure of about $5 million. Even for this year, it is just $52 million. So although we do not have a Cultural Ministry, the Cultural Affairs Division will continue to be active in promoting arts and culture. And with the grassroots organizations and the community centres now being part of the machinery, the hardware, we can bring the software, the arts and the culture and the shows, to the people, I think it will achieve better synergy for the Government and the people benefit from it eventually. The Member for Bo Wen highlighted a point which did not go unnoticed in the Committee for Problems of the Aged, ie, as our population gets older and as we have more and more concentrations of Housing Board areas then, of course, there is a need for community care service in the housing estates. It is not that the Government has not done anything for the community organizations or the voluntary organizations. In fact, there are other kinds of support that we give other than cash grant. I know that the amounts of cash grants may not be significant but there are a number of other things that the Government has done that are more than adequate to provide for the needs of the voluntary organizations. Under the existing scheme, we have per capita grant which means we give a $1.50 or 50cts per resident or per case admitted to a residential institution. And we give a block grant depending on the kind of organization; like the Singapore Council of Social Services, we give them $143,000, or an average of $140,000 over the last two years. But this is just a cash grant. It may or may not be enough to contribute to the running of the organization. But there are other forms of indirect assistance given by the Government. The first is the granting of "an Institution of Public Character" to these deserving welfare organizations. If they are Institutions of Public Character, donations to the institutions will be tax-free. In effect, it means that any individual who contributes, depending on the tax rate that he pays, from 4% to 40%, the Government is forgoing the revenue. That is a form of assistance. Let us recognize that. Secondly, for a number of organizations, the land and the building are either provided for by the Government, or Government gives assistance in erecting the building, or Government gives assistance in acquiring the land. Let us just take the example of the 22 voluntary welfare organizations now standing on about 380,000 sq metres of Government land. On a conservative estimate, that works out to be $59 million, according to the Government Chief Valuer. The voluntary welfare organizations only paid a one-time payment of about $650,000, and about $3,500 annually for TOL. If you capitalize the land, ie, if you either sell it or sell it and invest the money, the interest alone is quite a few million dollars. So that is another form of assistance the Government has given. For many organizations, particularly those that look after disabled children or less fortunate children, about 71 teaching staff were seconded to these organizations to teach the children. And they are all seconded from the Ministry of Education, given special training by the Government. The salaries alone worked out to be at least $2 million a year. Other services that the Government provide to these organizations are helping them to get people, helping them to set up the homes, helping them to get work permits. Another form of assistance that the Government has spearheaded is the popularization of contributions to the Community Chest. Right now, I am told, about 55% of the people who contribute to the Community Chest are civil servants, and the effort of getting these people in the Civil Service to contribute to the Community Chest definitely is an initiative of the Government. So we have done quite a bit but, I am sure, there is always room for improvement, and my Minister and I will look at the situation again to see what we need to do in order to further improve the facilities and the services provided by these welfare organizations. But let me paraphrase this by making a general statement. Government is only a custodian of the people's wealth. If the Government decides to increase its contribution or grants to welfare organizations, then it has to take the money from somewhere, and eventually it will be from the taxpayers. We can increase the rates of tax as in some countries, and then re-distribute that, or we leave the cash in the people's hand so that they can decide what best to do with the money and the time. The Member for Changkat said that Social Services is only provided for with $20 million. As I said, $20 million may or may not be enough depending on the needs of the people, and there will be an opportunity, between the Ministry staff, the Minister and 1, to look at the situation again. But we should not just look at the amount of cash given to organizations to determine whether the Government has done enough. That is the point. I appreciate and I share with the Member's view that the family is the building block. It is the family that must provide the support and the care, the concern for the individual when he needs help, not just the Government. It is the community as a whole, people like you and 1. Either way, take the money from the people and give it to them, or we leave it to give to keep the money away. The Member for Changkat also talked about child care services. She asks whether the new fee will discriminate against the low income women, or will it not discourage women from coming out to work. Let me give you some history on this. In 1981, or even before that, when the Government was trying to promote the use of child care centres to look after children, we made a study and determined that the cost of running child care centres was $165 per child. Over the years, between 1981 and now, cost must increase because we know that wages have at least increased from 1981 to 1985, not to say other kinds of costs. So cost has increased. And recently when a study was done, it was found that the cost of operating a child care centre is $250 per child. That is why we have the new rate of $250, and that is about 50% increase over $165. And if you compare that with the rate of increase of wages, it is about the same. It has not gone up tremendously. The idea of using combined income to assess whether you pay $150 or $200 or $250, is not a new idea. For a child care centre set up by the NTUC before 1981, it was a fixed rate based on the mother's income. For child care centres set up after 1981, it was not based on the mother's income, it was based on the combined income. So it is not a new idea. Even the child care centres run by the People's Association are also run on this basis, that is, their fees are charged according to combined income of the parents. It may be fair to some, it may not be fair to others. Under the old fee structure, for example, you will probably find that a woman who earns, say, $600 -