Hansard, 1987-08-31

Under the provisions of clause 2(d) of Article 46 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, the following Members have been granted permission to be or to remain absent from sittings of Parliament (or any Committee of Parliament to which they have been appointed) for the periods stated:- Mr Wong Kan Seng (Kuo Chuan), Minister for Community Development and Second Minister for Foreign Affairs and Leader of the House - from 15th to 24th August, 1987. Dr Ang Kok Peng (Buona Vista) - from 16th to 18th August, 1987. Mr Goh Chee Wee (Boon Lay) - from 21st August to 22nd September, 1987. Mr S. Chandra Das (Chong Boon) - from 23rd to 26th August and from 1st to 14th September, 1987. Dr Lau Teik Soon (Serangoon Gardens) - from 24th to 29th August, 1987. Mr Lee Yiok Seng (Bukit Panjang), Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development and Government Whip - from 26th August to 6th September, 1987. Mr Lim Chee Onn (Bukit Merah) - on 27th and 28th August and from 15th to 22nd September, 1987. Dr Wong Kwei Cheong (Cairnhill) - from 27th to 29th August, 1987. Dr Dixie Tan (Ulu Pandan) - from 28th to 31st August, 1987. Mr Goh Choon Kang (Braddell Heights) - from 28th August to 6th September, 1987. Encik Yatiman Yusof (Kampong Kembangan), Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs - from 28th August to 5th September, 1987. Mr Ong Teng Cheong (Kim Keat), Second Deputy Prime Minister - from 28th August to 12th September, 1987. Mr Tang See Chim (Chua Chu Kang) - from 31st August to 30th September, 1987. Dr Ow Chin Hock (Leng Kee) - from 31st August to 5th September, 1987. Dr Toh Chin Chye (Rochore) - on 31st August, 1987. Mr Lee Yock Suan (Cheng San), Minister for Labour - from 31st August to 10th September, 1987. Dr Richard Hu Tsu Tau (Kreta Ayer), Minister for Finance - from 1st September to 6th October, 1987. Mr Sia Khoon Seong (Moulmein) - from 3rd to 12th September, 1987. Mr Heng Chiang Meng (Jalan Kayu) - from 7th to 9th September, 1987. Dr Yeo Ning Hong (Kim Seng), Minister for Communications and Information and Second Minister for Defence (Policy) - from 7th to 10th September, 1987. Mr S. Dhanabalan (Kallang), Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for National Development - from 7th September to 2nd October, 1987. Mr E.W. Barker (Tanglin), Minister for Law - from 8th to 13th September, 1987. Encik Abbas Abu Amin (Pasir Panjang) - from 9th to 15th September, 1987. YEOH GHIM SENG Speaker Parliament of Singapore

The following Bills were assented to by the President of the Republic of Singapore on the date stated: 8th August, 1987 (i) Poisons (Amendment) Bill; (ii) Rubber Dealers (Amendment) Bill; (iii) Mass Rapid Transit Corporation (Amendment) Bill; (iv) Public Transport Council Bill; (v) Public Service (Variation of 1984 Annual Wage Increases) Bill; and (vi) Land Titles (Strata) (Amendment) Bill. YEOH GHIM SENG Speaker Parliament of Singapore

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether he will ask the British Government for an explanation why it did not treat Tan Wah Piow as an illegal immigrant and did not deport him when it was known that he entered the United Kingdom on a forged document.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has pointed out in a diplomatic note to the British High Commission in Singapore that the British authorities had not taken action to deport Tan Wah Piow after it was known that he had entered the United Kingdom on falsified documents. The Ministry has requested an explanation of the reasons for this position and the present status of Tan Wah Piow which allows him to continue residing in the UK. A reply to the note is expected soon.

The following question stood in the name of Mr Heng Chiang Meng. 2. To ask the Minister for National Development whether the new policy of giving a cash grant of $26,000 per premises to shopkeepers in temporary structures will be applicable to those shopkeepers already resettled but who are currently awaiting allocation of alternative shop accommodation.

Question 2, Sir.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as at 31st December 1986, there were 80 shopkeepers in temporary structures who had been resettled and who were waiting for shops which they had requested. These 80 shopkeepers were offered HDB shops over the first seven months of this year. Fifty of them accepted shops which were allocated to them. The other 30 either did not respond to the letters asking them to select from a list of shops or they responded but were unsuccessful in obtaining the shops of their choice. They were given a last chance to accept an offer of shops prior to the policy announcement on 28th July 1987, but they turned it down. The new policy of cash compensation will not apply to these cases. Besides these, there are no other cases which fall into the category described by the Member. All other resettlement cases who were still staying on site on 28th July 1987, will be subject to the new policy, ie, they will be given cash compensation and no alternative shops on priority will be offered to them. They will, however, enjoy a preferential margin of 5% or 10% when they tender for HDB rental shops. It has always been the practice, whenever a change in Resettlement Policy is introduced, that the change is applied to those on whom clearance notices have been served but who are still on the site.

asked the Minister for National Development whether, during the present rental flat relocation exercise, the Housing and Development Board was able to relocate all the tenants to nearby neighbourhood, as promised by his predecessor.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the experience so far shows that about 50% of the tenants affected by the relocation exercise take the opportunity to buy flats whilst the other 50% want to continue to rent HDB flats. For tenants who want to buy flats, the HDB will offer them new flats according to their preference in the Outer Suburban and New Town Zones where the majority of the new flats are available. As for tenants who want to continue to rent, vacant flats may not be available in the areas which they prefer. HDB will try its best to allocate the affected tenants alternative rental flats within the same estates. Where alternative rental flats in the same estate are fully taken up, the tenants will be allocated rental flats in neighbouring estates. The record to date shows that HDB has managed to allocate rental flats in the same or nearby estates to about 75% of the tenants who wanted to continue renting flats. The rest were allocated rental flats further away.

asked the Minister for Education what problems were encountered during the recent Primary 1 registration exercise pertaining to the 25% limit for Malay pupil enrolment and what steps his Ministry will take to rectify anomalies that have arisen, for example, parents not given the opportunity to register their child in the school where their elder child is studying.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am answering on behalf of my Minister. At the request of the Malay Members of Parliament, a limit of 25% was placed on the intake of Primary 1 Malay pupils in this year's Pre-primary and Primary 1 registration exercise. The main problem encountered in the exercise was that in certain geographical zones with a high concentration of Malays, some Malay children were unable to enrol in the neighbourhood schools of their choice. The Ministry will offer the unplaced Malay children places in schools nearest to the school of registration but which still have vacancies and are within the 25% limit. If parents prefer, they can opt for schools where their children are registered regardless of the 25% limit. The 25% limit did not apply to Malay children seeking admission under Phase 1 of the Pre-primary and Primary 1 registration exercise. If the Member for Eunos can give me details where this ruling has been violated, I shall look into this matter.

asked the Minister for Education what studies have been made to justify limiting the enrolment of Malay students to 25% each school and whether such a policy will create other problems.

Sir, I am answering on behalf of my Minister again. Statistics show that Malay children in primary schools with a high concentration of Malay pupils performed poorly in PSLE as compared with their counterparts in schools with a lower proportion of Malay pupils. Where Malay pupils comprised 30% or more of the school enrolment, over one-third of them failed their PSLE. The failure rate among Malay pupils in schools where they formed not more than 10% of the school population was less than 20%. With regard to the second part of the question, I have dealt with the matter in my reply to the question from the Member for Eunos.

Sir, it would appear that this policy is based purely on educational considerations. Has the Minister taken into account the cultural, social and other practical problems arising from this policy?

Sir, this policy was taken up as a result of a request from the Malay Members of Parliament who are well acquainted with the failure rates as well as the success rates of Malay pupils in different schools.

Sir, it is obvious that the Minister has not made a thorough study of this matter. Is the Minister now willing to carry out a study on whether there would be other problems when this policy is implemented?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not sure what the Member means that the Ministry has not made a thorough study of this matter. Perhaps he would like to bring out some instances of this.

Sir, I was thinking whether or not it would disorientate the Malay students if you put them in smaller groups; whether they will feel more insecure. There are other problems arising. So I do not know whether the Ministry should go in-depth into this before they put a limit on a minority group.

I hope the Member for Potong Pasir understands that the school environment has an effect on the language pupils use in school. And in schools with a high concentration of Malay pupils the tendency is for them to speak in Malay. This is a natural thing to do. But if this is allowed to persist in a school, then their English will, in the long run, suffer. Language, Mr Speaker, Sir, is the key to the acquisition of knowledge. If a pupil is unable to understand a language, which in our case here is English, then he is unable to receive information or knowledge in that language. It is therefore very important, Sir, that this problem is met as soon as possible. What I would like to emphasize here again, Sir, is that over-concentration of people of one race in a particular place works against our racial harmony and social contact which are very essential in our multi-racial society.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I be allowed to reply? Just to say a few words.

You are not allowed to reply, Mr Chiam.

The Minister for the Environment has been given a chance to speak.

You are allowed to ask supplementary questions. If you do not have any, do sit down.

All right. May I ask the Minister this question. This problem is an educational problem. Does the Minister not think that they should deal with it in an educational way, ie, perhaps reduce the number of pupils in a class, or perhaps give the poorer pupils extra tuition? If this is an educational problem, then I think it should be tackled by educational methods and theories, and not to arbitrarily limit the enrolment of one minority group in a school. In other words, they would have lost the choice of their own school. I think you should tackle the problems correctly and not just arbitrarily stop the pupils from going to the school of their own choice. The other point is ---

Mr Chiam, where is your supplementary question?

--- that there is nothing to stop Malay pupils from gathering and speaking in Malay even if it is limited to 25%.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the points that the Member has made regarding smaller class sizes, remedial classes and so on, have been taken because these are measures which we are already implementing in our schools. As for a smaller group of Malay pupils in a school, there are schools today with enrolments of 5% or 10% Malay pupils.

Sir, may I be allowed to say a few words?

Yes.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there is no question of limiting the choice of any pupil. If the Member has heard accurately the answer given by the Minister of State to the question from the Member for Eunos, then he would know that what we have done for those Malay children who have not been able to get a place in the school of registration at the first time because of the 25% limit is to offer them a place in a school as close as possible to their school of registration but where the 25% limit has not been reached. But if the parents prefer, as stated by my Minister of State, and provided the school of registration still has vacancies, then the parents can register their child and the child can go to the preferred school of registration. But the choice is up to the parents. As the Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs has already stated, there are sound educational grounds for limiting or lowering the enrolment of Malay Primary 1 children in schools. Where there are concentrations of Malay children, there is a natural tendency for them to gather together and to talk in Malay. I think, Mr Speaker, Sir, what the Member is suggesting will be detrimental to the interest of the Malay community, and particularly to the interest of the Malay children themselves. As he says, this is an educational problem. We are trying to deal with it in an educational way. Where there are other cultural problems, I am sure they will be looked into by my Ministry and by Mendaki with the assistance of the Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs. Much obliged, Mr Speaker, Sir.

May I ask the Minister. He says that he has dealt with this problem from an educational point of view. Can he quote me instances where the failure rate in schools which have more than 30% Malay intake is fairly high? What educational methods have they used to solve this problem other than limiting the intake to 25%?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the answer has already been given by my Minister of State. I do not think we should repeat the answer again.

asked the Minister for Education how the establishment of independent schools will benefit other schools in Singapore and what measures will be taken to ensure that admission to the independent schools will be available to all children who qualify regardless of the financial circumstances.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government has repeatedly explained that the establishment of independent schools will not be solely for the benefit of the children in these schools. The purpose of establishing independent schools is to have role models to enable us to see how the education system can be improved in order to help each pupil to realize his or her full potential. This, Sir, must be our ultimate objective. Independent schools can do many things. They will be able to innovate and introduce creative educational programmes with the minimum of bureaucracy. These innovations can then be extended to other schools. Also, in recruiting principals and teachers in a competitive market, independent schools will also help to set the market value of good principals and good teachers. This in turn will help us to determine what remuneration the Government must offer in order to attract good people to join the teaching service and, just as important, to retain them. In providing quality education for their pupils, independent schools will therefore set high standards which will serve as benchmarks for schools in Singapore. In this way, the benefits of the independent schools can be spread throughout our whole education system. Now, Sir, admission to independent schools will not depend on the financial circumstances of parents or their ability to pay fees. To ensure that bright but needy children who cannot pay the fees are not denied admission to independent schools, the Government has set up a financial assistance scheme for these pupils. The Government will provide the full subsidy of school fees for pupils from families with a monthly household income of $800 or less or with a monthly household income per dependent child of $400 or less. There will also be a half-subsidy of school fees for pupils from families with a monthly household income of between $800 and $1,200 or a monthly household income per dependent child of between $400 and $600. Pupils can apply for financial assistance at any point in their school career and they will enjoy the assistance throughout their entire school career. They will also be eligible to apply for other assistance schemes. Sir, the independent schools are also setting up their own endowment funds which, among other objectives, will seek to provide financial assistance to needy pupils over and above that which is provided by the Government. The Government will encourage the establishment of these endowment funds by, first, making the donations to the endowment funds tax exempt and, secondly, making a start- up donation of $1 million on a dollar-for-dollar basis to each of the endowment funds. Sir, with the financial assistance provided by the Government and the further assistance to be provided by the endowment funds of the independent schools, there should be no doubt in anyone's mind that admission to the independent schools will be open to all pupils who qualify regardless of their financial circumstances.

Sir, the Government support for the endowment funds is a very positive move. Can I ask the Minister whether the Government support for the independent schools' endowment fund will be extended to other schools which would like to set up their own funds, regardless of whether they are independent or Government?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member has asked a very important question which is a natural follow-up of his first question and I believe it deserves a careful answer. With your permission, Sir, I would like to read out the answer which I have prepared. The answer to the Member's supplementary question, Sir, is, in principle, yes, provided that the school comes up with a well-conceived plan for the management and for the use of the school's endowment fund. This would be open to other schools as well, not only the independent schools. Let me give you an example. Raffles Institution. The school has informed the Ministry that the majority of parents of RI students and the Old Rafflesians are of the view that Raffles Institution should build up an endowment fund to help defray the cost of improving RI's educational programmes before the school considers changing its present status as a Government school. With an endowment fund, RI would then be in a better position at some future date to decide whether or not to go independent. Consequently, the Old Rafflesians Association and the Raffles Institution School Advisory Committee have decided to take the necessary action to build up an endowment fund. I am happy to inform Members that the Government will support RI's efforts in the same way as for the independent schools.

asked the Minister for the Environment (a) if he will give a progress report on the pilot project to use disposable crockery in selected hawker centres; (b) whether hawkers will be allowed to revert to the use of normal crockery if the project proves to be unpopular; and (c) when will his Ministry enforce the use of disposable crockery in all hawker centres if it deems the project successful.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am answering on behalf of my Minister. The Ministry introduced disposable crockery in five food centres in February this year. Since then, another six food centres have also joined in. Disposable crockery was introduced as a means to upgrade the cleanliness and standard of hygiene in our food centres. During the past six months, it has been observed that the 11 food centres using disposable crockery are much cleaner. They are better organized. In the past, before disposable crockery was introduced, it was common to see tables cluttered with soiled dishes and leftover food. A customer wanting to use the table would have to wait patiently for the stallholders to come and remove their respective crockery. It was also common to see stacks of soiled dishes and leftover food placed by the side of the stalls, against some pillar or wall, awaiting collection by the respective stallholders. Then there was the problem of washing. As it was, the stalls were already crowded with all sorts of cooking paraphernalia. Within the confined space, stallholders would have to prepare and cook their food. When they also had to scrap off the leftover food into a bin placed inside the stall and wash dishes within their stalls, it is not difficult to imagine the mess that was created. The crockery could not have been very thoroughly washed. All too often, the floor traps were choked with food scraps and the stalls were wet and dirty. With disposable crockery, we can have a very efficient system of clearing tables. Everything on the table goes straight into the trash bin. There is no more leftover food lying about, no more soiled crockery on the floor and no more washings within the stalls. Some hawkers are not happy with the use of disposable crockery because it means slightly more operating costs to them. Cleanliness and hygiene may not be foremost in their minds. There is an increasing consumer demand for cleaner eating places. If food centres cannot be kept clean and hygienic, then they may eventually lose out to the cleaner restaurants, eating houses and private food centres. The Ministry is satisfied that the use of disposable crockery is very suited for food centres and the advantages far outweigh the disadvantages. The food centres that are now using disposable crockery will be required to continue to use disposable crockery. The Ministry will also be getting more food centres to use disposable crockery in the near future.

asked the Minister for Communications and Information whether bus fares and taxi fares will be raised either in anticipation of or on the coming into operation of the Mass Rapid Transit system.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Public Transport Council Bill was recently debated and passed at the last sitting of this House and has since been enacted. One of the functions of the Council is to receive and consider applications on fares from bus and taxi operators. The Council in making its decision must safeguard the public's interest and also take into account the financial viability of the operators. So far, the Council has not received any application from taxi operators and bus operators.

Sir, can the Minister assure the House that he will urge the operators to keep any fare changes to a minimum or, better still, not to have any fare increase at all?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Ministry is always concerned with the welfare of the commuters and has already advised the operators to bear in mind the concerns of commuters and also to take into consideration the fact that the MRT system will be phased in over a period of some three years. Also, particularly at this time, the operators should also bear in mind the fact that our workers have voluntarily exercised wage restraint. The operators have assured the Ministry that they will bear these factors in mind when they conduct their studies which are currently near completion. Sir, I am confident that with the newly established Public Transport Council which will look after the interests of the commuters, the Council will not approve any increase unless there are justifications for it.

Can the Minister please tell this House when he thinks the new fare structures for the bus, taxis and MRT will be announced?

Sir, I mentioned in my reply that the studies are nearing completion. I expect them to provide the information to the public very soon.

The following Question stood in the name of Mr Heng Chiang Meng -

To ask the Minister for Finance whether he will consider giving tax relief to persons providing financial care for their younger siblings in situations where their parents are unable to do so.

Question No. 9, Sir.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Jalan Kayu will no doubt be already aware that our income tax system is a progressive one. Reliefs, though necessary, are by its very nature regressive. Expanding on our present system of dependants' relief would merely allow taxpayers with higher assessable incomes to benefit more in comparison to the lower income groups. I do not therefore propose to consider further revisions to our present system of dependants' relief. A general reduction in our individual tax rates is a more equitable one. The Government has over the years sought to reduce the burden of the individual taxpayer. Our tax rates have been reduced five times during the Years of Assessment 1978, 1980, 1982, 1985 and 1987. The complementary policy of granting tax rebates has been practised from Assessment Year 1984.

asked the Minister for Trade and Industry whether the rapid expansion in the labour-intensive electronics industry will create the same labour problems for Singapore as in the recent past when there were as many as 150,000 foreign workers in Singapore.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as the Singapore economy has recovered, more jobs have been created. Unemployment has declined from a peak of 6.5% in June last year to 4.7% in June this year. The electronics industry, whose output in the first half of this year increased by 35%, has created exceptionally many jobs. With further steady growth projected for the rest of 1987, there is a danger of a labour shortage resulting in job-hopping and high wage increases. The labour shortage can be eased in two ways - either by increasing the supply or the price of labour. In other words, either by finding more workers, or by raising wages, which means costs. There is a limit to the number of additional Singaporean workers available to join the workforce in the next few months. This is because our population is only expanding slowly - less than 1% a year - and also because there are fewer school leavers in the second half of the year. Any immediate increase in labour supply must therefore come from foreign workers. The Government's policy is to use foreign workers as a buffer to cushion the swings in our economic cycle. This year as the economy has expanded, the number of foreigners on work permits has steadily increased. The Government intends to allow a continued controlled inflow of foreign workers to our factories over the next few months. Another possible source of labour are the older unemployed Singaporean workers. Many lost their jobs in the recession. Most have been re-employed, but some are having difficulties finding new jobs. The Government has a duty to look after their interests. The best way of doing this is to generate economic growth, and create new and productive jobs for them. The number of unemployed male workers aged 35 and above has declined from 19,900 last June to 15,400 this June. Many employers, especially in electronics, prefer younger workers (often work permit holders) to older ones. They find the younger ones better educated, easier to train, cheaper to hire, and sometimes more productive. The Government would like to encourage employers to exercise more flexibility in hiring older workers. But we cannot keep out all foreign workers until the last Singaporean is hired. It is not true that letting in foreign workers causes local unemployment. If Singaporeans do not have the skills needed for the jobs which are available, keeping out foreign workers will merely worsen the shortage of trained Singaporeans, not increase the employment of untrained ones. Our economy will become overheated, and the danger of another boom-and-bust cycle will be increased. The older workers themselves must therefore also do their part. They must make the effort. They have to equip themselves with the basic skills and render themselves attractive to employers. The Government has organized programmes like BEST and MOST to help them. They should make the most of these opportunities. In the problems of these older workers lies a lesson for all Singaporeans. We must acquire new skills while on the job, not after losing it. As we grow older, we must never allow ourselves to become obsolete, difficult to retrain but easy to retrench. On the price side, how much wages workers demand depends partly on their expectations. Memories of the recession are still fresh. Singaporeans realize that good times do not last forever, and that it is unwise to try to squeeze the maximum out of employers in a boom year. Union leaders too understand the importance of moderation and restraint. This has helped to hold down wage increases, and make our wage restraint policy a success. The Minister for Labour has announced that if the economy continues to do well, then the first adjustment to the CPF contribution rates will take place in July next year. The Government has deliberately stated its intentions early, so that knowledge of this impending adjustment to CPF rates can restrain the wage settlements which are reached this year. Companies which may be tempted to grant over-generous wage increases are forewarned. When the CPF rates are raised, they should have no reason to complain that the Government has raised their costs unexpectedly. The NWC statement for 1987 already provides for companies which are doing exceptionally well to make bonus payments in line with their profits and productivity performance. The NTUC Secretary-General has suggested a year-end bonus for the public sector. 1DPM has endorsed the idea of a small one-time year-end bonus of up to one week's wages, but only provided the economy grows strongly - say, by more than 7% - and productivity improves significantly. However, I stress that no decision to pay the bonus has been made. The Government intends to wait for the third quarter economic results before deciding. We should not count our chickens too soon. Successful companies in the private sector can follow this lead. Such a conditional and variable bonus would be a fair reward to workers for their efforts and sacrifices during the recession, without locking in employers to paying the same in future years which may not be so rosy. In parallel with the more detailed company by company negotiations on wage reform, such a bonus will also firmly establish the principle of flexible wages in our economy. Managing a tight labour market depends not only on the Government, but also on the private sector. Wage settlements are voluntary agreements between employers and employees. The NTUC has stated that it is not for the unions to turn down any over-generous offers from the employers. The Government agrees with this view. Discipline and good sense must come from the employers themselves. They have to calculate the long term interests of the firm, and reward their workers in ways which are fair and sustainable. They can depend on a responsible union leadership and on the support and cooperation of the Government. I hope that in a tightening labour market, employers will maintain their perspective and do their part in preventing a recurrence of the mistakes which contributed to our last recession.

Mr Speaker, Sir, would the Hon. Minister agree that one way to safeguard the interests of our older retrenched workers is to insist that all firms hire a certain minimum quota of Singaporeans?

Mr Speaker, Sir, that is one way, but I am not sure that is the best way. In the labour market, as in so many other areas of the economy, who hires whom, who buys what, at what price, is best left to market forces to decide, as the hon. Member for Whampoa has many times reminded us in this House, as an economist. We can encourage employers to hire older workers. I think we should. We can encourage them and pressure them not to discriminate unfairly against older workers. But in the end, the employer has a responsibility to hire the person best able to make a contribution to the firm, and not merely be a burden on the payroll and be a token gesture of charity. So we cannot force employers to hire older workers. I think we have to make the older workers more productive. We have to get them retrained. We can find ways to help retrain them, as I said, through BEST and MOST, and we will look for other ways as well. But I do not think that coercion will lead either to greater welfare or to higher economic growth.

Mr Speaker, Sir, is the Hon. Minister aware of the biases, distortions, introduced by the Work Permit policy in that bigger firms, hotels and enterprises are free to import virtually all the labour that they want, while the smaller firms, usually local and Singaporean firms, cannot find any foreign workers, and are not allowed to import any? There are these biases that must be corrected?

I am aware that some employers may be prejudiced against older workers. The Minister for Labour has mentioned it and it has been published in the newspapers. But there is no bias in the Work Permit policy against local firms. Not every sector of the economy can bring in foreign workers. We have confined it to construction, to manufacturing, to hotels and domestic maids. I speak from memory on behalf of the Minister for Labour. I think it is right that we confine import of foreign workers to individual sectors where the problem can be contained. In construction, during a boom there is tremendous demand for workers. The boom does not last forever. After it is over, these foreign workers are retrenched, and they go home. In manufacturing, the turnover of workers is high, and the fluctuations are also large. In electronics, where there has been 35% growth, there are shortages. It is the most sensible place to allow in additional workers. They will meet the temporary shortfall, which will not last forever. In the next manufacturing recession, the numbers will be reduced. In other sectors of the economy where the fluctuations are not primary but derivative and smaller, to allow in foreign workers is to make ourselves permanently dependent on a foreign source of labour. We cannot disengage. If you are operating a department store or a supermarket, the requirement for workers does not go up and down. It stays the same. The business does not go up and down. What goes up and down is the ease with which you can find workers and perhaps the effort you must make to recruit them. But if we allow in foreigners into these sectors - retail, department stores, local small restaurants - then we will be permanently hooked. And I think the objective which the NTUC Secretary-General mentioned, and many labour MPs I am sure will heartily second - that we should encourage employers to hire Singaporeans rather than blindly depend on foreign workers for all their needs, no matter how peripheral - that objective will never get achieved. I am sure the Member for Whampoa also subscribes to that objective.

Sir, is the Minister aware that under our present wage system, the cost of hiring older workers is necessarily higher than younger workers, and that if we leave the entire decision on hiring to the employer, other things being equal, the employer would hire younger workers instead of retaining the older workers?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am aware of that. In fact, that was one of the primary motivations for wage reform. Workers have to be paid in accordance with their output and productivity. The expectations of some older workers may not be completely in line with what they are able to produce or in line with their contribution. And if they want employers to hire them, then these expectations will have to be revised. And I encourage the Member for Chua Chu Kang to make some speeches to affect these expectations downwards.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister has mentioned that one of the ways to ease the labour shortage is to allow a controlled inflow of foreign workers. I believe that policy is being pursued at the moment. I would like to ask the Minister to what extent or to what percentage of our total labour force will foreign workers finally be limited.

I should explain that we bring in foreign workers not to swell our labour force but to provide ourselves some flexibility to expand and contract. Our labour force, as I said, is expanding at about 1% a year. Why? Because 18 years ago too few babies were born. Can we fix it? Yes, but it will take 18 years. Foreign workers cannot solve that problem. Foreign workers can help to buffer rapid expansions and rapid contractions, so that all of the tightness is not taken up either in a wage explosion during a boom year, or in high Singapore worker unemployment during a recession year. The numbers of foreign workers are going up. How far can they go? Well, they are still some considerable distance below the peak that was reached in the last boom. We are watching the situation carefully, not just in terms of numbers of workers and percentages but also the side effects which are created "socially and culturally", to use the Member's words. As long as the side effects are containable, as long as we think that this is a temporary surge, we will allow in foreign workers. But if it goes beyond that point, eg, many of them overstay or want to settle down and marry Singaporeans, then some measures must be taken to tighten it. The Member would be aware that we have changed our rules on work permits so that all work permit holders come in on a $140 per month levy rather than on CPF. The reason we did this is because we wanted to use the levy as a control mechanism. If the numbers escalate out of control, we can tighten by raising the levy and choking back the demand. I hasten to add that we have no plans to do anything like that at the moment, but the mechanism is in place.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it was a very lengthy answer but the Minister has not answered my point yet. To what level the Government will stop the inflow of foreign workers, 10%, 11% or 12% of our total labour force, or what? Or when the need arises, it can expand as high as it could go? Is that the policy?

Our policy is to have a controlled inflow. We do not have an absolute limit in mind. But I very much doubt that foreign workers would exceed one-quarter of our labour force.

asked the Acting Minister for Health whether his Ministry will consider waiving or reducing the attendance fees at Government outpatient clinics for handicapped or disabled inmates of welfare homes.

Mr Speaker, Sir, my Ministry is already granting free outpatient and inpatient medical treatment to all residents of welfare homes run by the Ministry of Community Development and approved voluntary welfare organizations. For residents in other welfare homes, my Ministry will grant free medical treatment to those who are issued with a Medical Fee Exemption Card (MFEC) by the Ministry of Community Development. I would like to assure the House that my Ministry will always accord special consideration to the indigent whether they are handicapped or not.

Sir, what are the criteria for the eligibility of the Medical Fee Exemption Card?

The criteria will include factors like whether they have children who are able to support them, whether they have a Medisave account, the amount of savings that they have, and whether the household members' incomes qualify under the means test as determined by the Ministry of Finance.

asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the Housing and Development Board will review the down payment requirement in order to encourage more home ownership; and (b) what other steps will be taken to encourage more HDB home ownership.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am replying on behalf of my Minister. Sir, anyone who wants to purchase an HDB flat has to pay a 20% downpayment at the time of registration. The downpayment is a good indicator of the seriousness and ability of an applicant to purchase a flat. A downpayment has always been required since HDB started selling flats. An applicant can use his or her CPF account to make the downpayment. Most purchasers, in fact, use CPF for the downpayment. In December 1985, HDB reviewed the requirement to make it easy for the low income group to purchase homes. As a result, HDB introduced the Low Income Family Incentive Scheme. Under this scheme, applicants need to pay only: (a) 5% downpayment to buy a 3-room or 4-room Simplified (S) flat; (b) or if they want to buy a larger flat such as the 4-room Model A, they have to pay 10% downpayment at the time of registration and the remaining 10% when they are allocated a flat. Besides the lower downpayments, the HDB also provides a larger mortgage loan of 95% of the sale price of the 3-room or 4S flat, instead of the normal 80% mortgage loan. The applicants purchasing a 3-room or 4S flat can also choose to make monthly instalment repayments under one of the four HDB special repayment schemes. These special repayment schemes allow the purchasers to make smaller payments during the initial years and the amount is increased in the later years. The following groups of applicants are eligible for the scheme: (a) those who now live in HDB rental flats; (b) those who are on the waiting list to rent HDB flats; and (c) Anyone who wants to purchase an HDB flat whose gross household income does not exceed $800 per month. As at 31st July 1987, there were 11,092 applicants who had registered to purchase flats under this incentive scheme. In addition to the above concession, all tenants who are living in flats affected by the relocation programme can register to buy flats without any downpayment. Sir, the above measures to encourage home ownership are considered sufficient. The HDB does not intend to introduce further measures.

asked the Minister for National Development when computerized traffic directional display boards will be installed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, computerized traffic directional display boards are signboards mounted on the expressways. They display various messages to the drivers on traffic and weather conditions on the road. They are operated by a central computer. The PWD has only invited tenders for consultancy on the installation of the system. If found feasible, tenders for the implementation of the system are expected to be called by the end of 1988 and the first signboards should be installed before the end of 1989.

Question 14, Sir. I wish to declare my interest that I am a teacher and the question is asked in the interest of the teaching profession.

asked the Minister for Education if he will comment on a report that more teachers are suffering from stress as a result of, amongst other things, a heavier workload in schools.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am replying on behalf of my Minister. Although my Ministry does not have records to show that more teachers are suffering from stress, I agree with the Member that a teacher's job today is more demanding for two reasons. First, our children in school are better exposed and more knowledgeable than those of a generation ago and hence much more is demanded by them from the teachers. Secondly, parents, being better educated now, expect a great deal more from our teachers. Sir, parents can help lessen the teacher's burden by spending time in guiding their children and playing a more active role in supervising their children after school. The education of a child, as we all know, depends as much on the parents as on the teachers.

Sir, can the Minister of State assure the House that as of now the state of health of teachers is good and it is far from the poor impression given?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I can assure the Member that the state of health of our teachers is good, if not, very good.

Sir, will the Minister of State inform the House whether there are figures indicating the percentage of teachers who have left the service as a result of stress?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I cannot give a breakdown of the reasons why teachers leave the teaching service. But I can tell the Member that as a whole the percentage of teachers who leave the teaching service in any one year is less than 2%.

Sir, can the Minister say whether or not this stress could be contributed by the extra administrative work that has been put on the teachers? I hear that the teachers these days have to record their lessons and they have to do all kinds of things in addition to their work load.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think teachers a generation ago had as much administrative work to do as they do today. Perhaps they even had more to do. I remember there were teachers in the rural schools who had to make sure that chickens did not come into the classroom and do a lot of things of that kind. So I do not that it is any more today than it was a generation ago.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I can speak from experience. I was a teacher for about 10 years in Singapore and I hardly did any administrative work, if I could remember. I only concentrated on teaching and extra- curricular activities. How can you say that former teachers had to do greater administrative work?

Mr Speaker, Sir, there is a certain amount of administrative work that every teacher must do, eg, keeping class registers, collecting school fees from pupils of the class at the beginning of every month. But a lot of the administrative work, such as compiling examination grades and working out the percentages these days, is being done by computers as we are providing schools with microcomputers and links with the central computer of the Ministry.

asked the Minister for Education how many parents with three children have made use of the priority for a 3-child family for admission into the 1988 pre-primary and primary one classes.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the registration of children for admission to Pre-primary and Primary 1 classes in 1988 ended on 17th August, 1987. The Ministry is presently processing the registration forms and compiling statistics. When the data are available, I shall send them to the Member for Yuhua and to other Members of the House for information.

The following Question stood in the name of Mr Goh Choon Kang - 16. To ask the Minister for National Development when the development of Serangoon Central will be completed and whether a hawker or cooked food centre will be built there.

Question 16, Sir.

Mr Speaker, Sir, all the 5,000 dwelling units at Serangoon Central have been completed. As regards the development of Serangoon Town Centre in Serangoon Central, three contracts have been called so far. The facilities to be provided under these contracts include a bus interchange and commercial facilities such as a mini-supermarket and lock-up shops. They are scheduled for completion by the end of 1987. No hawker centre will be built in the Town Centre. Instead there will be family restaurants, a fast food centre and eating houses to serve the needs of residents and visitors.

The following Question stood in the name of Mr Goh Choon Kang - 17. To ask the Minister for National Development when is the targeted completion date for the development of Serangoon South Estate; how many blocks and units of flats will be built in the Estate and of what room types; and whether a jogging track is included in the development plan.

Question 17, Sir.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Serangoon South Estate will be completed by September 1988. The Estate will have 27 blocks with 2,096 flats of the following types: 4-room : 1,376 5-room : 484 Executive : 236 Total : 2,096 The development of the estate involves four contracts. The first three contracts are scheduled for completion by May 1988 while the fourth contract is scheduled for completion in September 1988. A jogging track will be built in the estate.

The following Question stood in the name of Mr Goh Choon Kang - 18. To ask the Minister for Communications and Information whether the Singapore Bus Service (1978) Limited will provide feeder bus services between Serangoon New Town and the nearby Mass Rapid Transit stations.

Question 18, Sir.

Sir, I am replying on behalf of my Minister. I will ask the Singapore Bus Service (1978) Limited to look into the suggestion of the Member with a view to providing convenient links for residents of Serangoon New Town to nearby MRT stations. If found feasible, SBS would have to make the necessary application to the Public Transport Council.

asked the Minister for National Development whether the Housing and Development Board has any plan to replace blocks 104 and 106 in Depot Road Estate which are due for demolition.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Blocks 104 and 106 in Depot Road come under Phase 1A of the relocation exercise which is scheduled for completion by the end of 1988. The site where these blocks now stand will be redeveloped. The timing and type of development have not yet been finalized.

End of Question Time.

Order for Second Reading read. 12.00 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, this is a very short Bill which makes a consequential and, if I may say so, a technical amendment to the Constitution to avoid any doubts as to the validity of the powers under the Intoxicating Substances Bill 1987 when that Bill becomes law. Members will recall, Sir, that the Bill before the House deals with the very serious problem of inhalant abuse by providing for the necessary powers of requiring repeater inhalant abusers to undergo treatment and rehabilitation in approved centres, subject of course to certain safeguards. The provisions conferring enabling powers in that Intoxicating Substances Bill are similar to those found in the Misuse of Drugs Act. At present, under Article 9(6)(b) of the Constitution the power to arrest and detain drug abusers under the Misuse of Drugs Act cannot be questioned although the drug abusers are not produced before a Magistrate within 48 hours of arrest and are not detained pursuant to the authority of a Magistrate, as would normally be required under Article 9(4) for most criminal prosecutions. It is essential that the same powers of arrest and detention of inhalant abusers for treatment and rehabilitation should be provided for in the Intoxicating Substances Bill. Otherwise not only can we not deal as effectively with them as we have done with drug abusers, but equally important, if not more important, we do not want inhalant abusers, who are mostly young persons, to have the stigma of a court conviction. Hence the need for this consequential amendment to the Constitution. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Amendment Bill. Sir, I will be very brief as I hope to have your permission to speak later again on this important subject of intoxicating substances. Sir, the use of intoxicating substances, or more commonly known as inhalant abuse, or glue-sniffing, is on the rise. These inhalants, I will emphasize, are potentially no less lethal or dangerous than hard drugs. The problem is compounded in that many of these persons are young persons. It is therefore proper that they be detained and treated as sick persons rather than as criminals. They should be given the benefit of proper treatment and rehabilitation. With today's Amendment Bill, the amendment will make this possible.

Sir, I rise in support of this Bill because the Bill does not discriminate against inhalant abusers. I am concerned, in anticipation, that a large number of young persons will be apprehended for treatment, whether criminal records will be entered against them. My other concern is about the definition of Intoxicating Substances in this Bill. Would it be fairly exclusive to ensure that those who take beer, brandy and others would not be included?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Members for their comments. With regard to the points raised by the Member for Bo Wen, the answer to his first question is no. It is precisely to avoid them having the record of a court conviction that this amendment and the approach in the Intoxicating Substances Bill has been taken. Secondly, although it is really related to the other Bill that is coming up, if he will note, there is a very narrow definition of the term "intoxicating substances" in that Bill, which I think will meet his concern.

The Question is, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." A Division will be taken to ascertain that the Second Reading of the Bill is supported by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of Members of Parliament, which is 53 Members, pursuant to Article 5(2) of the Constitution. Ring the Division Bells. Question put, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Division taken: Ayes, 61; Noes, 1; Abstentions, Nil. Ayes Ayes (cont.) Abbas Abu Amin Rajaratnam, S. Abdullah Tarmugi Sia Khoon Seong Ahmad Mattar Sidek bin Saniff Ang Kok Peng Tan Cheng Bock Barker, E.W. Tan, Augustine H.H. Beng Kian Lam, Arthur Tan Keng Yam, Tony Chai Chong Yii Tan Soo Khoon Chandra Das, S. Tan Tee Yong, Philip Bernard Chen Tang Guan Seng Cheong Yuen Chee, Eric Tang See Chim Chew Heng Ching Tay Eng Soon Chin Harn Tong Teo Chong Tee Chng Hee Kok Vasoo, S. Ch'ng Jit Koon Wan Hussin bin Haji Zoohri Chua Sian Chin Wan Soon Bee Dhanabalan, S. Wong, Aline K. Goh Chok Tong Wong Kan Seng Ho Kah Leong Wong Kwei Cheong Ho Tat Kin Yap Giau Cheng, Eugene Hu Tsu Tau, Richard Yeo Cheow Tong Ibrahim Othman Yeo Choo Kok Jayakumar, S. Yeo Ning Hong Jek Yeun Thong Yeo Toon Chia Koh Lam Son Yeoh Ghim Seng Lai Tha Chai Yu-Foo Yee Shoon Lau Ping Sum Zulkifli bin Mohammed Lau Teik Soon Lee Boon Yang No Lee Hsien Loong Leong Horn Kee Chiam See Tong Lim Boon Heng Lim Chee Onn Abstention Ng Kah Ting Othman bin Haron Eusofe Nil Phua Bah Lee

The Second Reading of the Bill has been carried by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of Members of Parliament. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Prof. S. Jayakumar.] Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment.

Third Reading, what day?

Now, Sir. I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Third time."

The procedure at the Second Reading will again be adopted here. Ring the Division bells. Division taken: Ayes, 61, Noes, 1; Abstentions, Nil. Ayes Ayes (cont.) Abbas Abu Amin Rajaratnam, S. Abdullah Tarmugi Sia Khoon Seong Ahmad Mattar Sidek bin Saniff Ang Kok Peng Tan Cheng Bock Barker, E.W. Tan, Augustine H.H. Beng Kian Lam, Arthur Tan Keng Yam, Tony Chai Chong Yii Tan Soo Khoon Chandra Das, S. Tan Tee Yong, Philip Bernard Chen Tang Guan Seng Cheong Yuen Chee, Eric Tang See Chim Chew Heng Ching Tay Eng Soon Chin Harn Tong Teo Chong Tee Chng Hee Kok Vasoo, S. Ch'ng Jit Koon Wan Hussin bin Haji Zoohri Chua Sian Chin Wan Soon Bee Dhanabalan, S. Wong, Aline K. Goh Chok Tong Wong Kan Seng Ho Kah Leong Wong Kwei Cheong Ho Tat Kin Yap Giau Cheng, Eugene Hu Tsu Tau, Richard Yeo Cheow Tong Ibrahim Othman Yeo Choo Kok Jayakumar, S. Yeo Ning Hong Jek Yeun Thong Yeo Toon Chia Koh Lam Son Yeoh Ghim Seng Lai Tha Chai Yu-Foo Yee Shoon Lau Ping Sum Zulkifli bin Mohammed Lau Teik Soon Lee Boon Yang No Lee Hsien Loong Leong Horn Kee Chiam See Tong Lim Boon Heng Lim Chee Onn Abstention Ng Kah Ting Othman bin Haron Eusofe Nil Phua Bah Lee

The Third Reading of the Bill has been carried by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of Members of Parliament. Bill accordingly read a Third time and passed.

12.20 pm

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, inhalant abuse in Singapore was first detected in 1980. In that year, only 24 cases were detected. But inhalant abuse soon became a serious problem affecting mainly our young citizens. At the end of June this year, over a period of 7 1/2 years, the cumulative number detected was 3,302. Unless the problem is effectively contained early, it will soon become unmanageable. For the first half of this year, more inhalant abusers were detected compared to the corresponding period last year - an increase of 21.5%. The increasing trend is alarming and the spread of inhalant abuse must be checked. We have to ensure that it does not become the alternative to drug abuse. Besides the alarming growth in first-time inhalant abusers, there is also a corresponding increase in the number of repeaters detected each year, rising from 11% in 1982 to 27% in 1986. A survey of more than 3,000 abusers detected from 1980 to June 1987 showed that 21% of them were below 15 years of age and nearly 63% between the ages of 15 and 19. In other words, Sir, more than 83% of the abusers were under 20 years of age. Inhalant abuse is a destructive habit. The volatile vapours are toxic to the body organs and they cause rapid and irreparable damage to the brain. Other organs which can be affected include kidneys, lungs and the heart. Acute intoxication can also lead to "sudden sniffing death". Indeed, there have been 20 deaths related to inhalant abuse, with seven of these cases detected in the first half of this year alone. Whilst under intoxication, six persons drowned, three persons hung themselves, six persons fell off from tall buildings, one person was killed in a road accident and four persons died in other situations. In addition, 11 glue sniffers are known to have suffered permanent brain damage. The Central Narcotics Bureau has also detected several cases of violent behaviour which is associated with glue sniffing. Sir, Members of the House are already aware of the problems of inhalant abuse in Singapore because it is a subject on which either my colleague, the Minister of State, or I have given status reports to this House periodically during the past two years. As recently as 28th July, 1987, the Minister of State gave an assessment of the situation in response to a question from the Member for Bo Wen. Members of the House have also been informed that an Inter-Ministerial Anti-Inhalant Abuse Coordinating Committee was set up in late 1984 to study this problem and it recommended, amongst other things, that legislation be enacted to deal with inhalant abuse. Sir, many distraught parents have, in fact, appealed to the respective agencies dealing with the problem for more effective measures, including treatment and rehabilitation. Sir, I make no apology for having taken some time to come up with this legislation. First, we had no effective model from other countries to base our legislation. We did study the inhalant abuse legislation of other countries but they were not very helpful because they did not focus on the rehabilitative aspect. As was the case with the Misuse of Drugs Act, we are therefore breaking new ground. At the same time, Sir, we had to take care and to remember that we are dealing with young persons. Members will note therefore that there are two important aspects where the measures in this Bill differ significantly from the approach in the Misuse of Drugs Act. In the first place, a person detected as an inhalant abuser will not immediately be subject to compulsory treatment and rehabilitation but will be put on a supervision order. It is only a repeater and those who breach the supervision order who will undergo treatment and rehabilitation. A comparison under the Misuse of Drugs Act, as Members know, a first-time addict can be subject to compulsory treatment and rehabilitation. The second aspect which is different is that an inhalant abuser can be subject to compulsory treatment initially for a six-month period which can be extended by periods of three months but subject to a maximum of 12 months. Compared to the Misuse of Drugs Act, in that law, a drug addict can be subjected to institutional treatment for 36 months. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the approach in this law may appear to be less strict and less harsh a regime but we believe, Sir, that putting the first-timer on a warning or notice period and subjecting only repeaters to treatment for a shorter period will be an effective approach. Another area which was problematic, Sir, was how to regulate the misuse by shops and retailers. The approach in the Misuse of Drugs Act, namely, a strict prohibition of sale of the substances, was impractical. Unlike heroin and other hard drugs, the chemical substances in the problem of inhalant abuse are just contained in too wide a variety of household, commercial and industrial products. We therefore, Sir, decided to make it an offence only for a person to supply or offer to supply an intoxicating substance where the supplier knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, that such substance is likely to be used or inhaled for the purposes of inducing or causing intoxication. This provision is adapted from a recent United Kingdom law. I wish to stress that the prosecution in such an instance will have to prove knowledge on the part of the supplier. It will therefore apply to those blatant cases where suppliers deliberately sell intoxicating substances to abusers for the purpose of inhalant abuse. The penalty is a fine not exceeding $5,000 or imprisonment not exceeding two years or both. The Bill also empowers the Director, CNB, to obtain information relating to intoxicating substances. The Bill confers the necessary powers to the authorities to implement the provisions. A person suspected of being an inhalant abuser can be required to undergo a blood test. A person who has attained 16 years of age is deemed capable of giving consent. A presumption of abuse of an intoxicating substance will apply where the concentration of a chemical compound in the blood exceeds the amount specified in the Schedule. If, as a result of a blood test, the Director is of the opinion that a person requires supervision, the Director may place the person under a supervision order for a period of not more than a year. In other words, Sir, he is put on notice or warning that should he resume glue sniffing, he may be subject to compulsory treatment and rehabilitation. Any breach of the supervision order constitutes an offence punishable with a fine not exceeding $1,000. A person who is arrested for inhaling an intoxicating substance during or after the period of his supervison (in other words a repeater) can be ordered to be admitted into an approved centre for treatment and rehabilitation. Sir, inhalant abusers may voluntarily undergo treatment and rehabilitation. A person who has been admitted to an approved centre may be detained in the centre for not more than six months and for subsequent periods of not more than three months at any one time, subject to a maximum period of one year's detention. Review Committees will be appointed to monitor the progress of inmates and may also order the early discharge of an inmate. The Bill also provides for safeguards against improper detention. A Magistrate is empowered, after inquiry, to order the discharge of a person who is improperly detained in an approved centre. It will be an offence for an inmate to escape from lawful custody. Sir, the Bill also makes consequential amendments to the Children and Young Persons Act to make clear that any inhalant abuser who repeats inhalant abuse, who is below 16 years of age will be dealt with by the Juvenile Court. Sir, as I said, the Bill is aimed at assisting inhalant abusers to get rid of their habit. The approach contained in the Bill is one that we have taken some time to consider so that the measures will be proportionate to the problem, bearing in mind the youthfulness of most of those involved. To sum up, unlike drug addicts, inhalant abusers will be first put on supervision. It is only repeaters who may be subject to compulsory treatment and rehabilitation which cannot exceed a period of one year. I hope Members of the House will give this Bill their support. Thank you, Sir. Question proposed. 12.34 pm

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I wish to speak in support of the Bill. The increase in the number of inhalant abusers, particularly among the young, is a matter of grave concern. During my constituency tours, several parents whose children are not victims of this menace felt very strongly that the Government should take positive measures in combatting this dangerous habit. Sir, it is common knowledge that drug addicts often turn to crime to support their habit. Young abusers, particularly those of an impressionable age, can fall prey to criminal elements who can make use of them in criminal activities. Worse still, such young inhalant abusers may take to crime on their own. We all know the pitfalls inhalant abusers can fall into. But what about those people who willingly or unwillingly entice youngsters into acquiring such habits? Sir, under clause 4(2), the penalty provided for is, in my view, inadequate as a deterrent for this group of people. To be effective, penalties, whether in the form of fines or custodial sentences, should be commensurate with the quantity of intoxicating substances supplied to the addicts. I would therefore suggest that for repeat offenders, that is blatant suppliers, the quantity of intoxicating substances supplied should be cumulative and to be taken into consideration when they are prosecuted in court. Sir, I would also suggest that inhalant abuse be made a notifiable offence. I believe that under the regulations on communicable diseases, it is mandatory for next-of-kin and doctors to notify the health authorities if such diseases are detected in a family. Perhaps the Government could consider a similar provision to make it mandatory for parents, guardians, or even teachers to notify the relevant authorities if inhalant abusers are detected by them. This will ensure that victims are given early treatment and rehabilitation. Finally, Sir, I hope that the various measures provided for in this Bill will help to keep under control, if not eliminate, this scourge in our society. Thank you, Sir.

( In Malay): Mr Deputy Speaker, allow me to say a few words in giving my support to the Intoxicating Substances Bill. In my view, the Intoxicating Substances Bill is very comprehensive as it gives due emphasis to three aspects, ie, supervision, treatment and, as it follows, rehabilitation. But the Government's need to enact this law arises from a much greater motivation, for this has to do with our modern way of life and standard of living. Inhalant abuse is another of several kinds of habits we encounter that arises from what is termed in English the "counter culture". I would call this (in Malay) "kebudayaan songsang". Counter culture is one of the things that we have had to absorb as we inherit the positive aspects of Western culture. Of course, there are several important factors as to how and why our young people get themselves trapped in inhalant abuse. What is inescapable to us is the great, strong, deep influence of the mass media, particularly the influence of television. Recently, we read news about a tragic incident in Hungerford, a small town west of London, in which a man killed, without due cause, 16 people. The tragedy provoked anger. And it would be worthwhile for me to quote the response or comments expressed by the country's own Home Secretary, Mr Douglas Hurd, who after hearing of the tragic incident tied it to the influence of television. I quote his view. He said: 'There is a connection between the violence on the television screen and the kind of killing in Hungerford.' And to further affirm how great the influence of television is, there is a study carried out by the Independent Broadcasting Agency (IBA) which stated that 4% of those interviewed admitted to having violent urges after watching scenes of violence on television. What we need to stress here is that this influence of violence, as well as the influence of the other elements of the counter culture, including inhalant abuse, cannot be taken for granted. And through the mass media too, we find that there seems to be a decline of the institution of the family, which we as Asians hold in high regard. It is due to the presence of such elements, which tend to weaken the institution of the family, that discipline within the family suffers. This in turn results in the erosion of parents' influence over their children. Added to this is the lack of willpower among the young people of today. Thus, when they are unable to appreciate how confusing, how complex modern living can be and how rapid its pace, they seek a way out - an escapism. Unfortunately, the escape they seek is in the ones portrayed on television and one of these is drug or inhalant abuse. I fully agree that this Bill presents a number of comprehensive measures to counter this problem. In gist, I would say that to overcome this problem, there must be three approaches, or a three-pronged approach to the problem. The first approach is in preventive measures. Second is an approach that would certainly include punishments, or "punitive measures". And, thirdly, there must be rehabilitative measures. I would like to stress that among these, preventive measures would lie for the greater part on the role and responsibilities of the family. We know that the family of today, willy-nilly, has to allow some freedom to its younger generation or its young people. But, let us not sacrifice their discipline and future for the sake of giving them total freedom. Let the freedom enjoyed by the young people be bound by proper control. We should see who their friends are. Parents must monitor how they socialize outside the home, find out their movements in the right way. Also, freedom does not mean leaving our children alone without interacting with them. There is an attitude that since our boys and girls have grown up, since they are teenagers now, they know how to run their own affairs. But without interacting with them, we would not know what they have done or what lies behind their actions that we as parents do not know about. And should they by their actions get themselves trapped in undesirable situations, any action then taken by the family would be too late. So, Mr Deputy Speaker, I support this Bill on the grounds and with the hope that this would be one of the measures with which we seek to save the human resources, in particular the youthful resources, that we value so much. For, if the quality and quantity of our human resources are jeopardised, our national development would surely suffer. Before I conclude, I would like to ask the Hon. Minister concerned, apart from the data that he already has in his Ministry, I would like to know if the Ministry has or has carried out any study on the socio-economic background of the people or young people involved in drug or inhalant abuse. For, with such a study on their socio-economic background, we would get a picture of the type of family, what kind of family, that tend to fall into this problem. I hope if such a study is available, that it could be released to the public so as to increase the amount of information we have on this. With the hope that it would give effect to the necessary preventive measures, I support this Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I do not support this Bill and you can see the reason why. I also did not support the amendment to the Constitution. This Bill is unique in the sense that it is aimed almost entirely at the young citizens of our country. This problem is almost confined to our people who are less than 19 years of age. I look at it not from the criminal point of view. I say that this is a social problem. The last Member who spoke has asked the Minister what studies he has made in regard to the socio-economic problems of those who are engaged in inhalant abuse and perhaps some kind of solution could be found. We cannot class a social problem like any other criminal problem. If we had not tried to find the root cause first and solve it but merely take the easy way out by implementing a law to take away all those young people who indulge in this kind of abuse and put them away in some kind of a home, I think this is not the best way to solve the problem. We have to ask ourselves what is the root cause of this problem? Have we attempted to solve the problem first before we go on to implementing a law to put them away and fine them? Have we done that? What studies have the Minister made before this Bill is enacted? We live in a very stressful society, an urban, commercial and industrial society. Divorce cases are on the rise. The number of broken homes is on the increase. Crime is on the rise. Our schools are under pressure. Enrolment in the classroom is higher than what is best for them. Sir, there are all kinds of problems. When there is a recession, the parents lose their jobs and they bring all their problems back to their homes. All these problems that are found in the home will be reflected on the young people. It is quite normal. How can the young people avoid these stressful conditions? They mix with their peers. And if they are not taught or trained to use their leisure time properly, they will probably get involved in this kind of activity. As the last speaker has said, it is a form of escapism, no more, no less. They have their problems. They cannot solve it. They find the easy way out by taking to glue sniffing. Sir, we know the problems and I think the Government should tackle it at its root source. Until such time as they find that there is no way out, then perhaps we can go on to legislation. Somebody has already said that Singapore has got too many laws. We tend to solve every problem by legislation. But on this particular problem we cannot employ this method in the first instance. I think we should give it a try. Like in Japan, they always have got a community effort. When there is a problem, the whole community will chip in and try to solve that problem. I think this particular problem is a good chance for the Government to have a campaign to get the community to come together to solve this problem. And if this can be done, it will certainly create harmony and better understanding in our new estates and other HDB estates. So here is a chance to get the people of Singapore to solve the problem. Has this been done? I do not think so. They say that idle hands are bedfellows of crime. What has the Government done or what has the Ministry of Community Development done to provide more recreational facilities, more social facilities, for the young people of Singapore to get them away from bad habits? As far as I know, in Potong Pasir Estate we have got only two badminton courts. And when I write in for more badminton courts, of course, the standard answer is no. I have made a request, not just simply for the HDB to provide more badminton courts, but I said that perhaps the people could chip in and pay for the construction of the badminton courts. But again the answer was, of course, no. I think there are many things that can be done before we come to solving it by more legislation. Perhaps the schools, the educators, can help. Has the Minister for Home Affairs got the cooperation of the Ministry of Education on this problem? Perhaps he could let us know.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise to join my other colleagues, the PAP Backbenchers, in supporting this Bill. Not only distraught parents but many concerned Singaporeans can now sigh a big relief. I disagree with the Member for Potong Pasir who said that this is just a social problem. Because inhalant abuse is more than a social and health problem as already elaborated by the Minister for Home Affairs. It is also an enforcement problem, judging from the number of detected cases and the number of repeat cases. Inhalant abuse is not a passing fad and I can vouch for this too. Two years ago in my constituency there were no detected cases. But now I have been told that there are 44 such cases.

What have you done?

Maybe the Member for Potong Pasir has not been paying too much attention on what has been done by the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Ministry of Education and other related agencies in this field. I can :rly remember that preventive and education programmes have already been launched in schools, especially primary schools, to disseminate information about the dangers of inhalant abuse. And I am a bit surprised to hear that he is asking the Minister what has been done.

What have you done about alternative activities?

I will leave it to the Minister to reply. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, if I may carry on. I must commend the Ministry of Home Affairs for coming up with this piece of legislation after a thorough and careful study. The caution and warning approach provided for in this Bill is a positive one as our aim is to assist the family in coping with the problem. I also agree with the Minister that the detention order of six months plus a subsequent period of an additional six months is proportionate, bearing in mind that we are dealing with young people and it reflects the authority's concern for the future of the young by not imposing a prolonged sentence. I am also pleased, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, to note that the rights of retailers are also adequately protected under this Bill and that those who are found guilty can only be prosecuted based on proven knowledge. Sir, I am also aware that presently inhalant abusers are being placed in existing Government institutions for treatment and rehabilitation. What I would like to know from the Hon. Minister is whether there are plans to set up a separate inhalant abuse rehabilitation centre when this Bill becomes law in due course.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the introduction of this Bill is timely. The figures given by the Minister are horrifying in my view. Over 7 1/2 years of monitoring from 1980 when the number of abusers was only 24, we have now reached the figure of 3,302. When we consider the fact that inhalant abuse is a very dangerous habit leading to permanent health damage, we can see how serious this matter is. There will be damage to the peripheral and central nervous systems, liver, kidney, blood damage leading to anaemia and even leukaemia, damage to the heart and also sudden deaths due to laryngospasm. So far, 20 deaths have been recorded as the Minister has said, and it is shocking to hear that 7 deaths were recorded in the first half of this year. Sir, the Member for Potong Pasir has said that not enough education has been done. But SANA has been carrying out a prevention programme and many of us in our constituencies have participated in this inhalant abuse prevention programme. Yes, this is indeed a social problem. Parents complain of having to live in constant fear of children who turn abusive, demanding and threatening. They are a constant source of embarrassment to the family. I am told of a case that an abuser even attempted to rape members of his family. Do we need more evidence that this is a serious problem requiring very firm action? Prevention and education are, of course, the best answers. But now we have reached the situation where we need to turn to treatment and rehabilitation. This Bill will empower the Director of the Central Narcotics Bureau on confirmation after a blood test to commit the patient to compulsory treatment and rehabilitation after a second offence. I think this is indeed good for the young person.

Order. It is 1.00 pm. I suspend the sitting and will take the Chair again at 2.30 pm. Sitting accordingly suspended at 1.00 pm until 2.30 pm. Sitting resumed at 2.30 pm

Debate resumed.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, before we adjourned I was speaking on the merits of the Bill in providing for treatment and rehabilitation of the inhalant abuser, ie, the treatment of the abuser as a patient and not as a criminal. Finally, Sir, I would like to turn to the problem of the easy availability of these inhalants. Of all the inhalants used, I believe the most commonly used is glue. Will the Minister comment whether it is practicable to add into the glue an obnoxious smelling additive so as to make it unattractive to the user.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill. The Bill in itself helps many helpless parents to deal with their children who are inhalant abusers. At the moment many parents that I know of are at their wit's end in dealing with this problem. I feel that this Bill is timely as it helps many parents who are in such a dilemma. Sir, it is pointless to go into the root cause of the problem because there are many variations and many issues related to the whole cause of people indulging in inhalant abuse. What is important is to address this problem because we have a problem at hand and it is a community problem. Therefore, an effective solution has to be found to deal with this problem. Hence this Bill will address this issue. What I am concerned about is, in anticipation that a large number of young people are going to be apprehended and put under supervision, I am wondering whether there will be adequate manpower and other related resources to be deployed to deal with those who are involved in inhalant abuses. For any rehabilitation programme which requires supervision to succeed, it must be manpower-intensive. I hope that the Ministry will make adequate preparations to have such manpower available to deal with the issues of supervision. The other important area that I would like to seek clarification from the Minister is this: At the moment older drug addicts are admitted into different rehabilitation centres. I am wondering whether there will be separate provisions to deal with the rehabilitation of young offenders. It is important because currently our drug rehabilitation centres do not have adequate provisions to deal with younger persons. So I am clarifying whether careful discrimination will be made to treat the large numbers of young persons who will be taken in and to be cared for in approved centres. The third aspect is the area of coordination. The Ministry of Community Development also deals with juvenile delinquents who are dealt in under the Children and Young Persons Act. I am wondering to what extent there will be coordination between the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Ministry of Community Development to effectively combine joint forces to deal with this whole issue at hand.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, my colleagues in the GPC for Home Affairs have elaborated on some of the provisions in the Bill. I would just like to touch on a few of the provisions not covered by my colleagues. First, on the supply of inhalants under clause 4, there is difficulty in defining what exactly inhalants are. As the Minister has said just now, it involves household products which can be bought anywhere any time. There may be a temptation on the part of those who enforce the law to be a bit more generous with an interpretation of this category of products. There could be undue alarm on the part of those who supply these products in thinking that they are breaking the law. I was wondering whether we can arrive at a more precise definition of what these inhalants are and, hopefully, if we can get a list of these products, the suppliers will have the confidence that they are not, in fact, treading on soft ground. The other provision relates to supervision orders. I am not too clear how different this supervision of the inhalant abusers would be compared to the normal supervision orders against, for example, criminal law detainees. Bearing in mind that many of these offenders would be young persons, we should perhaps have a slightly revised supervision system. For example, can we have officers who are supervising these inhalant abusers to be specially trained to handle this category rather than using the same officers who have been supervising drug addicts, because the nature of the offence is different, the people are different, and they probably need a different approach. As the Minister has stated just now, most of the offenders are young, below 19, and the pressures of society have been probably added on to make them turn towards the easy way out. I see this as potentially more serious than the drug problem that we have seen in the last 10 years. Firstly, because inhalants are more easily accessible. It is an everyday product that people can buy. It is cheap and therefore it is within the means of most of these youngsters. And given the influences from the media, from peer pressure and so on, it will be a difficult task to minimize this problem in the foreseeable future if we only depend on the Government and the law to take its course. This is a problem for every one of us, whether we are parents, members of the public, or Government officers in enforcing the law. This problem has surfaced itself since 1980/81 and successive years have shown that it is getting more serious. I think we should perhaps reinforce the various campaigns we have on inhalant abuse in terms of exhibition and counselling. But more important, I think we must draw the attention of the parents of these young abusers to the role that they have to play in ensuring that their children do not fall by the wayside. There can be only so much that the law can do, especially in this case where the law will never be precise enough to identify the culprits, the suppliers of these inhalants and the preventive measures are, at best,half successful if the parents do not play their part. Given the young age, I think it would be much easier and much more effective if parents start the education at home. After all, it is their own children they are looking after. Rather than depending on the law itself to provide all the answers, I think we should ensure that the parents themselves are given adequate means to prevent their children from developing this habit. I understand that some parents have, in fact, approached the Ministry to see whether their children can undergo voluntary supervision or rehabilitation. Perhaps more of this can be done voluntarily because if it is done this way then at least the youngsters themselves would not develop the kind of anti-establishment or anti-society feelings as has been the case when we talk about the hard drugs. Finally, I think the implementation of this law will require very careful attention on the part of the Ministry officials. The key is that these young people are not criminals, as has been stated by many of my colleagues here. They are young people who probably have not found a way to release their energies. If we can assure them that there are better ways to live their life than fall into this habit, then I think we should be able to achieve the final aim of this legislation. On that note, I support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thank the Members who have spoken and may I respond to the points that they have raised. The Member for Toa Payoh expressed concern over the adequacy of the fines. I understand him to feel that probably the quantum of the fines could have been more severe. This is a matter which we will be able to review after the Act has been put into operation. The fines which are contained in the provisions in our view and in the view of the Attorney-General Chambers would be proportionate and adequate for the mischief, but should it prove to be inadequate, then under subsequent review we can reconsider the matter. But I would first like to see how it works in practice. He has asked whether glue-sniffing, inhalant abuse, can be made notifiable, in the sense that infectious diseases are notifiable. My response is that we have already a system where the Ministry of Health has an arrangement in which doctors, both in private and in Government practice do give information and feedback to the Ministry of Health where it is collated and made available to the Central Narcotics Bureau. But this is an informal system and I think it should be allowed to work before we consider more mandatory and obligatory methods akin to the notifiable communicable diseases law. One of the Members mentioned that it is important that family background and socio-economic factors are also considered. We agree that this is important but the fact is that all this information was highlighted in the report on measures to curb inhalant abuse in Singapore, a report which was well publicised and distributed. Members will recall that in that report reference was made to the profile of inhalant abusers, and so perhaps I would not repeat all that was said in that report, but suffice it for me to say that, as in the case of drug addicts, so also in the case of inhalant abusers, family background, family support and the guidance given, particularly in the younger days, is instrumental. The Member for Fengshan asked whether we could inject or introduce some foul-smelling, noxious substance in these products. We had, in fact, considered this approach but there are rather practical difficulties, the most important of which is that most of these products are imported from abroad and it is not entirely within the means of exercising jurisdiction on the manufacturers in Singapore. Nevertheless, I would ask my officials to consider, if there are sufficient quantities being produced in Singapore, whether this is a practical measure. It may put off the glue-sniffers but it may also put off legitimate users. The Member for Bo Wen asked whether the necessary manpower will be made available for the effective implementation of this Bill. I would like to assure him that we are aware of the importance of additional manpower and the necessary requests have been made and we are confident that it will be forthcoming. He would also have noted that there is another Bill before the House to amend the Singapore Corporation of Rehabilitation Enterprises Act which should also be relevant in the rehabilitative process because that will give SCORE powers to be involved in rehabilitation of inhalant abusers. As far as segregation is concerned, the point is taken and indeed those who are treated for inhalant abuses will indeed be separated and segregated from other categories, such as addicts or prisoners. Further factors will be taken into account such as the first-timers who are being treated and separated from the repeaters or chronic abusers. So I take his point on that. As far as coordination between the Ministry of Home Affairs, Central Narcotics Bureau and others is concerned, I would like to say that coordination between the various Government departments and other voluntary bodies like SANA has already been established. This coordination began many years ago when the different departments were brought together for the purposes of studying this problem and thereafter I am glad to say that coordination has continued. In fact, it would be not correct to perceive the law and the package of measures which have been recommended before as being entirely the work of the Ministry of Home Affairs. Credit must also go to the various other Ministries - Ministry of Health, Ministry of Education, Ministry of Community Development and others who have studied the problem closely with the Ministry of Home Affairs and arrived at a set of recommendations, part of which is now being implemented through this law. The Member for Clementi who is the Chairman of the GPC for Home Affairs asked if the definition would result in temptations to err on the generous side. I would think not, and there is a good reason because the definition specifically links it with what is mentioned in the Schedule. If you look at the definition contained in the Bill, there is a direct reference to the definition and the Schedule. So it must be the substance referred to in the Schedule that would have to be established first before a person can be subjected to supervision order or treatment. He spoke on the nature of the supervision, namely, that the supervision must take into account the nature of the problem. I can say now that the supervision will be oriented towards helping and counselling the inhalant abuser. His other points are that of reinforcing the campaigns. This is an on-going process which will not cease. He has asked for some care to be taken in implementing the provisions and I would like to assure him, as I have said in my speech, that we are mindful of the fact that we do not want to treat the inhalant abusers as criminals and it is for this reason that we have taken the approach in this Bill as well as in the Constitution (Amendment) Bill. Finally, may I reply to the Member for Potong Pasir but unfortunately he is not here. I must conclude from all the points that he has raised that he is totally unaware of all the previous statements and reports which my colleague, the Minister of State and I have given to this House and all the reports, including the reports by the Coordinating Committee which have been very well publicized and widely distributed. First, he said that we should not treat the inhalant abuser as a criminal. This is precisely the point that I made and this is precisely the reason why I sought the agreement of this House to the passage of the Constitution (Amendment) Bill. Secondly, he asked whether any studies have been made, whether we have had campaigns, whether other departments had been contacted and whether I had been in touch with other departments. The fact of the matter is, Sir, that not only have I been in touch with other departments but other departments were actively participating in this effort to do something about this problem, including members of the Coordinating Committee involving representatives from my Ministry, Ministries of Education, Community Development, Health, the Singapore Armed Forces and SANA. So many different organizations have put their heads together to do something about this problem. Have campaigns and studies been done? Again, if he had read the report, which I am sure other Members have done, he would have noted that more than one study has been done and undertaken. Surveys have been carried out and the results are summarized in the report which has been widely publicized. What are the measures which have been tried out by the various agencies? SANA has held national anti-inhalant abuse campaigns and it is an on-going campaign. The Ministry of Education has held anti-inhalant abuse campaigns in schools which included handouts of materials on the dangers of inhalant abuse. The Ministry of Education has also been counselling and is involved in the aftercare of students by the Guidance and Social Work Unit. Special campaigns have been carried out for vocational institute trainees. The Ministry of Community Development has been counselling young inhalant abusers and in terms of activities, there are many activities for youngsters organized by PA, youth groups, RCs, community centres and so on. The Central Narcotics Board is involved with the informal supervision and counselling of inhalant abusers and their parents and this has been going on for some time. The Member for Potong Pasir must have also seen various TV slots. Just a few examples, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, to show that all that the Member for Potong Pasir wanted us to think about have been thought about. All that he wanted us to do has been done. In 1985 and 1986, I said that although the Inhalant Abuse Coordinating Committee recommended legislation, while we implemented all the other measures on prevention, education, counselling, we held back the legislation, for more than a year. I said that legislation should be a matter of last resort, and I explained in my speech why we had been slow and cautious in bringing about the legislation. But the Member for Potong Pasir tells us, "Do not legislate." He is not here but I wish he will answer the question on some other occasion or maybe to the press. The question is: how many more deaths does he want to take place? How many more of our young citizens does he want to see perished before we act? I have given an account of our study of other countries. They have thrown their hands up in despair. They are unable to tackle the problem. The Member for Potong Pasir does not give any concrete suggestion except to say that this is a community problem. Indeed it is, and that is why we have tried to involve the whole community in these campaigns and educational programmes. I have yet to see or hear the Member for Potong Pasir give one speech exhorting youngsters to stay away from inhalants and not to be inhalant abusers. I may be wrong but if he had done so, I will be interested to know. [The Member for Potong Pasir entered the Chamber]. He has missed everything else so I might just repeat the tail-end of my conclusion. The question is: how many more deaths does the Member for Potong Pasir want to see occur? How many more young citizens does he want to see perish before we legislate? He has talked about community support. I have given a detailed account of all that was done which has been publicized in the Inhalant Abuse Coordinating Committee's report. He has obviously not read that. But if he sincerely believes that this is a community effort, which we agree with, then I would like to know whether he has ever spoken out at any function exhorting the youngsters to stay away from inhalants and such volatile substances. I have not heard him but if he has, I stand corrected.

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

Order for Second Reading read. 3.00 pm

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, on behalf of my Minister, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Since it was set up in 1975, the Singapore Corporation of Rehabilitative Enterprises (SCORE) has provided vocational skills and employment opportunities for prison inmates and drug addicts. It has complemented the treatment and rehabilitation programmes of the Prisons Department and other agencies. The principal reason for amending this Bill is to ensure that inhalant abusers will also benefit from SCORE's rehabilitation and vocational facilities. The Bill therefore seeks to expand the scope of the Corporation so that it can provide rehabilitative services, including aftercare to prisoners, drug addicts as well as inhalant abusers. Sections 15 and 16 of the principal Act are amended to enable SCORE to provide rehabilitative and aftercare services to prisoners and inmates before and after their discharge from custody. It also provides for SCORE to cooperate with and assist other agencies and bodies in the provision of such services. Hitherto, SCORE's functions have been confined to rehabilitation within the prisons. With this amendment, SCORE can actively cooperate in rehabilitative and/or aftercare services, particularly for discharged inmates which will include drug addicts, and now inhalant abusers. This is a logical extension and I hope Members will welcome it. It will enable SCORE to devise and implement rehabilitation and aftercare programmes and schemes which will provide effective follow-up on discharged prisoners and inmates, including inhalant abusers. Such services could be in the areas of professional counselling and guidance, including SCORE's recruitment of experts and professional counsellors. Sir, there are some technical amendments such as making the financial year of SCORE from 1st January to 31st December. This change was requested by the Auditor-General upon the Public Accounts Committee's recommendation that the financial years of statutory boards be staggered so as to spread the audit load. Other minor amendments alter the composition of the members of the Corporation and enable SCORE to employ a full-time Chief Executive Officer. Sir, the rehabilitation of every prisoner, drug addict or inhalant abuser is a continuous process from the time he is admitted to his release or discharge. SCORE is only one of the agencies involved in this rehabilitative process and these amendments will enable it to discharge its role more positively. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Sir, I rise in support of the Bill. It is gratifying to note that drug addicts will also benefit from these changes of SCORE's objectives. Despite this suggestion, I think the rehabilitation of discharged prisoners has been rather thin. And I am pleased to note that discharged prisoners will ultimately benefit from future rehabilitation programmes that are going to be devised by SCORE. I note that SCORE's efforts in trying to build up vocational training and work release programmes and pre-release work programmes for discharged prisoners are on the increase. I hope that SCORE, having accumulated sufficient resources and expertise, will be able to meet the needs of discharged prisoners. Sir, I assess that there is a need to look at rehabilitation needs of short-term prisoners because recidivism seems to be high with short-term prisoners. Will SCORE be spending more effort directing its programme at these short-term prisoners who are released or who are discharged? With that note, I would like to support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thank the Member for Bo Wen for his support of the amendment of the Bill. The Member for Bo Wen noted that rehabilitation effort so far has been rather thin. We share his concern and it is precisely for this reason that we seek to provide SCORE with a broader range of functions and activities to enable it to do more for the rehabilitative efforts of both prisoners and inmates. Sir, the Member for Bo Wen also asked whether SCORE would do more for the short-term prisoners. He noted that these prisoners seem to have a higher recidivism. Following the amendment to the SCORE Act, SCORE will no doubt be exploring ways and means to further complement the works of other agencies in rehabilitating prisoners, both short-term and those serving long-term. In doing so, I am sure SCORE will use its new abilities with this amendment to develop more comprehensive programme to strengthen the rehabilitative efforts of these short-term prisoners. On that note, I would like to urge Members to give their support to this Bill.

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

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This Bill seeks to establish the Public Accountants Board to provide for the registration and control of public accountants and to repeal and re-enact, with amendments, the Accountants Act. It was drafted in consultation with the Singapore Society of Accountants (SSA). The registration and control of accountants currently comes under the SSA. The SSA performs a dual role of safeguarding professional competence as well as the social organization for its members. It would be better if the role of safeguarding or ensuring professional competence is discharged by a separate body, as in other professions such as engineering and architecture. Under the Bill, the main responsibilities of the Public Accountants Board will be to register and control public accountants. The SSA will continue to exist and be known as the Institute of Certified Public Accountants of Singapore. The role of the Institute will henceforth be confined to professional matters such as setting and maintaining standards; providing continuing professional education and training; conducting examinations and keeping in touch with developments overseas in the accountancy profession. All public accountants registered by the Board are required to be members of the Institute. The Board of 10 members will comprise: (a) the Accountant-General; (b) the Auditor-General; (c) a member from the Nanyang Technological Institute or from the National University of Singapore to be appointed by the Minister; and (d) seven other members to be appointed by the Minister, of whom three shall be appointed by the Minister on the nomination of the Council of the Institute. The Chairman of the Board will be appointed by the Minister from among its members. The Board will have powers to appoint inquiry committees to hear and determine any complaint of professional misconduct made against any public accountant. Each inquiry committee will comprise four certified public accountants and a lay person. The findings of the inquiry committee will be reported to the Board which will decide on the penalty to be imposed. If found guilty, an errant public accountant will face a penalty ranging from censure by the Chairman of the Board, a fine not exceeding $5,000, suspension for a period not exceeding two years, to deregistration. The Institute will have a Council comprising: (a) eight practising members elected by practising members; (b) eight non-practising members elected by non-practising members; (c) three members nominated by the Government; and (d) not more than two co-opted members. All members of the Institute, regardless of whether they are in public practice or not, will be allowed to use the common designation of Certified Public Accountant and the initials "CPA". The objective of a common designation is to enhance the standing of the local accountancy profession. To maintain high standards of ethics, members will be disqualified from election or appointment to the Council if: (a) a practising member has been suspended from practice for a period of six months or more, or whose registration with the Board has been cancelled, or who has been convicted of an offence involving fraud or dishonesty; and (b) a non-practising member ceases to be a member of the Institute or has been convicted of an offence involving fraud or dishonesty. Before members are elected or appointed to the Council, they have to file a declaration with the Institute stating that they are not disqualified from holding office. Anyone who fails to make such a declaration is committing an offence and can be fined up to $1,000. A member of the Council is also required to vacate his office when he is convicted of an offence involving fraud or dishonesty, or is found guilty of professonal misconduct by the Council. The Bill also provides for penalties against any person or body corporate fraudulently posing as a public accountant or certified public accountant. The existing range of fines which is from $200 to $2,000 will be increased from $1,000 to $10,000. The Bill also restricts employment of disqualified persons by public accountants to put a stop to the current undesirable practice of some public accounting firms employing suspended or deregistered public accountants. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, last year when we debated the Legal Profession (Amendment) Bill, I touched on two points which are pertinent to other professions as well. These are, first, a professional society must be led by professionals of impeccable integrity and character and not by men who have been convicted of fraud or dishonesty. And, secondly, there should be lay representation in the disciplinary committee. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am pleased to note that these important principles are included in the Accountants Bill before this House. The Ministry of Finance and the accounting profession ought to be commended for this responsive action in coming out with such a thorough overhaul of the old Accountants Act which was drawn up as far back as 1963. Sir, as an emerging regional financial and manufacturing centre, Singapore needs all its professionals to be relevant and responsive to our national goals and objectives. They must also strive to maintain and uphold the highest standards of professional conduct and technical competence. As auditors and increasingly as business advisers, the accountants must not only be independent but must also be seen to be so. Sir, the Public Accounts Committee in 1979 recommended to Parliament that commercial auditors of statutory boards should be rotated every five years. I believe this recommendation has been adopted by most statutory boards and this has proved to be a good move in several ways. I am told cases of inefficiencies and wastages have been discovered and corrected. Sir, familiarity and long-term relationships can lead to laxity. I would urge through the Minister for Finance that the Securities Industry Council and the Stock Exchange of Singapore seriously consider rotation of auditors in public listed companies. With increasing business complexity and the introduction of off-balance sheet financial instruments - you have your NIFs, RUFs and what have you - rotation of auditors of public companies will provide the public with additional safeguards. Such a measure, which may be unpalatable to most auditors I believe, would spur them on to higher levels of professionalism. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, Singapore's future as a financial centre hinges on investors' and public confidence in the financial statements of companies operating here. Right now, with the vigilance of MAS, CAD, SSA and other regulatory bodies, we have not had serious mishaps apart from the Pan-El saga. The question for us now is: how do we ensure that there would not be another Pan Electric? The Singapore Society of Accountants has promulgated the establishment of audit committees for publicly listed companies. Sir, I submit that the rotation of auditors will provide us with another check and balance. Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the Bill. But I have one or two clarifications to ask of the Minister. First of all, it is stated in clause 5(c) that one of the functions of the Board is: 'to determine the qualifications of persons for registration as public accountants under this Act;' But over in clause 27 (b), one of the functions of the Council of the Institute is: 'to determine the qualifications of persons for admission to membership in the Institute;' I would assume that this qualification also covers public accountants because in the earlier clause 26(4), it states: 'The members of the Institute shall be classified as -

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thank the Member for Chong Boon for his support of the Bill and for his proposal that public listed companies should have their auditors rotated every five years as in the case of statutory boards. I will certainly commend his proposal or recommendation to the Securities Industry Council and the Stock Exchange Committee for their consideration. The issue concerned is, of course, relatively complex but I think it is something definitely worth their consideration. The Member for Paya Lebar asked who should be setting the standards for the qualifications of accountants. I think it is undoubtedly the responsibility of the Public Accountants Board to set the primary qualifications. I did not quite follow his second question.

The second question is: if the Council accepts the member's institute, is it an automatic acceptance by the Board?

I think it is the Board which sets the qualifications. The Council's responsibility under the new proposed changes will be to confine to professional matters such as setting the standards but not approval of the final qualifications. They can recommend to the Board. The third question was on clause 16 on the question of "change of name". Clause l6 states: 'Every public accountant shall notify the Registrar in writing within one month of any of the following changes bearing on the particulars entered in the Register of Public Accountants:' It would be the change of name of the accountant's firm, I am assuming, under which he is operating his business. It might be the individual's name himself if he is operating under his personal name.

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

Order for Second Reading read. 3.25 pm

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This Bill proposes to amend the Economic Expansion Incentives (Relief from Income Tax) Act to effect the following economic policies announced in the 1986 and 1987 Budget Statements: (a) The establishment of the Post-Pioneer Incentive; (b) The extension of the Export Incentive to services; (c) The establishment of the Venture Capital Incentive; and (d) The extension of the Investment Allowance Incentive to tourist projects. Sir, the Pioneer Incentive has been an important and useful tool in attracting high value-added investments to Singapore. Companies enjoying pioneer status pay no corporate tax. However, upon expiry of their pioneer period, they are immediately taxed at the full corporate tax rate. To encourage pioneer companies to continue their operations in Singapore upon expiry of their pioneer status, the post-pioneer incentive was introduced. The Bill creates a new Part IIIA which deals with the incentive for post-pioneer companies. It provides for a concessionary tax of not less than 10% to be levied on the qualifying income of companies which are pioneer companies or export enterprises immediately following pioneer status, on or after 1st April 1986. The incentive will be used to encourage pioneer companies to make additional investments to expand, upgrade and diversify their operations in Singapore upon expiry of their tax relief period. The Economic Committee had identified offshore services as an area of growth for Singapore. The Bill creates a new Part VIA to extend the Export Incentive, which presently covers only manufacturing activities, to service activities. The incentive provides for 90% of the incremental income from the provision of qualifying services in respect of offshore projects to be exempted from tax. The following services will qualify for the incentive: (a) technical services including construction, distribution, design and engineering services; (b) consultancy, management, supervisory or advisory services relating to any technical matter or to any trade or business; (c) fabrication of machinery and equipment and procurement of materials, components and equipment; (d) data processing, programming, computer software development; telecommunications and other computer services; (e) professional services including accounting, legal, medical and architectural services; (f) educational and training services; and (g) any other services as may be prescribed. Sir, the Bill also creates a new Part XIIIA which deals with the Venture Capital Incentive. The incentive is aimed at encouraging local companies and individuals to invest in non-traditional areas and new technologies. Investments in these new fields are inherently risky but, if successful, beneficial not only to the investor himself but also the economy as a whole. The Venture Capital Incentive provides for the investor to deduct, up to the full amount of investment, any loss arising from the sale of shares in an approved venture project. The incentive also covers investment in overseas venture companies made through an investment technology company in Singapore. To further promote the tourist industry, the Minister for Finance recently approved a special package of tax incentives for tourist projects with a minimum investment of $20 million. The package consists of Investment Allowance, industrial building allowance, property tax concession and entertainment duty exemption. The Investment Allowance Incentive comes under the Economic Expansion Incentives Act. The Bill provides for an amendment to section 67(1) of the Act to extend the investment allowance incentive to approved projects for the promotion of the tourist industry. The Bill also provides for an amendment to section 66(1) of the Act to extend the Investment Allowance Incentive to buildings or structures specially designed and used for carrying out approved projects in selected services. The opportunity is also being taken to make certain technical amendments to the principal Act: Section 8 of the Act is being amended to provide that the non-pioneer loss need not be deducted against pioneer income if the Comptroller is satisfied that such loss was not incurred to obtain a tax advantage. In the case of non-pioneer profits, the amendment gives the Minister the discretion to deem the profit margin to be at a rate less than 5% in any particular case. Section 15 of the Act is being amended to allow any unabsorbed losses from a pioneer trade to be carried forward to the post-pioneer period. Section 64 of the Act is being amended to provide the Minister with the discretion to exempt wholly or partially, on a case-by-case basis, withholding taxes on royalty payments to non-residents. Currently, the Minister can only grant total exemption or impose a reduced withholding tax rate of 20% on such royalty payments. The amendment gives the Minister flexibility to set the appropriate withholding tax rate according to the circumstances of each case. Section 68(1)(b) of the Act is being amended to remove the time limit on the availability of the Investment Allowance Incentive to construction operations. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 3.33 pm

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise on behalf of my GPC to support this Bill and also to make a few observations on the state of the economy. Sir, we are all heartened by the rapid economic recovery of our country from a very severe recession. It was a combination of factors, both domestic and external, that enable us to recover so quickly. Domestically, of course, we have just heard the Minister putting into formal effect the tax incentives which have been announced earlier. There was the CPF cut of 15 percentage points for the employer's contribution, various statutory costs were cut and, above all, there was wage restraint which required the full cooperation of the NTUC and the workers. Externally, of course, various Ministers went around trying to encourage foreign investors to come to Singapore successfully. But more importantly, we were the beneficiary of exchange rate realignments which have occurred since September 1985. These were the realignments concerning the US Dollar vis-a-vis the Japanese Yen and the European currencies, in particular. In the first place, the realignments allowed our goods to be much more competitive in European markets as well as in the US and to a lesser extent in Japan. But more importantly perhaps, it gives impetus to foreign investors to come to Singapore, particularly Japanese investors. The question that we must pose to ourselves is this. Can we expect this economic expansion to continue? What are the prospects likely to be? Hon. Members would have read the various economic reports in newspapers and magazines indicating that economic growth performance of the OECD countries is not up to expectations. In particular, I think there is concern that Japan and West Germany are not serving as the additional locomotives for the world economy that the Americans have been urging them to do. I think for various domestic reasons, in particular, the fear of kindling inflation has restrained the West Germans and to some extent to the Japanese from stimulating their economies to the extent that might be necessary. The impetus to protectionism continues as a result of the slow growth in the OECD countries. In America we read of various trade bills which come before the Congress and our Ambassador there and our trade officials have their hands full coping with the new bills and trying to project the right image of Singapore, trying to tell the Americans that we are a free port, we are not protectionistic unlike other countries, and that therefore we ought to be treated differently from countries which may come under the ambit of those restrictive bills. All these spell difficulties for us in the future. So we should not be complacent about our economic performance but we should redouble our efforts not only to increase productivity, but to put into effect the proposed wage reform. And I would like to emphasize the importance of this that we need to have a wage structure which has a bigger variable component by way of bonuses which can be altered from year to year in response to profitability of firms. Because this will enable us to, in effect, cut wages without having to cut employment. Earlier on this morning there was a Question tabled about the labour market in Singapore and our need for foreign workers. My Committee has received comments from the private sector in regard to the problems of high turnover of workers, as a result of which labour costs have been rising. Sir, at a time of rising economic growth and in the face of the wage restraint policy, one obvious way of overcoming wage restraint is for workers to move from company to company. Obviously in the process they gain higher wages. But this adds up to higher labour costs for the firms involved, both the firms losing the workers and the firms gaining these workers. In addition, there are training costs involved of new workers that are needed to replace these workers who have gone away. Perhaps we need to emphasize this to the workers in Singapore that there should be a greater sense of responsibility, that job-hopping is not something to make a habit of, that jobs are not something to be taken for granted in a very uncertain world. Some of the private sector representatives who met our Committee have proposed to us that perhaps some form of restraint might be introduced to hinder or at least to slow down this high turnover of workers. But we are still studying the matter and perhaps the Minister himself may have some ideas to share with us. But it is a matter of concern to us. The Minister also mentioned earlier the problem of the older retrenched Singapore workers, a matter of concern also of the NTUC Secretary-General and the Minister for Labour. My Committee is equally concerned for two reasons. Firstly, the older retrenched Singporean workers.

Order. Dr Tan, it appears to me that what you are speaking on so far is not relevant to this Bill under discussion. May I therefore ask you to please be relevant to what is under discussion.

I will take heed and focus accordingly, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir.

Thank you. Continue, please.

Incentives, Sir, are designed to promote economic expansion but at the same time there are disincentives that we may be producing within Singapore and these are matters of public concern. The older retrenched workers are by and large breadwinners, and moreover they are going to be an increasing percentage in the future because of the ageing of the workforce. There is another concern expressed to us in the matter of incentives by the local private sector and these are the following. Firstly, is the local private sector as a percentage of the contribution to the GDP declining? Secondly, in particular, in manufacturing, is the local private sector declining in terms of its contribution? Thirdly, should there not be special incentives for the local private sector participation which are better than those offered to foreign investors? Given the international climate, I think it might be in order for us to look more closely at the potential role that local entrepreneurs can play in our development. I am also concerned, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, about the small businesses in Singapore. The macro-economic indicators look good but the question is whether there is a percolation of economic growth right down to the small man, the shopkeeper level. There is a third stage - shop rental increase that is coming, on 1st January 1988. It is a matter of some concern to over 8,000 shopkeepers who rent them from the HDB. The rentals for JTC premises are also a matter of some concern, whether and how soon these are going to be revised. All these would be affecting our economic performance. I would urge that there be a monitoring process in respect of the small business sector in Singapore. I have here the Survey of Business Expectations of the Services Sector in Singapore but unfortunately there is no distinction made between the big firms and the small firms, the foreign firms and the local firms. Then there is the problem in the area of tourism, since the Minister mentioned incentives for tourism. The problem brought to the attention of my GPC is this. That people who come here on package tours are limited to certain shops which pay commissions to the tour agents, as a result of which the prices are not the lowest that our shops can offer to these tourists. The tourists may go away with the wrong impression of Singapore. So can something be done about this, if we want to project Singapore as a shopping centre? Secondly, are the airline seats for travellers coming into Singapore sufficient? These are some of the questions which I would like to address to the Hon. Minister.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I shall be relevant. I shall come to the point straightaway. I rise to support the Economic Expansion Incentives Bill, in particular, Part VIA on the export of services. The section is meant to encourage Singapore companies to export their services and expertise overseas. This is indeed an admirable move. In a small country like ours, with a high concentration of professional talents and skills, selling such services overseas becomes a logical extension in the growth of our services sector. Indeed, the services sector has and will continue to be an important pillar of growth in the years to come. Sir, I have two observations or comments to raise with the Hon. Minister. First, I wish to draw the Minister's attention to page 7 of the Bill under section 44A, which attempts to define "overseas customers" under "qualifying services". It is stated that these services refer only to overseas services undertaken with respect to overseas projects for persons who are neither residents of nor permanent establishments in Singapore. Sir, will this definition of "overseas customers" not prevent a Singapore services company providing support services to a larger Singapore company from being eligible under the scheme? Sir, many small services companies need to build up a track record overseas. By themselves they find it difficult to achieve this. They therefore often rely on a bigger Singapore company, a big brother so to say, in the initial years to secure the business and build up that track record. By limiting the customer definition to only non residents and non permanent establishments in Singapore, are we not shutting out this scheme to many small services companies that provide support to bigger Singapore companies overseas? Will the Minister please clarify this observation? Sir, the other observation relates to implementation of the scheme. Section 44E and section 44F of the Bill require that the aplication be sent to the Inland Revenue Department in order to establish the qualifying income base. Inevitably, this will require Income Tax officials to scrutinize past financial records and practices of companies which choose to apply for the scheme. To many a businessman and company executive, having to face Income Tax officials is often not a pleasant experience. It is an onerous task and at times can be quite embarrassing. I will not be surprised therefore that many deserving companies may choose to stay away from the scheme. This may negate our efforts to promote the service companies. Sir, whilst I agree that meeting with Income Tax officials is a necessary part of the application procedure under the scheme, may I suggest that the Minister consider making the encounter with Income Tax officials less painful, less onerous and more pleasant.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have not prepared a tour of the horizon of the economy of Singapore. I will come straight to the point. The Member for Whampoa asked about the Singapore labour market. I expressed myself comprehensively on this subject this morning in answer to the question from the Member for Potong Pasir. I have nothing to add to those remarks. Should incentives for the local private sector be better than incentives for overseas investors? Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, one of the fundamental principles on which we have managed this economy is that we open it to free and fair competition so that whoever is best able to make use of our economic resources, our manpower, our infrastructure, our political stability, in order to generate economic wealth, that is whom we promote, whether it is a local or a foreigner. The beneficiaries ultimately will be the Singapore population. This is the best way to safeguard the Singapore population. Therefore, to propose incentives which overtly discriminate between local investors and foreign entrepreneurs, I think, goes contrary to this fundamental spirit and would be totally wrong. Of course, we understand that local companies do have some additional difficulties adapting to the new economic environment. In the manufacturing sector, we are not at a comparative advantage. We are at a comparative advantage offering infrastructure, so that multinationals with technology, with markets, with their economic might, can come and make use of it, employ Singaporeans and do well here. But for Singapore companies to take full advantage of the same set of circumstances is not so easy. There is no easy way out. Pioneer status benefits, by and large, the bigger companies. We have introduced another incentive - the investment allowance - which is more suited to small and medium-sized companies, so that they too will be encouraged to invest in new activities. I am happy to tell the House that since we liberalized the provision of investment allowances two years ago, and particularly since we made it easier for small companies to benefit from these allowances, the number of small companies which have taken them has gone up. This year alone, between January and July, for total investment allowances, we have $679 million worth of projects, of which $112 million are local companies. These are the bigger ones. Then we have for smaller companies, $117 million worth of projects, of which the local companies take $59 million, a bigger share. Admittedly, in absolute numbers, this is not a lot, but I think it is significant. The assistance is reaching a sector of the economy which we would like also to promote, in an even-handed way. Small businesses and percolation of economic benefits down to shopkeepers. We can see the performance of the economy. Last year manufacturing and transport and communications were the boom sectors. This year, growth has diffused to banking, to retail trade, to commerce, to supermarkets and department stores. That is percolation. Has it gone down to every last provision shop and every last small shopkeeper in Singapore? I would say no. Not yet. Partly it has further to go. Partly also because many small shops operate in traditional ways which are not well adapted to the new economy. For the small shops to prosper, they must adapt to the changing circumstances and reorganize their management. Provision shops must convert themselves into members of mini-market chains. Those provision shops which have done so have, in fact, prospered in the last two years. I encourage others to do so. As for tourism, tour agents taking tourists to particular outlets and then collecting premiums, this is an age-old problem. When we find unscrupulous tour agents, we catch them. The best solution is to make sure that there is free competition so that other tour agents come in and the market bids the premium down. I think the problem is within control. It has not prevented a very strong growth in our visitor arrivals this year. We have had 15% more tourists this year since January than in the same period last year. So we should see the problem in perspective. The other tourism problem - not enough airline seats - is more interesting. So many visitors are coming that the aeroplane capacities are inadequate. For example, this year, from Japan alone, there has been an increase of one-third in the number of tourist arrivals. The aeroplanes are all fully booked. STPB is aware of this problem. So is SIA, of course, because this represents good business for them. I understand that SIA will very shortly be negotiating with the Japanese for more flights on the route. The point raised by the Member for Kaki Bukit - how export incentive for services is more advantageous for big companies than small ones. That is true because to operate overseas, unless you have the critical mass, it is hard to penetrate the market and take the risks, which are significant. So small companies which supply to big companies which then operate overseas will not benefit directly from this. But I would offer two points for his consideration. One, small companies who want to do overseas business can get together in consortia and operate overseas. Some have done so. In that way, they can benefit from the rules. Secondly, we have to draw the line somewhere. Let us say, he operates a company selling businesses to China. I am a subcontractor of his. According to the argument presented, I should benefit also from the tax incentive. But I do not provide everything myself because I buy supplies from other people who are sub, sub-contractors. There are many expenses which I incur in Singapore. If you follow it through to the logical conclusion, nearly every cent in Singapore is earned from exports. Where do we draw the line? We have drawn the line at the first stage, which I think is probably the cleanest place to do it. Small companies who really want to go overseas, as I said, should get together and form consortia. As for section 44E and F and having to establish a base in your financial records so we know what is your normal overseas earning and only earnings above that base will be entitled to tax exemption, the Member suggests that it can be quite embarrassing at times to have a confession session with the Comptroller of Income Tax. I do not know about this embarrassment. I pay my taxes every year. I have never had such a problem. But, more seriously, this is a principle which has already been established for economic expansion incentives for merchandise. It is not a new principle we are introducing. It is necessary to have a floor. Without a floor, we will be giving away incentives to encourage people to do things which they have already been doing all along. One of the cardinal principles of any Minister for Finance is never to give people money to do things which they are already doing. Because if you do that, there will be no end and eventually there will be no money. Because of this principle, I think the export expansion incentive is workable. The rule has not prevented the merchandise incentive from working, and I think the services incentive will also be a success.

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

Resolved, "That the proceedings on the remaining item on the Order Paper today be exempted at this day's sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1." - [Mr Wong Kan Seng].

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That this Parliament resolves that the amendments set out in Appendix I to the Report of the Standing Orders Committee as contained in Paper Parl. 11 of 1987 be and are hereby made to the Standing Orders of Parliament and that the resolution relating to revision of times of sittings passed on 1st March, 1985 and the resolution relating to questions for oral answer passed on 4th March, 1985 be hereby rescinded. Sir, Members will recall that at the sitting of Parliament on 4th March this year, Parliament passed a resolution empowering the Standing Orders Committee to consider and report on any amendments to the Standing Orders of Parliament which the Committee may deem necessary. I am happy to report that the Committee has submitted its Report and has recommended that the amendments set out in Appendix I of the Report be made to the present Standing Orders of Parliament. The main objective, Sir, of these amendments is to make the functioning of Parliament more effective and efficient. With these changes, we will be more focussed in our deliberations and debates. The net result is to improve the quality of debate in this House. Your Committee has proposed 26 amendments. I shall group them into three categories: (1) Formalisation of existing practices; (2) Minor changes; and (3) Significant changes. Formalisation of existing practices There are four practices that need to be formalised. One, is the sitting time of Parliament. The amendments in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 16 and 24 of the Report refer to the sitting time of Parliament. Parliament sitting time was changed by resolution on 1 March 1985. The difference between these changes proposed and the resolution passed on 1 March 1985 is that the lunch time has now been reduced from 1(r) hours to one hour. Generally, Members found that the one-hour lunch time is more than adequate. The other three formalisations refer to the Deputy Speaker performing the duty of the Speaker in the latter's absence, the days allocated for the Annual Budget Statement, and taking the Heads of Expenditure in the Main Estimates according to the seniority of the Minister. These amendments are in paragraphs 5, 15, 20 and 22. Minor Changes There are four. Firstly, paragraph 25 of the Report is a consequential change arising from the amendment to the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act 1986, to empower the Speaker to deal summarily with any breach of privilege in Parliament. Secondly, the amendment in paragraph 26 is made to admit strangers to a Select Committee by majority agreement. Thirdly, the present practice of providing for five days of debate for the Main Estimates and two days for the Development Estimates debate remains, but the Speaker will be given the flexibility and discretion to extend the number of days if he thinks fit. This is referred to in paragraphs 17 and 23. Fourthly, in paragraphs 12, 13 and 14, the procedure in Committee of the whole House or Whole Parliament on a Bill is changed to expedite the consideration of clauses without affecting the Member's right to speak on any clause. Significant Changes There are three. (1) Time allowed for Members to speak: There is no change to the 15 minutes allowed for a Member to address a Committee of the whole House. The Straits Times report on 21 August on this matter stated that "it also limits any MP wanting to address a committee of the whole Parliament to no more than 15 minutes at any one time" gave the wrong impression that this is a change. I would like to emphasize that there is no change to this practice. But if a Member wishes to speak on any question, the time allowed will now be reduced from one hour to half an hour. This is in paragraph 9. Your Committee feels that 30 minutes is more than sufficient for any Member to express his views. From experience, very very few Members take up more than half an hour in their speeches. The reduction in time will also allow time for more Members to speak on any matter. The half hour allowed is favourably compared to the time given to members of other Commonwealth Parliaments, for example, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and India. Half an hour is indeed a very long time. If you were to type your speeches into foolscap pages, that will be about 20 pages of foolscap paper. A lot of substance can go into 20 pages, unless of course you filibuster or waffle. If a Member wishes to have more time because the matter he wishes to raise is of great public importance, he can move a motion for which he will have one hour for his opening speech and another hour for reply. If there is an amendment to his motion, then he will have extra time again. (2) Collection of Voices and Procedure on Division: These amendments are found in paragraphs 10 and 11. These changes will save time for Parliament and yet not deprive a Member's right to have his dissent recorded in the Votes and Proceedings and the Official Reports of this House. Calling for a division is a very time-consuming affair. It takes about 10 minutes during which time debates come to a standstill. It is also not meaningful if fewer than five Members wish to seek a division. The practice of requiring a minimum number of Members' support before a division can be called is again not new. In the Malaysian Parliament of 177 members, at least 15 members must support the call for a division before one is called. In the UK, I am told, 40 members out of 650 in the House of Commons must give their support for a division to be called. This is about 6%. In India, 1/10 of the membership in the Lower House (presently 544) is required for a division to be called. (3) Procedure for debates of the Main Estimates: The amendments are found in paragraphs 18, 19 and 21. First of all, again let me correct the press report which gave the wrong impression that Members must now give at least three clear days' notice before the first allotted day if he wishes to move an amendment to reduce any Head of Expenditure. This is the existing practice and there is no change to it. What is changed in the procedure, however, is that the Members who wish to speak on a policy matter will now move a token cut of $100. He will indicate the policy he wishes to discuss and confine his speech to that policy matter. Members who wish to speak on details of expenditure, for example, operational matters, will move a token cut of $10 and indicate the detail of expenditure he wishes to discuss and confine his speech to that matter. There will also be sub-guillotine times within each Head of Expenditure. Members have experienced from previous debates of the Main and Development Estimates that policy matters were often mixed up with implementation details. As a result, the time allotted for each Head of Expenditure was often not enough to allow all Members who had moved cuts to speak. Those Members who moved an amendment which appeared at a latter part of the Head, often had no chance to speak. The delineation of policy matters and details of expenditure in a debate will allow a smoother flow of debate. The sub-guillotine times within each Head of Expenditure will also give Members who move amendments at the latter part of the Head a chance to speak. In the Indian Lok Sabha, that is the Lower House, cut motions are divided into disapproval of policy cut, economy cut to save money, and token cut to ventilate grievances. Members who move cuts are required to state precisely what is to be debated and confine his speech to that matter. The idea of separating debates on policy matters from details of expenditure is adapted from the Indian Lok Sabha. Finally, Sir, I hope Members will appreciate that all these amendments are made for a more efficient and effective use of time in this House and, therefore, I urge all of you to support them. Thank you, Sir. Question proposed.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am much obliged to you for allowing me to participate in the debate on the Report of the Standing Orders Committee. At the outset, Sir, I wish to assure you that I will not take the full one hour.

Take your time.

If this is the last time, one has an opportunity to speak for one hour. I definitely do not intend to take one hour. Sir, in general, I am in agreement with most of the amendments as set out in Appendix I of the Report. As the Leader of the House pointed out, most of the amendments are of a consequential nature and I give it my unqualified support. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to confine my remarks mainly to the amendment of Standing Order No. 44 whereby the speaking time of Backbenchers (I repeat, Backbenchers) is reduced from one hour to 30 minutes. Sir, I do not see the wisdom in reducing the Members' entitlement to speak, from one hour to 30 minutes, and in the same breath it allows Government Members (Ministers, Ministers of State, Senior Parliamentary Secretaries and Parliamentary Secretaries) to speak for one hour in reply. That means maintaining the status quo for Frontbench Members and reducing the time from one hour to 30 minutes for Backbenchers. Firstly, this is discrimination, and secondly, the argument advanced does not hold water. Am I to understand, Sir, that office holders need longer time to explain issues raised by Backbenchers? From my own experience in this House, it has not been the case. If MPs have to say their piece in 30 minutes, then I suggest the others do likewise. I suppose if an MP speaks for one hour, he is considered longwinded and wasting everybody's time. On the other hand, when office holders speak for one hour, they are merely responding fully to Members' views. Sir, I believe this is a pure case of double standards. My main point, however, is to ask the necessity to reduce the speaking time to half an hour, in the first instance. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, prior to 1964, there was abuse. So on 10th June 1964, the then Deputy Prime Minister, Dr Toh Chin Chye, Leader of the House, in moving the amendments to the Standing Orders stated: 'It is our hope that the changes proposed in the Standing Orders will facilitate the proceedings in this Assembly, and will also assist Mr Speaker, who is in the Chair, in the conduct of proceedings.' Today, the Leader of the House also makes such a pious declaration. Sir, in 1964 the Leader of the House then went on to say: 'Previously we have had Members standing up in this Chamber regurgitating speeches written for them by somebody else and the whole period lasting seven hours. Very often sittings had to be extended to past midnight and there were occasions when many Members of this House were absent while a Member was spouting out his speech from his script and Mr Speaker had considerable trouble even to find a quorum. Well, it is to eliminate this abuse of freedom of speech in this Chamber that we have come to this arrangement in this Standing Order No. 43. I would also add that any Member in this Chamber who has anything of real value to say should be able to find one hour quite adequate to put his point across. It is to avoid tedious repetitions and diversions that this time limit has been imposed. In fact, [he went on to say] those who have ever been students before are aware that they can stand a teacher's lecture for at the most only one hour. While we do not consider ourselves to be still in class, I feel that the majority of us would consider that one hour is sufficiently adequate to listen to a Member's speech and if he has anything worth of note, he could put it in within the period of one hour.' Sir, there was full justification for allowing Members to speak for one hour. The Government then strongly made a case for the one hour time limit. The limit prevented everyone from making unnecessarily lengthy speeches. In 1964 reference was also made about Commonwealth countries like Nigeria and Australia having less than the one hour time limit. Again the same argument is extended, this time the reduction is from one hour to 30 minutes. Sir, I believe there has been no abuse as before, as was the case in June 1964. We already are a very business-like Parliament, and rightly so. Our sittings are not too frequent, like other Parliaments - the Leader quoted the Lok Sabha - and there is practically little or no waste of time. Even the Member for Potong Pasir, since his entry into this House, I believe, has only spoken for one hour on one occasion.

Right.

Sir, if the intention is for more Members to participate, then the obvious solution is to increase the number of sitting days, rather than curtail the speaking time of Members. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I fear this amendment will leave the impression that the Government does not want to waste time with debates in this House. In 1964 it was cut from no-limit to one hour. The proposal today is to cut from one hour to half an hour. The next amendment may be to cut it down to 15 minutes, and a subsequent amendment may be to limit it to written submissions to this Parliament. More seriously, I do not think the reduction of speaking time is a good move. If I may use a terminology from cricket, not all Members of this House bowl in the same manner. Some are fast bowlers who need a longer run-up. Some will be slow bowlers requiring practically no run-up. We will have to allow for differences in style and presentation. And it will definitely add variety to the debates in this House. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I refer to one other recommendation, ie, Standing Orders 59 and 60. I fully agree that calling for a division is time-consuming and in many cases unnecessary. Sir, we are in the age of IT information technology. The real answer is for this House to introduce an electronic method of recording votes. Sir, I would urge you to give this some serious consideration.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, please allow me to say a few words on the amendments to the Standing Orders. Like the previous speaker from Chong Boon, I do not agree that the speaking time for Backbenchers and other Members, other than Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries, should be reduced by 50%, from one hour to half an hour. It has already been mentioned that before 1964, I believe, there was a record of a speaker really speaking up to 6 or 7(r) hours. But I think that is really too much to stomach. I think one hour is very reasonable and should not be reduced any further. I think the issue here is freedom of speech against, as the Minister put it, "the efficient function of Parliament and to improve the quality of debate." I do not believe in the second reason. But he says, "to improve the efficient function of Parliament". I think we have to balance the two. We should go more for freedom of speech. If you curtail somebody who has something to say, you are actually curbing his freedom of speech. Any Member who stands before this House and speaks is not speaking really on his own behalf. He is speaking on behalf of members of his constituency. He is speaking on behalf of perhaps even the public in general. Therefore, if you curb him, you are actually curbing the voices of the public. Therefore, we should not reduce this one hour time any further. Another issue is: do we or do we not want to promote democracy? In the past few days, many people were herded to sign the pledge. What does the pledge say? Essentially, the pledge says: "We the citizens of Singapore pledge ourselves to build a democratic society so as to achieve happiness, prosperity and progress for our nation." That is the essential part of the pledge. Basically, we pledge to build a democractic society. It was reported in yesterday's papers that some kindergarten kids were brought there to sign the pledge. The teachers who were with them said that they had explained to the children the reason for their excursion, to pledge their loyalty to Singapore. The pledge is not really to pledge loyalty to Singapore. I think there is a misconception here. Further on, the Chief Commissioner of the Singapore Boy Scouts also brought the kids there. Now the scouts do all kind of things.

Point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. I do not want to curb his freedom of speech. But how is this related to the motion in hand?

Sir, this is relevant. Because by curbing from one hour to half an hour, we are curbing democracy. I am coming to it.

Come to it quickly because I can see you are getting out of point.

Yes. I am going to say that there is a misconception of our pledge. The essential point of our pledge is to build a democratic society. That is the key to the pledge. And unless we have got a democractic society, we cannot achieve happiness, prosperity and progress for our nation. When we are curbing our freedom of speech here and we are not allowed to say when we have something important to say, that is certainly not democractic. So we in this Parliament are setting a bad example. If we are curbing freedom of speech here and not promoting democracy, I think we, as leaders of our country, are certainly setting a bad example. I can just imagine, it goes all the way down the line to our schools. They have a meeting and there you are, the teacher or the person in charge, with authority, just shuts them off. He says, "Look, Parliament has also cut down the time for speaking. What are you blabbering away?" I think we should set an example here. If a Member has got something important to say, let him say it. Why curb his freedom of speech?

Mr Chiam, you are engaging in tedious repetition.

I hope I have put the point across, Sir. Look at the Swiss. We have always been comparing ourselves with the Swiss. They have not curbed any freedom of speech. In fact, they have gone one step further. They have encouraged people to call for a referendum on an issue. And they always have meetings in the village square. I think the House here should not conduct its meetings as if we are in a board meeting of a company - hurrying through so that we can get on with our social activities after that. I think we should conduct ourselves more like the village council where everybody is given a chance to speak. I think that is true democracy. I think you should not laugh at this because I do not think we are more efficient than the Swiss. The Swiss are very efficient people and yet they have got regular meetings in their town square. Everybody is allowed to say something.

Are you supporting town councils?

I think the Member for Whampoa has gone off in a tangent. What has this debate got to do with town councils? We are talking about freedom of speech, please.

In a town square.

The other point is that I think we should not compare ourselves with other Commonwealth Parliaments. The Minister has said that other Commonwealth Parliaments have curbed their speaking time. He mentioned Australia, New Zealand and some other countries. I think he should not compare them at all. Tell me, which one of these Commonwealth Parliaments has only one Opposition Member in their House? If you can tell me that they have only one Opposition Member in their House, I will agree with you. So if you are curbing speaking time, you are literally shutting up the Opposition in Singapore. There is only one. We must have a right to speak, as of right. When I move a motion, I have to probably buy cups of tea for the Whip to get into good terms with him before I can move a motion. We want to speak as of right and not by the grace of somebody. So I do not think it is fair to say that I can always move a motion. I do not think so, unless the Leader of the House assures me that any time I want to move a motion, he will get a seconder for me.

Yes, any time.

Well, let us have it on record. Good. I hope you do not go back on your word. Because if this amendment goes through, the House is almost, literally, shutting out the Opposition in Singapore. We are in a unique position. We have only one Opposition Member at the moment. If you pass this motion, then there would probably be more people coming in because they feel that one person with half an hour speaking time is certainly not enough. There must be more coming after me. The other point is on calling a division. I think you are making it difficult, impossible, for the Opposition to call a division. Again, I wonder whether the Leader of the House would assure me that if I want to call a division, four others would support me. I have been in this House for over 2(r) years. I think I have called for a division only once. So I have not been wasting Parliament's time. Why are you so worried then? Why must you get this through and say, "You are wasting 10 minutes every time you call a division." Nobody has wasted Parliament's time, at least not me. Again, I think this amendment should not go through. Because with one Opposition MP in the House, you are making it impossible for him to call a division. A division is very important. In fact, in America, every Member in the House of Representatives has a voting record. They keep a record of so-and-so Member voting on every issue. I think that should be the case over here too. I think we should have a record of every Member to see what stand he takes. With this general voting, the whole thing is taken at one go. Nobody knows who votes for what. Again, I think the credibility of a Member is not really tested. A Member may be speaking very strongly against an issue, but when it comes to voting, he votes for it. With this new amendment, there is no chance of calling a division. Then these Members can become irresponsible. They can just speak any way they like but really not taking a stand on it. Again, for these reasons, I think this part of the amendment should not go through.

Sir, I must thank the Members for speaking whether they were for or against this motion. Responding to the Member for Chong Boon, the idea of giving the Ministers one hour to respond to views is to ensure that all the points brought up by the Members, and each one of them has half an hour, will be fully answered. Unless of course the Members after having made their points do not want the Minister to respond. Sometimes the Minister may ask his Parliamentary Secretary or his Minister of State to respond. So for the same reason, the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister of State are both given one hour each. If the Minister does not have the full hour to respond, then many of the points raised by the Members will not be answered. The Member for Chong Boon and the Member for Potong Pasir said that long ago we changed from a no-time limit to one hour and that now we change it to half an hour, and in future it will be much less. Maybe, I am saying this in jest, and with hindsight, we should have changed it to half an hour right from the beginning. Then they could have seen the effect and usefulness of a half-hour debate. There is really no need for Government to worry about wasting time. When we are here in the House, we are serious about business in the House and we want to make sure that all views are canvassed. There is no question of denying any Member the right to speak. One must not mix freedom of speech with the length of the speech. Freedom means you can say anything, and there is nothing here in these House Rules to stop any Member from speaking. He can either move a substantive motion or an adjournment motion. Outside the House, he can make a press statement. He can call the press, he can ask questions in this House, and all the proceedings in this House, are telecast every night and people can see that Members are given every right to speak. But that cannot be equated with filibustering and time wasting, as can be seen in the example not too long ago. I give the Member for Potong Pasir the assurance that when he wants to move a motion which requires the agreement of another Member, we will find someone to support his motion, if he is not objecting to this particular amendment. Even if he is, I will still find one of my colleagues to support him ---

No excuses, please.

--- to move a motion if he wishes to raise any matter of public importance. He does not need to owe anyone a favour when they support him. Calling for a division, as we see it this morning,is important because it concerns an amendment to the Constitution. But I just took a count of the time spent in taking the division. It took 10 minutes. During that time the whole business of the House came to a standstill, other than calling of names to indicate the "Ayes" and "Noes". Any Member who wishes to dissent on any matter or any Bill can still have his vote recorded in the Official Proceedings and people will still know that he has voted against it. The Member for Potong Pasir must not make the false assumption that when PAP MPs speak against a Bill or a part of the Bill, they will be voting against the Bill. All PAP MPs are in support of the Bills. Sometimes they may disagree with parts of the Bill, but I think all PAP MPs are sensible people. They do not throw the baby out with the bath water. The Member for Potong Pasir also cannot compare our system, the British Parliamentary system, with the US Congressional system. They are two different systems. Unless the Whip is lifted in this House, all PAP MPs are expected to vote in favour of the Bill or any matter that the Government puts across. Earlier on I mentioned about the time allowed for Members to speak in other Commonwealth Parliaments. Maybe to make it more clear to the Members present, I will ask the Clerk to circulate later on a Table that shows how these other Parliaments use their time.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Parliament resolves that the amendments set out in Appendix I to the Report of the Standing Orders Committee as contained in Paper Parl. 11 of 1987 be and are hereby made to the Standing Orders of Parliament and that the resolution relating to revision of times of sittings passed on 1st March, 1985 and the resolution relating to questions for oral answer passed on 4th March, 1985 be hereby rescinded.

Resolved, "That at its rising today, Parliament do stand adjourned to a date to be fixed." - [Mr Wong Kan Seng].

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

4.35 pm

Much obliged to you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have a motion on New developments following the detention of the 15 alleged Marxist plotters and the vulnerability of Singapore. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, since the last time this House debated on the detention of Vincent Cheng and 14 of his friends on 29th July, I note that there are now new developments arising from those detentions. I am referring to the Straits Times, 21st August 1987 issue, reporting on the 55 US Congressmen's letter of protest sent to the Singapore Government concerning the 15 detained. I have been told that there was such a letter of protest and that the Straits Times report of that letter is accurate. I have not seen to date the reply or response made by the Singapore Government to that protest letter. But I am sure the Minister will perhaps clarify on that point whether or not the Singapore Government has already sent a reply. In my mind that newspaper report was significant. Firstly, the Chairman of the US House of Representatives, Mr Dante Fascell, Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman, saw fit to pen his name in that letter. As you all surely know, the Foreign Affairs Committee is one of the more prestigious Standing Congressional Committees of the House of Representatives and one of its subjects that it has purview is US relations with other governments. I suppose that includes relations with the Singapore Government. Secondly, that there should be more US Congressmen who would want to protest against the Singapore Government over the detention. I believe there were already six US Congressmen previously who had written to the Singapore Government on this issue. Thirdly, the 55 Congressmen who had protested to the Singapore Government are clearly not convinced that the 15 detained are Communists or Marxists or are out to subvert the existing social and political system of Singapore. The Government could easily brush off the 600-odd other protest letters sent from England, Australia and New Zealand, by saying that the writers of those letters were fellow Marxists having similar philosopy or aims and therefore they had good reasons to protest against the arrest and detention of the 15 alleged Marxist plotters. But such allegations cannot be made of the 55 US Congressmen. Nobody would dare say that they are Marxist sympathisers. So why do they take the trouble on their own to protest against the Singapore Government over the 15 who were detained and in custody? It is obvious that they do not believe the explanations given by the Government for the detentions and, as I said, they are not convinced that the 15 detained are Marxists. I for one am not convinced that Vincent Cheng and 14 of his friends are really Communists or Marxists who want to overthrow Singapore by violent means. The question is: why should we be bothered with this new development, that is, the protest from these 55 US legislators? Those 55 American law makers, both Democrats and Republicans, have urged the Singapore Government to either try the 15 detained promptly or release them. There is an urgency in their call. They have put a time limit to their call for the 15 detained to be tried. They have not only urged the Singapore Government to try the 15 detained but to try them promptly. I do not think that there is a threat on their part. I do not think that there is an implied either/or situation. It is not a case of either you try them or we will have a follow-up action. I do not think that is the situation at all. It is just the word "promptly" used to show their concern for the 15 who have been incarcerated. They are also probably so convinced that the 15 detained are not Marxists and have not broken the law. If they thought that the 15 detained had broken the law, then the Singapore Government would have put them on trial. I think we should be concerned that there is such a protest from so many US law makers who are influential people, by virtue of the office they hold. The Singapore Government has said more than once that Singapore is vulnerable and I agree that Singapore is vulnerable. But the Singapore Government should not concentrate on Singapore's vulnerability only from the point of view of internal threats. Singapore's vulnerability can equally be affected by adverse international public opinion. We all know South Africa has a bad international public image. Whenever the name of South Africa is mentioned, straightaway we think of racial exploitation and Apartheid. These connections are straightaway brought to our mind. We think of South Africa, we think of Apartheid. Of course, Singapore will never sink so low down the scale as South Africa in international public opinion. But we need not put ourselves in a position where we will attract bad international press or bad international public opinion in relation to our treatment of the human rights issue. We may not like it. But the 15 detained are treated by people abroad as a human rights issue. The detainees are viewed as mere dissenters who opposed the ruling Party because the Singapore Government's case claiming that they are Marxist subversives are not believed. I say that Singapore should not and never be allowed to be labelled abroad as a country which is clean, green and economically advanced, but its Government represssive. I think that this kind of an international image should never be allowed to be imprinted in the international public opinion and the public press abroad. If that happens, then it will need plenty of effort on Singapore's part to erase that kind of an unflattering international image. I have spoken earlier on about the pledge whereby the pledge is for us to build a democratic society. Let us not just mouth the words of the pledge but let us put the words of the pledge into practice. Arresting our own citizens and detaining them without trial is definitely not democratic. Whichever way we look at it, it is not democratic. So I would also urge the Government, like the 55 US Congressmen, either to try or release the 15 detained.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the points raised by the Member for Potong Pasir can be viewed as raising two questions. One is a specific question as to what do we do with criticisms and protests that we have received on these arrests; and the other is a broader question as to who makes and takes decisions on the law, order and security issues of Singapore - we, the Singaporeans and the elected Government, or foreigners? The Member for Potong Pasir seems surprised that there are protests from various quarters. He should not be. We knew, before we took the decision to arrest those involved in the conspiracy, that there will be criticisms and that there will be protests from abroad. The First Deputy Prime Minister and I have said so in this House. We said that one of the factors which we took into account in the decision-making process was that there will be criticisms and protests both within and outside Singapore. We knew that. How did we know that? Because each time in the past whenever we used the ISA, there were criticisms and protests. But this time we knew that there would be more protests than on previous occasions because, first, those involved in this conspiracy had made use of church organizations and church publications, and that related and affiliated religious organizations abroad who did not have all the facts would be puzzled and were bound to write in and express righteous indignation. Secondly, because so many of them are graduates, professionals, having studied abroad, we knew that they had connections with their former universities, alumni, and this also would cause protests. As we had informed the House, in the decision-making process we had to consider the question: should we refrain from acting on a security measure because of the likelihood of protests and criticisms? Or do we, despite the anticipated protests, decide to move? The former alternative, of course, is a convenient and expedient option. It avoids more work. It lessens controversy. But we knew that this would not be right. If the decision, after weighing all the pros and cons, was that it was necessary on national security grounds, then we should move to protect our security and nip the conspiracy in the bud. To do otherwise would mean that we are taking chances with the lives of Singaporeans and the future of our stability and security. Now that we have acted against them and the anticipated protests have come, what should we do and what do we do? It depends, of course, on who is it who criticized us and what are his intentions. I have previously classified at least four groups of persons who would criticize us. First, those who are well-intentioned but do not know our situation. Because of the culture and traditions, they cannot understand preventive detention. Secondly, there are groups like Amnesty International which opposed preventive detention per se and therefore they condemn and only later ascertain the facts. Thirdly, the organizations which are related to the organizations which were involved here - Justice of Peace Commissions established elsewhere and they feel obliged to protest. Fourthly, groups and organizations which have vested interest and have an axe to grind and clearly mischievous. I spoke at length on this when I answered the question from the Member for Fengshan on a previous occasion about protests by groups in Malaysia. Congressmen have protested. We have ourselves made public the first Congressional letter and our reply which was comprehensive. We consider them as belonging to the first group. They are well-intentioned and we treat them accordingly. Hence we give a comprehensive reply to that letter and all other letters that follow subsequently. We explain to them why we are different from the United States. Why is it that, because of past Communist and communalist problems, we have to resort to measures to suit our circumstances and why preventive detention, which was introduced by the British, has still relevance today because the problems have not disappeared. For those in the United States, preventive detention and the Internal Security Act is not acceptable because in the context of their norms, their legal traditions which have evolved over more than 200 years, their solutions are different. They are larger. They are more well established and for them a Marxist conspiracy, subversion, probably they can handle it without the existence of their nation being in jeopardy. But what about Singapore? Instead of just relying on the Minister's view, let me quote to the Member for Potong Pasir the views of the late Prof. Tilman who was quoted by the Prime Minister. But let me quote a different passage. He has studied and worked here for many years. He was an American scholar and this is what he said: 'Singapore more than most states needs international political and economic stability and predictability if it is to prosper or even survive. Larger nations may withdraw to within themselves in troubled times but a small densely populated island offers little refuge from a major storm. Disruptive or subversive actions can destroy Singapore's credibility as a safe haven... In brief, Singapore is highly vulnerable to forces over which it has only limited controland it faces dilemmas that larger states can avoid or minimize.' Sir, in the previous debate, when the First Deputy Prime Minister pointed out that the Member for Potong Pasir was not against the ISA, he did not rebut the First Deputy Prime Minister. Congressmen have taken a position which is against preventive detention. I would expect him, as a loyal Singaporean, to speak as a Singaporean. Why does he not take umbrage over what all these foreign critics from Malaysia and elsewhere do which amounts to interference in our internal affairs? Why give more credence to criticisms abroad than the explanations given by the Government? If we take his approach and do what all the foreign critics would ask us to do, will it do any good for Singapore, our future, stability and security? Will it be a responsible act? Will it not encourage more interference from various quarters in our internal affairs? What happens the next time we have another security problem, another Silat group? Do we consult ALIRAN, INSAN, Amnesty International? Ask them first whether they object, whether they protest, and then only act? Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the issue is one of preventive detention. That is how the criticism has been presented. In the ultimate analysis, the key issue is this: who decides the destiny of Singapore and Singaporeans? It must be Singaporeans and the elected Government. Surely the Member for Potong Pasir cannot seriously suggest that our security decisions on arrests and release must be made on criteria other than what is best for our national interest. Surely he cannot suggest that we adopt new criterion depending on whether it pleases or annoys others outside Singapore. If we adopt that criterion, Sir, it will please foreign critics. It will please others elsewhere who want to poke noses into our affairs. But it will not solve our problems and if we take that approach, ie, the approach of the Member for Potong Pasir, it will be abdicating our responsibility to decide our own affairs without interference from outside quarters. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in view of the time, I would not get into the other areas he touched on concerning the release of the detainees, the grounds for the detention, because these were fully covered in the previous debate on 29th July.

Have you responded to the letter?

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the question from the Member for Potong Pasir is whether we have received the letter from the Congressmen and the answer is yes, and a reply will be prepared. But the reply will be based on the points which have already been covered in the first Congressional letter's reply because that was the comprehensive statement of the Singapore Government's position and many of the signatories to the letter he refers to also included the same signatories to the first Congressional letter. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, as I said, in the ultimate analysis, what is at issue is we are different. We are not the United States. Our problems which affect our vulnerability and stability are different from the United States and therefore when critics, based on their perspectives, their experience and their cultures and traditions, pass views and judgments on our solutions, far from attempting to conclude that we are wrong, we should attempt to explain to them as best as we can why is it that we are different, our problems are special, our circumstances unique and therefore we must be allowed to devise solutions for our security problems. Because if we are not allowed to do that and when Singapore goes down the drain, I think none of us has any doubts that few of these foreign critics will be able to come to our help, and it may be too late even if they want to do so. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the point about the foreign criticisms is this. We must be able to distinguish the type of criticisms. At the last sitting, I mentioned to the House that whether the critic is well inten- tioned or not is important. There are organizations which have mischievous intent, which derive pleasure from seeing Singapore in difficulties. The Member for Potong Pasir has seen recent examples, in the past year or so, when the slightest incident or event in Singapore sparks off large numbers of protests on matters which do not affect any other country. We must also distinguish critics who have already taken a pre-determined position. Amnesty International takes a pre-determined position - opposing preventive detention. So if we take the approach of the Member for Potong Pasir - we are worried about image and therefore refrain from taking action necessary. Amnesty International also opposes the death penalty. Whenever a drug trafficker is executed, I get letters from Amnesty International. Following the logic of the Member for Potong Pasir, if we take care of this problem of the ISA arrests, what should we do when Amnesty International and legislators the world over who disagree with the death penalty protest? Should we then get rid of the death penalty for drug traffickers? Then, since preventive detention per se is opposed, what do we do when legislators the world over oppose our criminal law detention which has helped to make our streets safe and secure from gangsters, rapists and other big-time criminals?

Let's talk about the 15 detained.

The issue is still that of preventive detention. Law makers who oppose the ISA because they are against preventive detention per se must logically also oppose preventive detention for criminals. It is also detention without trial. The Member for Potong Pasir will come back to this House when next we have protests on that kind of preventive detention and say, "Look, our image is affected. Release all the criminal law detainees." Is he a legislator from another country? Or is he a Member of Parliament of Singapore? So whether it is the Internal Security Act or the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act or the Misuse of Drugs Act, we have had to devise our own solutions for our circumstances. That is how we have managed to contain our law and order problems. And we are not apologetic for having preventive detention or having the Internal Security Act. It is not this Government which introduced it out of thin air. It was introduced by the British. The British introduced preventive detention because they knew that there was no other way that the problems of Communist subversion, and racial and religious extremism can be contained. And we did not do away with preventive detention because the problems still exist and continue. Our task, therefore, when faced with criticisms, whether it be from the United States or elsewhere, is to explain to them, get them to understand that not all coun- tries are alike, not all problems in all countries are the same and that there must be differences in meeting different problems. Finally, we must ask ourselves what is the consequence if we did not take the approach of having as our criterion the overriding national interest of Singapore, the future of Singaporeans, our stability and vulnerability. The Question having been proposed at Twenty-five minutes to Five o'clock pm and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr Deputy Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. Adjourned accordingly at Five minutes past Five o'clock pm to a date to be fixed.

asked the Minister for National Development whether a sports complex will be built in Braddell Heights.

A sports complex will be built in Serangoon New Town. The proposed location of the complex is the site bounded by Yio Chu Kang Road, Yio Chu Kang Link and Boundary Road as shown in the attached plan (Cols. 1621 - 1622). Design work will commence in September 1987. The complex is scheduled for completion by early 1990. plan - SERANGOON NEW TOWN (Cols. 1621 - 1622)

asked the Minister for the Environment whether there has been an increase in the number of offenders booked for illegal hawking in line with his Ministry's recent call for public alertness following the increase in the number of cholera cases.

The Ministry has stepped up enforcement action against illegal hawkers since late last year, for several reasons. The main reason is public health. More than 80% of the cooked food sold by illegal hawkers have been found to be unfit for human consumption. The Ministry is concerned that contaminated food sold by illegal hawkers could be one of the sources of food borne diseases such as cholera and typhoid. Another reason for the stepped up action is because of complaints from shopkeepers and licensed hawkers. Illegal hawkers plying on the streets and housing estates have taken away much of the businesses of shopkeepers and licensed hawkers. There are other nuisances caused by illegal hawkers, such as littering, noise and obstruction to traffic. From January to July this year, officers from the Ministry of the Environment and the Housing and Development Board (HDB) issued a total of 10,664 summonses to illegal hawkers and seized 93.9 tonnes of cooked food/fruits/market produce sold by them. For the same period, last year, the number of summonses is 8,757 and the tonnage seized is 63.9 tonnes. The Ministry set up a telephone hot-line on 13 June 1987. Up to 24 August 1987, a total of 1,210 complaints were received from members of the public. Feedback from members of the public have been most useful. The information received enabled enforcement teams from my Ministry and HDB to take swift action.

asked the Minister for Trade and Industry what were the mean and/or median dollar values of Singapore's garment exports under quota for the years 1984 to 1986 to the United States and the E.E.C. and how these dollar values compare with those of Hong Kong and the other garment exporting countries of Asia.

Singapore's garment exports under quota between 1984 and 1986 are as follows: Table I Singapore's Exports of Textiles and Garments under Quota (S$m) _________________________________________________________ 1984 1985 1986 _________________________________________________________ US 668 669 810 EEC 121 80 142 Others 41 37 56 _________________________________________________________ Source: Trade Development Board There is no published data on quota exports by other Asian countries. The following Table shows the comparison of our total garment exports with that of the other Asian countries. Table II Exports of Garments (in US$billion) _________________________________________________ 1984 1985 1986 _________________________________________________ Hong Kong 5.58 5.42 NA South Korea 3.71 3.75 NA China 2.54 2.08 NA Singapore 0.55 0.53 0.60 Thailand 0.54 NA NA Indonesia 0.29 NA NA Malaysia NA NA NA Philippines NA NA NA _________________________________________________ Source: GATT Secretariat Singapore's share in the US and EEC markets is relatively small compared to the share of the other Asian countries. The comparison is given in the following Table: Table III Imports of Garments by the US and EEC, 1985 _______________________________________________________________ Importing USA EEC Country _________________________________________________ Exporting US$ % of total US$ % of total Country billion imports billion imports _______________________________________________________________ Hong Kong 3.54 21.8 1.53 8.8 Taiwan 2.50 15.4 0.33 1.9 South Korea 2.48 15.3 0.77 4.4 China 1.05 6.5 0.37 2.1 Philippines 0.49 3.0 0.11 0.6 Singapore 0.36 2.2 0.05 0.3 Malaysia 0.23 1.4 0.07 0.4 Thailand 0.27 1.7 0.14 0.8 Indonesia 0.22 1.4 0.04 0.2 _______________________________________________________________ Source: Foreign Trade by Commodities

asked the Minister for Trade and Industry what percentage of Singapore's garment exports under quota for the years 1984 to 1986 would be categorised as Singaporean labels as opposed to "contract labels".

The bulk (over 90%) of garments produced in Singapore are manufactured under contract for foreign designer fashion houses. Such garments would be classified as "contract labels". The volume of Singaporean labels is very small. These comprise garments from local designers who sell their products to specialty and up-market department stores as well as local manufacturers who export fashion garments under their own trademark. plan - SERANGOON NEW TOWN (Cols. 1621 - 1622)