Hansard, 1985-03-28

asked the Minister for National Development if he will ask the Housing and Development Board to exempt those retirees, who are above 55 years of age and who wish to dispose of their only residential property and purchase an HDB flat at market price, from the 30-month restriction.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if the owner of an HDB flat wishes to dispose of it in order to buy another HDB flat, the 30-month debarment would not apply. He would be able to register a new application immediately or even before he sells his present HDB flat. On the other hand, if the residential property to be disposed of is a private property, the 30-month debarment would apply. Nevertheless, the HDB is not rigid and inflexible. In instances where elderly people or retirees wish to dispose of their private residential property to purchase an HDB flat, they may appeal for waiver of the 30-month debarment. The Leases Committee would consider each appeal on its own merits and grant waiver of debarment if there are valid reasons for the resale of the private property.

Mr Speaker, Sir, can the Minister enlighten the House as to whether there have been such cases referred to the Committee concerned?

Mr Speaker, Sir, yes, there have been cases referred w the Leases Committee.

asked the Minister for Communications and Information, Second Minister for Defence and Second Minister for National Development, since the increase of the ad valorem duty on petrol from 50% to 60% is a substantial increase in the cost of petrol to the motorists, whether this measure will (i) reduce the present road congestion and prevent it from getting worse, and (ii) reduce further the 7.3% growth of the car population in 1984. The Minister for Communications and Information, Second Minister for Defence and Second Minister for National Development (Dr Yeo Ning Hong): Mr Speaker, Sir, the increase in road tax and ad valorem duty on petrol was only introduced earlier this month. It is too early to comment on its effect. The previous increase in road tax and ad valorem duty on petrol in October 1983 brought the increase of cars from more than 13% in the early part of 1983 down to 7.3% in 1984.

Sir, can I ask the Minister what, in his view, is the most equitable system of car population control?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the subject is currently under debate in the Committee of Supply.

asked the Minister for Trade and Industry how rapidly the demand for water has grown in the last few years; what are the projected rates of growth; what steps the Public Utilities Board is taking to encourage water conservation; and what plans PUB has to develop water resources for the 1990s.

asked the Minister for Trade and Industry whether the increase in the rate of growth of water demand in 1984 of 7% over 1983 was due to increased water wastage or increased number of consumers; and what percentage of annual increase will be deemed undesirable thereby requiring drastic actions. The Minister of State for Defence and Trade and Industry (BG Lee Hsien Loong) (for the Minister for Trade and Industry): Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission, I will take Questions Nos. 3 and 4 together. Demand for water in Singapore has risen at an increasing rate in the last three years. In 1982, it grew by 3.5%; in 1983 by 5.1%; and in 1984 by 7.2%. There are three main reasons why the demand for water has shot up so rapidly. First, there was a large increase in the number of new households as more public housing and private condominium units were completed. Second, there was also a substantial increase in the number of hotel rooms. Third, there was increased construction activity, where there is considerable wastage. If we continue to consume water at the current rate, in 15 years, we will be using more water than all our reservoirs in Singapore and sources in Johore can ever supply. Hence, all Singaporeans, especially households, hoteliers and supervisors, and workers at construction sites, must learn to use water more efficiently and cut down wastage. Urgent measures are needed as we are reaching the limits of developing water resources. The PUB is currently developing the Sungei Seletar/ Bedok Water Scheme. It will be the last new surface water source available in Singapore for development. Nearly half of Singapore is already catchment area. After this, the PUB will have to develop water resources outside Singapore. It is currently developing three schemes in Johore - the extension works to the Scudai Waterworks, the extension works to the Johore Waterworks, and construction of the Johore River pipeline. A Malaysian-based international firm of consultants is conducting a feasibility study to look into the joint development of the Johore River to meet the long-term needs of both Singapore and Johore. The scope for developing further surface water resources appears limited. If the fast rate of growth in consumption continues unabated, more drastic and very costly solutions, like desalination, will be needed to meet our future needs. Desalination is more than 10 times as expensive as processing river and reservoir water. We must therefore push relentlessly for conservation, to slow down the growth of our water demand. The Government will use educational, fiscal and, if necessary, legislative measures to persuade the public to conserve water. National water conservation campaigns will be organized regularly. The next campaign will be held in June this year. Companies which make an effort to save large amounts of water will be considered for investment allowances on water conservation equipment under the Economic Expansion Incentives Act. Industries will also be encouraged to use more industrial water as substitution for PUB water. With the amendment of the PUB Water Supply Regulations in November 1983, it is now compulsory for all commercial establishments, including hotels, restaurants, clubs and recreational complexes, to install water-saving devices in their public wash rooms. PUB will continue to look into other means of encouraging water conservation. In the past, tariff increases had been successful in dampening demand. If necessary, they will be used again to discourage excessive use of water.

Sir, can I ask the Minister of State how secure the water resources which are located outside of Singapore are, and what measures are being taken to guarantee a long-term supply of water from those sources?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the water sources in Johore are subject to the terms of the Johore Water Agreements, one of which runs for 50 years and the other one which runs for 100 years. They are not due to expire for 25 and 75 years respectively.

Mr Speaker, Sir, would the Hon. Minister of State inform this House what kinds of fiscal measures are being contemplated, and whether they will be harsher on the wasters of water?

Mr Speaker, Sir, indeed it has been the policy of the PUB to charge incremental rates for water. In other words, if you use less water the price is lower, and as your consumption increases the price for each successive cubic metre goes up. It is so for families. It is so for domestic users. It is so for non-domestic industrial users of water. It is the policy of PUB to charge higher, even punitive, rates to users who waste water. Let me explain like this. If we could get a lot more water by just building another plant, there would be no sense in having very high water rates, because we would just build the next plant, sell the water, and charge the consumers. But we cannot do that, because even if we can build the plant, there is a limited amount of rainfall. There is a limited catchment area, and there is no further fresh water available to be tapped. So we have to be very strict with wasters of water. If you just look at Singapore, half of Singapore is catchment area. What does that mean? It means the other half is housing estates, homes, roads, defence lands, and all the many other purposes for which land is required in Singapore and which we have recently discussed in this House. Half is catchment area, and you cannot make that much more than half, So we have reached the limits within Singapore, Even outside Singapore, there are limits, as I have pointed out, which will be reached within 15 years. So we have to be very, very conscientious and parsimonious with water.

Sir, as a further incentive, will the Minister of State not consider giving a discount on water rates for households which take steps to conserve the use of water?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I will send this suggestion to the PUB. But I would say that the cost of water for households is already very cheap, because the first 15 cubic metres is charged at 42 cents per cubic metre, and most households use less than that. The scope for discounts is not very large.

Sir, the Hon. Minister of State mentioned considerable wastage of water at construction sites, Has he some idea of the volume of water being wasted?

Mr Speaker, Sir, it would be difficult for me to say exactly how little water you need to build a block with. But I would guess about 20-30% of the water being consumed could easily be saved, would be worthwhile to save.

Two supplementary questions, Sir. What percentage of growth rate of water demand would the Minister of State consider as satisfactory and achievable? We are told that 6-7% annual growth rate is above the desired level. The second question is that the growth rate of 7% in 1984 is considered high, and it occurred despite new water conservation measures instituted by the Water Conservation Unit of the PUB and despite the National Water Campaign.

Where is your supplementary question, Dr Koh?

Would this not suggest that such measures are inadequate and that new measures should be considered?

Mr Speaker, Sir, there is a certain parallel between water and cars. The ideal growth rate in both cases is, of course, zero. In both cases it will have to be achievable. We cannot cause more rain to fall just because we need to drink and use more water. Those are not options open to us. We have a certain amount of natural water resource, which is more than the 185 million gallons per day we use now. But at the present rate of growth, it will reach the ceiling in 15 years. Sir, if we halve the rate of growth, we would reach the ceiling perhaps in 30 years. It pushes off the problem into the future. But the problem will have to be faced, and the consumption must level off. If consumption does not level off, then we are reduced to very drastic solutions to find more water. For example, desalination or distillation. I said this is more than 10 times as expensive as processing water from a river or a reservoir. If people need water so badly that they are prepared to pay more than 10 times as much as they now do for water, then it will be done. But I cannot see that being done for most households in Singapore. We will reach within 15 years if not an absolutely vertical wall, at least a very steep cliff, which it will be very hard to go past, unless we do something drastic to the rate of growth,

11.15 am

Mr Speaker, Sir, on Tuesday in the Debate on the estimates of the Ministry of Health in the Committee of Supply, the Member for Anson asked under what conditions was the private pharmacy allowed to be set up at the Singapore General Hospital. Sir, I quote from the Member's remarks which were telecast on television: 'These drugs were bought from a chemist and druggist who has set up business, I see, at the Singapore General Hospital and it is Somedico Chemist and Druggist. May I ask the Minister how this company came to set up its business in the Singapore General Hospital? I see it is owned by a Howe family. And may I know when this company was set up in the Singapore General Hospital and whether tenders were called? Far more importantly, whether patients who were given prescriptions are directed to go and purchase their drugs or medicines at this druggist store at the Hospital?' I said, Sir, on that day that I agreed with the First Deputy Prime Minister that the manner in which the Member had asked his questions was calculated to cast a slur on the Government implying that there was some wrongdoing. I would go further to-say that, in his attempt to discredit the Government, the Member for Anson has besmirched the reputations of innocent parties who, regrettably, are in the unfortunate position of not being able to be present in this House to clear their names. Sir, slurs and scurrilous remarks cannot be left unchallenged. I am, therefore, making this statement to set the record straight. Sir, tenders for the lease of the pharmacy at the Singapore General Hospital were invited through publication in the Government Gazette and in the local press on the 24th of July 1981. Eight tenders were received. The highest tender was from a company called Somedico Private Limited which offered a monthly rental of $5,000. The next highest tender was for $3,200. The Junior Tenders Board comprising the Deputy Director of Medical Services and representatives of the Permanent Secretary (Finance), Budget Division, and Chairman, EDB, reviewed the tenders and approved the award of the tender to Somedico Private Limited for a period of three years commencing 1st October 1981. In 1984, the Ministry of Finance approved the extension of the lease to Somedico Private Limited for a further three years based on the Chief Valuer's assessment of market rentals for the pharmacy and in accordance with the provisions in the Government Instruction Manual. Sir, at the time when this pharmacy was tendered out in July 1981, the Minister for Health was the First Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Goh Chok Tong. Mr Howe Yoon Chong was appointed the Health Minister on 1st June 1982. I would like to make the following points concerning the tender for the pharmacy at the Singapore General Hospital: (1) The pharmacy was leased out based on the normal Government open tender system; (2) As the amounts involved were not substantial, the tenders were reviewed by the Junior Tenders Board, and no Minister was involved in any way in the award of the tender; (3) Mr Howe Yoon Chong has no interest in the company, Somedico Private Limited, which was successful in the tender. Neither is Mr Howe Yoon Chong related in any way to the Howe family who are the owners of Somedico Private Limited. Finally, Sir, I would like to state categorically that patients who are given prescriptions at the Singapore General Hospital are not directed to go and purchase drugs or medicines at this private pharmacy at the Singapore General Hospital, or indeed at any other particular pharmacy. Sir, it saddens me that a Member of this House should resort to innuendoes of such a nature as to make it necessary for me to make this Ministerial Statement today. But when the integrity of the Government is questioned or when the reputations of innocent parties have to be protected, the truth must be made known.

11.21 am Order read for consideration in Committee of Supply (8th Allotted Day).

Head I (cont) - Resumption of Debate on Question (27th March, 1985), "That the sum to be allocated for Head I be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead IA-01 Object Group 1100 of the Main Estimates." - [Dr Ow Chin Hock] Question again proposed. The Minister for Communications and Information, Second Minister for Defence and Second Minister for National Development (Dr Yeo Ning Hong): Mr Speaker, Sir, when we adjourned yesterday, we were talking about the necessity to ensure that the growth of cars does not far exceed the growth of roads in Singapore because if that were not so, then we would in the very near future end up with massive traffic jams. Sir, the Member for Potong Pasir has suggested that we should try to follow the examples of some other countries where they have subsidies for their public transportation service and, I believe, he quoted the example of Britain.

I have not quoted any country, and I said -

Some other countries? You favour subsidy of bus systems?

Mr Speaker, Sir, when I said "subsidy", I did not refer to any country in particular. Now, my point was that the ROV has collected surplus, massive surplus of revenue, and the amount used for road construction is only a fraction of it and, therefore, there is this excess amount of money. Therefore, I am suggesting if the Minister would consider using part of this money to subsidize the needy, because this principle of subsidy by the Ministry is not new. I have already pointed out that, in fact, the Ministry has already subsidized the Singapore Bus Company, and so it is just to carry this subsidy, perhaps, one step further, in view of expensive taxi fares and the unavailability of other means of transport.

Sir, the subsidy of buses is a subject that is a great favourite of some Members of this House; and many countries practised it, often to their detriment. Sir, I would like to read an article from the February 1985 issue of a journal known as Mass Transit that headlines "British Bus System: Going, Going, Gone?" Sir, I will read extracts of it to give us a feel for the sort of problems that we will encounter if we are to go in that direction following the British: 'Mid-way through 1984, the British Government announced intentions to place two hefty slices of its bus transit business on the open market [in other words to go privatization and stop subsidies].' The first thing that is going: 'Going is the massive National Bus Company which operates 14,349 public service vehicles throughout the length and breadth of England and Wales and, in doing so, accounts for something like 1.5 million passenger rides a year [and here in Singapore we are talking about 2 million passenger rides a year].' The second thing that is going: 'Going are the bulk of Britain's publicly owned bus services all over the country.' The third thing that is going: 'Going are the Passenger Transport Executive authorities established throughout Britain to run metropolitan bus operations outside of London.' And gone: 'Already gone is the British dream for the efficient public transit system served by sophisticated buses, operating socially essential services. Gone, too, is another British dream for guided busways, new light rail transit systems and introduction of trolley bus systems. Government plans, outlined last July, are based on sensible free-market principles [sensible free market principles], says London Transport Secretary, Nicholas Ridley. "Subsidies for buses in many of Britain's major cities are at an unacceptable level. In a nation where massive metropolitan subsidies are neither necessary nor unavoidable [neither necessary nor unavoidable] and where fares have been held to artificially low levels ... there will have to be major changes." First and foremost will be the change from nationalized bus services to privately owned ones [from nationalized bus services to privately owned ones]. Ridley is urging industry members to accept competition as a spur to efficiency. We must get away from the idea that the only future for bus services is to contract painfully at large cost to taxpayers and ratepayers. "Competition provides the opportunity for lower fares, new services, more passengers. For these great gains half measures will not be enough."' Sir, this is Britain, a country held in great esteem by some of our Members in this House. They have been practising subsidized transportation for a long, long time. We have been very fortunate in that we have avoided that system, and this is their conclusion after very many years of practice. Are we still thinking of subsidies of a public system? Sir, the Member for Potong Pasir also suggested that if we get our cars to move faster, there will be less traffic jams. I think it is something interesting, something that we should tell those who are caught in traffic jams to drive faster and they would get out of traffic jams. I cannot see how it can work when you are stuck in a traffic jam. How are you going to drive faster when the capacity of the road has been exceeded? When everybody is stuck, how do you drive faster? Of course, we can talk about increasing the speed limits along the expressways. Our speed limits are already fairly high, 70 km per hour for some and 80 km per hour for others. But each time we do something like that, ie, to increase the speed limit, we must also take into account the much greater risk that motorists will have to undertake. Because internationally, it is well established that there are greater fatalities on roads with higher speed limits, that if people drive faster, there is a greater tendency for a greater number of deaths. So it is not feasible for us to keep pushing for higher and higher speeds because in the long term that would not be to our advantage. The Member for Potong Pasir has also raised the question of the funding for the MRT and, again in the process, he has distorted it. Sir, we have said many, many times that the Government has put aside capital grant for the building of the MRT and that passengers will not have to pay for it. Of course, we know that eventually, when the MRT is constructed and the MRT will be going into Marina South, the land value of Marina South will be greatly enhanced. This is because, as it is right now, it is like any other piece of reclaimed land. The density allowed for a piece of reclaimed land is dependent on a number of factors, one of which will be the accessibility for people to move in and out. If we want to house large numbers of people within a given area, there must be plans to show that the movement of people in and out of this area can be facilitated. With the MRT, that can be done easily, and hence it is expected that the plot ratios for Marina South will be very much higher than if there were no MRT. So passengers will not be asked to pay for the capital cost of the MRT, and that has been stated many, many times. I now move on to comments by the Member for Kebun Baru. The Member has suggested that we look at other methods in order to help solve our traffic congestion. Sir, we have been looking at other methods. I want to refresh the memory of Members of this House that last year, from January through to about March, for three months, the Ministry of Communications has been writing to the newspapers explaining the various options that we have looked at, that have been put to us, again and again and again, Sir, I will read to you some of the press cuttings to demonstrate that this process of explaining to the people has been going on. Let me just pick at random some of them. "Our policies must help curb the car population. The test will be on three main criteria. They must be simple, equitable and effective", starting on the 23rd December 1983 in the Singapore Monitor. We talked about the advantages in having evening ALS, reported by the Straits Times, 31st December 1983. Then we talked about the problems should traffic peak reach a critical situation, headlined, "When Traffic Woes Reach a Peak", Straits Times, 7th January. "It's a Two-Way Traffic at Transport Dialogue", Straits Times, January 1984, referring to the various sessions that we had with the community leaders. "Bird's eye view and a fish eye view of transportation", more views collected and discussed. "Raising parking fees can reduce peak hour travel", one of the suggestions that was made and considered and the advantages and disadvantages were explained. "Mileage tax, road tolls, not the ideal answer". I believe somebody has raised this question of road tolls in the recent debate. "Tolls on more congested roads, the fairest method", not always true. "Will bus lanes and sharing help", the answer is yes. We went on to implement some of those suggestions to improve our public transport. And we collected many suggestions from the public, and so on. Yes, one more idea which I should just mention. Somebody proposed, I believe it is the Motor Traders, the use of a hovercraft to help meet the morning transport peak.

It is a good idea.

Would you like to operate it?

That is no answer.

We have looked into it. I do not think anybody in his right mind could think that the hovercraft is a practical solution to our massive land transportation problem.

The answer is, "Would you like to do it?" An hon. Member: He is exactly like a mouth-piece!

Sir, the problem of taxis was discussed thoroughly in the Straits Times dated 11th February 1984 entitled "Taxis Not the Solution to our Traffic Congestion Problem". And so on, Sir. We have been discussing these problems over the years again and again hoping that in the process our people will get a better appreciation of the problems that we are confronted with and thereby achieve a greater sense of reality as to what can be done in a limited place like Singapore, given the shortage of land, given such severe competition for the land that we have by all the various Ministries, the Ministry of National Development desperately needing land to build homes for everybody. We heard about the catchment requirements in order to ensure that we have water for ourselves and so on. So to the Member for Kebun Baru, I would like to thank him for his suggestion that we should continue to look. We have. If Members have any more new ideas, we will continue to look at them. The Member has suggested the idea that we should have custom-built buses for mothers with babies. I will ask the SBS to look into the suggestion and see if there are such buses. But we do have buses with wider doors and lower steps. This may, to some extent, help solve the problem. But if there are any special buses designed specifically for mothers with babies, we will be happy to look into them to see if they are suitable for Singapore. Sir, another proposal is to replace one vehicle with another, an old car for a new car. The system is, in fact, being practised in the form of ARF and PARF. What the Member may be suggesting is something more extreme. If he could give me more details, I will be happy to ask my Ministry to study the details to see what are the advantages and the disadvantages. The Member for Kebun Baru also suggested that bus commuters would like to be able to travel very quickly from their homes to their place of work. So would everyone else. But I think we must put our feet on the ground and maintain a sense of reality. It is very unlikely to run a bus service that is able to take you from your doorstep to your place of work as quickly as a car. To expect that is to expect something that borders on the impossible. But for other trips, there have been examples, like the contest that was done by the Straits Times recently. The Straits Times, 22nd March, carried an article "Guess who got downtown last?" This was a competition between three journalists, one took a bus, the second a taxi, and the third drove his own car. There were, of course, handicaps and penalties built into the contest. I think the results are interesting because it clears the myth in the minds of lots of people. I will quote some of the relevant paragraphs: 'A taxi, a private car and the new CBD lunchtime bus shuttle (that is a new idea) ran a "race" yesterday from busy Orchard Road to downtown Shenton Way. The Straits Times wanted to pitch the new loop bus service, launched earlier this month by the Singapore School Transport Association (SSTA) and Tan Chong and Sons Motor Co, against the more personalised forms of transport. One reporter who boarded an SSTA bus opposite Liat Towers gave it top marks for speed, comfort and convenience. He arrived at the Telok Ayer Market within seconds of the second reporter who took a taxi. The surprise "loser" was the third reporter who drove his own car.' Why? Because he had to look for a parking lot. He had to walk some distance from the Market Street multi-Storey car park to the meeting place. "Their Verdict: the impatient will find the bus shuttle service the most convenient and cheapest way to commute between Shenton Way and Orchard Road." Sir, some of these ideas are working out well. We hope more of such ideas will come in, more of these intermediate mass transportation systems will be adopted by Singaporeans and, hopefully, our massive traffic congestion problems can be put off for another few years. The Member also wants to know the speed of our buses. I will give him some average figures but average figures, of course, hide those that are above and hide those that are below. The average travel time from Orchard Road to many of the housing estates is approximately five minutes more than by cars. This is because they are able to take advantage of the very many bus lanes that we have drawn over the last few years. 11.45 am For Shenton Way the average extra time taken from Shenton Way to the various housing estates is approximately 10 minutes more. Again, thanks to the bus lanes. And we will be putting in more bus lanes this year, 1985, all with the purpose of giving bus commuters the slight advantage of faster travel. Sir, the Member for Boon Lay has indicated his satisfaction with the assurance I have given earlier in the House that, if the incomes of taxi drivers were to go down instead of going up which I am sure it will, then my Ministry will review the matter. But he has now come back with another request, that part of the diesel tax be put aside for contributions to CPF, Medisave, and so on. Sir, we have to be realistic in our approach to problems in life. The diesel tax is an attempt to help us solve our massive problem as a result of the large discrepancy between the cost of petrol at $1.51 per litre and the cost of diesel at 56 cents. That is part of the tax that goes to the Finance Ministry. Taxi drivers are self-employed. If they get the extra income, which I know they will, I would hope that they would be able to put some of it into CPF, into Medisave. This would be for their own advantage. It would also be for the advantage of their families. The Member for Boon Lay also wants us to continue to improve our bus services. Sir, we have been doing that for a long time. I can give him some statistics of what has been done over the past years. We know, Sir, that 87% of our people live within 400 metres of a bus stop. That is a very, very high figure for any country. We know also that 91% of people going to work do not have to change a trunk service. Of course, the ideal would be 100%. But when you are dealing with 2,3 million people, the ideal may be a little difficult to get. But we will keep trying. Sir, I will just give a brief outline of the bus service that has been improved over the years. Just to illustrate to the commuters. What do they want? For them, a convenient bus service, one that is easily accessible, within walking distance, close to the terminal or close to the interchange, and a service that will see him to his final destination in the shortest time possible. Good service, no breakdowns, extensive coverage, short travel time. These are what our commuters want, and rightly so. And with the increasing affluence of our country, we must expect that the expectations of our people, even of the public transport system, will also rise. Therefore, a reliable bus service must be able to get the passenger to his destination as quickly as possible. Buses should have a very high frequency, between five and 10 minutes. They should not break down all the time. They should not be severely overloaded. And this, I believe, we have achieved to a very large extent. Sir, today there are two major bus companies in Singapore, TIBS and SBS, providing an extensive network of buses. During specific hours of the day, particularly during the peak hours, the bus services along high demand lanes are supplemented by other schemes, the CSS and the Schemes A and B. At the end of 1984, there were 3,136 buses operating on 283 services with nearly two million passenger trips a year. This is a vast improvement of more than 50% when you compare it with 1972, 12 years ago. Buses are also much bigger, capacity much larger. In 1972 there were only 2,103 buses, and they were operating only 142 routes. So there has been a great change, but the change has not met the expectations of our people, which has risen much faster. Sir, I can give more details of comparisons of what we have done over the last ten years for buses, and how the situation is very much better than it was before. But I do not need to belabour that point. Sir, we have also added, as I mentioned earlier, new types of mass transport systems, particularly the air-conditioned buses and the air-conditioned mini executive buses. These are for people in the intermediate stages, people who prefer something a little better than buses. And now we run routes from Bedok, from Boon Lay, down into the CBD. And during the lunch hour we run these services within the CBD, giving people more choice, depending on how much they are willing to pay, how much convenience they want, how flexible is their time and so forth, giving people greater choice in public transportation facilities. But one thing we must continue to do, and that is, to continue to have more bus lanes. This is not a fiscal measure. But it is a measure that helps the largest possible number of people who use our roads. Of course, each time we do this, the motorists are unhappy, very unhappy. But I think it is fully justified because, with over a million people on our roads every day, helping them travel a little faster is something worth doing. Sir, I now come to the comments of the Member for Kolam Ayer. He asks for the projection of cars that we will have over the next 10 to 15 years. Sir, this is a very tall order because public transport, land transport, is a very flexible system. It is a dynamic system. Let me put it into perspective for the Member to understand, HDB builds on the average 50,000 to 60,000 flats a year. Last year, HDB broke its own record and built 66,000 flats in 1984. With an average household of 41/2, that is almost 300,000 people on the move a year. People from all over the place going all over the place. And you want to have a public transport system that will fit in in such a way that disruption is kept to a minimum. This is a very difficult problem. It is not possible for us at this stage, especially with the MRT coming on-stream in 1988, to be able to project specifically what the traffic demands will be like for the next 15 years. But I will assure the Member that if our cars continue to grow at a much faster rate than 3% a year, then everyone of us, whether we are bus commuters, taxi drivers, drivers of cars, travellers in minibuses, everyone of us is going to see progressively, maybe imperceptibly at first, but definitely, traffic jams getting worse and worse. The Member has suggested that we should have a new system, that new cars be ballotted. Sir, this idea has been covered in the discussions last year. Balloting sounds like a good idea. But if you think about it, what it really means is that present owners of cars are protected from future increases, and that all increases would now be loaded very severely on all the younger workers, the next generation of workers, on our children. That is what it really means, because they will pay the ultimate high price while those of our generation, having got the car, having got the immunity from future increases in road tax, will enjoy the car, in privilege. Sir, is that system fair? Is this something that we want to do to the future generations of Singapore - to inflict upon them something that we, collectively, are responsible? Because it is we collectively as car owners, who are contributing to the congestions of our roads. Is it fair that we should penalize them rather than all of us sharing a little in the restraint that will make life a little pleasanter for all? Sir, the Member has also suggested extending the CBD, again another subject tackled before. Yes, we have been doing that. As long as there are new buildings coming up, new buildings that will generate large numbers of people in the offices, in the hotels, in the restaurants, those areas will slowly be brought into the CBD, so that at any one time within the city, traffic flow will be reasonable. We remember the days before CBD, when it was impossible to travel in the CBD. We do not want to go back to those days. We will continue to monitor the situation and to look at it slowly, carefully, but systematically. The Member has also suggested an evening CBD, again an idea looked at by us in the past. That is a good idea. The only question is whether the time is ripe for it. We all know that traffic in the evenings is much worse than in the mornings because in the mornings there is a CBD. But the system for the evening CBD will be a little more complex, because you will then have to decide which is the more effective control. To limit the cars going in or to limit the cars coming out? Each one of these variations has got its advantages and disadvantages. So it is something that is being closely studied by the Ministry. 12.00 pm The Member has suggested that we tax severely those households that own more than one car. This is a favourite proposal put up many, many times. This is a very great favourite. On the surface of it, yes, why not? But if you examine it in detail, you will find that it will not work because almost immediately you will get a proxy owner doing all the registration on your behalf - cousins, brothers, sisters, uncles, aunts, grandfathers, grandmothers everybody who does not live in the same house will be used as proxies. And we will be back to square one. But, Sir, a much more important reason for not wanting to go in this direction, even though it is not going to be effective, is that it goes against the fundamental principle that our Government is trying to implement in Singapore. We heard the Minister for National Development speak the other day with great sympathy about people who live alone and who have to live alone for a variety of reasons. The Minister summed up by saying that we must continue to encourage our families to live together, not just to solve the problems of HDB but also to solve the problems of our entire society. Ours is an Asian society. Having families pulled apart as soon as the children grow up is not something that is part of our culture. So we must try to bring our families back together, ie, the multi-tier families. If necessary, the HDB will give additional incentives, incentives that people want, so that we will over a period of time be able to restore to a certain extent what we have lost - the integrated multi-tier family with parents helping with the children, with inlaws helping with the grandchildren, and in the process imbibe more of our Asian traditions. Therefore, if we do this, ie, tax severely those households that own more than one car, we are going to discourage the younger generation from wanting to live with their parents, because this will be another additional disincentive to stay together.

Dr Yeo, you have used up your time in answering.

Sir, I know you have said that he has used up his time, but he has not answered the two pleas that I made, (1) on behalf of the yellow top taxi operators, and (2) this man who is being forced to take his test in Mandarin before he can get his taxi driver's licence. Could he say something about those two pleas?

Sir, the plea for yellow-top taxis is something that the Member for Anson has raised year in and year out, again and again. The answer is still the same, no. The explanations have been given in greater detail to him on other occasions. It is not the intention of the Government to give taxi licences to individuals. This was done at the time to get out of a difficult situation when the taxi licence was used by unscrupulous people to create the Ali Baba system, where there were numerous proxy holders of taxi licences, where syndicates were using proxies to hold all these taxi licences. We do not intend to go back to those unpleasant days where taxi drivers were at the mercy of people of that sort. Hence the system will remain. I believe our present system is much more effective under the present set-up. We have companies that have got good facilities for the servicing of vehicles. This ensures that our taxis are always kept in good condition. We know full well, Sir, as I have explained in great detail yesterday, that each time a vehicle breaks down in the middle of the road, not only is the person in that vehicle inconvenienced but large numbers of other people are also inconvenienced. Hence it is important that our vehicles be kept in tip-top condition. Our policy is to encourage companies with these facilities to hold the taxi licences and to make the taxi licences available to taxi drivers who wish to use them. The second point concerns a man who had to do conversational Mandarin in order to get his -

Pass an examination.

Pass his conversational Mandarin in order to get his licence. As our society moves past a stage where fewer and fewer people speak dialects, it is obvious that the majority of the ethnic Chinese will be speaking in Mandarin, even if it is at a conversational level. As the Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education has clearly demonstrated, it is not difficult. It would be a lot worse if we had a taxi driver who speaks dialects only, and then finds to his disadvantage that all his commuters are unable to talk to him in the dialect. This is part and parcel of the national movement towards the use of Mandarin in place of dialects. That is a national objective. It is something worth working for, and I am sure this particular individual, if he were to apply himself, would be able to pick up enough conversational Mandarin to be able to get the licence.

May I just clarify because I think the Minister has misunderstood my pleas. In the case of these yellow top taxi operators, I have been told that a father cannot even transfer it to his son. And the Minister is talking about syndicates. I do not know how syndicates come into this. I am talking about genuine cases. Why are you puffing a total ban on the transfer of yellow top taxi plates? Is it the intention to drive everyone into the arms of the NTUC, as I asked earlier? Secondly, about this man who is unable to get his vocational licence. As I mentioned, he is very proficient in Malay. He says he can pass the Malay test any time if you would like him to pass a second language. Why cannot he be allowed to do that?

Sir, I have an amendment* standing in my name. Can I speak now, Sir?

Does the Minister want to answer or listen to him?

I would rather finish with all the answers.

All right.

Sir, it has been decided not to allow a transfer because the transfer for the yellow top taxi to a child opens up the door to the sort of abuses that we know of. This has happened in the past and we do not intend, as I said, to drift back to that sort of circumstances. As for the driver who can speak excellent Malay, he must be a fair linguist. So it should not be something beyond him to pick up a few Mandarin words for purposes of conversation.

Why should he? He does not want to. Why should he?

Sir, in which case then he is not eligible for the taxi licence. May I carry on, Sir?

Let us listen to what Dr Lau wants to say first.

Thank you, Sir. We are here discussing the estimates of the Ministry of Communications and Information and we have not spent any time on the other half of his Ministry.

It is too bad. Guillotine time is 12.20 pm.

Sir, I would like to turn the discussion to the Information Division of the Ministry. The people need to have information about Government policies and programmes and the information should be given in a simple, clear and comprehensive form. Why is this necessary? It is necessary so that the people can understand the problems facing the country, so that they can appreciate what the Government is doing for them and so that they can realize that the Ministers have the interests of the people at heart when they make difficult decisions. Sir, nowadays, people are better educated. They want to be informed. The people are more interested in the decisionmaking process. They want to be involved. The people are deeply affected by various controversial policies. They want to be heard. The people are concerned with the various changes of policies. They want to know what is happening in Singapore. The role of the Information Division, Sir, is very clear - to provide information to the people and present to the people the Government's explanation for various policies and programmes. I ask myself: has the Division carried out its role effectively? The Division has at its disposal the various mass media - the television, the radio and the whole range of publicity materials. Sir, the Publications Unit produces a number of very useful publications and informational materials. For example, the Annual Yearbook, the bi-monthly Singapore Bulletin and the fortnightly The Mirror. But, unfortunately, these publications are not within-the reach of the people. Recently, there was publicity concerning the Yearbook 1984. The Straits Times calls it "a gold mine of information". But, Sir, it is very expensive. It costs $19.

95. It is like what we call Bata price $19.95 instead of $20. Many people would like to have the Yearbook, especially the students in the pre-university and the tertiary institutions. So I ask the Ministry whether they have any plans to produce a paperback version of the book so that it can be made available to the public. Sir, at a time when the public should be better educated about Government policies, when the people are expected to participate in discussions and provide feedback to the Government, it is necessary that they are provided with up-to-date information. On this, Sir, I would like to suggest that the Ministry produce an 8-page weekly paper which will contain information about Government policies and programmes, about Government rationale for various policies, extracts of editorials of foreign newspapers, and articles of interest. These materials can be drawn from either The Mirror or the Singapore Bulletin. Such a material can be distributed to every household through various means, free of charge, of course. After all, the Singapore Bulletin and The Mirror are distributed free of charge. Every Sunday, many households receive, besides the usual newspapers, the Asia Magazine and until recently Today. Why not distribute such a publication through this means? In this way, Sir, the public can be better informed. They will have these current affairs materials in their homes as official reference materials. Then they can better understand the policies and programmes of the Government and thereby give the Government stronger support.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have an amendment and I am afraid we have to go a little backwards to the Communications part. I have an amendment in regard to the financing of the Mass Rapid Transit Corporation. The financing of the Mass Rapid Transit is still not clearly explained. The Minister says that passengers will not have to pay for it and then he says that it will come out of capital. Now, if we look at the Budget, is it not true that for the financial year 1983, $141 million has already been allocated and, for financial year 1984, $321 million has been disbursed, and, for this current financial year, $1.034 billion will be allocated to the Mass Rapid Transit Corporation? This works out to be about $1.496 billion. If we divide by 3 million, although our population has not reached that stage, money has already been paid by the people of Singapore to the extent of $500 per person. Therefore, I cannot follow the statement by the Minister to say that passengers will not have to pay for it. There is some confusion because, at first, the project was to be financed by the sale of land, that is clearly understood. And then there was a statement that money will be taken out from the national assets. But now it would appear that it will be financed by revenue, that means by taxes, and/or from loans from the Development Fund. Now these loans are mostly from Central Provident Fund. Please clarify this position. So am I correct to ask the Minister that this Mass Rapid Transit will be financed eventually by revenue and from Central Provident Fund?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the more we hear from the Member for Potong Pasir, the more we have to come to the conclusion that he has deliberately sought to distort figures in a manner to undermine the integrity of the Government. Sir, the money for the building of the MRT has been set aside by Cabinet, by the Ministry of Finance, to pay for the building of the MRT.

From what source?

From reserves in Government.

How did Government get the reserves?

As a result, the passengers will not have to pay the capital cost during his trip because the money has already been paid for from reserves. It is expected that because the MRT will make the value of land in Marina South much more attractive in the process when Marina South will be sold, the money recovered as a result of this differential - between having the MRT run into Marina South and hence capable of high density development versus a Marina South that does not have an MRT (because there is not an MRT in Singapore), and hence very much lower development plot ratios - that difference would more than cover the cost of the MRT. Sir, when the Member starts talking about numbers, he has to be very, very careful, because he can talk about numbers outside in mass rallies and most people will let him off, but when he starts talking about numbers in the House, it goes into Hansard. In Hansard of 4th March the Member for Potong Pasir did a calculation of taxi fares. Sir, with your permission, I would like to distribute the calculations of taxi fares. [Copies of Tables distributed to Members.] (Cols. 1689 - 1692) [Copies of Tables distributed to Members.] - AVERAGE TAXI DRIVERS' GROSS TAKINGS PER MONTH, AVERAGE TAXI DRIVER'S MONTHLY COLLECTION WITH VARIOUS DEMAND SCENARIOS (One shift taxis), AVERAGE TAXI DRIVER'S MONTHLY COLLECTION WITH VARIOUS DEMAND SCENARIOS (Two shift taxis) (Cols. 1689 - 1692)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker, Sir. We were calculating on the cost of the MRT and not taxi fares now.

Sir, I would like to illustrate the sort of credibility that one can give to the sort of figures that he weaves out of thin air. Sir, in this Hansard (col. 176), the Member for Potong Pasir did a calculation on taxi fares. He took the ratio of $3.40 divide $2.40 X $1,200. Is the Member for Potong Pasir telling us that this is the level of his arithmetic -that the increase in fares only affects the net income of the taxi driver and not the gross takings of the taxi driver? He does not know that? Surely he does.

On a point of order, Mr Speaker, Sir. In fact, I have sent my calculations to the ROV for him to check. Instead of writing to me to say that I was wrong, now the Minister pounces on me with his figures.

The Member for Potong Pasir has decided to make a political point by using fallacious calculations. And knowing straightaway that he has been caught, very quickly he ran to the ROV to seek a way out, hoping that all this will be covered up. Unfortunately for him, my instructions to ROV were, "No, I will give an explanation to the Member for Potong Pasir since he cannot do his calculations." And I will explain to Members of this House, including the Member for Potong Pasir, why his calculation is so ridiculous that anybody who is doing PSLE would know it to be wrong. That is why it is not possible that the Member for Potong Pasir could have made that mistake unintentionally. That was a deliberate attempt to distort the figures in order to create a scare in Singapore. Sir, if you look at the first page of the Tables that I have distributed, you will see that it is the first page titled "Average taxi drivers' gross takings per month". This is the amount of money that changes hands in one month between taxi commuters and the taxi driver. On the average, the taxi driver who does a single shift will collect -

Mr Speaker, Sir, on a point of order. I must intervene. We have been talking just now about the financing of the Mass Rapid Transit. But the whole of our attention now is drawn to a taxi fare calculation. An hon. Member: It is not a point of order.

The whole attention now has been drawn to this matter which is not at hand.

You are wasting time as it is time to close.

So a taxi-driver driving a single shift will collect approximately $2,439. Those who have a second shift driver, together they will collect a little more because they will drive longer hours, They will collect approximately $3,482. The next page, Sir, shows how we arrive at what we think a taxi driver would be able to collect under the new fare scheme. Present collection: gross collection per month is $2,439. If we add the diesel tax which is approximately $550, then the breakeven point for the taxi driver on one shift would be $2,989. We have done a survey of taxi drivers with more than 300 trips to assess what the difference would be between the new rates and the old rates, and there is a conversion factor of 1.

545. If you multiply 1.545 with $2,439, you will get the figures given down below: 0% drop in demand, gives him $3,768 plus extras. The extras are listed below. If there is a drop of about 15%, which is what my Ministry estimates, then we would expect a monthly taking of approximately $3,203 plus extras. And if you take away the breakeven point of $2,989, then we can expect the taxi driver on a single shift to make approximately $214 plus extras. This is why we are confident that if the taxi driver suffers a drop of 15% in the demand from taxi commuters, he will still have a net takehome pay (ie he takes home more money) per month to the tune of something like $200. This is what we have been saying all the time. But that is not the only point, Sir. If this single shift taxi driver were to rent out his taxi for the second shift, and the rental figures are fairly high - it varies for individual taxis from the new ones to the old ones - but the figures are in the range of about $30, give or take a few dollars, if he were to rent out his taxi, he would easily recover his $550 just from the rental of his taxi alone. So this scheme will not be disadvantageous. This scheme will give our taxi drivers an increased income. Even if the demand drops by 20%, which we do not expect, we will still find the taxi driver better-off: $25 plus the extras, plus all the money that he can get from renting out his taxi for the second shift. Sir, if we look at the third page where the analysis is done for taxi drivers doing two shifts. Here, obviously, the benefits are much greater because the diesel tax is now shared between the two drivers, but the arithmetic is exactly the same. If there is a drop of 15% in the ridership, then both of them will get collectively $4,573 plus extras. And if we deduct the breakeven point of,$4,032, then we find our two taxi drivers working together on two shifts, they will get $541, plus extras again. Sir, for the two-shift taxi drivers, this represents a sizeable sum of money. And if we expect, as we know of Singaporeans, that where there is money to be made, Singaporeans are willing to work harder, then we can see that this scheme will definitely benefit our taxi drivers to a large extent. And I think they deserve it. 12.30 pm

It is guillotine time.

I think they deserve it because this is the sort of society that we want, hardworking people earning more money and keeping for themselves. An hon. Member: Hear, hear!

Sir, I thank the Minister for his long-winded and detailed reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $36,095,370 for Head I ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $1,139,198,900 for Head I ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head 0 -

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head Q be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead QA-01 Object Group 1100 of the Main Estimates*. Sir, the Neighbourhood Police Post scheme has created, to a certain extent, a friendly image of our Police Force. It has also made our people more willing to come forward to help the Police. And in turn, they expect more protection from our Police. However, under the existing law if you feel that your safety is threatened by another person, you can only issue him with a civil summons. If you are beaten up by someone who does not use a dangerous weapon, your complaint to the Police will not help much either. You are likely to be advised to seek redress through the issue of a civil summons because it is classified as a civil case. Sir, with karate, kung fu and other martial arts being more popular, the bare hands are as dangerous as weapons. Modern living in Singapore is getting more complicated. One can feel threatened, even though if you are not beaten up. So in modern living, we have to be guided by rules and regulations, and the average people invariably look towards the Police for protection. I would like to ask the Minister whether there is any plan to amend the existing law so that the Police can intervene when requested to do so. This will indirectly help prevent the spread of secret society activities which the Government has taken a lot of effort to put down.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it was about 10 years ago that a Prison Reform Committee was set up and its recommendations were submitted to the Minister for Home Affairs. I would like to enquire of him what has happened to the recommendations, how many of them have been successfully implemented, and whether he is satisfied that the people who are sent to prison get sufficiently reformed after leaving prison. Perhaps one indicator would be whether the same criminals are sent back to the prison again and again. The second question, Sir, relates to the Neighbourhood Police Post. Members in this House have supported this idea and in Whampoa we are eagerly awaiting the establishment of these posts. Perhaps he could inform this House when would this be likely.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I see the next amendment* is in the name of the Member for Clementi but he is not here. May I just speak very briefly under this amendment although my name is not listed here?

Yes, by all means.

Sir, amendment (2) deals with the Police programme, and it is under that that I wish to say a few words. I wish to raise the dissatisfaction that is being felt by a number of junior officers who, I understand, have been acting in higher posts for a very long time. I suppose it is cheaper for the Government to pay them acting pay but it is, I am told, causing no little dissatisfaction among these officers. May I know from the Minister whether that is the position, that a good number of officers have been acting in higher posts for long periods? Secondly, the position of sergeants. I understand sergeants are paid Division 11 salary but they are placed in Division Ill in the establishment. They feel that this is unfair to them because they say they miss out on the benefits that are accorded to Division 11 officers, although they are paid the same salary. Will the Minister please clarify this? Another matter is the dissatisfaction that junior officers with HSC and Police experience feel in comparison with NS officers with similar qualifications. They say, they suffer in the promotions. They are not automatically promoted to the rank of Inspector and above, whereas NS officers are. Will the Minister please clarify? Finally, Sir, moving from personnel to equipment, I would like to know whether the Police vehicles on the road are kept under constant maintenance and supervision to see that they are fully road-worthy. I am told that there are a number of vehicles which should not be on the roads.

Mr Speaker, Sir, first of all, I would like to place on record my personal thanks and the thanks of my constituents to the Minister for setting up the temporary Neighbourhood Police Post in Block 461 in my constituency. My constituents have greatly benefited from this service and we are now looking forward to the establishment of the permanent police post which I am told will come about very shortly. Sir, I have two matters to raise with the Minister. The first one refers to the question of public relations and publicity in the Ministry of Home Affairs, particularly with reference to the Police Force. I am disappointed that for the financial year 1985-86, there is a reduction in the number of personnel in this department. I had occasion to bring to the notice of the Hon. Minister of the case of one of my constituents who was involved in the so-called Shenton Way shoot-out. The Public Relations of the Police Force in this case was most lacking. I believe that PR of the Police Force is extremely important, and if not properly carried out will leave a negative image on the population. Sir, with this in mind, I am just wondering what is the justification for reducing the number of personnel in the department. I know there are schemes for improving productivity and cutting down costs by reducing manpower. But maybe reduction should be looked at in other areas. This is one area which maybe I would urge the Minister to increase the number of personnel, particularly senior personnel. I think this is very important. Sir, next I move on to the question of the Marine Police. The Marine Police is responsible for policing the territorial waters of Singapore. Of late, we have heard of a number of cases of piracy. I would like to know from the Minister whether piracy is a serious problem in view of the fact that Singapore is the second largest port in the world.

Sir, since the Neighbourhood Police Post scheme was implemented in 1983, it has proved to be a very effective system in combating crime in our housing estates. The presence of the NPPs serves as a deterrent against persons who wish to commit crime, especially serious crimes. Looking at the Financial Year 85-86 Budget, an increase of $10.1 million has been provided for patrols and policing. Additional manpower has also been provided for the extension of the NPP scheme. I would like to ask the Minister what plans he has to accelerate the introduction of the NPP scheme in all our housing estates. What are the constraints the Ministry faces in achieving speedier implementation? Like the Member for Whampoa, I would also like to enquire when the NPP scheme will be introduced in the Geylang Serai constituency. My constituents are also looking forward to an early implementation of the scheme. And after hearing the Member for Chong Boon, could we have a temporary NPP in Geylang Serai Constituency until such time when the permanent one is introduced?

Prof. Jayakumar, I was wondering whether you would like to answer the first few Members.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it might be more conducive to a coherent reply if others, who have comments on policing, were to express their views now.

All right. Mr Heng.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have an amendment* under the NPP project and since we are speaking about the project now, may I have 10 minutes to speak?

Yes.

Sir, I would like to support the Members' comments on the NPP. I see that under the Development estimates, $60,000 has been provided for the evaluation phase, whereas 437 new posts are budgeted for the NPP. This presumably must mean that evaluation is over and the Ministry is going ahead with the implementation of the project. In this respect, we were told earlier by the Hon. Minister of State that the project has been brought forward two years because of the expert advice of the Japanese. I would like to say that perhaps we should advance it by more than two years. If it is a matter of manpower or a matter of finance, I can understand why we can only bring it forward by two years. But I cannot understand the reason for bringing it forward by two years based on the expert advice of the Japanese. 12.45 pm I understand that our system is based on the Japanese Koban system and presumably they have a lot of experience in this. Nevertheless, we have called it the NPP. If it is a system meant for our country, then we can modify the Japanese Koban system for our country. But I cannot understand why we can only advance it by two years because of the Japanese advice. Once again I would like to bring up my plea for the extension of both the Chong Boon NPP and the Cheng San NPP to cover only 26 blocks in Ang Mo Kio. However, although these 26 blocks are in Ang Mo Kio Housing Estate, they are considered part of the Jalan Kayu Constituency. Right now in the town of Ang Mo Kio, there are nine Constituencies. Seven are completely in Ang Mo Kio, except for two, ie Nee Soon Constituency and the Jalan Kayu Constituency. I do not know the number of blocks in the Ang Mo Kio New Town which are part of Nee Soon, but there are 26 blocks in the Ang Mo Kio New Town which are part of Jalan Kayu. It does not make sense that almost 95% or even 99% of Ang Mo Kio New Town are covered by NPPs, and you leave out these two small parts of the New Town uncovered.

Sir, last year 327 persons were killed on our roads. This figure represents a substantial increase over the figure of 257 in 1983. In other words, Sir, there is the rate of about one person dying on our roads per day. Sir, 70% of these people who died on our roads were pedestrians and motorcyclists, including scooterists and their pillion riders. My question is, are we doing enough to solve this problem of death on our roads? This problem has been raised in this House year after year, and I feel that the statistics show that we are, in fact, fighting an uphill battle. I would like to know whether the message is getting across to road users, in particular, to two categories of road users, namely, the old as well as children. My next point refers to the expressways on our island, Sir, a lot of accidents still occur on our expressway, and this I can attribute to factors such as poor lane discipline on the part of motorists, road hogging, failure to give way, inconsiderate driving, even stopping and parking along our expressways. Sir, about two years ago when this subject was raised in this House, the then Minister for Home Affairs informed us that a special Expressway Patrol Unit would be formed to monitor and to enforce the rules of the expressway. I would like to know whether this unit has, in fact, been formed. Sir, I read not long ago about the installation of electronic devices linked to high speed cameras at signalized junctions to monitor motorists who beat traffic lights. May I know from the Minister how reliable such electronic devices are and whether these have, in fact, been installed. Sir, my next point refers again to the people who drive heavy vehicles on our roads. In 1983 five drivers or passengers of heavy vehicles were killed. But last year this figure went up tremendously to 16. May I know what action is being taken with regard to this particular category of road users. Lastly, I would like to raise this point of the image of the Traffic Police. Sir, I feel that this is something very important which we have to deal with, when we talk about road safety. Somehow, Sir, in Singapore, the traffic policeman is still being looked upon with some fear or some disdain. For instance, we still have the sneaky ones who hide behind bushes or on slip-roads leading to expressways, waiting to pounce on innocent motorists. And the image is given of a traffic policeman who is waiting like a vulture. I am sure Members in this House will bear me out when I say that those of us who drive regularly along certain roads will be able to tell at which particular spots you can spot your favourite traffic policeman. Secondly, Sir, I think the traffic policeman should be clear in his signals when he wants to indicate what motorists and drivers should do. I have received complaints from motorists who tell me that suddenly they see in their rear-view mirror the traffic policeman following behind them for quite a distance. They do not know whether they have been driving too fast or too slow. If they feel that they have been driving too fast, then they slow down. Then they are nabbed for road hogging. If they think they have been driving too slowly and are hogging the road, and they speed up, then they will be caught for speeding. Although we know for sure, and this has been told to us by the Minister for Home Affairs previously, that traffic policemen do not have a quota in so far as issuing of summons is concerned, but how do you judge a traffic policeman as far as his performance goes? Surely it must be by the number of summons he issues. What other criteria could there be? My opinion is that the traffic policeman's image should be revamped. He should project a friendly image, just as his counterparts in the NPP Scheme are doing. I feel that if we can make the public understand that the traffic policeman is their friend and not anything else, then I feel we will be able to carry this message of road safety one step further.

Mr Speaker, Sir, according to the traffic police statistics, 327 people were killed, 855 seriously injured and over 10,000 slightly injured in road accidents in 1984. Sir, imagine the sorrow and suffering involved. I am informed that the economic cost of these accidents runs into millions of dollars a year. The point I wish to make is, are our present preventive and enforcement measures adequate to control or minimize such traffic accidents? Perhaps we should review our present decentralized approach in the management of land transport. For example, road engineering comes under the PWD, registration of vehicles and vocational drivers is under the ROV, land transport policy is formulated at the Ministry of Communications and Information, and the Traffic Police is responsible for enforcement and driver licensing. Sir, I understand that a team of Japanese Traffic Management experts who recently visited Singapore expressed the view that the Traffic Police should take over the task of road engineering. I hope that the report of the Japanese experts, when available, will be given adequate publicity to bring home the point that road safety is the responsibility of not only the enforcement agencies but the general public as well. Sir, another point I wish to raise is the increasing number of accidents involving motorcyclists and heavy vehicles and buses. Recently, a truck jumped the road divider along Woodlands Road, colliding into several vehicles on the other side of the road, resulting in four persons killed. There are other examples of such accident. In most cases heavy vehicles were the offending parties. To minimize the risk of accidents involving motorcycles and heavy vehicles which often travel at excessive speeds, we should look into the possibility of introducing traffic lane separation, as practised in some countries like Sweden. We can introduce such a scheme along our expressways where there are three or more lanes. Sir, according to the Traffic Police, the accident rate on expressways is getting higher all the time. The accident density is twice that of other roads and the density of fatal accidents is about four times. Motorcycles, heavy vehicles and vehicles with restricted speeds could be confined to the two inner lanes in these expressways. We could also consider increasing the maximum speed limit on the outermost lane from the present limit of 80 kph. Many motorists still do not know how to make the best use of expressway travel. They tend to hog the road, changing lanes indiscriminately and speeding. We need to educate such motorists, first by improving the traffic management system, providing adequate informative road signs, and then follow a stricter traffic enforcement action. Sir, I know the Traffic Police has been doing a very good job, as I have already accumulated 18 demerit points myself. I hope that my suggestion would receive due consideration.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I will be discussing the use of staff nurses in the Ambulance Service of the Fire Brigade. 81 staff nurses are assigned from the Ministry of Health to the Fire Service. Sir, the Ministry of Health is experiencing a shortage of staff nurses. It takes years to train an efficient staff nurse. Furthermore, I am sure that many of these staff nurses also possess Post Basic Certificates, further enhancing the loss to the Ministry of Health. Sir, I would like to humbly suggest to the Minister and the Fire Service to consider using paramedics to take over the role of providing emergency services. What is the rationale of using paramedics for our Ambulance Service? Staff nurses, by their training, are trained to do work in hospital wards. This, of course, does not mean that they are ineffective in their Ambulance service. Paramedics, however, are trained to work under field conditions. Not only will they be required to be highly skilled first-aiders, but they must also be conversant with rescue work. Do we have such training facilities available? My answer is yes. Cooperation within the Fire Service, Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Defence (School of Military Medicine) can result in a first-class training programme. We can consider encouraging our Army medics, after their national service, to consider a career in the Fire Service as paramedics. Paramedics will also be available to our Civil Defence Force.

Two minutes left.

Do you want me to start my reply now or -

Yes, carry on, until 1.00 o'clock.

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me first take the point made by the Member for Bukit Batok. Sir, part of the problem is with the law, but that is not the only problem. The problem is also with the nature of the incidents which are involved. Another problem is with the volume of such incidents. First, let me say that it is not quite correct to say that the situations that he referred to are those where the only recourse is through a private or civil suit. It is an offence under the Penal Code, which is referred to as "voluntarily causing hurt". The problem, as far as the law is concerned, is that most of the incidents in this category of "voluntarily causing hurt" constitute an offence which, in law, is described as non-seizable, that is to say, the powers of the Police to arrest without a warrant are severely limited. Other offences such as causing hurt with dangerous weapons, or causing grevious hurt are more serious offences where the Police have powers of arrest because these are seizable. It is true that from the viewpoint of the person who is involved in an incident, it may be quite a traumatic and serious matter. But from our records the vast majority of these incidents involve situations where the persons are known to each other - neighbours, friends, in-laws who quarrel and so on. They may range from mere fisticuffs to fairly serious incidents involving the use of implements such as stools and so on. The question is, should the Police arrest all these persons?

Prof. Jayakumar, it is one o'clock. Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House.

Order. This Sitting is suspended until 2.30 pm. Sitting accordingly suspended at 1.00 pm until 2.30 pm. Sitting resumed at 2.30 pm

Debate in Committee of Supply resumed.

Head O (cont) -

Sir, before we adjourned, in replying to the Member for Bukit Batok, I said that, first, there was a problem in, the law in that the offence of voluntarily causing hurt is not a seizeable offence and the vast majority of the cases fell into this category. Secondly, most of these instances involve minor scuffles, fisticuffs and so on, although from the viewpoint of the person concerned it may be a serious matter. Members would be interested to know that the volume of such instances is tremendous. Last year, we had about 12,000 such reports. The question is really one of allocation of Police resources and priorities. We have a lot of other problems demanding attention, such as crime prevention and law enforcement problems - robberies, serious crimes, thefts. I would like to emphasize that it is not the policy to avoid investigations. What the Police do in these cases is to work on a set of guidelines. These guidelines enable the Police to investigate the more serious of these instances, particularly the examples given by the hon. Member himself, such as where assaults, intimidations involving secret societies are indicated. In these cases, the Police will investigate. When the case is made out, they will take appropriate action. Where there are repeated incidents, the Police will also summon both parties to the court to show cause why they should not keep peace and the courts may require them to sign a bond. Sir, with the guidelines and the Police investigations within the framework of the guidelines, our assessment is that the situation is under control. We do investigate some of the cases but it will not be possible to investigate all the cases. I have taken note of the point made by the Member for Bukit Batok. If the situation warrants, I am prepared to review the law to see whether an intermediate new offence should be provided. But at the moment we are not convinced that this is necessary. With that assurance, I hope the Member will be satisfied. May I now turn, Sir, to the points made by the Member for Whampoa, He made two points. The point about the Neighbourhood Police Post will be replied by the Minister of State. As to his other point on prisons reorganization, he is quite right in saying that in 1973 there was a Prisons Reorganization Committee on the rehabilitation system. His point was whether the recommendations have been implemented. I would like to inform him that this Committee proposed several major changes. For instance, changes to the law to proVide for corrective training or preventive detention or enhanced sentences for certain offences. Also, the Committee recommended that in order to prevent contamination of the less serious offenders by the hard-core offenders, there should be a segregation of hard-core offenders from the others. The Committee also made certain important recommendations concerning discipline and inculcating correct attitudes, in the prisoners, I would like to say that all these major recommendations have been implemented. I might add that we have not stopped with the implementation of the recommendations of this Committee. The prison rehabilitation system has evolved since then. The previous Minister in this House has made reference to the two-tier rehabilitation system -the Day-Release Scheme which has been introduced and the vocational industrial scheme for young reformative trainees and criminal law detainees. As to his other question on whether the Ministry can provide statistics on the relapse rate, I do not have the figures right now. But I shall certainly ask my officials to get the figures and supply them to the hon. Member. May I now proceed to the points made by the Member for Chong Boon. His question as to when his temporary NPP will be transformed into a permanent NPP will be dealt with by the Minister of State. Let me deal with his other two questions, These relate to public relations. A clarification must be made. The Member is under the impression that there has been a reduction in the number of posts for public relations. Although there were three posts deleted under this heading of Publicity and Public Relations, there has not been any reduction [n the number of posts for the Public Relations aspect. Under this heading, there are other components, such as Police Band, Crime Prevention Unit, and the three posts which were deleted related to the Crime Prevention Department in respect of which three posts were frozen in 1984-85. I would like to assure him that, first, the number of posts for Public Relations has not been reduced. Second, and more importantly, it is necessary for me to emphasize that I completely agree with him with regard to the remarks that he made about the importance of public relations in the Police Force. We are now entering a phase of community-oriented policing. In my view, there is no doubt that the vast majority, an overwhelming majority, of our people are law-abiding, they want to see their loved ones, their families and their neighbourhoods safe, sound and secure. The efforts of the Police and my Ministry, both in terms of crime prevention as well as law enforcement, must be to promote the interest of the overwhelming majority who are law-abiding, and to try to protect them against the minority who indulge in crimes and other offences. In this regard, therefore, public relations, ie, getting rapport with the population, enlisting the support and cooperation in obtaining information, become vital. This is why in recent years, Sir, the Police have spent a great deal of time in developing the NPP system, the Neighbourhood Watch Scheme, to reach the schools, the young, community centres, exhibitions, talks, and crime prevention campaigns. This will continue, Sir. The Member for Chong Boon related the instance of the Shenton Way shoot-out. He has previously conveyed to me his feelings on this, which I understand. I am not sure whether that was an instance of bad public relations. If I remember correctly, much of the problems which followed the Shenton Way incident turned on whose bullet was it that caused the death of the person concerned. There was a great deal of speculation, and this could only be laid to rest after tests were conducted, and it took time to announce the results of the tests. I am not sure, Sir, that that instance really demonstrated poor public relations.

Sir, on a point of clarification. I was not referring to the incident as such, but more to the manner in which the Police attended to it, by not even paying a visit to the funeral of the person who was shot.

I thank the Member for the clarification. Here again, I take the point made by the Member for Chong Boon - that in this kind of situation the image of the Police and public relations can be enhanced if the Police visited the family concerned. I have asked my officials to check on the facts of this case. I would like to inform the House that the incident occurred on 30th July 1984. On the same evening, the Divisional investigating officer personally went to the victim's home in Ang Mo Kio to convey to the family the unfortunate news. So it is not completely accurate to say that the Police did not at the earliest available opportunity convey the news to the bereaved family. But, more importantly, regardless of this incident, I wish to assure the Members, and the Member for Chong Boon in particular, that his observations on public relations are pertinent and are uppermost in the minds of the Police as well as the officials in the Ministry. 2.45 pm Sir, if I may go on to the other point which the Member raised about piracy. The term "piracy" may be a misnomer in this case because under international law, Sir, piracy occurs on the high seas. Within our territorial waters, it would be classified as robbery at sea. This is an important distinction in international law. The question was whether the problem is under control. I would like to inform him that indeed the problem is under control. Part of the difficulty really is that the vast majority of the cases occur outside our territorial waters. For instance, all the cases reported this year were outside Singapore territorial waters. Let me mention, however, that we have adequate personnel and resources. We have 62 patrol boats in the Marine Police for antipiracy patrols. Last year, 11 new fast patrol craft, equipped with radar and weapons, were included in the marine fleet. The vessels are well-equipped and the crew well-trained. May I now, Sir, deal with the questions raised by the Member for Anson. He raised, I believe, four points. The first point related to junior officers acting in a higher grade. On this point, let me say that, in fact, the Civil Service has abolished acting allowances since 1976. Of course, Police officers do cover duties of a higher grade when vacancies arise until such time when promotion exercises are held to fill them. Those holding unit ranks, for example, corporal or sergeant, and have performed well will naturally stand a better chance for promotion. I think it is understood by all officers.

The point is that they have been acting for too long.

Well, sometimes that may arise due to exigencies of service. The second point the Member for Anson made, if I got him correctly, was that sergeants who are in Division III are paid Division II salaries.

I was told that sergeants are paid Division II salaries but they are placed in Division III. And so they missed out on the benefits for Division II officers.

I think there is a factual point to be established here. As far as my information is concerned, Sir, there is no such situation where a sergeant in Division III is paid Division II salary. So perhaps the Member for Anson could let me know of any specific instance, because my information is that the Sergeant's post is a Division III post and his salary is a Division III salary. So perhaps if he has information, he can take it up with my Ministry separately. His third point dealt with junior officers with HSC qualifications who were dissatisfied because they were promoted automatically to Inspectors, I believe.

NS officers.

Yes. This is less favourable compared to NS officers. Sir, the position is that the junior officers with HSC qualifications can rise to Inspectors depending on their own merits. NS officers with HSC qualifications apply to join the Police Force as an Inspector only if they are commissioned officers during NS. So there is a distinction. I should also add that these appointments are made by the Public Service Commission which is an independent body. The final point that he made was that he understands some of the vehicles in the Police Force are not roadworthy. Well, this is news to me because I have sought information from the Police and I have been assured that all police vehicles on the road are roadworthy. They go for regular inspections. I have had a look at the age profile of the vehicles and I do not think any of them are so old as to be a danger on the roads. They are properly maintained and serviced by the Force Transport Branch of the Police. The Member said that he understood that he believed some vehicles are not roadworthy. But, here again, it is difficult for me to comment on that unless I have some information which he seems to have. But let me assure the House that all the Police vehicles are properly maintained and serviced by a special unit of the Police Force. If I may now turn, Sir, to the points raised by the Member for Alexandra on traffic. Some of his points were also mentioned by the Member for Toa Payoh. He made several points. First was with regard to expressways. Now, this is indeed a cause for concern because the number of accidents on expressways is twice that of other roads, and the number of fatalities on expressways is as high as four times the fatality on other roads. But some of the reasons, of course, stare at us in the face -the number of vehicles on our roads has soared dramatically while the increase in road space is limited. Apart from that, Sir, the Member for Alexandra is quite correct in pointing out that there are two special areas of concern. One is motor-cyclists and the other is pedestrians. Measures are being taken by the Traffic Police to arrest the trend, apart from the preventive and educational measures which are taken. The problem of motor-cyclists is being tackled by a special riding circuit and the prohibition of learner drivers going on the roads immediately upon obtaining their vehicles. Of course, they have been given three years' notice of this impending measure which will come into operation on 1st October. With that, and the intensive training which will be given to the riding circuits, we believe a major breakthrough will be made in our efforts to arrest the high fatality and casualty figures for motor-cyclists. With regard to pedestrians, it is not so much a question of the Pedestrian Crossing Rules. Our analysis of the figures showed that vast majority of the fatalities involving pedestrians were in situations where there were no pedestrian crossings. So it is not a question of enforcing the Pedestrian Crossing Rules more strictly. What we are doing now is to liaise with our other relevant counterpart agencies to bring about an accelerated programme of building more pedestrian crossings. With regard to his question on expressway patrol cars, I am glad to say that the Ministry has received approval from the Ministry of Finance to commence a pilot project involving the use of eight fast patrol cars. We are now in the process of obtaining tenders and we hope that this pilot project will be implemented early next year. After the pilot project, there will be an evaluation. If the evaluation, according to performance indicators, shows that it has been effective, then we will seek approval for the full complement of fast expressway patrols. As to the high-speed cameras, these have been evaluated. There are two types of cameras. One is a camera to detect the beating of traffic lights. The other is cameras to detect speedsters. The first type of camera to detect drivers who beat traffic lights has been tested and evaluated, and I am glad to say that the tests have shown that they are effective. Approval has been given for purchase of these cameras, and they will be implemented at a later date. As to cameras to detect speedsters, this is still under evaluation. As to heavy vehicles, the Member for Alexandra is correct in saying that there is a special problem with heavy vehicle drivers because the nature of the vehicle, as well as the speed at which they sometimes travel, pose a danger. How will we tackle this? First, Sir, we believe that the existing penalties are inadequate and we are studying the Road Traffic Act to see whether we should amend the law to provide for heavier penalty, which is the case in many other countries with regard to errant drivers of heavy vehicles. Secondly, even before any amendment of the law is considered, we are, as of now, enforcing more strictly the law on drivers of heavy-moving vehicles who are involved in "moving" offences. Thirdly, in our plan to build driving and riding circuits, we specifically plan to designate one of the circuits for the training of drivers who will be driving heavy vehicles. I should also add that the testing standards of all drivers are being upgraded and this includes the Class 4 drivers. Finally, since December 1984, Class 4 drivers who were suspended under the Dips (Driver Improvement Point System) will have to undergo retraining courses conducted by the Traffic Police. Sir, the Member for Alexandra referred to the image of the Traffic Police. He complained of traffic policemen being sneaky, hiding behind bushes. It is a point raised on many other occasions. The general point being made is taken, namely, that the Traffic Police are a part of the whole police set-up and whatever I said just now about the importance of public relations, enlisting the support and cooperation of the public, applies also equally truly to the Traffic Police. But the Traffic Police and I have discussed this with Traffic officials from other countries. Traffic enforcement officials in all countries have this problem, so much so that in other countries the Police force tries to transfer the Traffic Police to some other Ministry, the Ministry of Transport and Communications, so that this image problem can be eradicated. But, I think, in Singapore we will have to make sure that the public understand the reasons why we have to be strict in our enforcement. The Member for Alexandra has pointed out the figures. Education, preventive measures, campaigns, work to a point but where drivers are reckless, are errant, they need to be apprehended and charged for the offences. I would like to inform him that the directive given to the Traffic Police is not to hide behind bushes. As the Member for Anson says, "There may not be enough bushes!" Mr Speaker, Sir, although the directive was given to the Police, I am not too sure that I accept the logic of the argument. I have never heard anyone complain when it comes to apprehending criminals and thieves. No one ever complains that the Police are wrong to lay an ambush to apprehend a criminal. No one complains about it. Why then should someone complain if an ambush is laid for a habitual or reckless driver or rider on the road who is going to be a menace to all others? Now, I am not saying that I am going to revoke the directive which has been given. But I want to say that although I agree that the policeman should not hide behind the bushes, I would not go so far as to say that the delinquent driver ought not to be surprised, because you will never catch the habitual delinquent rider if he is always given an early warning by the presence of the policeman down the road. These are the persons we want to catch. So with that observation, I hope the Member for Alexandra will agree with me that we must allow the Police a variety of ways provided, of course, we know what are the targets t,hat we are aiming at. For the less serious offences, I would like to inform the Member for Alexandra that the Police, in fact, have been issuing warnings and it is not a case of every motorist being stopped and given a summons. But I am afraid that this problem of image may not be completely eradicated because the very nature of enforcing traffic regulations is different and unique because it is very public. A person is stopped on the road, his ego is affected; his boss or his girlfriend or his relatives may be driving past and, here, he is in the middle of the road under the glare of publicity. And I guess it is natural for him to react with a certain amount of resentment and indignation. But we will have to enforce our traffic regulations if we want to bring down the accident figures as soon as possible. I believe the points raised by the Member for Toa Payoh are very similar and I have covered them in this reply. The other points, Sir, will be replied by the Minister of State. 3.00 pm The Minister of State for Home Affairs and Community Development (Mr Wong Kan Seng): Mr Speaker, Sir, first of all, I would like to thank all the hon. Members for paying such a tribute to our Neighbourhood Police Post system and to the efforts of our NPP officers in promoting community rapport. I am sure our NPP officers will be cheered by this commendation and, with this, I am sure they will also do their job with greater fervour. We all know that the Japanese study team has made a study and did an evaluation of the NPP system, and we have accepted their recommendations. The Member for Geylang Serai asked about the plans, the constraints and the problems. The Member for Jalan Kayu asked why the NPP cannot be extended to his constituency. Sir, in having the NPP, it is important to remember that the NPP must be effective in serving the needs of the residents. In order to do that, we must take into consideration the population, the number of residents that need to be looked after and the kind of problems they are likely to encounter in a particular neighbourhood. With these factors, it is therefore the recommendation of the study team that an NPP should have about 30 officers and they should look after about 27,000 residents. With these planning assumptions for organizational effectiveness, the NPPs are planned accordingly. We have advanced the full implementation of the NPP by two years, from 1991 to 1989. We cannot implement it all in one year because to do so will mean that we have to put in a lot more resources which are not readily available. In order to have 14 NPPs a year, we need something like 420 officers to man these 14 NPPs. In order for them to do the job well, these officers must be experienced in policing. They must also be well trained in community relations, in inter-personal skills and so on. So it is not easy to train all these people at the same time. We therefore need to phase out the implementation of the NPP over a period of years. It is also sound financial management to spread the expenses so that the money committed for one activity will not affect the other programmes. So for these reasons, we have to phase out the implementation of the NPP over a period of years. There are 28,000 residents in Cheng San and about 34,000 residents in the Chong Boon constituencies where there are two NPPs. In the Jalan Kayu constituency, there are about 41,000 residents. And in the 26 blocks mentioned by the Member for Jalan Kayu, I estimate there are about 10,000 to 11,000 residents in Avenues 3 and 10. It would not be fair to load on this group of people to the existing NPPs in Cheng San and Chong Boon because to do so will be to dilute the organizational and management effectiveness. But that is not to say that the NPPs in these two constituencies will not look after their interests. If the residents in Avenues 3 and 10 find it convenient to make use of the services of these two NPPs, they are all welcome to do so. I understand the concern of the Member for Jalan Kayu. But in order that his residents' fears can be allayed, let me assure him that the Police Division will continue to patrol the area like they always do and ensure that whatever problems they have can be resolved. So the NPP for Jalan Kayu will, according to plan, be implemented in 1989. As regards the NPP for Geylang Serai, it will be implemented in 1987 and tentatively it will be at the void deck of Block 111 of Aljunied Cresent. The Member for Whampoa is also interested to know when the NPP will be set up in his constituency. It will be set up in 1988 in Block 73. The Member for Chong Boon asked where his permanent NPP will be. It will be set up this year in Block 461 of Avenue 10. With all these constraints in training, in recruiting people, it is necessary that we spread out the implementation of the NPP over a period of years. The Member for Fengshan mentioned that there are staff nurses who are used in the Emergency Ambulance Service and he thought that they should be better used in the hospitals and that we should employ paramedics for the job in the Emergency Ambulance Service. The staff nurses have been deployed in the Ambulance Service since September 1976. We understand that, initially, there were some reluctance and teething problems in having staff nurses in the Ambulance Service. But over a period of years, most of them have accepted this and they find it interesting and challenging enough to remain in the Service. The Ministry of Health is also able to continue to supply us with the nurses and it is important that we should have them because in addition to the normal emergency that the staff nurses have to deal with, they also have to deal with other kinds of cases, eg, administering drugs and delivering babies. Just in 1984 alone, 511 babies were delivered by the Ambulance Service. But, of course, if there is a need to review this in future and to use paramedics, then we will do so when the need arises. Sir, I believe I have dealt with all the questions.

On a point of clarification, Mr Speaker, Sir. I understand that the Chong Boon Constituency already has a temporary NPP post and now it is going to get a permanent one. Could not the resources of the permanent post be better redistributed to Whampoa?

Sir, may I know why are NPPs set up on a constituency basis and not on a logical basis, such as a whole new housing estate to be covered by a number of NPPs?

Mr Speaker, Sir, before we set up a permanent NPP, we need to have renovations, we need to structure it, we need to staff it and so on. As we get on with that, and having completed that, then it is necessary to establish a permanent one. So there is no duplication in this sense. The temporary NPP in Chong Boon will be done away with when the permanent one is established. We can establish NPPs by any basis, whether it is one NPP for 10 blocks or by constituency basis. And we have decided that in order to establish the community spirit of a constituency, it is preferable to name it after the constituency. It is just logical.

Point of clarification, Mr Speaker, Sir. What kind of criteria are used by the Ministry in determining which constituency or areas should get their NPP post first and which last?

I remember mentioning this when I gave the answers just a couple of days ago. One of the things that the officers or the planning team looked at was the crime rate in a particular place. And also the establishment of the grassroots organizations. So in determining whether we should have NPPs that cover a constituency or a particular neighbourhood, across boundaries of constituencies, it is also necessary to consider the establishment of rapport between NPP and grassroots organizations in a particular constituency.

Sir, do we conclude that Chong Boon is very crime prone and Whampoa is crime free?

Sir, we are arguing on a question of details, about the percentage of crime in what place and so on. I think it is not necessary to go into these details, especially if we do not have a lot of time for the other hon. Members who may have another point to make.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I now move my amendments?

Yes, please do that.

I have two amendments Nos. (16) and (17) in respect of subheads QJ-02 and QJ-04. Mr Speaker, Sir, I am, as I am sure the Minister will understand, taking up the cause of fractured families. But before I speak on that, may I say that my firm has made representations on behalf of people from time to time on immigration matters. But I have no personal pecuniary interest in any of the matters that I am raising this afternoon. All of them have come to me as an MP. Sir, I have about four cases here. They are not the only cases that have come to me, where as a result of the immigration policy, the families have been separated. In some cases, it is the wife who has been sent out and, in some cases, it is the husband who has been sent out. I have the case of a man who has worked in Singapore, he is a citizen and he has worked as a postman for 20 years. He is living in my constituency in Maxwell Road quarters for postmen. In 1983 he married somebody in Batu Pahat before the kathi. He then discovered that apparently she had previously been working in Singapore on a work permit. And so she was sent back in October 1983. This man is now left living alone while she is probably in Batu Pahat, and he having to look after the children. He is very bitter about it because he says the TAS has asked him to move out of the quarters. And the HDB says that it is not going to give him a flat because he is only a single Singapore citizen. What he wants to know, and what I do want to know from the Minister, is: how long does he intend to keep these families apart? Sir, we hear ad nauseam from this Government about family life and about the need to keep families together. We heard that this afternoon from the Minister for Communications. But here we have families - it is not just these four or five; I am sure there are several more. I have many more who have come to me over the last three years but these are the most recent ones, where the families have been kept apart as a result of Government decisions. Does this not make nonsense of the oft-repeated Government pronouncements about family life and about Asian values? May I ask, is it an Asian value that the Government should separate families? I hope I am not going to be told that these are only a few in number. You do not play this game by numbers. If family life is sacred and you value family life, it must be valid for one family as it must be valid for a million families. There are, besides this man, Mr Speaker, Sir, others. One was married in Singapore in the Registry of Marriages, and his wife was sent back. She must be a Malaysian. She was sent back on the 10th January this year. Another one, a wife, was sent back on the 2&h March, 1984. And somebody else was sent out of Singapore on the 22nd October, 1983. So will the Minister say how long he intends to keep these families apart? It is not just a husband or a wife who is sent back. There are cases of children who have been sent out or who have been asked to leave Singapore. Why is it necessary, I ask, and I asked this several times before, to break up families like this? You take a member of a family unit and you send him out or send her out, and in some cases it is children who are not able to look after themselves. Could I ask the Minister to give a direct answer to this question without any equivocation, so that these families may know clearly what the Government's policy is as regards them? Will they ever be able to live together in Singapore, or do they have to apply to the courts for a dissolution of their marriages? If so, would the Minister suggest on what ground they should apply for a dissolution of marriage? Should they say, "We have been separated apart by decree of the Government. So will you please now dissolve the marriage?" because that is not a ground for dissolution under the Women's Charter. The ground is where either party voluntarily deserts the other, or where the parties live apart. Here, they are forced to live apart, against their will. The other problem, Mr Speaker, Sir, is the question of permanent residence qualifications. Again, there are a number of people who come to me whose wives, although they live here, have not been granted permanent residence. As I have pointed out, under the Constitution where a wife has lived in Singapore for two years with the husband, a Singapore citizen, she may be granted citizenship. Here, permanent residence has been refused, making it very difficult for the family when it comes to applying for HDB accommodation or for other benefits. These people feel very bitter because of pronouncements that we have heard here and outside about the Government's intention to attract graduates and people with money into this country. Whereas these people who have not got the money, who have not got a degree, are treated as dirt, less than human beings. What have they done to deserve this treatment? Somebody told me the other day that he applied for permanent residence because his wife is a Singapore citizen carrying on business and he is helping his wife in the business. He has been allowed to live here on permits which are extended from time to time, but he has been denied permanent residence, although they have invested quite a bit of money here. But he was told apparently, "If you have got a million dollars, then we will consider granting you permanent residence." As I asked the Prime Minister sometime ago, "Is it only money that this Government is interested in?", not in human beings, in persons, not concerned with their feelings. Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, may I speak on my other amendment which is Citizenship Registration of the Ministry of Home Affairs. Again, the story is the same. I have brought up in this House cases of people who have lived here, who have given their life-time to this country, who have worked here. I have mentioned the case of the man in the Ministry of the Environment who has worked for 29 years, 30 years. They are still being kept out of citizenship. Again, the Constitution sets out what are the minimum conditions before citizenship may be granted. They qualify in all respects. They have no convictions. They have lived here for the requisite period of time. There is nothing known against them and yet, time and time again, they are refused citizenship. We heard a lot after the elections about how this Government proposes to be less austere and is going to wear a human face. But I cannot detect any change in the Government policies towards these people. May I know: will there be any change or are we going to continue along the same road? Are human dignity, decency, going to count for anything in future? Or will they be disregarded as they have been over the last 25 years?

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I be allowed a few minutes. Let me touch on the problem of the illegal bookie and gambling activities. It is a well-known fact to all of us that on weekends almost all housing estates will see massive crowds gathering around coffee shops and the purpose is not to drink coffee or tea but -

To play with money.

To play with money, as the Member for Changi says. This has happened over the last two or three years with ever-growing intensity. Apart from creating a nuisance by blocking all the traffic along the thoroughfares, in some cases these have led to gang fights. And in my Constituency there was even a case of stabbing of an innocent bystander who happened to get into the way of these people. The Police explanation is that due to their manpower constraints they have not been able to cover as many housing estates as they wished. But surely that is not the only explanation. I think one has got to go back to the fundamentals and that is, people like to gamble. Can we suppress this urge? In the past we had a lot of other things. In fact, I was told that in Hong Kong, during the winter months, they would gamble on how many seeds a mandarin orange has, and without peeling the orange, of course. The question that faces us is whether we can succeed in eliminating gambling of any form, Or should we look at how we can curb or minimize these gambling activities so as to inflict the minimal inconvenience to residents and to other members of the public. One of the main reasons for the gathering of these crowds at coffee shops and so on is to seek information. The information comes from the results of the Races, whether it is in Singapore or in Malaysia; hence the frequent use of telephones. Maybe one suggestion could be that if we can discreetly or restrictively release this information at designated locations, far away from the maddening crowd, so to speak. And in this case we may succeed in at least containing the problem and yet giving vent to some of these human urges that some members of the public seem to find it hard to resist. I agree with the Police that it is not possible, with the manpower that it has, to try to mount raids, ambushes, and so on, on all possible outlets where such activity is carried out. But I would urge that perhaps the Ministry can look into whether, in fact, we can examine the more fundamental aspects of this illegal gambling and hope to find a solution to relieve the members and residents of our housing estates from this increasing menace.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I be allowed to say something about fire safety in our high-rise buildings? Sir, the recent power failure resulting in Fire officers having to be called in to rescue people trapped in a building shows a need for the Singapore Fire Service to look more closely into the safety measures of our buildings. I cannot imagine the seriousness if this incident had been a fire instead. Sir, now that the Singapore Fire Service has taken over the responsibility of vetting of fire safety requirements in building plans from the Planning and Development Control Division, I hope that more will be done to improve the overall safety of our buildings. Sir, we have so many multi-storey offices and shopping complexes and at any one time there are hundreds and thousands of people in these buildings. We must take positive steps to ensure that all our buildings are effectively installed with fire protection systems, if we want to prevent tragedies from happening. Sir, may I suggest that the following fire protection systems in buildings should be complied with. First, every storey in the building should be equipped with automatic sprinklers, fire extinguishers and hose-reels. In a big building, more than one fire escape staircase should be provided. Second, the fire alarm system should be linked to the nearest fire station and designed to activate automatically in the event of a fire. The break-glass alarm system as well as the heat and smoke detector should also be installed. Third, all lifts should be equipped with safety devices, such as automatic rescues and automatic landing devices. Sir, I believe most of our highrise buildings have installed some fire safety equipment, but is it enough? I strongly feel that the Fire Department must conduct more frequent checks to ensure that the fire protection systems installed in these buildings are functioning properly. The exit to the fire escape staircase should always be accessible to people inside the building and as the exits to the staircases are the only means of escape in case of emergencies such as a fire or a power failure, clear indications to all exits on each storey must be prominently displayed. In addition to the lay-out plans, guiding arrows should also be indicated on all levels of buildings to show the way to the fire escape staircase. Sir, for the safety of human lives, we must request all the management of the buildings to comply with the safety regulations laid down by the Fire Department. Offenders must be punished accordingly and, if necessary, be brought to court. Sir, to further enhance the safety of human lives in our office and shopping complexes, the Department should also look into the possibility of deploying at least a Fire officer in each building or, if that is not possible, the security guards of the buildings should be properly trained in fire safety to be conducted by the Fire Service Department, so that at all times there will be someone with the knowledge to handle an emergency.

Sir, Singapore has been quite successful in its efforts to contain the drug problem. This is due to the effective law enforcement and a pragmatic and systematic programme of compulsory treatment and rehabilitation of drug addicts. However, Sir, the drug scene is never stable. Correspondingly, the drug problem is not static. It is always changing. Currently, there is a serious rise in another drug related problem, that is, glue-sniffing. To indicate the seriousness of this problem, the Singapore Anti-Narcotics Association is now spearheading the national campaign against glue-sniffing and inhalant abuse. Sir, I would like to know whether the present laws are adequate. What further steps are being taken by the Ministry to reinforce the existing laws to combat this social) menace to bring down the number of cases relating to drug abuse problems. My next point, Sir, is about rehabilitation of drug addicts. I would like to compliment the Ministry of Home Affairs for taking tough remedial actions to isolate the drug addicts for treatment and rehabilitation. Many ex-drug takers were successfully treated and rehabilitated. Sir, though at present the size of drug abuse population has been reduced in number, the problem, I understand, has taken on a new facet. We are facing new problems in treating a group of ex-drug takers who have relapsed at least once. These are the hard-core addicts. I have a few of them in my constituency. The Government has introduced a tougher supervision scheme to supervise this group of people. What further steps are being taken by the Ministry to provide more intensive care and effective rehabilitation programme? Sir, may I get an assurance and an answer from the Minister?

Sir, I support the comments which have been made by my colleague from Ang Mo Kio concerning the problem of fires in high-rise buildings. Singaporeans are aware of the incidence of fire in high-rise buildings. They must have read of the fires which occurred in hotels and high-rise residential buildings in other countries and they must have read about the number of deaths and the amount of property damages to these buildings. Sir, I dread to think of what can happen if there is a serious fire in one of our highrise buildings. Thousands of people live in HDB flats. Thousands of shoppers go to shopping complexes and thousands of residents live in the residential complexes. Our citizens must be given maximum protection against such disaster. The questions I would like to raise with the Minister are whether the Singapore Fire Service is well equipped to deal with fires in highrise buildings, and whether the Department has the skilled manpower and the equipment to deal effectively with these fires. My colleague has mentioned the precautions that are necessary and should be taken by the property owners of high-rise buildings, and I support his suggestion that heavier penalties should be imposed in the event they are negligent in ensuring all these safety precautions. But with regard to HDB estates, I would like to propose that periodic fire drills be conducted for the residents in the HDB flats and that the civil defence organizations within the constituency be involved in a coordinated procedure with the residents and the Fire Service Department to deal with such possible fires.

Prof. Jayakumar, you have 25 minutes to answer. Guillotine time is 4.00 pm.

Thank you, Sir. First, let me respond to the points made by the Member for Clementi on what is known as the mini-turf clubs. I completely share the view of the Member for Clementi which is a view that other Members have expressed to me. Some have told me that gambling is part of our way of life, so why bother? There are different types of gambling and different types of illegal gambling. But I agree with the Member and other Members that action has to be taken on the so-called mini-turf clubs which are operating in our housing estates because they defile the social environment of our housing estates. Families, children, wives are afraid to go to hawker centres, afraid to go to coffee shops and they time their visits either before the first race or after the last race. This is an undesirable situation. I have had discussions with my Ministry officials and the officials in the Police and special priority will be given to tackling this problem. The Member wanted to know the kind of problems that we have in this area. There are quite a number of problems which will have to be tackled. One concerns the law. The penalties will have to be reviewed. There is a lot of money involved in this operation, and if the penalties are not a deterrent, people would not mind paying fines which may be inadequate. So the law will have to be reviewed. Second, there is also a problem in bringing about a successful prosecution because prosecutions, to succeed, must depend on evidence. For those who are familiar with the way in which these miniturf clubs operate, there is a mind-boggling array of methods by which the operators keep check on their bets. Watermelon seeds, buttons, chips, match-sticks, and the latest is soluble paper which can be either swallowed or put in a pail of water. So evidence sufficient to bring about a prosecution in court is not easy. This is another problem that we will have to tackle. Sir, the Police will be upgrading both the intelligence and operation strategies, and I have directed the Police and the Ministry officials to approach this problem in a comprehensive manner, It will not do just to make raids on housing estates and particular selected sites on weekends. Last year, there were 9,103 such raids and 803 persons were prosecuted. It is far more complicated because there is a communication network which passes on race results. There are indication centres which operate secretly, and illegally tap telephone lines. We are working in close cooperation with the Telecommunications Authority in ascertaining the places which have such telephones and appropriate action will be taken. I would like to give assurance to the Member therefore that this is a problem which we are fully cognizant of and that we are embarking on a full-scale comprehensive review. Results may not come about overnight but it is certainly an area where we intend to spend special attention in the forthcoming period. I would not like at this stage to pre-judge the measures which will be taken and I hope the Member for Clementi will be satisfied with the assurance that this matter is being given utmost priority. Next, Sir, may I turn to the points made by the Member for Pasir Panjang on glue-sniffing and the rehabilitation of drug addicts. First, on glue-sniffing. A few days ago, the Minister of State gave an Oral Answer to a Question asked by the Member for Punggol and information was then given on the measures that are being taken. Specifically, the Member for Pasir Panjang asked whether the laws are adequate. The answer to that is that the existing law, ie, the Misuse of Drugs Act which is designed for drugs such as heroin and so on, is not really adequate for the purpose of glue-sniffing. The Coordinating Committee which has been established has, as one of its tasks, the examination of laws and enforcement measures in other countries. The difficulty, Sir, is this. The substances in which glue-sniffing takes place are to be found in a wide variety of commercial and household products. We will have to devise legal measures which will not impede the bona fide users of these commercial and household products. Secondly, laws which will lend themselves to effective enforcement. We are told that in a few other countries they have such laws but we must ascertain that in those countries they have effective implementation before we adopt their practices. This is a measure which the Coordinating Committee will address itself to and make recommendations. On the question of rehabilitation of hard-core addicts, I would like to inform the Member for Pasir Panjang that he is right in saying that, as we are more effective in controlling the addict population and supply of drugs and as the number of first-time addicts is reduced, the residual problem will be that of relapse cases. We have a problem of a growing number of hard-core addicts who have undergone treatment and rehabilitation a number of times. My Ministry officials together with SANA and the Central Narcotics Bureau are now considering whether the treatment and rehabilitation of hard-core addicts should be intensified and a special regime be devised for both treatment and rehabilitation as well as intensive counselling. I hope to be able to give the results of this review at a later date. May I now, Sir, touch on the points raised by the Member for Anson, and I will deal with both his points on citizenship and permanent residence together. The points on fire safety raised by the Member for Ang Mo Kio and the Member for Serangoon Gardens will be dealt with by the Minister of State. The Member for Anson's thesis boils down to this: that our citizenship laws and policies and our permanent residence laws and policies are such that we have separated families, that this demonstrates a lack of humanitarian and compassionate feelings, and that we have wilfully and deliberately brought about the separation. Sir, the point I would like to make is that our laws and policies are known and have been made known. As to the cases that he mentioned, individual cases, it will be difficult for me to reply to them here without detailed information. But from the recitation of the facts that he made, it appears that most of them are work permit cases. 3.45 pm Sir, let me put the context of our permanent residence policy. If we could, it will be the easiest and the ideal policy to let in whosoever wants to come to Singapore, to adopt as liberal, as compassionate, a policy as possible. If we could, if our resources permit it and if our land and other facilities could cope. But what is the situation? Let me give the problem its proper picture. There are hundreds of thousands of persons who want to come to Singapore. Let me give some figures. Last year, about 13,000 persons applied for permanent residence. There were 274,000 persons last year who tried every means possible to extend their stay here, These are, what I would call, the potential applicants for permanent residence.

Mr Speaker, Sir, on a point of clarification because I do not want the Minister to take up too much time with irrelevancies and not answer my questions. I am talking about families, not people who are applying to come in here. So will he please deal with families?

May I answer in the way that I choose, just as he has been able to frame the questions in the way that he has chosen? Sir, we must see this problem in the context and only then we will appreciate the magnitude of our problems. 274,000 persons tried to extend their stay here. There are 150,000 to 160,000 work permit holders. In addition, we have about 130,000 permanent residents who are potential applicants for citizenship. This is the magnitude of the problem. The Member for Anson, on other occasions, has said that Singapore is a place where there is oppression, lack of rights, lack of freedoms. Nevertheless, there are hundreds of thousands of people who want to come to Singapore. Now, can we allow every one who wants to come? The answer is no. We are a small country with limited resources. The Minister for National Development, the other day, told us that there is almost no more land to build HDB flats. In these circumstances, as Minister for Home Affairs, it will be foolhardy for me to adopt a policy which is liberal and lets in everyone. This is the first point that I want to make. The second point, Sir, which deals with a specific question mentioned by the Member for Anson, is that we have not wilfully separated families whom we have allowed to form in our country. Work permit holders are put on notice well ahead of time that when they get a work permit there are certain conditions attached to the possession of a work permit. A work permit is intended to allow them to come to Singapore to work temporarily and they intend to go back. That is very clear. They are also told in advance that if they want to marry and sink roots here, they would have to get the permission of the relevant authority which is the Commissioner for Employment of the Ministry of Labour. Now, why do we do this? I do not like as Minister for Home Affairs to expel anyone. Why should I? It is because we do not want Singapore to suffer the same consequences as some of the Western European countries do. They are saddled with an enormous problem of migrant workers who came, who were supposed to be temporary workers but have settled down permanently, with wives and children. We cannot afford to have that. We have learnt from the experiences of other countries and we have introduced these measures and controls precisely to avoid the problems faced by Western European countries. Now, then, what happens when a work permit holder, and there are about 150,000 to 160,000 of them, wants to sink roots here and marries without permission? The answer is that he or she is asked to leave Singapore. Is our policy strict? It is strict. There is no denying about it. But the question is: we have strict immigration policies, we have strict citizenship policies. But for whom is a strict immigration policy designed? Is it designed for me? No. Is it designed for the Cabinet Ministers? No. It is designed to promote the well-being of Singapore citizens, because if you have liberal policies based on liberal criteria, then we will be swamped with hundreds of thousands of people who want to come to Singapore. This would put a strain on our housing, social, medical, educational and other facilities. Our first duty as a government, Sir, is to ensure that the interest of Singapore and the interest of Singapore citizens is safeguarded in the context of our limited resources. So he has -

May I ask the Minister by way of clarification, please. How long do you intend to keep these families apart? If it is the intention to keep them apart permanently, well, say so, so that I can tell them that there is no hope for them living together.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Anson surely must know that a -

Answer the question.

- press statement was issued on the permanent ban of work permit holders who contravene the marriage restriction policy. This press statement was issued and publicized while the Member was a Member of the House. It was given full publicity. I do not know why he is asking this question here because the answer is given there - a person who contravenes the work permit marriage restriction policy is expelled from Singapore and barred from entering Singapore. The answer was given, was publicized, and this is why I made the point that these conditions are made known well ahead of time. Mr Speaker, Sir, as I say, we make no bones about the fact that we have strict immigration policies and strict citizenship policies. The question for Singaporeans to ask is that if we did not do so, then are we prepared to let hundreds of thousands of foreigners come to Singapore and overburden our facilities and resources? Our policies strike good balance between two criteria. One, the person who comes to Singapore must be able to contribute to our skills, talent, economic advancement, Under that scheme persons are granted permanent residence. But at the same time, wives, children, dependants of Singapore citizens are also admitted and, contrary to what the Member for Anson says, it is not for the rich. It cuts across all categories - wives, children and dependants. The only criterion is, we want to ascertain that they will be maintained and looked after by somebody in Singapore so that they would not become a burden to the State.

And the rich can do that.

As I said, Sir, he can keep on making insinuations that he wants, but the facts are clear. It cuts across all categories of persons in Singapore. So it is a fair balance between promoting the advancement of Singapore, its national interest, and ,compassionate grounds. It strikes a fair balance. Sir, the Minister of State will answer the other questions.

May I just inform the Minister that in one of these cases, as I told him, the couple were married in Singapore in the Registry of Marriages. So they had the permission of the Government, and yet the wife was sent out. So what do you do in that case? And does the Government deny that the Government does confer permanent residence and even citizenship on people who are prepared to lend it money without any further questions?

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is impossible for me to comment on the specifics of the case. Has the Member for Anson written to the Ministry on this particular case?

Yes.

Well, I have not received it. If he can send it to me?

It seems that it never reaches the Minister.

Mr Speaker, Sir, did he address it to the Minister? He has addressed certain representation to the Minister, and I have received it. Did he address this case to me?

I addressed it to the Immigration Department and it should be referred to you.

There you are! Sir, every letter that is addressed to me as a Minister, and there are many of them, I make it a point to lead it, as Members will know. Although it takes up a lot of time, I do this in order to have a flavour of the kinds of problems which Members of Parliament come across. In this case, the Member has written to the Immigration Department. The Immigration Department receives about, I think, 500, maybe hun- dreds of letters every month. Naturally, all of them are not referred to me. I cannot comment on the specifics of the case. The Member for Anson, if he feels a serious breach of laws has taken place, can write to me about this case. The Minister of State for Home Affairs and Community Development (Mr Wong Kan Seng): Mr Speaker, Sir, there is a difference between getting approval to get married from the Commissioner for Employment and getting the marriage registered in the Registry of Marriages.

On a point of clarification. Would the Minister of State say under what law you have got to get permission from the Commissioner for Employment?

That is under the condition for employment to get a work permit, Sir.

Where is the law? You do not understand.

As usual, Sir, the Member for Anson has only one side of a coin. He does not have the full coin, so he is usually short-changed by his constituents.

You cannot impose a condition unless the law says so. That is elementary.

He does not seem to understand. Let me move on to answer the questions from the Members for Ang Mo Kio and Serangoon Gardens regarding the capability of the Fire Service to fight high-rise fires. I understand their concern and I am sure our Fire Service has not letup in the vigilance against the capability of fighting high-rise fires. Sir, there are about 200 commercial buildings in Singapore and, generally, the number of exit signs and the necessary fire precaution appliances are in compliance with the Fire Precaution Code. Inspections are carried out annually on all these highrise buildings as well as on places where the public have access. Just last year alone in 1984, there were 262 inspections carried out on these buildings to check and test the fire-fighting appliances and facilities, and to ensure that the staircases and exit doorways are not obstructed. Fire evacuation drills are also conducted in these buildings and since 1976, 222 such drills have been carried out. In addition, the employees are also taught the basics of fire-fighting, particularly those in the departmental stores and supermarkets. 119 such fire drills and basic fire-fighting were taught to 18 departmental store employees. 24 one-week training courses were conducted for the management of these commercial high-rise buildings since 1977. 1,419 spot checks were carried out on public places such as restaurants, departmental stores, supermarkets in 1984 alone. And 58 premises were served with notices for obstruction and 15 exit door locks were removed when they were found to be locked. There are a number of equipment that the Fire Service has already purchased to deal with high-rise fires, in addition to adopting the operational procedures used in fighting high-rise fires in the United States. So let me assure the hon. Members that there are enough equipment and contingency plans to ensure that our high-rise buildings are not safety-and-fire hazards to our public.

Sir, since after I spoke, the Member for Anson has raised the question of the legality of the condition. Let me inform Members of the House that work permits are given on certain conditions. There are many conditions: health conditions, immigration conditions, types of work they have to perform, prohibition of certain activities. And it is fully within the legal powers of the Ministry of Labour to impose the condition that a work permit holder shall not marry without permission.

May I inform the Minister that he should be aware that the law is that anyone over 21 should be free to marry without anybody's permission. 4.00 pm

It is 4.00 o'clock, guillotine time.

Sir, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $404,152,680 for Head 0 ordered to stand part of the main Estimates. The sum of $54,509,500 for Head 0 ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head V -

Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head V be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead VA-01 Object Group 1100 of the Main Estimates*. Sir, I raised a question recently about the health of our economy because of a number of press reports that make our economy look in a bad way. Apparently, there have also been a spate of foreign press reports about the health of our economy. I have here an article xeroxed from The Star published in Penang recently. I will just quote two paragraphs: 'With problems cropping up at all major fronts and the number of bankruptcies on the rise, it looks as though Premier Lee Kuan Yew's oft-repeated warning that Singapore will face difficult times if there is a world economic slowdown is about to come true. Will Singapore be able as usual to rebound and give a new burst to its growth? Or will the economic bubble burst?' Sir, perhaps the Hon. Minister for Trade and Industry may want to give some facts and figures to show what the true position is. Secondly, Sir, in the Budget statement that was presented to this House recently, the Finance Minister said the following, and I quote from col. 487. 'Our free trade policy has served us well,and we will continue this policy. But we will have to work through GATT and other international organizations to press the case for a more liberal international trading system or at least to slow down further encroachments on free trade.' Sir, I would like to emphasize this point - that we should give our whole-hearted support to the GATT, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. This is a body which monitors trade restrictions around the world and it has been very successful in lowering tariffs in several rounds of multi-lateral negotiations. Unfortunately, Sir, even as tariff barriers have come down, non-tariff barriers like quotas, orderly marketing arrangements, voluntary export restraints and other protectionist devices, have come to the fore. And now we find increasing protectionism even in services and high technology products, areas which we have a vital interest in. So I would urge the Minister concerned to pay due attention to the GATT. I understand a new round of negotiations will be started fairly soon and we should be there in the forefront advocating free trade policies. At the same time, Sir, I believe that we should also be actively engaged in international fora, especially those that promote free trade. I was in Tokyo recently at such a forum and our Minister was invited but he failed to turn up. The next point I have, Sir, concerns the Economic Survey of Singapore, 1984. I am glad to note that over the years there have been significant improvements in the presentation of the Economic Survey. The standard of professionalism has gone up. But I see many authors contributing to various chapters. In Chapter 6 on Public Finance, there seems to be a little mix up. In Table 6.1, col. 617-8 the figure for expenditure for 1984 is given as $10.6 billion. But then when one gets to Charts 6.2 (a) and (b), Sources and Uses of Funds, suddenly the figure used is $14.1 billion and no explanation is given in the text. There is a minor footnote to Table 6.

1. But to the average reader, he will never understand why there is a tremendous jump from $10.6 billion to $14.1 billion. It could be a case of too many cooks spoiling the soup. Sir, I would also like to take up a point about manpower planning in Singapore. I am a little concerned that we seem to be varying our policy in regard to work permit holders in Singapore. Not too long ago, we were told that we will be phasing out work permit holders. Then this was amended to say that we will phase out workers from non-traditional sources. Now we are told that we will be more flexible. So I am at a loss to try and understand how this has come about. If manpower planning is conducted properly, I do not think we should get such gyrations in policy at all. I have a suspicion that perhaps the labour requirements for the new hotels that we have been building at a rapid rate have not been taken into account adequately in the manpower estimates. Neither have the manpower requirements for the many shopping centres and office complexes been taken into account adequately. I raised the point earlier in the estimates for the Ministry of Education that I felt perhaps we are under-producing graduates in Singapore, or rather too conservative in producing graduates. And the reason for my saying so is that if one looks at wage differentials between graduates and non-graduates, that differential seems to have been on the increase over the years. That is a sure indicator that there is excess demand for graduates. Further, Sir, in the planning assumptions, I suspect that the Ministry has not taken into consideration the fact that there are several areas in our economy that could benefit from having graduates instead of non-graduates performing the tasks. In America, for example, no one can be a teacher even in primary school without having a degree, but not so in Singapore.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to say a few words on the problem of Government companies. I think it is being widely believed that the Government has through its own companies, whether wholly owned or partially owned, been unduly interfering in the business of the private sector. Let me first say that I fully endorse the views expressed by the Minister of State for Trade and Industry a few days ago. Of the 24 wholly owned Government companies which have been started over the last 20 years, I think we will be hard pressed to find any of them which has not satisfied the primary criteria of Government entering into an area where the private sector avoided because of the risk. For example, the shipyards. The shipyard companies were established in the late 60s when we had to take over the assets of the naval bases. There were other instances where because of the high element of risk involved in the very heavy initial capital investment, Government had to take a hand in it. And included in this, of course is the national shipping line, Neptune Orient Lines. And going down to the other end of the scale, we have enterprises like Jurong Bird Park and the Zoological Gardens which, while not strictly within the economic sphere, but nevertheless were set up to encourage tourism. And we all know that it is not easy to run the Zoological Gardens or the Bird Park as viable enterprises. Hence the Government took an interest in these enterprises. There are two considerations, of course. One is the element of risk which the private sector is not prepared to take and, secondly, by having a company, the accounts can be properly kept and any subsidy in whatever form can be properly accounted for. But why the private sector's reservation about Government companies if this is true? I suspect it is because over time, many of these companies established by Government have deviated from the original objective when these companies were formed. And this deviation is a natural process. When the chief executive is put in charge of the company, he is not asked to achieve the original objectives set up by the company. His accountability is the bottom line. If the activities of the company are not giving him the kind of returns that he expects, then he has got to find other ways, whether going into diversification or entering into new business and I think this is where the problem started. Perhaps if we look into the activities of these companies, we will discover that it is not so much that the original objectives of these companies have been compromised but that the new activities taken over by the chief executive's concern have infringed into the private sector. It is in this regard that I welcome the initiative of the Ministry to set up a management panel to oversee the activities of these companies to ensure that the new activities taken on by these Government-owned companies, if they can be better managed by the private sector, these companies should abstain from these activities. My next question is that in the Finance Minister's Budget statement, he said that the Government is seriously thinking of divesting its interest in these companies to the private sector. What I would like to find out from the Minister is in what way will this be done, whether it is through a public listing where members of the public will have a chance to participate in these companies, or whether it will be restricted to people who are able to contribute to the running of the business, Perhaps it is not wise to open the activities of these companies or the shareholding of these companies to all and sundry. If we expect the enterprises to succeed, we must find the right expertise to handle these projects. And in view of the rather substantial investments that have been incurred in respect of Government-owned companies, I think some care has to be exercised in ensuring that whoever takes over the companies will, as far as possible, possess the expertise and the skills to develop these companies further. 4.15 pm Finally, it may be worthwhile for the Ministry to consider whether it is necessary to divest all these interests at the same time. Perhaps despite what the comments from our private sector are, there is merit in keeping some of these companies, either for the strategic purposes for which they were first established and whether it is not sufficient just to divest off some of the activities carried out by these companies rather than divesting the company altogether.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have two matters to raise with the Minister. The first is on economic incentives. Last week the Minister stressed the importance of local manufacturers in Singapore and that his Ministry was looking into other economic incentive schemes for local manufacturers. I have two suggestions for the Minister to consider. The first relates to technology transfer. As we all know, technology is acquired at great cost and through painstaking research and development, As a result, the owner of technology or expertise will not readily give up his rights unless he is well compensated. On the other hand, cheap and ready access to technology is what most of our local manufacturers will need to improve themselves and to diversify their business. Most of our local manufacturers are limited in manpower and other resources to undertake product and process development. The very fact that, since 1978 only 30 projects received grants of $2.7 million under the Product Development Assistance Scheme (PDAS), and this probably went to some 20-odd companies, is evidence of the difficulty of undertaking research and development. The situation can be improved if we extend the use of the PDAS or evolve or establish an entirely new economic incentive scheme to help our manufacturers in acquiring foreign technology through licensing arrangements. Presently, our local manufacturers are hampered as licensing is expensive. Besides the annual royalty based on sales, licensing is prohibitive because of the fee which has to be paid up-front. It is this initial fee which our manufacturers will need assistance. As the advantages of licensing arrangements are obvious and manifold, there is no need for me to elaborate. The other suggestion I have is on incentives for export marketing. Due to the limited market in Singapore, our local manufacturers must export their products. Exports give the local manufacturers (1) geographical diversification, and (2) increased sales volume. This kind of diversification will help the manufacturer to be less prone to cyclical market demands and the increased sales volume will hopefully help to lower the cost of products. However, export sales have long gestation periods and are difficult to organize. Hence, we should have more export incentives to encourage our smaller manufacturers to export. The scheme I have in mind is concessionary tax incentives on marginal increases in annual export sales. This can be an effective scheme and is established in various forms even in developed economies. The Minister may not agree with the form I have suggested, but incentives in these two areas will be a sorely needed shot in the arm for our local manufacturers. Sir, I wish to come to the other subject and I thank the Member for Clementi for bringing up this question of privatization of Government-owned enterprises. I suggest that this privatization process be extended to include statutory boards. Statutory bodies, such as Telecoms and the Public Utilities Board, meet certain criteria which, in my opinion, make privatization attractive. First, these boards require huge development funds and hence a huge capital base. Second, these organizations provide services which are used or consumed by a wide spectrum of our population, in fact, by every Singaporean. Lastly, these boards have successful track records. And privatization will give the public the opportunity to invest in safe and secure enterprises. Perhaps CPF savings will be allowed for investment in these enterprises. Such a d raw-down will serve partly to soak up the substantial level of CPF savings and this also opens up new avenues for CPF contributors,

Mr Speaker, Sir, last year in this House I raised the question of whether penalties will be increased for those people who were caught counterfeiting goods, and I raise this question again this year because of what I believe is a growing problem, particularly in the piracy of computer software or what we have now come to call as the imitation of intellectual property rights. My concern was drawn to this matter this year because recently we read that the failure on our part to combat this problem of the piracy of the intellectual property rights has led to certain countries threatening to withdraw whatever trading privileges that we enjoy with them. Could I have the comment of the Minister, please?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I did not submit an amendment. So I will be brief. Sir, the Hon. Minister for Finance in his Budget Speech has called for the private sector to be the engine of growth. I agree completely with this objective. However, Sir, to do the job, the private sector requires large amounts of capital. I am not implying in any way that there is insufficient private capital in Singapore. However, I believe that this capital is in the hands of the professionals and probably the senior corporate employees, and not in the hands of the entrepreneurs. This is because of our successful economy that has been led at one time or another by the multi-nationals, by the large corporations, by construction, by public Government spending. Sir, without any encouragement these capitals unfortunately are invested in relatively safe investments like bank deposits and the like, and not in riskier investments such as new technology companies. Sir, the future of Singapore lies not in building more mouse traps but in the invention and the designing of better mouse traps. And it is in these areas that the risk would be the greatest. Last year, an investment allowance was given to local companies to invest in new technological projects. This was, to quote the Minister then, "to encourage our local investors to venture into frontiers of technological advancement and should serve to broaden our present technological base." This year, Sir, I am disappointed that there was no follow-up in this direction. I hope that the Minister for Trade and Industry will consider this suggestion for next year's budget; which is to permit the investments of the individual taxpayers in new technological industries to be deducted against their assessable income if such investments fail. Proper controls to prevent abuse and the erosion of the tax base could be instituted; controls such as EDB-approved investments and, perhaps, limits on the amount of deduction allowable. Surely this will encourage the movement of capital from those who have to those who need. The Minister of State for Defence and Trade and Industry (BG Lee Hsien Loong): Mr Speaker, Sir, I will take up just a few of the points which the Members have raised so far, and continue tomorrow. The Member for Whampoa has commented on the state of our economy, the health of our economy, whether we are doing well, why is it that foreign press say we are doing badly. I have given my views. My Minister has also given his views. I do not wish to say anything more on this. Tomorrow, if there is time, I think my Minister will give him a further clarification. On GATT and free trade, indeed Singapore depends on trade for its livelihood. Any restrictions on free trade will threaten our life-blood, and our lines to the rest of the world. We know the international environment. We know that the pressures for protectionism are growing. We know that it influences not only the pattern of trade, but also the pattern of investment. So foreign investors, instead of investing in Singapore and then exporting from Singapore to America or Europe or Japan, switch to market investment. That means they set up a plant in America, produce in America, and sell in America; and that way avoid the problems of export, imports, taxation, quotas, and so on. It is a serious problem for us. We do support GATT. We do support international forums where free trade is being promoted. And although I did not make it to Tokyo, I promise the hon. Member for Whampoa that we take this very seriously. The Annual Economic Survey - I apologize for the inconsistency between Table 6.1 and Chart 6.

2. It is a technical problem. Table 6.1 excluded loans and grants to statutory boards, and Chart 6.2 included them. Both were prepared by the same cook, to use the Member's terminology. I have the reconciled figures which I shall give to the Member if he is interested. On manpower planning, he made two points. One is work permit holders: whether we have changed our policy, and how this ties in with hotels. And secondly, graduates: are we under-producing or over-producing? On work permit holders, the Minister for Finance has made a complete statement in his Budget Statement, and there was a comprehensive written reply yesterday from the Minister for Labour. So I do not propose to make any further comments. The policy, as stated, stands. New hotels. Did we misplan? I do not think so. Let us look at the numbers. We have a workforce of 1.2 million people. When we talk about new hotels, we are talking about 15,000 rooms, about 15,000 people. No government in the world plans its manpower to the last 11/2%, because most governments in the world work with unemployment rates which vary from 4% to 8%, to 12%. I think the Member for Whampoa, being a professional econom- ist, will understand that the private sector must make its own calculations in deciding whether or not to go ahead with investment, and whether or not they will find the workers for the jobs. I think I will stop here and go on to the rest of the points tomorrow.

You have three minutes more.

All right. One more point, extra graduates. We are underproducing graduates. Should we produce more,look for graduates in new areas? We have a committee called Committee on Professional and Technical Education (CPTE). It is a committee chaired by the Minister for Trade and Industry with representatives from all sectors, the educational institutions, the economic planning agencies and the Government Departments. It works out how many graduates we need, how many graduates we are able to train, year by year. It makes these calculations, making comparisons with other countries in comparable stages of their economic development. Do we have a shortage of graduates? If we go on the argument of wage differentials, I would say yes. Indeed, wages for our fresh graduates are high. We could do with more. Are we under-producing because we have miscalculated? I would say no. I have some figures here which I looked up, following the discussion in this House several days ago. They show whether we are, in fact, depriving people of chances to educate themselves. They show how our University intakes have risen by more than 10% per year each year for the last five years. In 1980 we have 3,000; 1981 3,400; 1982 3,900; 1983 4,200; 1984 4,441. This year we will have only 8,600 students taking 'A' levels. So almost half the students who take 'A' levels go on to University. And I do not think it is possible to expand our University intake faster than we have done. I think we will find graduates where we need to. Where there are specific areas of short-fall, we will give people entry permits to come and work in Singapore, but I would not blame problems with graduates on the CPTE. I think it is 4.30 pm.

Moment of interruption. Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply has made further progress on the Main and Development Estimates for the financial year 1st April, 1985 to 31st March, 1986, and ask leave to sit again tomorrow.

So be it.

Honourable Members, at 10.40 am today I received the following letter under the hand of Mr C.V. Devan Nair. The letter reads thus: 'Dear Sir LETTER OF RESIGNATION The doctors' reports on my medical condition,. referred to by the Prime Minister, and its consequences on the discharge of my presidential responsibilities, make it clear why I feel obliged to tender my resignation as President of the Republic of Singapore. Very few citizens can aspire to the high office of honour of the presidency of the Republic. I did not aspire to this office. Nonetheless, I was considered worthy of the honour by the Parliament of Singapore. I therefore regret that only a few months before my term of office is due to expire, on October 23, 1985, I should feel obliged to step down from my high office. I make it abundantly clear that the decision to do so is entirely my own. In my retirement, I shall continue to cherish the well-being and prosperity of the people of Singapore, whom I love, and have tried to serve to the best of my ability. Yours sincerely (Signed) C V DEVAN NAIR'

The Prime Minister has indicated to me that he would like to make a Statement in the House now. With the consent of Mr Speaker and the general assent of Members present,

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That the Statement be made by the Prime Minister and that the proceedings thereon be exempted at this day's sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1. - [Mr S. Dhanabalan].

Mr Speaker, Sir, the President was apparently well before he left on a private visit to Sarawak on Saturday, 9th March. Whilst in Sarawak, he developed symptoms of extreme weakness and exhaustion associated with mental confusion and bizarre behaviour. His condition caused such concern to the Sarawak State Physician, Dr Wong Chee Liang, that from Kuching on Thursday, 14th March, he phoned the President's personal Physician, Dr J.A. Tambyah in Singapore to inform him of the situation and to seek his advice on the management of the patient. The next day, Friday, 15th March, the Sarawak State Physician, Dr Wong, again telephoned Dr Tambyah to report that there had been no improvement in the President's condition. He then spoke to the Director of Medical Services, Dr Kwa Soon Bee, about the President's condition and his behaviour. He requested that the President's personal physician fly over immediately to Kuching to take over management of the patient and accompany him back to Singapore. Dr Tambyah, accompanied by a consultant psychiatrist, Dr Teo Seng Hock, went to Kuching on 16th March. They found the President in a confused and disorientated state. They made a provisional diagnosis of acute liver failure with mental changes. They accompanied the President back to Singapore the same evening of Saturday, 16th March. In the Singapore General Hospital, a panel of physicians investigated him and found no evidence to support the earlier diagnosis of liver failure. The panel consisted of Dr Tambyah, Dr Teo Seng Hock, Prof. Chan Heng Leong, consultant physician Dr Ho Kok Tong, consultant neurologist, Dr Loong Si Chin, and consultant psychiatrist, Dr R. Nagulendran. Of this panel, four - Dr Tambyah, Dr Ho, Dr Loong and Dr Nagulendran - are from the private sector. The physicians carried out a series of tests to exclude other causes for the symptoms. After a careful assessment of the President's mental state and from his previous history, they came to the conclusion that the President was suffering from an acute confusional state due to alcohol superimposed on a long-standing condition caused by alcohol dependency. The President's mental state at present fluctuates between lucidity and mild confusion, and disorientation. On Tuesday, 26th March, after receiving all the reports from the doctors, my colleague, Mr S. Rajaratnam, and I met Dr Kwa, Dr Tambyah, Prof. Chan, Dr Teo and Dr Nagulendran, to clarify the meaning of the reports, in particular, those of Dr Teo and Dr Naguiendran, the two psychiatrists. Dr Teo had completed his findings earlier, by the 21st of March. Because of the gravity of his findings, he asked that there be an independent examination and investigation. Dr Nagulendran, a consultant psychiatrist, was called in. He had come to the same findings on the 23rd March. Immediately following the discussion with the doctors, Rajaratnam and I, and the doctors, met Mrs Nair and Mr Janadas Devan, the President's eldest son, on Tuesday, 26th March. We explained the implications of the findings to them. After 11/2 hours of explanations and discussions, Mrs Nair, Mr Janadas Devan and Dr Tambyah left to see the President. Yesterday morning, Dr Tambyah told me that the President had decided to resign and that he had himself drafted the letter of resignation. I discussed the matter with my Cabinet colleagues at 5.00 yesterday afternoon. At about 6.30 pm, Rajaratnam and I went to see the President at SGH. The President signed his letter of resignation addressed to you, Mr Speaker, and handed it to me. I called for Dr Tambyah and Dr Kwa, and asked them, in the presence of the President and Rajaratnam, whether the President was lucid and that he understood what he had signed. Both in turn said that the President did. I have sent the letter to you, Mr Speaker, earlier today. Sir, when I moved his election to the office of President 3 1/2 years ago, on 23rd October, 1981, I recounted his many contributions to Singapore. I knew he would drink at social functions. But I have never seen him drunk or out of control of himself. All my Cabinet colleagues were also ignorant of his secret problem. Only his family and a few friends from earlier NTUC days knew of it. They did not tell me of this weakness, mistakenly believing that this was in his better interests. The first time I knew was on the night of Friday,15th March. Mrs Nair had asked me to see her after Dr Kwa and Dr Tambyah had seen her to discuss the President's curious behaviour in Kuching and Miri. She said she had wanted to tell me of his problem many times since 1979 but was dissuaded from doing so by her eldest son. This is an immense personal tragedy. In their final report, Dr Tambyah, Dr Teo, Prof. Chan said that, and I quote: 'He shows an impairment of judgment and insight and diminished self-control and sense of responsibility. His verbal ability and intellect and ability to rationalize are normal during the lucid state when he would appear normal to one who has not known him previously. To the immediate family and close friends, however, his personality and mental changes would be quite obvious' This morning, Miss Loo Wai Ho, Mr Devan Nair's personal secretary from NTUC days, sent me a letter from him. Amongst other things, he wrote: 'When you said that I had deceived you, it was like a stab in the heart. I did deceive you, but you got your chronology wrong that I had done so when you proposed me as President in October 1981. I did NOT deceive you. I considered myself only as a moderate social drinker. I was certainly not an alcoholic. 'About a year ago, I knew myself for a confirmed alcoholic. It was only then that the DECEPTION began. I occasionally thought of confiding in you but put things off.... The last time I was on the verge of confiding in you was when we met some two weeks ago in my office, before I left for Kuching. I had missed my last chance to come clean. 'I don't know what you will say in Parliament. Feel completely free to quote this letter if you like.' The panel of physicians has recommended that Mr Devan Nair be given intensive medical treatment over the next few weeks followed by a period of convalescence and rehabilitation, probably in a specialized centre overseas. Mr Speaker, honourable Members would want to join me in wishing him fortitude in his task of rehabilitation. With the help of his wife and family, he must find the strength and the stamina to break his dependency.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is with deep shock for me and, I am sure, for hon. Members, to learn from you that the President has tendered his resignation owing to the seriousness of his illness. He has striven to be a good President, to be worthy of the highest office in our land, doing his utmost for Singapore, With hon. Members' permission, may I, on their behalf and on my own behalf, extend to the President and to the family of the President our best wishes for a speedy recovery of the President.

Mr Speaker, Sir, on behalf of myself and my colleague on the Opposition Bench, may we express our own shock at the news that have just been told to us. Sir, my colleague and I had lunch with the President about six weeks ago and we little suspected that this was to come. We wish to express our concern for his health and wish him a speedy recovery.

Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn." -[Mr S. Dhanabalan.] Adjourned accordingly at Fourteen minutes to Five o'clock pm. [Copies of Tables distributed to Members.] - AVERAGE TAXI DRIVERS' GROSS TAKINGS PER MONTH, AVERAGE TAXI DRIVER'S MONTHLY COLLECTION WITH VARIOUS DEMAND SCENARIOS (One shift taxis), AVERAGE TAXI DRIVER'S MONTHLY COLLECTION WITH VARIOUS DEMAND SCENARIOS (Two shift taxis) (Cols. 1689 - 1692)