Hansard, 1989-03-28

asked the First Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence whether he will give a progress report on the 'gas and water agreement' with the Malaysian Government.

Mr Speaker, Sir, on 28th June 1988, the Prime Ministers of Malaysia and Singapore signed a Memorandum of Understanding agreeing the following: (a) That Singapore can proceed with the construction of a dam on Sungei Linggiu (a tributary of the Johor River), plus pipelines and ancillary works. This project will be implemented under the 1962 Johor River Water Agreement, which provides for Singapore to abstract up to 250 million gallons per day from the Johor River. (b) That Singapore can purchase treated water from Johor in excess of her entitlement of 250 million gallons per day under the 1962 Water Agreement. Johor will build at its own cost treatment plants and facilities, as necessary, for the sale of this treated water. (c) That Singapore will purchase 150 million standard cubic feet of natural gas per day from Malaysia for power generation. The Public Utilities Board commenced work on the Linggiu Dam project in September 1988. Site survey and soil investigation works are nearing completion. Construction of the access road and site clearance work for the dam will begin soon. The compensation payable for the land required for the project is being negotiated with the Malaysians. The project is expected to be completed by the end of 1992. On the supply of natural gas to Singapore, the price and the annual premium have been agreed upon. Petronas and PUB are now discussing the technical and operational details. Once all these outstanding issues are settled, the necessary agreements can be signed.

asked the Minister for National Development when the Housing and Development Board will complete the conversion process now being undertaken at Blocks 611 and 629, Bedok Reservoir Road and when the flats will be ready for occupation.

Mr Speaker, Sir, 200 3-room flats and 20 4-room flats at Block 629 Bedok Reservoir Road are being converted to 58 5-room flats and 52 Executive Apartments. The conversion is expected to be completed and ready for occupation by early 1990. No conversion works will be carried out at Block 611 at Bedok Reservoir Road. HDB plans to upgrade the internal finishes of the 4- and 5-room flats in this block to current standards. The upgrading will be completed before the end of 1989.

Sir, are these conversions the amalgamation of two or more flats together? For these converted flats, are there special conditions for people who want to apply them?

Mr Speaker, Sir, yes. As I said, 3- and 4-room flats will be converted into 5-room and Executive Apartment flats. So this will involve some amalgamation. There will be no special conditions because these converted flats will be almost the same in size as the standard 5-room and Executive apartments, maybe a little bigger.

asked the Minister for National Development (a) how many families, farms, shops and temples in Nee Soon South are still waiting to be resettled; and (b) when will the resettlement be completed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, 331 cases in Nee Soon Constituency are still waiting to be resettled. This includes 102 families, 23 farmers, 53 shops, 9 temples, one mosque, 30 workshops and 113 offices. These cases are scheduled to be cleared by March 1990.

asked the Minister for the Environment if he will give the number of spitting and littering offences for the years 1986, 1987 and 1988.

On behalf of my Minister, Sir. The number of tickets issued for littering and spitting offences in the past three years was as follows: Year Littering Spitting 1986 7,816 128 1987 7,783 113 1988 6,154 83

Mr Speaker, I am happy to hear there is some improvement in the situation. May I ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary what is this attributed to, and what further measures will be implemented to further improve the situation?

Sir, firstly greater public awareness. Greater public awareness through campaigns, mini-campaigns, exhibitions, widespread publicity and talks. In fact, Members of Parliament have actually spearheaded some of these campaigns and I would like to thank them for it. The other is greater or more selective enforcement action in areas that are more litter-prone, spitting-prone. So all these efforts have actually worked together and have a fairly good influence on a large section of the population. The people today are more civic-minded; they are more aware that spitting and littering are bad social habits and refrain from them. What future plans do we have to further reduce bad habits? Sir, we will carry on with our publicity education programmes. We will also step up our selective enforcement action in areas that are litter-prone, spitting-prone. We will think of new ways, new ideas, to discourage the population from spitting, littering, other bad habits, and of course if Members of Parliament have any useful ideas, we welcome them to share with us. For instance, I think last year Mr Chew Heng Ching suggested that we go on a more carrot-type of method to discourage litterings. Since then we have tried in three constituencies, I believe, Telok Blangah, Tampines and Toa Payoh. Today we are assessing the effectiveness of the competition and of course, if successful, we will introduce them to more constituencies.

asked the Minister for Communications and Information if he will consider allowing taxi diesel tax refund to be pro-rated on a daily basis instead of monthly basis when a taxi is scrapped.

Sir, the Customs Act and the Motor Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Rules require all vehicle owners including taxi owners to pay their road tax and diesel tax on the month of registration. Vehicle owners are free to choose the date for the de-registration of their vehicles. After de-registration they can apply to the ROV to obtain a refund of the remaining months of road and diesel tax which they have paid. Sir, my suggestion to the Member would be to have the taxis of Comfort registered on the first day of the month and then de-registered on the last day in order to get maximum value for the tax that they have paid.

The following question stood in the name of Mr Charles Chong - 6. To ask the Minister for Communications and Information whether the Singapore Broadcasting Corporation can remain viable without the revenue from radio and television licence fees and, if so, whether the SBC will consider the eventual abolition of such fees.

Question 6, Sir.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in FY 89/90, licence fees are expected to account for about 34% of SBC's operating expenditure. If licence fees were to be reduced or abolished, SBC's viability will be affected. Either SBC will have to cut back on its range or quality of programmes, or the income will have to be made good by the Government from other general revenues. As a matter of principle, the Government prefers that SBC be funded as much as possible out of licence fees and other operating income, such as advertising revenue. Licence fees mean that viewers of TV programmes pay directly for the service that SBC provides them. This is much fairer than charging the cost of SBC to taxpayers in general. It also enables SBC to operate as a self-financing body, with greater flexibility and autonomy than a Government-funded statutory board, and also with greater responsibility to make sure that it remains financially viable. This means better programmes, better scheduling, better marketing; in other words, better service to the viewers.

asked the Minister for Home Affairs what steps have been taken by the Civil Defence Unit to improve the training and performance of Construction Brigade National Servicemen.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the training scheme and general performance of the Construction Brigade servicemen have improved significantly. Sir, the training scheme consists of 3 phases, namely, Basic Para-military Training, Construction Trade Training and Supervised Field Training. The following steps have been taken to enhance the training and performance of the servicemen: (a) Site Representatives Apart from the Civil Defence Officers who monitor the performance of servicemen attached to construction sites, a scheme was recently introduced to select "site representatives" from exemplary national servicemen to provide feedback and ideas on how the welfare of fellow servicemen at specific worksites can be enhanced. This has helped to build up a sense of camaraderie, team spirit and good discipline among the servicemen according to the locality they are in. Contractors have also responded positively to the scheme and found it beneficial as a motivating factor for the servicemen working under them. (b) Trade Test Preparatory Course The Construction Brigade has also implemented a "Trade Test Preparatory Course" at the Construction Industry Training Centre since February 1989. The objective of this course is to reinforce the construction skills which the servicemen have acquired at the worksites and prepare them for the skills test. If they pass the tests, they will then have certified skills which will increase their market value should they take on construction work as a career upon their ROD. (c) Language Proficiency Language proficiency classes under the WISE programme have also been introduced for servicemen with Secondary education to supplement the existing BEST programme for servicemen with primary education. Such language proficiency courses build up Construction Brigade men's self-confidence, help them to better understand the lessons taught at CITC and also improve their interaction with contractors and fellow workers at worksites. Sir, as a result of these improvements and refinement, the discipline and performance of NS men has improved. The absenteeism rate in worksites was 16.5% under the Old Scheme and 5.4% under the Revised Scheme which is a significant drop from that of 30.5% and 14.2% respectively a year ago.

Sir, how many of these Construction Brigade national servicemen have been trained to date and how many of these trainees have, in fact, gone into the construction industry?

Up to date, Sir, 8,888 Construction Brigade National Servicemen have been enlisted from the 1st to 30th intake under the Construction Brigade scheme. At present, 2,546 are active NS men under the Construction Brigade scheme while another 5,625 are in reservists and 700-odd of them have been transferred out of service or are already exempted under the scheme. As to the number who have actually remained in the construction industry, I do not have the figures with me at the moment but it is somewhere in the region of around 30% who have remained in the industry. There is also a certain percentage of them who have remained in allied industry to the construction trade, ie, not directly working on the site but in some way the work is linked to the construction industry.

Sir, we heard yesterday about the integration of the Civil Defence Force and the Singapore Fire Service. Will the Construction Brigade National Servicemen's training be modified in view of the integration process, and will they have training at the combined school that we heard about yesterday?

Mr Speaker, Sir, most of the training of the Construction Brigade at the Jalan Bahar Civil Defence Training Centre is for para-military training. When it comes to learning about construction skills, they attend the courses conducted at the construction industry training centre which is a different training school. After the integration of the Civil Defence Force and the Fire Service, the Construction Brigade will continue to focus its attention on training a core of national servicemen who have some basic construction skills and experience in construction trade.

The following Question stood in the name of Mr Charles Chong - 8. To ask the Acting Minister for Health if he will consider allowing the use of Medisave for dialysis treatment.

Question No. 8.

Mr Speaker, Sir, to alleviate the financial burden faced by kidney dialysis patients, my Ministry will allow Medisave to be used for dialysis treatment. However, this will be confined to each patient's own Medisave account, and will be limited to a maximum withdrawal of $400 per month. Medisave of the immediate family members cannot be used to supplement that of the patients as this will rapidly deplete their Medisave savings, which are necessary for their own hospitalization needs. The details are being worked out and will be announced later.

asked the Minister for National Development (a) when will the section of Yishun Avenue 1 from Yishun Avenue 4 to Sembawang Road be open to traffic; and (b) when will the extension of Yishun Avenue 1 to Mandai Road be completed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the section of Yishun Avenue 1 from Yishun Avenue 4 to Sembawang Road is currently under construction and is expected to be open to traffic by July 1989. Tender for the extension of Yishun Avenue 1 from Sembawang Road to Mandai Road will be invited in May 1989. The extension is expected to be completed by the end of 1990.

asked the Minister for Communications and Information if he will consider allowing taxis to install mobile telephones for use by commuters.

Sir, my Ministry will allow taxis to install mobile phones for use by commuters. This will be in line with the Government's objective to liberalize the taxi industry and to help improve the quality of taxi service to commuters. However, the use of the telephone by drivers whilst driving can be hazardous both to the drivers as well as to other road users. For this reason, I would urge the taxi companies to set up their own rules and conditions to discourage their drivers from using the telephones whilst driving and when carrying commuters. Likewise, I would also like to urge all motorists to refrain from using the telephone and driving at the same time. In the process they may save a minute or two but they may lose a life.

12.50 pm

"to amend the Judicial Committee Act (Chapter 148 of the 1985 Revised Edition)", presented by the Minister for Law (Prof. S. Jayakumar); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

Order read for consideration in Committee of Supply [9th Allotted Day].

Head R -

Head R, Ministry of Labour, Amendment No. (1) - Mr Lim Boon Heng - 80 minutes.

Sir, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head R of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100. Sir, with your permission could I take (a) and (b) first and leave the other amendments till later?

All right.

Sir, I wish to express my concern over the proliferation of the early use of CPF, and I believe that what I have to say would be the concern and views of a number of Members, including yourself. Sir, the primary objective of the CPF scheme is financial security at old age. Now the question is: will members have enough to live on when they retire? We all recall that when the minimum sum proposal was put up, many people stated that the sum of $30,000 was not enough. An annuity paying $230 to $250 per month is not much to live on. It is a subsistence sum and not a sum adequate for maintaining a lifestyle that we are used to before retirement. This means that unless a member has other savings or investments over and above the minimum sum, he must expect a lower level of comfort in his retirement. It is against this backdrop that we should examine the extended use of CPF savings. These savings can be used for the purchase of a house or flat and is partially used for hospitalization expenses. In respect of Medisave, it would appear that members consider it more as a scheme for current consumption than for hospitalization costs during retirement, and we have just heard from the Acting Minister for Health that it will be used for dialysis. I do not know what further current use of Medisave would be requested by the members of the public and articulated in this House and acceded to by the Minister for Health. We have allowed it to be invested in stocks and shares and yesterday we heard from the Minister for Labour that CPF funds can now be used as a loan for tertiary education in our local institutions. This, as we all recall, is a result of a lot of pressure from the Backbenchers in what I would term a "misguided compassionate crusade". During the debate in the Committee of Supply last year, I spoke out against the use of CPF for education because of my concern for security at old age and the opening up of a Pandora's box. I am still against CPF for education even though Government has bowed to public opinion. This is because I feel that there are adequate loans available either from the NUS or from the revolving fund for local education and one really does not need to dip into the parent's CPF savings for this purpose. I am concerned that the stage is now set for more requests to be made. One of them would be, quite logically following from yesterday's announcement, overseas tertiary education. We have already in today's Straits Times the opinion expressed by one journalist. So the pressure is already starting and I hear from my colleagues in Parliament who held the meet-the-people sessions last night that already there are requests for the use of CPF for overseas tertiary education. I hope that this time the Minister for Labour will stand firm and resist the pressure. Another request that would be put up is the use of CPF savings for education in our vocational institutes. The sum is not small but again to the parents it may be a sum not to be sniffed at. It is particularly in the case of the lower income families. So where do we draw the line? Where do we stop? The next request which has already been aired in this House is for the use of CPF for home renovation and who is to say that home renovation is not a form of investment? We have read not so long ago in the context of our policies on procreation somebody suggesting that CPF funds should be used for the financial support of a woman who is raising an infant. I think that we can all very forcibly and convincingly argued that all these uses of CPF are different forms of investment and how important it is depends on the individual's needs. So when will this end? How are we going to ensure that the CPF bank - after all it is our bank - is not going to be further raided for current expenditure? I think it is time to say "no more", so that the primary objective of financial security at old age can be met. Half a million CPF members have more than $30,900 in their accounts. I think this figure bears scrutiny. The $30,900 includes sums withdrawn for housing schemes. If the amount spent on housing is deducted, I wonder how many members will really have enough balances to live on in retirement and have a roof over their heads which they can call their own. I wonder how many people will be forced to sell their houses in order to be able to live during their retirement and how long would that sum, realized from the sale of their flat or house, last them. Before we liberalize any more the early use or misuse of CPF funds, we should look more seriously at financial security at old age and I hope that speakers after me will share this concern and debate this very important topic.

Sir, with your permission, can I take all the amendments which I have together?

Yes.

Sir, firstly, on the use of CPF. Let me say that I share the sentiments expressed by the Member for Kebun Baru who is also the Chairman of the GPC for Labour. Yesterday, when the Minister announced the CPF Education Scheme, we have introduced a new concept in our CPF scheme to allow individuals with CPF savings exceeding the amount which the Minister stated, to withdraw their CPF savings by way of a from members loan. The Minister will now have to expect more requests for loans from their CPF. We have started it and we will have to bear with all the requests, pressures and demands for additional use of CPF by way of loans. Although the scheme is currently only confined to local tertiary institutions, I think the pressure for use for education in overseas tertiary institutions up to at least the amount allowed for local tertiary institutions and especially when there is very keen competition for admission to NUS and NTI will be very great. After all, it is now in the form of a loan which will have to be repaid. I do not see how the Ministry could really justify his refusal if an individual wants to take a loan, for instance, from his own savings to finance his own education at a higher level, including post-graduate level, in an overseas university. So I think we have to be very careful in allowing CPF to be used by way of loans because once the process starts, it will not end. Sir, the primary objective of the CPF is to cater for the needs of the members in their old age. I have earlier spoken against the use of CPF for education because I feel that we must take a very cautious approach to ensure that the above objective will not be breached. All in all, I still favour a very cautious approach on this issue. Sir, now let me turn to restoration of employers' contribution to the CPF. I think we should get the employers' contribution restored to meet the long-term rate of 40%, as soon as possible. During the recession, the workers had to take a hefty 15%-point cut, and now that the economy has recovered strongly and our wage costs are competitive compared to the other NICs, we should get employers to restore the contribution up to 20% quickly. I note that there are plans to raise the employers' contribution by up to 4%, making it 16% in July, if our economy continues to grow strongly. But I feel that if our economic performance is really good, we should consider an even larger restoration of the employers' contribution. How the restoration of employers' contribution should be treated in wage negotiations between the employers and the unions is a matter which I think should be left to the unions and the management to decide, based on the individual company's performance. I think there is no doubt that the employers' contribution constitutes a part of wages. However, my point is that companies which are performing very well and earning exceptional profits should reward their employees with exceptional wage increases. This could be in the form of good bonuses, wage adjustments and also annual increments, taking into account obviously of the need to have a certain flexibility in the wage system. Sir, finally, on the subject of the labour market situation, I would like to ask the Minister to encourage more companies to extend the retirement age and also to provide opportunities for older employees to be trained or re-trained. Perhaps Government should provide more incentives for the private sector to get them to train older employees. At the same time, to ease the labour market, I think part-time work should be vigorously promoted. And the Ministry should also help create the right conditions that will provide greater flexibility for the employment of more part-time workers.

Sir, CPF has evolved from a strictly old-age savings scheme to one that helps members to meet their basic needs of retirement, housing and health. Yesterday, the Minister for Labour announced the CPF education scheme that will enable CPF members to invest part of their CPF savings in tertiary education for themselves and their children. On this aspect, Mr Chairman, Sir, although I am a member of the GPC (Labour), I do not think I agree with my Chairman, the Member for Kebun Baru. I do not have the figures but perhaps the Minister for Labour could enlighten this House on how much CPF moneys were collected, say, last year, and how much was withdrawn for housing, health and retirement. I do believe that every year there is a sizable balance remaining in the CPF accounts. And even on the CPF education scheme, if there are members who support the extension to overseas education, I will be there to support that proposal. As a further improvement to the CPF scheme, may I make a suggestion to the Minister which I have proposed during last year's debate in the Committee of Supply. Mr Chairman, Sir, employees begin to make CPF contributions when their total wages per month exceed $200. According to the June 1988 Labour Force Survey, the median monthly income of woman part-time workers was $250. Since the Government is promoting part-time work, may I suggest to the Minister to raise the wage level where employees begin to make CPF contributions from $200 to, say, $400 so that part-time workers can have more take-home pay. Next, on the labour market situation. The Singapore National Employers' Federation has estimated that the total wage increase in 1988 was 11.3%. They expect higher wage increases for 1989 since the proposed increase in foreign workers' levy and employers' CPF contribution will increase total wages by about 6% by July 1989. If normal annual wage increases are added on, total wages will again increase by more than 10% in 1989. May I ask the Minister for statistics to compare our total wage increases in 1988 with that of other NICs, that is, Hong Kong, Taiwan and Korea. Is it also possible for the Minister to compare our estimated wage increases for 1989 with that of the NICs? I sincerely hope, Mr Chairman, that we will not make the same mistake again as we have done in the early 1980s and raise our total wages so much that once again our goods are no longer competitive in the world markets. Under amendments to the Immigration Act expected to come into force soon, the labour market will be further tightened. According to a Straits Times report of 24th March, about 8,500 Thai workers are expected to be repatriated last weekend. May I ask the Minister: (a) How many more illegal foreign workers are expected to be repatriated before the March 31st deadline for repatriation; and (b) What assistance, if any, will the Government provide to employers affected by this sudden loss of workers. The Minister may recollect that in last year's debate in the Committee of Supply I have requested the Labour Ministry to check a point raised by some industrialists - that the cost of foreign workers in Singapore is not really cheap. In fact, when we take into consideration housing, transport and other costs, it is actually higher than the cost of Singapore workers by as much as $80-$100. May I ask the Minister if such a study has been done. If foreign workers are indeed more expensive than Singapore workers, then employers are forced to engage foreign workers because of the acute shortage of workers and not because they are cheaper. My final point, Mr Chairman, Sir, is on part-time employment. The Minister may recall that during the debate in the Committee of Supply last year, he agreed to study the problems of part-time employment with -

Dr Wong, are you speaking on the next amendment?

Item (2).

We are not on that amendment yet. Dr Tan.

Mr Chairman, I would like to take the points raised by the Member for Kebun Baru about the use of CPF for education. Last year in this House, my GPC made the proposal to the Minister for Labour and it was only after hard bargaining that he finally agreed to accept the proposal. The final outcome of that proposal was from the Ministry of Labour. Our GPC just presented the case to the Labour Ministry and those proposals that were given to this House yesterday were from the Ministry of Labour. We did not contribute any more inputs. But, first, I want to touch on what the Member for Parliament for Kebun Baru has said about old age. I think we may be overplaying this issue. What actually do we need for old age? We need a home. The CPF has made this provision from the approved housing scheme. When you are old, you need some attention to your health, and that is taken care of by Medisave. So they have made these two provisions. Then we have the third one, that is, the third element, that an old man or an old person needs some cash. That is also provided for by the Minimum Sum Scheme. I think generally what Singaporeans want is to be able to use their CPF that is available after all their old age needs have been taken care of. I think we should not keep on using this "old age" as a stumbling factor to the way we want to make use of our CPF. As regards the CPF scheme that was proposed yesterday, our GPC actually asked for an option in the Approved Investments Scheme. You have used that scheme to allow Singaporeans to buy stocks and shares and gold. So what the GPC for Education suggested was to use this as the other option. If he does not want to use that, let him use it for education. I notice that there is a restriction to the use of CPF for overseas education. I think the suggestion by Dr Vasoo is quite reasonable. We can allow the Singaporeans to use their CPF for overseas education up to the limit of the tuition fees of our local universities. I think the Minister is a very cautious man and sometimes if we push him too hard in this House, he might give you a "no" answer. Perhaps I would encourage my fellow Backbenchers not to push him too hard but to give him a gentle nudge. Because I know, it took me quite some time to really convince him, and he was the one who resisted the strongest. I even approached Dr Tony Tan, 1DPM, and even Prime Minister to try to convince him, but he was very strong. So I would like to employ my usual style. I would talk to him and see whether I can convince him.

He will persuade you.

I do not know whether he will persuade me, but I will try to persuade him. So let us give his proposal a chance. I think they must have put a lot of effort and discussion and thought into the scheme. I am prepared to let the scheme go for a year or two and perhaps come back to this House to find out whether he would like to consider other options.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank all the Members who have spoken on this issue of CPF. Perhaps I should respond on this question first before moving to the other issues. Understandably, this question of CPF for education has aroused some debate today. I am happy to note that Dr Tan Cheng Bock has at least agreed to give the scheme a try. And meanwhile, of course, we can discuss the scheme further and look at all the angles. He will try and persuade me, of course, and I will try and persuade him as well to my point of view. One of the basic objections I had when I resisted opening up the scheme for education is that members have very low CPF balances. Yesterday, I mentioned that out of about 1 million CPF members, only about half will have more than the minimum sum of $30,900 in their accounts including sums withdrawn for housing. This point was referred to by the Chairman of the GPC for Labour, Mr Lim. In fact, out of the half a million members who can take part, another 300,000 have less than $10,000 investible savings. In other words, if you add the $30,900 to the $10,000, they have in fact less than $41,000 in their CPF accounts, inclusive of the amounts withdrawn for housing. The basic problem is that most CPF members - in fact, 80% of active members - have very low savings. So this question of overseas education is, in fact, irrelevant to them. They simply cannot afford. Of course, those who have the savings are trying to get at their CPF and we can expect pressure from them. Yesterday, one of the Members, Dr Aline Wong, said this scheme is really tokenism. This is not true because the scheme can benefit some 45,000 students who are presently studying in NUS, NTI and the polytechnics. This number is much more than the number who are studying overseas. In fact, with most of our workers maybe earning about $800-$1,000 median pay, the cost of local tertiary education is not cheap, not any more with the fees going up. So I am sure many of the students and their parents will be greatly relieved that we are going to allow the CPF to be used from July this year. In fact, many of these parents find difficulty in paying for the transportation, the hostel fees, the meals and so on, not counting the fees. So this scheme will benefit the majority of the CPF members and that must always be the purpose of the scheme. Those who are lobbying to go overseas are generally the ones who are better off. But we are concerned that once we open up, then the pressure will be on the others who cannot really afford to try and keep up with the Joneses. For example, the course for medicine in some US universities may cost as much as $300,000. Even at $100,000, it will be very difficult for the student to repay after he graduates. You can easily do the sums. A hefty repayment is needed every month. The problem will be even bigger if the student fails for some reason. We are therefore putting the parent's CPF at risk. Of course, the CPF Board will try its best to enforce repayment. But I think there will be considerable difficulties in some cases. Then there will be others who are tempted to go overseas. They may go into courses which are not really reputable or of dubious quality. Then they come back with a piece of paper. And they find that the jobs that they can get are really not up to their expectations. There have been cases of people like that, people who leave the Police Force to go and do some degree. They come back and find that they are really not doing any better than before. So the investment would have been wasted in those cases. Therefore, I agree wholeheartedly with Mr Lim Boon Heng and Encik Othman Eusofe that we must always safeguard the basic objectives of the CPF scheme. That is what the CPF scheme was started for in the first place. In fact, we did a careful calculation before we arrived at the 40% long-term rate. We find that the amount is only enough for housing, hospitalization and old-age financial needs, provided the members do not have this attitude that they must, for example, make use of all their Medisave now. That is a concern, in fact, which I think the Ministry of Health should look into. The attitude is: spend now rather than leave till later. Whereas the intention of the Government is to have Medisave for old age when the demands for hospitalization will be much greater. Mr Lim indicated other demands which may come up, eg, home renovation. I am surprised this time not many Members have spoken on this issue because I get some signals that this may be another topic coming up. If Members go round on their house-to-house visits, they will see how lavishly many HDB homeowners have done up their flats. It is because they use CPF to pay for the price of the flats, inclusive of interest. I think it would be wrong for Government to allow these people to further encroach upon their CPF savings in order to do up their flats lavishly. That is why I will be strongly against allowing CPF for renovation. So I hope Members will understand that the basic objective of the CPF scheme must be for the members' old-age financial security. And I also hope that they will understand if occasionally I have to say 'no' to their requests. Encik Othman Eusofe has also spoken in strong support of the need to restore the CPF rate as soon as possible. I am fully in agreement with him, Mr Lim and also the Minister for Trade and Industry that the Government should try and restore the CPF rate by 4%, if possible, this year. And if possible, if the economy permits, by another 4% next year, so that we can reach the 20% rate from the employer side by next year. Of course, the final decision will be made in a month's time or so and a proper announcement will be made. But I think on hindsight, last year's adjustment was on the low side because we were all very cautious after the stockmarket crash. Maybe this year we can afford to take a bolder step. Personally, I would be in favour. Of course, employers and unions will have to take this into consideration in their wage negotiations. The Member also raised several points on retirement age and part-time workers. I think some other Members will be talking on this later. So if he agrees, I will postpone my response till then. The Member for Cairnhill has raised some points concerning CPF for part-time workers. Specifically, he has asked whether we can raise the CPF floor salary of $200, below which employees need not contribute to CPF. He is proposing this in order to promote part-time employment. First, may I say that it is very difficult for us to distinguish between part-time work and full-time work in administering the CPF scheme. When the CPF Board receives the salary records, it will be very difficult to tell whether it is full-time or part-time. Therefore, it will be difficult to approach this problem from the point of having a lower rate for part-time workers. And if we do, it could lead to a lot of abuses. Therefore, the other approach could be to do it from the salary point of view and this is what the Member has suggested. I have looked into this question carefully. There are two aspects to consider. Firstly, there is the employer's CPF rate. Then there is the employee's CPF rate. As far as the employer is concerned, he has to pay CPF for all salaries above $50 per month at the full rate, which is now 12% and will be raised eventually to 20%. This is part of the CPF member's pay. If we were to propose to cut this amount, it will mean a wage cut for these people. So I think it is sensible that the Member has not proposed this approach. As far as the employee is concerned, those earning below $200 per month do not have to pay CPF. They only start paying the full CPF rate at $363 per month. At the moment, they are paying 24%. Eventually, it will go down to 20%, hopefully by next year. So the present scheme is below $200 per month, no CPF; at $200 per month, the present rate is 9%. It used to be 10%, until last year. Eventually, it will be reduced to only 5%. In other words, the lower-income groups will also enjoy the full 5% cut in the employee's rate when we reach the long-term rate. I have worked out the final CPF rates for the various salary levels. At $200, it is 5%. At $250, it is only 12%. At $300, eventually it will be 16% and only at $363 will it be the full rate. Therefore, part-time workers who are earning maybe about $250 per month are already paying a very low CPF rate. If we were to adopt this approach of raising the salary floor to $400, the result would be that it will affect some 83,000 members who are currently paid between $200 and $400. About half these members are young workers. So they are not housewives who have to be persuaded to come into the market with higher take-home pay. Our studies also show that for housewives, the primary consideration is whether the hours of work are suitable for them because they have to look after their children. That is the number one consideration. The second consideration is whether the place of work is near their home. Salary comes third. For these various reasons, I am not proposing to adjust the CPF floor salary. I hope Members will understand this. The Member for Cairnhill also asked various questions about wage comparisons. I think the answers were already given by the Minister for Trade and Industry last Wednesday when he mentioned that wage increases in 1988 were as follows: 'In Singapore the wages went up by about 9%.' I am not sure whether this includes CPF. If we include the 2% CPF, it comes very close to the 11% mentioned by the Member as the figure quoted by the SNEF. In comparison, the wages in Taiwan went up by 11%, South Korea, 21% and Hong Kong, 10%. Furthermore, the exchange rates of the Taiwanese and South Korean currencies also rose significantly against the US Dollar. It is too early for me to try and guess what the wage increases would be this year. I think we will have to leave it to the NWC and the individual companies and unions to sort this out. Like the Member, the Government is very cautious that we should maintain our competitiveness relative to our competitors. I think MTI's data shows that our unit labour cost relative to the other NIE's is as competitive today as in 1981. But we must still be cautious. The Member also asked whether we have data to compare the wage cost of foreign workers and local workers. Yes, we have some wage data. Our studies show that the average wage cost for local workers, inclusive of CPF and so on, are in fact still higher or at least comparable to the wage cost of foreign workers. These are the average rates for existing local and foreign workers. One reason for this could be that the local workers are more senior and more skilled. So this is a mixed number. If you look at starting salaries for some industries, it is possible that the foreign workers may cost more than local workers, even though the foreign workers do not have to pay CPF and employers do not have to contribute CPF. (This is an important difference). This possible higher cost of foreign workers is not unintentional. In fact, if we want to dampen the high demand for foreign workers, I think they should cost more. But the levy is a flexible instrument. If things turn bad, we may adjust it downwards. But as my colleague, the Minister for Trade and Industry has said and I agree with him fully that we should not adjust this too soon. We should allow the market to adjust first and we need to have room for expansion when the next boom comes. So even if the work permit holders were to come down a little, I would still go ahead and raise the levy to $250 per month from July. The Member also asked some questions about illegal workers. We do not know the actual number of illegal workers. In fact, personally I was surprised at the big number which has surfaced. It shows the extent of the illegal employment problem. This is something which my Ministry has to study to see what further measures will have to be taken to control this problem. The reports quoted something like 10,000 foreign Thai workers will be sent back. The Member asked whether we should give assistance to these employers now that these workers have gone back. I am tempted to say that, if anything, we should punish these employers because they were the root cause of this illegal employment problem. Some of them may be in cahoots with traffickers to try and avoid levy and save on wage costs. And in the process they are depressing the wages of our local workers. On the other hand, there are of course genuine contractors who need workers. The construction sector is one area where we are very liberal with work permits. We allow them to recruit not only from Malaysia, the traditional source, but also from other sources like Thailand, Philippines and so on. We welcome the Thai workers to come and work here in the construction sector but they have to do so legally. Those employers who are affected by this short-term phenomenon of the workers going back can apply for work permits and they will be processed according to the normal policy procedures and guidelines.

Are you speaking on your next topic, Mr Lim.

Yes. Mr Chairman, Sir, thank you for allowing me to continue. But before continuing, I would like to say that I do not envy the Minister for Labour for the kind of requests that he has got to entertain but he should be forewarned now that the pressure that is going to be exerted on him will be of a different kind, the hard crusading kind as well as the subtle nudges. I would ask him to beware of both. Since the Member for Ayer Rajah has asked for the CPF Education Scheme to be tried out for one or two years and review it, I would like to add that we should not review it merely to come back to this House and ask for more and to liberalize it further. But if in one or two years' time the statistics show that very few people in fact are making use of this scheme, then we should have the courage to close it down. Sir, on the other question of employer's contribution to CPF, I think whilst the Minister is cautious, I understand from his reply that in fact he supports the restoration of 4 percentage points in the employer's contribution. Let me just put this in perspective. At the end of 1985 and the beginning of 1986 when we were discussing whether or not to reduce the employer's contribution to CPF, the debate was over the quantum. How much should the employer's contribution to CPF be reduced by? I believe that at that time many employers would have been quite happy if the reduction was 10 percentage points instead of 15 percentage points. If we had only needed to reduce it by 10 percentage points, then really this restoration of the 4% that we are talking about means that as of 1st July when the employer's contribution to CPF is raised by 4 percentage points, employers would still be paying 9% less than they were paying before the reduction, which means it is very close to what the majority of employers would have been happy with in 1986. So I would like to put that in perspective in the light of the decision which Government has to take in one or two months' time and I hope that what the Minister for Trade and Industry has said and what the Minister for Labour prefers would, in fact, come true and that the faith of the workers in the Government and on the Ministers would be upheld. I would now like to touch on the question of illegal workers which has already been referred to. I was also surprised at the large number of illegal workers and the figures that we have from the newspaper reports is 8,000 or possibly more than 10,000 and these are only Thai nationals for which certain arrangements have been made. Now we know that the presence in Singapore of so many illegal workers is, in fact, the root cause for the depressed wages that we have seen at the lower end. So it is little wonder that employers have not found the need or have been very reluctant to raise the bottom end wages until very recently. I share the Minister's concern that in fact the real culprits in this issue of illegal workers is the employers. He has not stated very firmly what kind of action the Government proposes to take against the employers. But I would urge the Minister to take action against those employers who have knowingly employed illegal workers and to press the courts for deterrent sentences, bearing in mind that at $220 per month, not the $250 coming in July, the levy avoided is $2,640 per worker per year. So the penalty to be given out by the courts should be proportional to these kinds of figures in order to have any deterrent effect. And action should also be taken against the agents who have cheated the Thai workers by giving them wrong information and forged work permits. Such agents, I think, are no better than slave traders and should be severely punished. I do not know under what ambit of the law we could take them to court by, but I believe that such culprits should be severely punished. I would urge the Minister since there appears to be some doubts in the minds of employers as to how many foreign workers they can employ, under what kinds of work permits these are available, if he could again give to the House and through the reports in the media an explanation to the employers on how they can legally employ foreign workers to meet the current shortage of labour.

Mr Chairman, under this amendment I would like to talk of the discriminatory job advertisement. Sir, during the debate on the President's Address, I brought up the question of job advertisements which discriminate applicants on the basis of age, sex and race. I suggested that such advertisements should be outlawed. My colleague, the Member for Kebun Baru, further elaborated on this matter and highlighted the job advertisements which not only specified age and race, but even religion. Subsequently there was an exchange of letters in the press on this issue. One of the advertisers which specified religion in his job advertisement defended his position by saying that since the founder and the owner of the company is a Christian, they require the company supervisor and management staff to be Christians too and they therefore consider it appropriate to have this requirement specified in the advertisement. Sir, I totally reject such an argument. I do not know what religion do people like Wee Cho Yaw, Lien Ying Chow or Tan Chin Tuan belong to. Assuming they are Buddhists, I am not sure, but assuming they are Buddhists, does it mean that when OUB, UOB and OCBC put up job advertisement for senior officers they can specify that only Buddhists need apply or that Christians will not be considered? Sir, no doubt in the selection of candidates for a job the employer is likely to be influenced by his preferences, or even prejudice based on age, sex, race and to a lesser extent, religion. But allowing such preferences to be openly stated in the advertisement is tantamount to our society endorsing such a discriminatory act. I must stress that in a multi-racial and multi-religious society like ours, employers must be fair and seen to be fair in their employment practice and in their treatment of people of different races and religion. It will set a dangerous trend if the employers are allowed to openly stipulate their choice of candidates' race and religion in the advertisement. It bears repeating that job advertisement should only specify the skills and qualifications required for the job. Employers should not disqualify applicants because of age, sex, race or religion. Sir, I would like to see that action is taken to eliminate such discriminatory job advertisements. So far the Government has not stated its stand on this matter and I would appreciate the Minister's reponse to my comments and suggestion.

Mr Lim, do you want to speak on Role of Trade Unions?

No.

Mr Lee.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I propose to take the second topic first, job advertisements. It is a shorter response. I agree entirely with the Member that employers should not specify race, sex, age or even religion, in job advertisements. As the Member has said, employers are free to set conditions and criteria that can best suit the needs of the job. However, they should be sensitive to the ethos of our multi-racial and multi-religious society. Therefore, race and religion should not feature as criteria for employment. Of course, there may be certain jobs where you require the person to be able to speak Chinese or Malay or Indian but that should be looked at from the point of view of a skill or a particular requirement of that job rather than, for example, requiring clerks to be Indians or Malays or whatever just because of a personal preference for that particular group. I agree with him that the candidate should be selected on the basis that he or she is best suited for the job on account of qualifications, skills, experience and other relevant criteria. Some Members have previously suggested that we resort to legislation to deal with this problem. Personally, I do not think we have come to that stage yet. In fact, I think the number of employers who have stipulated, for example, religion, is very small and I think we should all try and use social pressure and persuasion to get them to change their practices. Coming back to the points raised by Mr Lim Boon Heng, I have taken note of his strong views on the need to restore the CPF back to 20% for the workers as far as the employer's portion is concerned. I think he has given an interesting comparison of what the rates are even after the 4% increase, if it comes into effect this year, as compared to the rates before the recession. These factors will be considered and if the economy permits I am in favour of the increase by 4% for the employers this year and a reduction of 2% on the employees' side; and if possible, a repetition next year to reach the final stage. He has also commented on the problem of illegal workers. Here I would like to take this opportunity to clarify a few points. Firstly, I need to correct a misconception that these workers were recruited because the employers could not get work permits. As I mentioned just now, most of these illegal workers are from the construction sector which has been granted permits liberally to recruit not only traditional source workers but also NTS (non-traditional source) workers, the Thais for example. A very likely reason why employers have resorted to these illegal workers is that they were trying to evade the levy. At $250 per month from July, if they can evade levy for one year, it is already a saving of $3,000. As the levy increases, the temptation to evade levy will also increase. It is necessary for us to impose this levy on construction workers because we want to try and retain and, if possible, build up a core of local construction workers. These foreigners are willing to work here for as low as $15-$16 a day which is maybe half or one third of what local workers can get. Unless we have proper controls through the levy and also through a ratio imposed by the Construction and Industry Development Board, which is one local worker to one foreign worker, then very soon there will be no more local construction workers left. Besides construction, illegal workers are also commonly found in other approved sectors, such as shipyards and manufacturing. For example, last year, my Ministry caught about 1,600 illegal workers and the majority of these, something like 70%, were in fact from the approved sectors. The other point of clarification is that recent changes were made to the Immigration Act. This has to do with illegal entry into Singapore without valid travel documents or overstaying in Singapore, ie staying beyond the permitted period. For illegal employment, there is another Act which is the Regulation of Employment Act administered by my Ministry. That Act has not been touched. If an employer were to be caught with illegal immigrants who had come into Singapore illegally he will be charged under the Immigration Act which provides for a mandatory jail sentence of six months or more plus a fine of up to $6,000 for the employer. Employers should be very careful from now on and check all the travel documents of their workers, as indeed they are doing. There is a further point and, that is, a new presumption clause has been introduced recently. This provides that if an illegal immigrant is caught on the premises of the employer and is found to be working with tools, for example, the employer cannot simply say, "I don't know about him. It is somebody else's problem." Employers will have to face up to the problem and they also face the possibility of a jail sentence of six months or more because illegal immigration is a very serious problem in Singapore. Many of these illegal immigrants come in without proper screening and get involved in criminal activities or they could be tempted to come and stay here permanently. So we have to take tough action against these people and, as recent reports show, the measures have been effective although some Members had reservations at first. As for the illegal immigrant himself, if he comes in here without the proper approvals, he is liable to mandatory caning of three strokes or more plus jail of three months or more up to two years. In the case of an overstayer, the penalty depends on the duration of overstay. If it is 90 days or less, the maximum penalty is $4,000 fine plus six months jail. If it is more than 90 days, the same penalty of caning will apply. As I said, my Ministry administers the Regulation of Employment Act which covers the issue of work permits, illegal employment and so on. This Act will apply to a lot of workers, Malaysians and others, who come here and work whilst holding valid social visit passes. They are working without work permits and therefore are working illegally. If these people are caught, both the employer and the worker are liable to a fine of up to $5,000 per charge, in other words, per worker - if it is 100 workers, you multiply by 100 - or imprisonment of up to one year or both. In view of the increasing levy, we have been asking the courts to impose deterrent sentences on the offenders and indeed they have done so. But my own feeling is that the penalties are still on the low side. So my Ministry will be reviewing this problem and, if need be, we will have to enhance the penalties to tackle this problem. As to how the contractors should go about applying for work permits, I think they are quite clear about this. There is no difficulty. They are probably aware of the ratio control as well. The main thing is they must come and apply, go through the proper process and pay the levy.

Sir, may I get the Minister's view on employers who discri- minate against workers who have got a different political affiliation. I agree with the Minister that there must not be advertisements which state that an applicant must be of a certain race, age or religion. I also agree with him that an employee should be selected on the basis of his skills and qualifications. We have noted that certain employers have sacked workers because they join different parties for themselves or have different political affiliations. May I have the Minister's comments on that?

Sir, although Mr Chiam did not mention it, I think he was alluding to the sacking of some NTUC employees because they took part in the elections and stood against the PAP. The NTUC is a very special organization. In most countries, for example in UK, the labour movement, the trade unions are with the Labour Party and it is very common in these countries for the workers and unions to support a particular political party. Having supported and subscribed to the ideals of the party, they should not turn round and say, "Look. Now I want to contest against you." We must take this problem in its right context that, in this particular case, the close link between the NTUC and the PAP is well-known to everybody. If you ask any student, he will know it. The NTUC and the PAP have always been working together in struggling for independence and they have worked together to bring Singapore to what it is today. It is proper that in an organization like that which has obvious political connections, they should expect their members to follow and uphold the same ideals.

Sir, I wonder if the Minister supports this view - not taking the NTUC as an example - is it right for an employer to select his employees based on political affiliations or to sack a worker subsequently if he has got different political leanings of his own? Let us not take the NTUC. Let us take a case in principle.

Sir, I think it will be good if Mr Chiam would explain or specify the particular case he is referring to so that we will be able to answer his point.

Sir, I think this is an important principle because if NTUC is the only labour organization in Singapore or I should say probably the main labour organization, it is setting a precedent. If that precedent is not challenged, other employers could do the same and I do not think workers who are members of the NTUC could then complain.

Sir, NTUC has not sacked any of its employee who belongs to any political party and if Mr Chiam thinks so, I would like him to name one.

Sir, NTUC has affiliated companies. I believe NTUC Comfort has got some connections with the NTUC. I am not clear as to what the connections are but the fact that the name is NTUC Comfort and the company was initiated by NTUC, I believe there is some connection. As far as I know, there are two taxi drivers who have been deprived of their driving permits to drive NTUC taxis. Nevertheless, they have lost their jobs as a result. Also I believe the NTUC organizes BEST classes and they do employ teachers directly. I know of one case, a teacher, who has been employed by the NTUC, and not by the PAP NTUC, who has been relieved of his job because of his political affiliation. So there are, in fact, three cases already in point.

Sir, I think Mr Chiam has got all this confused. PAP and NTUC run BEST classes jointly. NTUC does not run BEST classes by itself. George Sita, he is referring to, is a member of the SDP who stood against the PAP in the last election. He was employed jointly by NTUC and PAP. So he was an employee of PAP who stood against PAP in the last election. On that ground, PAP has all the right to remove him.

That is not true.

What is not true?

Since the Second Deputy Prime Minister has brought up the name of George Sita, Sir, I have seen his appointment letter to teach at BEST classes, and he was appointed by the NTUC. The letter of appointment was by the NTUC. There is no clue or there is no sign to say that he was, in fact, in any way employed by the PAP. So that is quite clear. If you challenge that in court, you can see that that letter wholly comes from the NTUC and there is no employment from a political party. As regards the other two taxi-drivers who have lost their job, Sir, I do not know what employment contract they have with the taxis. But I believe they have been given some kind of a permit to drive NTUC taxis. But in any event, they have lost their job - that is the important point.

The NTUC-PAP BEST classes is an open programme for all members of the public. Everybody knows that it is the PAP-NTUC BEST classes. With regard to the two taxi-drivers, I do not know which two taxi-drivers he was referring to because we have ---

I am surprised you do not know.

NTUC Comfort is a co-operative. The taxi-drivers are members of the co-operative, and there were more than two members who had been removed from membership of the co-operative because of misbehaviour or misconduct, or arrears of their instalment payments, or whatever it is. There were many reasons why they were removed. But I do not think it was because of their affiliation to any political party.

Sir, as far as I know about the cases in point - the two taxi-drivers - it was reported in the papers soon after the elections. They had been deprived of their permits to drive NTUC taxis. And their dismissal or relieving them of their jobs was never challenged by the NTUC in any way to say that they had misbehaved or they had misconducted themselves. It was never challenged by the NTUC. So there was a strong implication that they were removed. And I believe the NTUC came out with a statement, and the words used by the NTUC were that they were "opposition political activists". Those were the words used. So my question to the Minister for Labour is this: does the Government condone employers from dismissing workers whose political affiliations are different from the employer's? I think he has made the case quite strongly that there should be no prejudices as regards race, age, religion, or even language. And I thoroughly agree with him that the best person should be given the job. And I think he should not make an exception with regard to politics. Sir, just another point. The person does not involve himself in politics at the job, he just does his work, and he was dismissed. In fact, there is nothing, no implication that he was involved in politics during his work. I think that is important.

Mr Chairman, just a point of clarification. There are many members in the Union or members in the NTUC Taxi Comfort who belong to other societies or associations or political parties. There is nothing against their involvement.

Not true.

But when members of the co-operative are actively involved with opposition political parties against the PAP or NTUC, then they are acting against the resolution of the National Trade Union Congress, and it was a compliance of that resolution that action had to be taken against them.

Sir, whatever the employer does is no concern of the employee. The employer can have 10 resolutions, the employee can affiliate himself with any number of political parties. We are talking about the livelihood of the employee. He believes in something. He has got the freedom to choose. And he works. He gives of his best, he is best suited for the job, he has got the best skills. He does not get himself involved in politics while doing his job. He does it outside his job. He does not persuade others, fellow workers, to adopt his political leanings. But per se, because of his extra-curricular political activities, he is dismissed. This is what we are discussing now, in principle.

Somehow Mr Chiam refused to accept the fact that such employees are acting against the interests of the organization.

No.

That's all. Since he is acting against the interests of the organization, the organization has the right to remove him.

No. He does his job. A day's work for a day's pay.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I would like to thank the Second Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary-General of the NTUC for clarifying the issue. I think he has more facts at hand than I have.

Let's talk about principles.

As 2DPM has explained, in the case of the SDP member who worked for BEST, he was employed by a political party, the PAP. PAP employed him. So if he has acted against the interests of the PAP, the PAP has full rights to sack him. For example, if one of Mr Chiam's workers in SDP were to stand against him, against the SDP, would he condone it? This is the point. The employer is a political party, and somebody who stands against the party is an employee; so you must sack him. There were other cases, I think, of trade union leaders who were properly elected. The members decided at proper meetings to remove them because they were acting against the interest of the trade union.

Just a clarification. Sir, I regret that such an answer has been given because I have seen the letter and that letter is from the NTUC and signed by an official of the NTUC. So he was not employed by a political party. Mr George Sita was specifically employed by the NTUC. So do not twist the facts around.

Can you produce it or not?

Yes. If you want to, I can produce it.

Sir, these BEST classes are jointly organized by NTUC and PAP.

Not that I know of.

The Member can confirm it with all the other Members in this House. It is at the education centres. The facilities are provided by the party.

You have misled the public.

It is a matter of convenience whether you issue the letter of employment from NTUC or from PAP. It is a joint effort. As I said, the symbiosis between NTUC and PAP is so close. It is not an ordinary employer.

I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. (2), Dr Vasoo.

Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head R be reduced by $10 in respect of Code RA 1500 of the Main Estimates. Sir, I must declare my interest in the light that I am growing old. So I shall speak accordingly. Sir, there is a need to urgently review our retirement policy because our population is greying. And in the light of this greying population, there will be surplus manpower, particularly of the old, who have wide experience that can be tapped. I think we have not done enough to see how the experience and expertise of older workers could be utilized and their skills be tapped for our manufacturing as well as service sectors. Sir, if you look at statistics for the last 17 years, the number of males in the workforce has reduced from 82% in 1970 to 78% in 1987. What appears to be most significant is that in the same period the male workforce between 55 and 59 years dropped from 74% to 64%. This is about a 10 percent drop, and it is indeed a dramatic drop. The figure is likely to decline more steeply in the next few years. Therefore, there is an urgent need to see what can be done in terms of re-employing our older workers. The statistics also seem to suggest that less older workers are being employed after their retirement age at 55 years. Sir, the Government's call to employers to extend retirement age has produced little response. Many of the employers are either hesitant or lukewarm towards the employment of older workers. Negotiations by trade unions with the employers have not been very fruitful. A large majority of them still remain very reluctant to consider re-employing them. The declining trend in the employment of older workers has implications for Singapore's future labour supply. It is therefore important for the Government to deal with the declining trend more effectively through a number of measures. First, the Government has to set an example by extending the retirement age of all its employees in all sectors to 60 years of age. Second, the Government has to review the present rate of CPF contribution by both older workers and employers. Third, to legislate the retirement age to be at 60 years. Sir, the Advisory Council on Aged has, in fact, suggested this. It has made an urgent call that this question of extension of retirement age be considered seriously. Sir, if the retirement policy is set at 60 years old, it will help to solve a few immediate problems. It will make our older lower income workers to become more financially independent, especially those who have very small CPF savings at this stage. From the discussions earlier, we have identified that many of those who are retiring now have very low CPF savings, and there is a need to provide them with employment which would also enhance their security during their old age. Moreover, Sir, our labour shortage problem in the service and manufacturing sectors can also be minimized. I hope that the Minister will act on our retirement policy as quickly as possible before it is too late.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I will be speaking on part-time employment. The Minister may recall that during the debate in the Committee of Supply last year, he agreed to study the problems of part-time employment with the unionists and the employers. May I ask: (a) for some comments on the results of this study; and (b) what amendments, if any, will be made to the Employment Act to help promote part-time work, and to protect part-time workers. According to the Labour Force Survey of 1988, there were 18,310 female part-time workers in June 1988, and 8,100 economically inactive females who intended to join the labour market as part-time workers within the following 12 months. However, the number of female part-time workers is very small, less than 2% in fact, compared to last year when there were 1,034,300 females aged 15 years and above and only 494,300 of them were working women. In view of our acute labour shortage problem and our restrictions on the use of foreign workers, it is important that the Government provide more incentives for females to work either full-time or part-time. According to a 1988 Labour Force survey, about 74% of part-time workers could not work full time because of housework and child care. It is encouraging to note that the Government will help to set up more child care centres at the void decks of HDB estates. This will certainly help more females to work full-time. May I also suggest that the Ministry of Labour conduct a detailed study to find out why such a small percentage of our females are working part-time. It is certainly not because there are not enough part-time jobs, as the Labour Force survey showed that 84% of the female part-time workers have no difficulty getting the jobs. I have made this suggestion before and I would like to repeat my suggestion again, that the Minister should consider encouraging part-time work by reducing or removing completely the CPF contribution of part-time workers. The Minister has mentioned earlier the difficulty of defining "part-time workers". I understand the problems involved. But it is not an impossible task. Other countries like Japan have a proper definition of part-time workers. I stand corrected, Mr Speaker, Sir, as I have not read the Japanese Employment Act. But I was told that the part-time workers are not only defined but are also protected by the Japanese Employment Act.

Mr Speaker, Sir, first, I would like to deal with the question of retirement age which has been raised by Dr Vasoo. This is not a new topic. It has been discussed in this House and so I shall be brief. I share with him the concern that we should make better use of our older workers, not only to retain them beyond the age of 55 but also to attract back to the labour force those people who have already retired. The numbers are substantial and I think they could be a very useful supplement to our workforce. The problem is basically one of attitudes, I think. The tendency is for many employers still to look at older workers, those aged 55 and above, as too old, too unproductive and so on. But we only have to look around at our own colleagues who are 55 and above to realize that Singapore has changed. Singaporeans are no longer old at 55. In fact, they may not even be old at 60. And in some countries like the US, they have outlawed this stipulation of an age limit for jobs. People should be assessed on the basis of their intrinsic abilities. One person differs very much from another in terms of physical health, agility and so on, with age. So we should not have a cut-off point and apply it to everybody. In my Ministry's Addendum to the President's Address, we have set a three-year timeframe to allow employers and workers to come to terms on raising the employment age. If the results are not successful by the end of that period, we will have to consider legislation. But I think we should give the employers and the unions some time to work out the proper arrangements. If the Member has read today's report in the Straits Times which is based on my Ministry's Labour News, fourth quarter of 1988, I think he will be more encouraged than he was a moment ago. In fact, as at December, there were 142 companies which have already raised the retirement age. Of these, 102 are from the service sector, mainly the banking, insurance and hotel sectors. The manufacturing sector records 40 companies having done so. The response has tended to be better from the service sector than from the manufacturing sector. Maybe it is because a lot of manufacturers employ young girls. So they do not feel the urgency. But I hope they will not delay this too long. In fact, since this report came out, I am pleased to report that there has been further progress. Between July 1988 and February 1989, 165 collective agreements, more than the 142 given here, have raised the retirement age beyond 55. And these are the collective agreements which are registered with the Industrial Arbitration Court. So progress is being made. I am not so pessimistic as the Member. As regards the CPF rate for older workers, the Government has already decided to lower the rates, 40% for those below 55 to 25% for those between 55 and 59, 15% for those between 60 and 64, and 10% for those above 65. I think these rates are already substantially lower than the rate of 40% for younger workers. And I would prefer to try out this arrangement first for a few years before we consider any changes. If we do change, the problem to remember also is that there are a lot of older workers who will be affected. So it could mean a pay cut. Although on the other hand, of course, by so doing you create more jobs for older workers. That is on the plus side. But we have to balance the two factors. At this point in time, I think the Government will be reluctant to make further changes to the CPF rates. Sir, I think I have answered the points.

Sir, just one point of clarification. Will the Minister consider it as a regressive move if an employer who has already implemented the retirement age at 60 for his employees over the years but now he wants to renegotiate and bring it down to 57 years?

The answer is an obvious yes.

What would his Ministry do?

If he provides me with particulars, I will ask my officials to look into it.

Sir, I beg to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head R be reduced by $10 in respect of Code RG 1500 of the Main Estimates. Sir, recently, in a reply to an Oral Question on workmen's compensation, the Minister for Labour said that his Ministry will examine whether compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act is adequate for the various types of injuries and whether adjustments should be made. The various compensation ceilings under the Act were set in 1980. I would therefore like to ask the Minister to expedite the review of these compensation rates. I feel that the amounts of compensation provided in the Third Schedule of the Workmen's Compensation Act are grossly inadequate. For example, the compensation for death is limited to a maximum of only $45,000, while that for permanent total incapacity to a maximum of $60,000. On another point, Sir, the way that the claims for compensation are being processed needs to be improved. I think the compensation should be paid expeditiously. From time to time, my constituents have seen me at my Meet-the-People sessions to ask for assistance to have their claims for compensation resolved early. I would like to ask the Minister to look at the way the compensation claims are being processed and see how decisions on the claims could be settled early. In this way, we can help alleviate the hardship of those who are unfortunate enough to be involved in accidents during their work and we can help their dependants as well.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Encik Othman has already said that compensation for workers has been rather low-ish while the bosses get off rather easily. And the manner in which the compensation had been paid, when workers are injured, can be said to be scandalously slow. At the present moment, injured workers are sent to the orthopaedic surgeon for assessment as regards the loss of function of the injured parts. The surgeon merely reports that the injury is either temporary or permanent, partial or total, and that is all. The actual compensation itself depends on a certain formula and this formula includes factors like length of service and the last drawn salary. Before payment they sometimes even deduct wages usually paid during medical leave that has been given by the doctor because of the injury plus the medical fees paid to the doctor. Sir, probably this is not entirely the fault of Government. Maybe it is all the business of insurance companies that pay the compensation. But we all know that insurance companies always try to get away from paying the full amount due to the injured persons concerned. When the insurance companies should be sending the medical forms to the doctor for assessment, they get the patient himself to do so instead. In which case the insurance company does not even pay the medical fees and the injured worker himself will have to pay all the medical fees. You can see from this alone that the amount of compensation paid to the workman is really inadequate. Encik Othman has already mentioned a little about the ceilings being set in 1980, and they certainly are very low. I would suggest that the formula be greatly improved, that the loopholes by which insurance companies avoid payment or reduce the payment to the workmen be plugged, so that every cent due to the worker is duty paid by the insurance company or by the employer, whichever the case may be. And of course, this must be done expeditiously. I think it is only fair to remember that the Government's responsibility in this is very great. If it is a matter solely for the insurance companies, then pressure from the Government should see to it that the workman who has been injured be paid adequately, expeditiously, and even a little more than what he would normally get.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I share the same concern as the Members that workers who are injured should be properly and adequately compensated. That is why I informed the House some days ago that my Ministry is in the process of reviewing the compensation rates under the Workmen's Compensation Act. In doing this review, of course, we will look at the various factors, the maximum compensation for death, for permanent total incapacity and so forth. We will also be looking at the percentage compensation for various kinds of injuries. Contrary to what Dr Lee Siew-Choh has said, our compensation rates, in fact, even as they are, are comparable to many countries. To give an example, we suspect there were one or two Indian workers - maybe it is not true; it is unfair to them - but they were suspected of having cut their own fingers in order to claim the compensation for their injury. This shows how desperate some workers are and how attractive they find our rates of compensation. In fact, some of the rates for hand injuries, toe injuries and so on, we have done a comparison, they are on the high side compared even to the developed countries. So in looking at the review we are not only looking at the quantum of the ceilings but also the composition of the compensation. I think the formulas for such compensation are quite standard. They have evolved as a matter of practice over the years. Those workers who feel that they can get better rates, of course, can also try taking out civil suits and there have been cases of people who go through this route and they find that their compensation has been higher because the judges also consider other factors. But even then the judges I think will look at how old the worker is, how much potential earnings, what is the level of pay and so on. So the way we do it is, in fact, not dissimilar to that. The difference is that under Workmen's Compensation there is no need to prove negligence on the part of the employers. Whereas under civil action you have to prove negligence. So it may be long and costly. Regardless of who is responsible for the injury, the workmen can look forward to compensation if they are injured. Dr Lee also alluded some cases where the insurance companies might have deducted medical leave and medical fees. I am not sure whether this is correct because to my mind, as far as I know, the employers and behind them the insurance companies, have to pay not only the full medical costs but also provide medical leave plus compensation. If there is permanent injury, then doctors will assess the degree of permanent injury. For example, for loss of a finger or loss of a limb, what percentage of the maximum they should get, how old they are, and other factors come into play. So if the Member could give me details of such cases,I can look into them. He could be misleading the House when he said that some of these items have been deducted. Encik Othman Eusofe also commented about the slow processing of some cases which have come to his attention. There could be a number of reasons for this. One could be that medical reports are not ready yet because the doctors require time to assess and re-assess the injured person to determine the degree of disability. The other possible reason is that in some cases the injured persons are undecided whether they want to come under the Workmen's Compensation Act or to take up civil action in the hope of higher compensation. Once they have chosen one route, of course, they cannot go back and choose the other one. As I said, we will do a thorough review of this Act. In so doing we will, of course, also have to be mindful of the cost impact on employers. So we will look at all the facts before we come to a decision and we will try and do it as soon as possible. Sir, I did not answer Dr Wong Kwei Cheong's question on part-time employment. Do you mind if I answer now?

All right.

Dr Wong asked for a progress report on our study of part-time employment and the possible amendments to the Employment Act. I am glad to inform him and the House that further progress has been made although as we go deeper into the issue we find that it is a very complex issue, as Mr Lim Boon Heng will agree with me. The problem is how to ensure sufficient flexibility for employers and job seekers to reach agreement on part-time employment whilst ensuring that the workers are adequately protected. Should we have a minimum stipulation in the Act, the barest changes to the Act, and leave it mainly to market forces? Or should we stipulate various guidelines in the Act? In the process of amending the Act, we may in fact make it more rigid and the last thing I want to do is to take a step backwards and make it more difficult for people to agree to part-time employment. So we have to study this very carefully and we will, of course, consult the unions and the employers before we come to a final decision. In theory, under the Act part-time workers are entitled to the same fringe benefits as full-time workers. In practice I think both the employers and workers know that this is unrealistic. What happens is that they tend to pro-rate the benefits. For example, the pay per hour worked will roughly correspond with the pay of the full-time worker. In some cases, the part-time workers may not get the full range of fringe benefits. Maybe it is because they do not require it. We have to recognize here that it is more costly for the employer in terms of recruitment cost, in terms of administration, in terms of training per part-time worker, because the hours worked are shorter. So the problem is how to strike a compromise to make it attractive both for the employers as well as for the workers. Dr Wong mentioned that he did not think it is because of shortage of part-time jobs that there are so few part-time workers. Here I must correct him. I think the basic problem is that manufacturers seem to be reluctant to establish part-time work in their factories. We have done some surveys and studies and most employers seem to be lukewarm. I think some of them cite operational problems but I wonder if they are really insurmountable. So long as young foreign workers are available at lower cost, the attitude could be, why bother with middle-aged housewives who can only work part-time? Now that the labour market is tight and the foreign workers' levy will be increased soon, perhaps manufacturers located in housing estates will take a closer look at housewives as a useful source of part-time workers.

Sir, I would like to assure the Minister that our workers do not cut their fingers or injure themselves in order to get compensation. On that note, I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Order. I take the suspension now. Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House.

Order. I suspend the sitting and will take the Chair again at 3.10 pm. Sitting accordingly suspended at 2.38 pm until 3.10 pm Sitting resumed at 3.10 pm

Debate in Committee of Supply resumed.

Head R (cont) -

Mr Chairman, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head R be reduced by $10 in respect of Code RH 1000 of the Main Estimates. Sir, I am happy to note that there are now fewer factory accidents. There is also a significant drop in occupational disease cases compared to 1986 and 1987. Sir, in regard to workers' health and safety, we cannot afford to be complacent and the Ministry must continue to be vigilant to ensure that employers will always place their employees' safety and health high on their list of priorities. I understand that the approach adopted by the Ministry is to promote self-regulation by employers through safety committees. I would like to ask the Minister to ensure that the performance of the safety committees is closely monitored. And for safety committees which are not effective, the Ministry should take steps to find out the reasons why they are not able to perform well. In this connection, the Ministry should ensure that there is always strong commitment and support of top management to the work of safety committees. Sir, for those safety committees which are consistently performing well, I think they should be properly recognized and some of the members given proper recognition and awards. They could be a model for other safety committees to emulate. I hope the Minister will look into the suggestions.

Sir, I thank the Member for raising this important issue. I agree with him that there is nothing more important to the worker than his safety and health although we do not often discuss this matter in Parliament here. I think we have good reason to be reasonably satisfied with the improvement in the safety and health standards in our factories. Let me quote Members some statistics. Last year there were a total of about 4,300 industrial accidents. This is some 30% lower than the peak of 6,100 in 1980. By "industrial accidents" I mean any case which involves the worker being incapacitated for three days or more. So most of the accidents are, in fact, quite minor ones, with a few fatal cases. In terms of frequency rate, if we consider in terms of per million man-hours worked, the rate has dropped from 4.6 cases per million man-hours worked in 1984 to about 4 in 1987. This is also a significant improvement. The rate of improvement is larger than those in many of the more advanced countries, such as France, Germany, Sweden and the USA, and also better than the other NICs like Hong Kong and South Korea. I agree with the Member fully that we should continue to be vigilant where safety and health of workers are concerned and, as he said, we try and do this more through self-regulation, through safety committees. My Ministry is keeping a close watch on the various safety committees. We monitor them closely and we conduct workshops and training sessions for them and we check, as he suggested, why certain committees are inactive or ineffective. But on the whole this is an area where we can be proud of our achievements.

Sir, I would like to ask the Minister whether his Ministry will give some recognition to those safety committees which are doing well, including their members.

Sir, we can consider this suggestion.

Sir, I thank the Minister for his answer, and beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head R be reduced by $10 in respect of Code RK 1500 of the Main Estimates. Sir, the foreign maids levy will be raised to $200 in July this year. I support the Ministry of Labour's policy to curb the increase in applications for foreign maids through the price mechanism. There are those who complain that with the double increase, ie, one which was made at the end of last year and together with the one coming in July, this increase in the levy would mean that only the rich families would be able to afford foreign maids and therefore it is not fair. I do not agree with this view. Domestic help is not a basic good that should be equitably shared. We cannot allow the increase in demand to go on unchecked not only because of the social and cultural implications of having more than 40,000 foreign maids living in our homes but also because we can become overly dependent on them to do things which all of us should be brought up to do for ourselves and for our children. Foreign maids, therefore, should only be viewed as a temporary measure to make life manageable for working couples. But just like the case of foreign workers in the construction, manufacturing and hotel industries, when we become overly dependent on foreign maids, we would be caught one day helpless should the source of supply dry up. We can reduce this dependence actually if we take time to get to know our neighbours and to make more efforts to find out suitable care-givers perhaps through the MCD's Family Care Scheme. And for women who believe that housework should be shared jointly between husbands and wives, they will find that, in fact, husbands would not be persuaded to help out if there is already a maid at home. I believe the Minister for Labour understands the plight of working mothers. Although the MCD is stepping up the provision of child care centres, we all know the number of centres now available or even by the end of this year will still be far from sufficient to meet the demand. One reason is we must have enough number of sufficiently trained child-care centre staff before we can provide the necessary resources and build those centres and get them running and all this takes time. Meanwhile, may I urge the Minister to be considerate in granting work permits to foreign maids according to the needs of the families. Working mothers with young infants, families who have aged parents and disabled members to take care of, obviously should have the priority.

Mr Chng is not here. Mr Shanmugam.

Sir, my approach on the foreign maids issue is going to be fundamentally different from Dr Wong's and if I might just take up a point she made. She said that husbands would not be persuaded to help out in housework if there is a maid at home. Let me assure her that we are not likely to be persuaded or we would not be persuaded even if there is no maid. Of course, we may have no choice. But as a husband of seven months, I can say that it does not prevent my wife from trying and it does not prevent me from helping out once in a while. But it is not the best of situations if we can find an alternative solution. Sir, there may be a sense of deja vu on this issue of foreign maids but the problem has not gone away. I speak in support of a more liberal policy in allowing foreign maids and I approach the issue in this way. First, we consider the reasons given as to why people want to employ foreign maids and, second, we consider the reasons that have been given to explain why we need to discourage the employment of maids and consider whether the reasons are valid. If I may categorize the reasons for employing foreign maids into three broad categories. The first is in the increasing need for both husband and wife to work to provide a higher standard of living. Second, use of foreign maids for the care of aged sick parents and, third, easing the workload at home, freeing the couple and, in our context, particularly the women, from the burden of housework. These are good and compelling reasons. The Hon. Minister has given basically two reasons in the past as to why the number of maids has to be controlled. The first reason is the social cost of having maids and, second, the effect of maids on our children. Sir, these two reasons, in my view, do not seem to outweigh the reasons for having a liberal policy towards the employment of maids. If we take the first of the three broad reasons that I have suggested, ie, the social necessity for a dual income family, this is necessary to meet our rising cost of living and rising aspirations. Maids then become necessary to do the housework. Maids are not the only solution but to some people at least they are an attractive solution. If we consider that benefit against the two reasons given by the Minister, the first being that children should not grow up in an environment dominated by maids, I agree. But the solution is not then to remove the maids but to ensure through education that our children grow up in an environment where the influence of the maid is not dominant. We can encourage an extended family system where the influence of grandparents would be dominant and we can encourage parents to place their children in child care centres. These policies are already being implemented and if successfully implemented, they will no doubt ensure that we do not have a situation where our children are predominantly influenced in their values and value systems by maids. Sir, I do not consider that reason to be conclusive. There are alternative options. The second reason given is the social cost of having maids. Again, I am unpersuaded. The social costs that have been referred to are the strains imposed on our transport system, our medical facilities and other public amenities. But is that really the case? We are decrying the slow rate of growth in our population? Are our public facilities really taxed at this stage? Before such an argument can be advanced we must first know what is the total number of maids our city can take without imposing a strain on the system. Only then can we say, "Look. We have exceeded the number of maids that we can sensibly support in our city and we have to impose curbs." Until we know what is the population of maids we can support, it is difficult to talk in terms of maids imposing a strain. Does 40,000 impose a strain? Does 100,000 impose a strain? Why? We need those figures before we can start talking in terms of strain on our public system. Just to take one example, Sir, the strain on our transportation system. How many maids travel around during weekdays on our public transport system? I think a similar comparison between the benefits of having maids to look after the aged sick as well as freeing the lady of the house from the tyranny of housework as against the two reasons that have been advanced as to why we should discourage the employment of maids can be made, and I would venture to suggest that the benefits outweigh the costs. It can be said that even now maids are not the only solution, are not even the predominant solution for most families that most families look to alternative means - foster parents, local maids and their grandparents and so on. But none of these reasons in my view goes towards the central issue: why should people who want to employ maids be denied the use of maids or at least why should it be made more difficult for them to employ maids? Sir, again comparisons are made with the United States, Japan and Switzerland. The reasoning is that they do not have foreign maids. They have a higher level of women in the workforce. Why should we not be able to do the same? I do not know enough to comment on these countries but I would treat the statistics with caution for the following reasons. First, they are large countries, they are not totally urbanized city states like us. They have available a large work pool of people who could move from one place to another and there can be available in these countries people like child-minders, baby sitters and so on. In fact, it is not uncommon in the United Kingdom, at least, to find middle class families employing baby sitters. Second, they do not have by and large a readily available cheap source of foreign labour except perhaps in the case of the southern United States. We do. I say why cannot we approach the issue - the available source of foreign labour, in the case of maids, as opposed to foreign workers in the other industries - as in fact a resource available to us rather than approaching the problem with some suspicion. In conclusion, Sir, let me say this. The tyranny of housework is an invidious tyranny and if it frees people from that, we should try to do so. The pent-up energies and creativity of our people should be channelled to productive and vibrant enterprise. Doing housework is an antidote to creativity. It takes up time and it is largely rehabilitating. [Dr Tay Eng Soon interrupted]. I do some housework. That is in reply to a remark made by Dr Tay Eng Soon and I entirely share that feeling.

Mutual one?

My own feelings. One last point if I may make. I do not know how many wives in the generation of the Hon. Minister take the view that by and large they would do the housework. But let me assure the Minister that women in my generation do not take that view and through education women have now come to believe, rightly or wrongly, that in many areas they can do better than the men and the excuse that "I provide for the family and you do the housework" no longer holds any more water. With that, I would suggest that insofar as we can allow our people a more gracious style of living, if necessary, by the use of a resource that is available outside of our country, we should do so.

( In Mandarin): Sir, I would like to avail myself of this opportunity to convey to the Minister certain difficulties faced by small contractors and sub-contractors. In the past few days, the newspapers reported that there are about 10,000 illegal Thai workers being sent back. On the one hand, this shows the seriousness of the problem of illegal workers. On the other hand, it shows that we are faced with quite a serious problem of shortage of labourers. I do not deny that there are some contractors or employers trying to save cost by employing illegal workers. But on the other hand, there are certain contractors or second-hand or sub-contractors because of the difficulty of recruiting workers having to resort to the use of such illegal workers because they have got no other choice. According to Lianhe Zaobao report, about 10 thousand illegal Thai workers were being sent back. This has caused certain disruption or stoppage of work at certain worksites. I think the greatest impact arising from this problem is on the small-scale contractors. I mean those contractors who employ fewer than 10 workers. Some of them are small contractors, some are small sub-contractors. Although their scale of operation is small, yet their work is nonetheless not unimportant. For example, some of them contract and take over the work from the larger contractors who are engaged in big projects, or in lesser projects such as building or renovating houses in private housing estates or doing some other types of work. Therefore, to them, they playing an important role in the construction industry. Now, according to them, although the construction industry has been accorded special concessions by the Government, such as in the employment of foreign workers, however for the small contractors in recruiting foreign workers, their applications are usually met with rejection by the Government. This causes them great difficulty. Even if they wanted to pay higher wages to recruit workers, they could not succeed. A small contractor told me that he was paying a non-skilled building worker $30 a day, and for a worker more or less experienced, he would pay $40 a day. Even at $40, he could hardly get any worker. I think the problem can be analyzed into two aspects. One is because of our economic recovery, there is certainly a shortage of workers. On the other hand, Singapore workers do not like to do heavy manual work at worksite because they consider such work as risky while having to sweat in hot sun, so even with good pay they also do not want to do this kind of work. That is the difficulty faced by many of our small contractors today. Of course, on the one hand, we have to resolve the problem of illegal workers; but on the other hand, the Ministry of Labour should also try to help our hard-pressed small contractors in the problem of shortage of workers, particularly when they apply for work permit for foreign workers. The Ministry of Labour perhaps can relax or can give some concession in approving such applications because Construction Industry Development Board may not be able to help in this matter. The Board may help to train some local workers for upgrading skills. But what these contractors require are unskilled workers as their type of work cannot be replaced by machine or done by automation. So I hope the Minister will give sympathetic consideration to this problem.

Mr Chairman, Sir, the Minister for Finance in his Budget speech this year said: 'It was the increase in foreign employment that enabled us to exceed the long term growth rate of 4 to 6%.' There was a suggestion in the debate that Singapore should strive for slower, steadier growth. But, Sir, my view is that as there are opportunities that offer themselves to us, we ought to maximize whatever income and earnings that we can have and, hopefully, we can enjoy the surplus and put them into the reserves. Singapore is too small to influence and determine how much we can grow. What I am very concerned, Sir, is that as a result of the labour shortage, there is a danger that there would not be the orderly increase in wages for which the National Wages Council was set up in 1972. There is the concern that there would be the artificial increase in wages that does not match with the productivity increase. In the breakdown of the contribution to the overall growth to Singapore's economy, the 11% was broken down as:productivity, 4.4%; local labour, 3.8%; and foreign labour 2.8%. Sir, there are a number of jobs that are not desired by Singaporeans - the hard, dirty jobs that only foreign workers would be prepared to do. I am concerned that, because of this distortion, the ultimate increases in wages do not reflect the value and worth of contribution of the workers. With the introduction of the foreign worker levy in lieu of the CPF contribution for labour from Malaysia and non-traditional sources, I think it is indeed expensive now to employ foreign workers. I hope that the Minister would use this mechanism to help in relieving the very severe shortage that is apparent today. What I would like to urge the Ministry of Labour is to have a quicker response time in granting of work permits to the sector that needed most. I am aware that sometime last year, it was not easy to have the work permits quickly processed. It was done very sparingly and it was only until it was known that the growth was so substantial that work permits were granted more liberally. Sir, the second point is I want to support Mr Goh's point that there appears to be the perception of the local small and medium-sized enterprises that they were less favoured compared to the multi-national companies with the granting of permits and especially in traditional industries that continue to provide value-added jobs and can still yield reasonable returns to our local businessmen. Maybe the Minister would like to respond and make it quite clear that that is not so. Sir, finally, I think that foreign labour is a good buffer in times of a shrinkage or downturn in the economy. But I am concerned whether the Ministry can do something with regard to the retrenchment and redundancies that have taken place in the electronic companies, because we read of electronic companies retrenching workers one day and, not very long after that, again start to recruit workers. I would like to know whether something can be done in that regard.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I have no wish to add to what has already been said. In fact, Mr Goh has already said most of what I had wanted to say. But I want to stress this - that it is the small contractor who always has difficulties in getting work permits for his workmen. The big contractors find it very easy. Therefore, it is important that the Government does not ignore the small contractor.

Mr Chairman, Sir, applicants to the Ministry of Labour seeking permission to marry perceive approval granted as a green light for them to get married and bring up their family in Singapore. Although they are told that an approval does not automatically grant them PR status, yet many of them still hold out the hope that they will eventually be granted one. The thinking among the public is that the various Government Ministries work as one body and when the Ministry of Labour gives the approval, it is usually a matter of time before PR is given by the Immigration Department. It therefore comes as a shock to the family when the spouse is told to leave Singapore. Life for the whole family is then disrupted when the spouse leaves his family and children behind. Sir, it is not uncommon during the Meet-the-People sessions for MPs to have to face the whole family, some bringing along a few young children, appealing for help to allow the affected spouse to stay in Singapore. While not encouraging them, I feel that these people need our sympathetic consideration. Perhaps the Ministries of Labour and Home Affairs could work out a scheme whereby those who were granted approval to marry and have already settled down with children and have worked in Singapore for more than five years on work permits to have their applications for PR considered more favourably. If PR status is not granted, Sir, perhaps a longer stay in Singapore be considered. Sir, to minimize such a problem, I would like to suggest that the Ministry coordinate and work closely together with the Immigration Department in the processing of applications for contract of marriage and that any applicants which are not likely to be granted PR status by Immigration Department should be rejected. Sir, I feel that it is better to reject applicants at the initial stage rather than to allow a couple to marry and start a family, and later telling them PR is not granted and therefore the affected spouse has to leave Singapore.

Mr Speaker,Sir, I want to speak on the subject of foreign maid. I have listened to arguments from both Dr Aline Wong and Mr Shanmugam. We know the Minister's point of view. The Minister's point of view is closer to Dr Aline Wong's, which is, that we should be stringent in allowing foreign maids into Singapore because of the social costs. On the other hand, we are faced with the problem of wanting Singapore women to work. If you want them to work and at the same time encourage them to have two, three or more babies if they can afford it, we have got to find a solution to their problem. In other words, how do we offer the best solution for them to weigh the cost of raising a family and their desire to work? Solutions have been discussed and that include providing more creches, kindergartens and nurseries, to help them to look after their children. The argument for foreign maid is that this will, in fact, help them to have more babies and also to work at the same time. I think we can debate this subject at greater length to see whether or not we should liberalize the policy on foreign maids. The key question is whether foreign maids, in fact, do impose such a social strain on our society. If the answer is yes, that having a large number of foreign maids in Singapore imposes a strain on our society and an overload on our amenities which Singaporeans want to use, then we should curb the number of foreign maids. But we have foreign workers. From my point of view, foreign maids impose less social cost than foreign workers. Because foreign maids have got homes to stay in. They go out maybe once a week over the weekends for relaxation. They do not pose social problems to the same extent that other foreign workers could cause. My own personal view, which is different from the Minister for Labour's, is that we can afford to be more liberal in giving permits for foreign maids. I believe that foreign maids do not pose the same social problems as foreign workers. And I am in the forefront of supporting the policy of having more children in Singapore. If, by being more liberal in granting permits to foreign maids, we can get our younger parents, those who can afford it, to have two, three or four children, I think we should liberalize. I thought I should say this so that the possibility of our issuing permits more liberally for foreign maids would not be foreclosed by the Minister for Labour.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I was listening carefully to the First Deputy Prime Minister and I have taken due note of his views. My own feeling is that we are already liberal in the issue of work permits. At the moment the majority of applications do get approved. The complaint at the moment is not that they cannot get maids, but that we have increased the levy. They would rather have their maids and not have to pay the increase in levy. But from the relative cost point of view, we do have to increase the levy. Let me give you some figures. The levy of $120 per month was set in 1984. Since then, incomes have gone up by about 20%. In 1984, the average cost of employing a foreign maid was about $400 per month. It is lower for Sri Lankans and others, more expensive for Filipinos. This amount does not include food which is hard to quantify. With the increase in levy to $160 per month now and to $200 per month in July, it represents an $80 cost increase. So the average cost of employing a maid will have gone up to about $480 per month, which is also a 20% increase in the cost of employing a maid. So relative to income levels, in fact, we have not tightened. We have just kept pace with income. I agree with 1DPM that maids have homes and there is less of a social cost. I do not think transportation is a very strong reason although I did mention it in my reply once. The greater concern that I have in mind is really the personal experience of employers who employ maids. For example, very often they come across children who would not even pick up their own socks when they come back from school. They will not help at all in household duties. I think this is a very negative trend that is developing in our society. And I am glad at least Dr Wong agrees with me on this point. I am sure there are quite a few other Members who share the same views although they have kept silent. Many of them have not employed maids, for example, and they have strong reasons for doing so. For example, Europe and other countries have very few maids. They just live on the philosophy that you must do your own household duties, buy the labour-saving devices, washing machines and so on. And enjoy more privacy by not having a maid. In fact, there are other sources of domestic help in Singapore. There are these Malay women who are willing to go out and do housework part-time. My fear is that by having maids available so liberally, in fact, we are encouraging a very negative trend. All the other alternatives simply cannot compete. Child care centres cannot compete, part-time domestic help cannot compete. Grandparents will say, "Go and employ a maid." So the whole society is going to change. That is my main concern. What is going to be the long-term effect on our society? If we do nothing, I foresee that the numbers will grow very big. I would like to distribute some data. [Copies of data distributed to hon. Members]. The data show that there are 630,000 households in Singapore. Some Members have argued that we should favour families with young children. You will see from this data that, in fact, there are 176,000 families with children below the age of 6 years. That is already a very large pool, even if you limit it to people with 6-year old children and below. If you limit it to children below 10 years old, then the potential pool is 250,000 families. How about household income, affordability? There are 215,000 households which have incomes above $2,000 per month. These people may not be quite able to afford maids but for Sri Lankans, at a stretch, they might just be able to afford it. I can tell you something. My records show that we do not have maids only in private estates, bungalows, private apartments, who form maybe 60% of the maids employed so far, but also the remaining 40% in HDB flats. We find maids even in 2-room flats, not just 3-room flats. Maybe these people have got their priorities wrong. They do not want to buy flats. They want to have a good life. I do not know. It is individual choice. It is difficult for us to allocate maids on the basis of needs. It is difficult to say whose need is greater, the aged parent or the young infant. So the tendency in Singapore has been to use the pricing mechanism. If you can afford it and your need is great enough, you can get a maid. I think we should continue to do it on that basis because it is in keeping with the idea that the more you contribute, the more you get back. If a person is able to afford a maid, I do not think we should say no. One result could be more professionals migrating if we say no to maids for them in Singapore. At the moment, we have a number of controls. Administratively, we try and dampen the demand. Those people who do not get approval get very upset. In their own calculations and their own assessment of needs, they feel they are as deserving of a maid as the other fellow. But we have said no to some of them. The other way is to use pricing. I think it is a more neutral mechanism, and there are some advantages. I agree that working mothers need help. On the plus side, if you allow more maids, maybe there will be more babies. There will be more people working. These are plus factors. But on the negative side, what is the long-term social impact of possibly 100,000-200,000 maids in Singapore? I know that child care is a big problem. Even America has not solved the problem, if you follow the debates going on there. They are debating now whether America is lagging behind other countries in terms of support for working mothers. What is our own position here? Is it maids? Or is it more childcare centres? Sir, I think we are running out of time. So I would not say any more about maids.

Mr Lee, there is plenty of time.

The First Deputy Prime Minister has passed me a note, which I forgot to mention. The Government has, in fact, provided for enhanced child relief for the third and fourth child amounting to $20,000. This is enough to employ a maid for 4-5 years. For those thinking of a third child or fourth child, I think the cost of a maid should not be a deterrent. In fact, if I may venture my own personal views, those people who are against the levy and the cost increase, should they not be arguing for more support for child care, for allowances for babies and so on? Would that not be a more direct way of helping the mothers, not only for the third or fourth child, but also for the first and second child? Sir, we have about half an hour left. So I have to deal quickly with the questions on work permits. First, the point raised by several Members, Mr Goh Choon Kang, Dr Lee and so on, that we are not giving work permits to small employers. My records show that this is not true. In fact, out of 4,800 contractors in the work permit records, 3,300 have a workforce of less than 10 workers. So we do give work permits to small contractors. Those that have been denied could be the ones that are already too dependent, maybe their entire workforce is composed foreigners. And the Ministry of National Development does insist on the ratio of one local to one foreign worker. So they might be caught by this rule. Or they might have been caught with illegal workers and blacklisted. So we have to look at the actual situation. I agree that for the construction sector, we should be liberal. And if it turns out to be too strict, then I think the CIDB should have a relook at its policy. On the other hand, we must maintain the levy and controls to ensure that we do not lose out altogether and end up with no local construction workers at all. Because construction is a strategic industry, necessary also for our civil defence. What about the other sectors? For the manufactuers who were granted work per- mits, there are about 5,800 on the records. Out of this, 3,100 are small employers, employing less than 10 workers. So I hope this will put to rest once and for all this impression that we only grant work permits to big firms, MNCs. We grant permits to companies in the manufacturing sector that can help us to upgrade our economy. So whether it is a local firm or foreign firm, we will treat them equally. On the other hand, there are certain industries which are very labour-intensive and low value-added. I think it is time that these industries upgrade themselves through automation or move into other growth areas. For example, there are ample opportunities or them to go into support services for computer parts, whatever. The multi-nationals, in fact, are willing to extend a helping hand to develop these supporting industries. So our local entrepreneurs should go in those directions and not come clamouring each time for work permits. The other possibility, of course, is for them to relocate overseas, maybe in Johore. For example in Hong Kong, which is facing the same situation as we are facing, I believe they have investments in nearby Quangchou and elsewhere which already employ more than 1 million workers. What are our Singaporean manufacturers doing in this area? There is scope for more overseas investment. I have previously given figures to show that we just cannot allow more and more foreign workers because if you depend on foreign workers to generate growth without upgrading, each 1% increase in GDP will require 13,000 workers and already we have more than 150,000 foreign workers in Singapore. So it is important that Members see this problem in its proper context. It is true that the labour market is tight. This is not a new or unfamiliar situation. In fact, it is an indication that our economy is doing well. The only time that our labour market is soft is when we are in a midst of a recession. Our situation is not different from that of the other NIEs. Hong Kong is very short. In fact the construction projects there are delayed. So far there have been no delays here. Taiwan does not officially admit foreign workers but now they are forced to because they are short and there are a lot of illegal foreign workers. In Korea there are hardly any foreign workers. I think very few Members would disagree that we must control foreign workers. The question is how? As I have explained, for the benefit of new Members, we have four approved sectors. There are the manufacturing sector, which includes shipbuilding, and the hotel sector. These two sectors are export-oriented. So we need to provide them with the means to compete internationally. The other two sectors are construction and domestic maids where very few locals want to work in those sectors. Apart from these sectors, the other sectors are classified as non-approved sectors. So the employers in the non-approved sectors are all faced with the same situation, which is that they must adjust and depend on the local workforce. For example, I get appeals from hair dressers. The point is, should they not reorganize their way of doing business - open during peak hours for example. They expect the girls to be standing on their feet for 14 hours a day for very low pay. Maybe they should only open during peak hours, have fewer shops, offer them shares, and so on. As Singapore becomes more and more developed, personal services will become more expensive and we must accept this. I hope Members will see the larger picture. In the course of their work they will get many appeals from supporters, small employers, who need work permits, but they must ask themselves whether in speaking out for these people, as they should, they are not missing out on the larger issue which is the large number of silent supporters who are workers. Do Members not need to speak out for workers as well? Because if we allow too many foreign workers into Singapore they are going to depress our wages. Foreign construction workers who are willing to work for $16 per day. I have had cases of locals coming to me and saying, "What are you doing about these illegal workers? They are depriving me of a job." We tend to assume that in Singapore nobody wants to do all these construction jobs, cleaning jobs and so on. But it is not true. There are a lot of people registered with the employment service who want to do cleaning jobs and other low level jobs. There are people who want to do construction. So we must not write off these industries and say, "Nobody wants them anymore." The last speaker was Mr Yeo Toon Chia and he asked whether we coordinate with the Immigration Department when we grant marriage approvals. The answer is yes, we have regular meetings to discuss and try to harmonize our policies where it concerns both Ministries. But it is important to point out that there is a difference in consideration between permanent residence and marriage approval. If we were to adopt the standards adopted by the Immigration Department for permanent residence, there will be much fewer approvals. I think Members and the foreigners and couples affected would much rather that we approve them under our marriage restriction policy and allow the foreigners to continue staying here to do work. Eventually they might qualify for permanent residence. Rather than setting the standards so high, in fact our standards for marriage restriction are lower. But it does not mean that once you are granted marriage approval therefore you will be granted permanent residence. The important thing is whether the foreign spouse is allowed to stay here and continue supporting the family. The answer is generally yes, we do allow these people to have work permits.

Before I withdraw my amendment, Sir, allow me just to clarify my stand. I had intended only to state my support for the use of the price mechanism together with some allocative procedures on the question of foreign maids. Like the Member for Sembawang GRC, I understand that working women have very little choice and that we must do our best to help them cope with the double burden of work and housework. I am totally heartened by what the 1DPM said and I must say that I find it very refreshing that Mr Shanmugam should carry on this crusade against housework; it is refreshing in the sense that my memory is recalled back to the famous treatise by Engels. This is without any intention whatsoever to implicate his views, but may I ask him, does he not think that relegating housework to foreign maids is tantamount to women taking advantage of their poorer cousins?

Mr Shanmugam, you want to say something? We have time, you know.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in answer to the quotation from Angles, all I can say is that we believe in free market, capitalism, and where it is a resource that is available by payment of a certain price, we should take advantage of the situation. Finally, we in fact help these people because if we do not pay them they do not even get that and they are worse off. That is the first point. The second point is, I think, the Minister has not really answered the fundamental question of policy that I raised, which is, why should we impose any sort of price mechanism? Because we impose a price mechanism only when we start out with the view that the whole idea ought to be discouraged. Then the price mechanism is necessary. But the question as to why that attitude ought to be taken is not an answer, I think.

Sir, I thought I made myself very clear. I explained in some depth why I have reservations about foreign maids and why we should control and why we need to keep at least the cost of employing a maid relative to income, about the same. I agree with him that it is important that we support the working mothers and we need to encourage women to have more babies. But the question is how to reconcile these opposing needs. We cannot just let the population of maids spiral upwards. We opened the door to foreign maids from non-traditional sources in 1978, about 10 years ago. At that time there were only about 5,000 maids from Malaysia. And if employers wanted to have local maids, they even had to provide, I think in some cases, television sets for the local maids. So very few families had maids because it was expensive; everybody did their own housework. But because we opened the door and maids are so cheap and they live in, as a result we have already more than 40,000 maids. Despite the levy increase, the rate of increase is still very high. At the present rate of increase, we will double the maids population in four, five years. Thereafter maybe another 40,000 in another four, five years. Where is the limit?

Dr Wong, do you want to withdraw?

Sir, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $22,851,840 for Head R ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $14,881,000 for Head R ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head P -

Sir, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head P of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100. May I have your permission to speak on all three schemes under this cut?

Yes.

Sir, the question of rising charges at government hospitals and at the OPDs or Outpatient Clinics, is a concern of many Members of this House. The GPC on Health, in particular, has discussed this question with the Minister and his officials on numerous occasions. We have conveyed both our concern over the affordability of government medical services to the lower-income groups as well as the confusion in the public's mind regarding the restructuring of government hospitals. The latter is taking place at the same time as the rate of subsidies is being reduced. Thus, in the public's mind, restructuring is still equated with privatization, and privatization equated with rising charges. I suppose with the change of names of Government hospitals such as SGH to become Singapore General Hospital (Private) Ltd. or the former Middle Road Hospital to become known as the National Skin Centre (Private) Ltd, and so on and so forth, does not really help in the minds of the public to understand this issue of restructuring. Sir, the GPC supports the principle of restructuring. It gives more autonomy to the hospitals which therefore would have more freedom and flexibility to run their services more efficiently. We also understand that, with rising operational costs and improvements in the standard of services, the cost of medical care is bound to go up. Government medical services are still heavily subsidized and this will remain so in the years to come. Sir, the provision of basic medical care for the population is the function of every government. Thus, countries across the world provide subsidies to medical care. The difference is only a matter of degree. The National Health Service in UK represents one end of the continuum, where free medical care is given upon demand or universally. This system has spawned serious inefficiencies and has been heavily abused. Thus, the UK government is currently reviewing the system, and a White Paper has just been published. At the other end of the continuum perhaps stands the United States. A great proportion of medical care in the United States is provided by the private sector with third-party payments from insurance. However, even in the United States, the federal government together with the state governments still account for as much as 40% of the total health expenditure, the bulk of which goes to Medicare and Medicaid. But, like the NHS in the UK, both these programmes are having serious strains. So the US government is making strenuous efforts to cut down on the abuses to these two schemes. In terms of providing basic medical care to the nation, our MOH has done very well. But as Singaporeans become more affluent, demanding better quality services, the question arises as to how much of this better quality care should be subsidized and how much the consumer should bear the increased cost. Thus, the subsidy question should consist of two distinct levels. By and large, we have followed the right direction: we provide C class and B2 beds, as well as B1 and A class beds with differential rates of subsidies. It is important that we continue to maintain these two categories of beds in all restructured hospitals. C class beds must be retained for those who cannot afford the B2 beds, because the average bill size for B2 beds for both medical and surgical purposes is double that for C class beds. Thus, the GPC notes with concern that SGH will no longer have C class beds. Sir, SGH is the flagship of the Government hospitals. Is it equitable that the poor will no longer be able to obtain hospitalization at the new SGH? Theoretically, patients can go to the other Government hospitals and distance is not a problem. But if we were to examine the bed complements at the other Government hospitals which will be completely redeveloped by 1994, one finds the number of C class beds is going to be drastically reduced, except for Woodbridge Hospital which will still have 79% C class beds. At Kandang Kerbau Hospital, the proportion of C class beds will be reduced from the present 40% to 15%. While this may not pose a problem to maternity cases because people now have fewer babies and are happy to pay for better wards for each delivery, what about the gynaecology cases? Would there be sufficient C class beds for these cases? Similarly, at Toa Payoh Hospital, the proportion of C class beds will be reduced from 81% to 18%, and at Tan Tock Seng Hospital, from 77% to 22%. Do we really need to make such drastic reductions at such a rapid pace? 1994 is only five years away. Is it not possible for more C class beds to be retained with the possibility of converting to B2 beds later when the indications become clearer over a longer period that the present trend of people opting for B2 beds is not just a temporary phenomenon? The Ministry has often stated that the reduction in C class beds is a response to the population's shifting demand for B class beds. While this is true, the GPC feels that the rise in demand for B2 beds has a lot to do with the people using Medisave to pay for better comfort now rather than to save it for medical needs later. In the process, many will find their Medisave accounts insufficient for later use. I have raised this issue before and let me not take the time away from other speakers on this question. Sir, as I said, subsidies are a taken-for-granted starting premise for the provision of medical care. It is in the nature of subsidies that, once given, it is very difficult to withdraw from the population. Moreover, it is not just people's affordability which is involved here. What is involved are people's perceptions of the Government's responsibility in providing such an essential service as medical care. Thus, in the United Kingdom, the proposals to change the NHS (National Health Service) along the lines of restructuring and privatization so familiar to us are meeting with great resistance, not just from the population but also from the professionals. The NHS has been in existence for over 40 years. Its philosophy of socialized medicine has become a symbol of pride to the British nation. No doubt the system needs heavy revamping but the moral of the lesson is that the UK government has to proceed with great care and it is still not certain whether it will succeed. In the United States also, Medicare and Medicaid, two big elephants, represent some core values in America's sense of social responsibility towards the needy and underprivileged. Thus, rather than doing away with these systems altogether they are experimenting more with cutting costs, reducing abuse and providing legislative support for alternative forms of health care systems such as the health maintenance organizations. I think we can learn from their experiences. Sir, Medisave auditing was introduced on an ad hoc financial auditing basis by the CPF in 1986. This was formalized in 1988. At the same time, private hospitals have been conducting in-house professional or medical auditing since January 1988 to check on Medisave claims. These two measures are inadequate. Thus, the Ministry of Health established a Medical Audit Unit in June 1988 which is a step in the right direction. Between June and December 1988, this unit examined 7.3% of the total of 47,254 claims from private hospitals and it is gratifying to know that no real abuse has been detected so far. But to forestall the possibility of future abuses, we need to conduct Medisave auditing on a more comprehensive basis. There is need to strengthen this Unit, give it more manpower, and invite some professionals from outside MOH to serve on its panel. In addition, it would be better if the Unit can coordinate with CPF to conduct financial auditing at the same time. The amount of work involved of course is great. But as the experience of other countries shows, financial and medical auditing are effective instruments to curb abuses such as over-investigation, over-charging and over-stays in hospitals. In the United States, information on hospitals and medical practice groups which are found to consistently deviate from the established norms is circulated among public and private hospitals and among the insurers. This constitutes significant professional and consumer pressure on the errant practitioners. While our situation does not yet warrant such high pressure tactics, we should still take the necessary steps to provide quality assurance for the consumers. An expanded Medisave Auditing Unit within MOH would be one such measure. Medisave's function is mainly to enable the population to pay for hospitalization, the need for which will definitely increase with old age. Thus, it is imperative that Medisave accounts be kept in a state of health for old age use. I would agree with the use of Medisave to pay for premiums for catastrophic health insurance. But if Medisave were to be used for other kinds of health insurances we should be very careful in our consideration.

Order. Your time is up.

Sir, I have two amendments here so I will take them both together.

Yes.

Sir, about the SGH, they have used the word "corporatization" euphemistically. As everybody knows, it is simply privatization. Now they also call it "restructuring". The Government says that this is intended to give greater flexibility and autonomy to the hospital in order to provide "better personalized service to the patients", I quote what the Minister has said. But, Sir, all this could easily have been achieved without corporatization or privatization, and the experts present in the House here will easily confirm what I have just said. I suggest that the real reason for the so-called "restructuring" is that the Government does not wish to shoulder responsiblity for further expenditure in the running of the hospitals. In fact the Minister himself has confirmed this. Because he has said he wants to "cap" the increase in expenditure on the hospitals. Further, the Minister has said that it is inevitable that the fees will have to be increased periodically in line with cost increases whether or not the hospital is restructured. Therefore we have been forewarned that there will be further increases in hospital charges. But as far as I know the only thing that is really inevitable is death and maybe taxes in Singapore, but not the increase in hospital fees. The costs to the patient in hospital has been going up for a long time, and if the patient should be stricken with a catastrophic illness, like a stroke, then woe betide him! Therefore, Sir, all this means that the burden will be borne more and more by the poor and the lower income group. Since November 1988, all C class beds have been phased out in the Singapore General Hospital. The least costly beds are those in class B2. The Government's excuse in phasing out the class C beds is that there is a falling demand for class C beds and because the people are more affluent. That is not true. Affluence has not really reached out to those people who have low incomes and to those who are poor. As we all know, 70% of the workers in Singapore earn less than $1,000 a month in wages and sometimes they find it quite difficult to make ends meet. One reason why patients opt for class B2 beds is that, as has already been mentioned by Dr Aline Wong, they have funds in Medisave. And since the Medisave accounts cannot be taken out, even as coffin money, why not make full use of them while there is an occasion to do so? Another more important reason, Sir, is that there are fears, fears that unless the patients go to class B2, then they may not have the best treatment available from the consultants. Hence, their wishing to go along to class B2 wards. There is yet a further reason, Sir. In Class B2 words, patients pay for everything, but many of these people who opt to go to class B2 do not realize that they have to pay so much more. And that is why we often hear stories of people coming out from hospital and saying: "Why so much?" They are shocked; they never knew all this before. Sir, class C beds used to cost $7 per day. Later on they were increased to $10 and then to $20 per day, whereas class B2costs $43 in the Singapore General Hospital and if you add the laboratory fees, X-ray, drug fees and all the extra charges, the total sum comes to very much more. And as has already been stated in this House, the average stay in the hospital for the aged is about two weeks. You can do a simple calculation, Sir. For class C beds, if they should stay two weeks, the total amount would come to 14 x 20, which would be $280. Whereas for class B2 wards, the amount would be 14 times 43, which works out to $602. And if you have treatment for some catastrophic illness, like intensive care, then the total sum can jolly well come up to nearly $1,000. With this corporatization, poor patients therefore will certainly have to pay much more. Of course, we realize that there are lots of new equipment in SGH, all sophisticated equipment. But let us not forget that whenever there are new equipment, there is also a tendency for doctors to make use of them. And if they make use of them, and if there are extra charges well, the patient would have to pay more again. Since there are no more class C beds, where people do not have to pay so very much, everybody would now have to pay very much more. Add them all up, and you find that the amount is not small. The Government says it will grant waivers or remissions of charges, but most people would not like to ask for such waivers because of the shame, the humility attached to them. And whenever possible, they try not to. They would rather go to wards with marked charges clearly stated. They would not want to ask for extra favours. This is in conformity with Confucianist teachings. This is in conformity with Chinese custom. I say, Sir, in this corporatization of the hospital, especially Singapore General Hospital, the Government is shirking its duty and responsibility to look after the poor and the aged. The trouble with the Government is that its philosophy is to make the people pay-and pay. That is the very basis why they have this Medisave. Medisave is merely a scheme to make people pay even before treatment. Government collects the money well beforehand just in case the patient does not pay later on. We must remember why the Government does many of these things. I do not need to go into the number of people who have small Medisave accounts. 40% of these account holders have less than $1,000, and another 40% have between $1,000 and $5,000. Therefore, any catastrophic illness will be a great blow to them. I will try and finish it very quickly since we are short of time.

Order. It is the moment of interruption. You can continue tomorrow.

Thank you very much. Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House.

Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply has made further progress on the Main and Development Estimates for the financial year 1989/90 and ask leave to sit again tomorrow.

So be it.

Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn." - [Mr Yeo Cheow Tong]. Adjourned accordingly at Half-past Four o'clock pm.