Hansard, 1989-07-11

Under the provisions of clause 2(d) of Article 46 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, the following Members have been granted permission to be or to remain absent from sittings of Parliament (or any Committee of Parliament to which they have been appointed) for the periods stated:- Dr Seet Ai Mee (Bukit Gombak), Minister of State, Ministry of Community Development and Ministry of Education - from 1st to 2nd June, from 5th to 7th June and from 13th to 17th June, 1989. Dr Wan Soon Bee (Pasir Panjang GRC) - from 2nd to 16th June, from 26th to 28th June and from 16th to 18th July, 1989. Mr Choo Wee Khiang (Marine Parade GRC) - from 5th to 9th June, and from 26th to 28th June, 1989. Mr Lim Chee Onn (Bukit Merah) - on 6th June and from 11th to 13th July, 1989. Mr Davinder Singh (Toa Payoh GRC) - from 10th to 20th June, from 5th to 6th July and from 10th to 31st July, 1989. Dr Yeo Ning Hong (Kim Seng), Minister for Communications and Information and Second Minister for Defence (Policy) - from 12th to 16th June and from 8th to 9th July, 1989. Mr S. Chandra Das (Cheng San GRC) - from 12th to 16th June, 1989. Encik Yatiman Yusof (Tampines GRC), Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs - from 12th to 15th June, 1989. Mr Mah Bow Tan (Tampines GRC), Minister of State, Ministry of Communications and Information and and Ministry of Trade and Industry - from 12th to 24th June, 1989. Mr Loh Meng See (Kampong Glam) - from 12th to 18th June, 1989. Mr Tang Guan Seng (Hougang), Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education and the Minister for Home Affairs - from 13th to 17th June, 1989. Dr Wong Kwei Cheong (Cairnhill) - from 13th June to 1st July, 1989. Mr Ch'ng Jit Koon (Tiong Bahru GRC), Minister of State, Ministry of Community Development - from 15th to 26th June, 1989. BG Lee Hsien Loong (Teck Ghee), Minister for Trade and Industry and Second Minister for Defence (Services) - from 17th to 23rd June, 1989. Dr John Chen Seow Phun (Hong Kah GRC) - from 19th to 23rd June, 1989. Encik Abbas Abu Amin (Pasir Panjang GRC) - from 23rd to 24th June and from 28th to 29th June, 1989. Mr Charles Chong (Sembawang GRC) - from 25th June to 3rd July and from 10th to 20th July, 1989. Mr Goh Choon Kang (Braddell Heights) - from 26th June to 2nd July, 1989. Mr Bernard Chen (Pasir Panjang GRC) - from 28th June to 1st July, 1989. Mr Tan Soo Khoon (Brickworks GRC), Speaker - from 28th June to 1st July, 1989. Dr Hong Hai (Bedok GRC) - from 29th June to 2nd July, 1989. Mr Wong Kan Seng (Toa Payoh GRC), Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Community Development and Leader of the House - from 2nd to 9th July and from 17th to 19th July, 1989. Mr Peter Sung (Buona Vista), Minister of State, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Ministry of National Development - from 2nd to 9th July and from 20th to 27th August, 1989. Mr Philip Tan Tee Yong (Paya Lebar) - from 5th to 6th July, 1989. Mr Lim Boon Heng (Kebun Baru), Deputy Speaker - from 10th to 20th July, 1989. Mr Ong Teng Cheong (Kim Keat), Second Deputy Prime Minister - from 11th to 20th July, 1989. Mr K. Shanmugam (Sembawang GRC) - on 11th July, 1989. Mr Goh Chok Tong (Marine Parade GRC), First Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence - from 14th to 16th July, 1989. Dr Wang Kai Yuen (Bukit Timah) - from 15th July to 14th October, 1989. Mr Lew Syn Pau (Tanglin) - from 16th to 21st July, 1989. Mr Leong Horn Kee (Thomson) - from 18th to 22nd July, 1989. Dr Dixie Tan (Ulu Pandan) - from 26th to 30th July, 1989. Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon (Yuhua) - from 5th to 10th August and from 21st August to 16th September, 1989. Mr Abdullah Tarmugi (Siglap), Deputy Speaker - from 20th to 27th August, 1989. TAN SOO KHOON Speaker Parliament of Singapore

The following Bills were assented to by the President of the Republic of Singapore on the date stated: 30th May, 1989 (i) Enlistment (Amendment) Bill; and (ii) Requisition of Resources (Amendment) Bill. TAN SOO KHOON Speaker Parliament of Singapore

asked the First Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence if he will clarify the Prime Minister's statement to the British Broadcasting Corporation interviewer Stern that he would continue as a Member of the Cabinet after his retirement.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there is nothing to clarify really. When Mr Lee was asked by the BBC interviewer what would happen to him after he has stepped down as Prime Minister, he replied, "Chances are I will stay in the Cabinet. That's what he said". "He" in this context refers to me. I confirm that I had told Mr Lee that. Indeed I said so publicly in September last year when I announced the new Cabinet.

Will Mr Lee Kuan Yew then be a Minister?

Mr Speaker, Sir, if he is a Member of the Cabinet he must be a Minister. He will be a Senior Minister in the Cabinet.

asked the Minister for National Development how many tenants of Housing and Development Board shops and flats were unable to pay their rental arrears in 1987 and 1988; what course of action was taken by his Ministry; and how many of these tenants eventually returned their shops or flats to the HDB.

Mr Speaker, Sir, at the end of 1988, 11,467 HDB flat tenants and 4,715 shop tenants were owing rent arrears as compared to 15,218 and 3,826 respectively at the end of 1987. When a tenant falls into arrears, HDB first checks whether the tenant, who is unable to pay rent or other charges, is a hardship case. Once identified as a hardship case, he will be referred to the Ministry of Community Development for assistance. HDB commences legal action to recover a tenant's rent arrears in the tenant's second month of arrears. Reminders are sent to such tenants to ask them to settle arrears by instalments or a lump sum payment. As many as five reminders are sent before further action is taken. If there is no response to the reminders, HDB then files an application for a Writ of Possession to evict the tenant and recover possession of the flat or shop. In FY 1987/88, 1,060 Writs of Possession were obtained from the Court. Of this number, only 73 were rental premises voluntarily surrendered by the tenants prior to execution of the Writs of Possession, or recovered by the court bailiff and returned to HDB. The remaining Writs of Possession were not executed because the tenants were able to put forward a credible instalment payment plan. For such cases, HDB withholds further legal actionto allow the tenants to repay their arrears in instalments. Out of the 73 premises returned to HDB, 43 were families in rental flats while the remaining 30 were shop and industrial tenants.

Sir, may I just be allowed to make a comment?

No.

I asked a similar question --

Mr Chiam, are you making a comment or asking a question? If it is a comment, please sit down unless you are asking a question.

Sir, I was just going to comment --

This is Question time. If you have no questions, please resume your seat.

-- to praise the Minister for answering this question because once I asked a similar question the former Minister said it would cost $200,000 to answer this question.

We will move to the next Question. Dr Vasoo.

asked the Minister for National Development whether he will indicate the types of improvement that will be undertaken for older Housing and Development Board flats in Tiong Bahru GRC and when these programmes are likely to be implemented.

Mr Speaker, Sir, when HDB embarked on its public housing programme, Singaporeans were facing a critical shortage of housing and we had to solve a huge housing problem quickly. Quality and distinctiveness had to take a lower priority, especially in the early years. The result was many large public housing developments which were uniform and lacking in finish and character. Now, 78% of our people live in purchased HDB flats of their own. We have overcome the housing shortage. With continued economic growth and rising affluence, Singaporeans aspire for a better quality of life. More and more HDB applicants are seeking a high quality flat to invest their savings in, rather than just a roof and shelter for their family and themselves. The Government is confident that it can fulfil these aspirations for a higher quality of life. In fact, Mr Speaker, Sir, a higher quality of life is the central thrust of our Vision for 1999. Letting our people upgrade to better homes as they progress in life and become able to afford them was set out as an objective in the Agenda for Action. HDB will soon launch an upgrading programme which will bring about a quantum change in the quality and character of public housing. This programme will improve the interior and exterior of flats in existing HDB estates, and progressively convert them into precincts and communities of middle-class housing, comparable to or even better than the latest HDB projects at Pasir Ris and Bishan. The upgrading programme will do more than give a facelift to old blocks. It should bring about a complete change in the perception of public housing. Each HDB estate will be divided into small precincts of five to seven blocks. Each precinct will be a small area which the residents can relate to as their own, to enjoy and be responsible for. We will also modify the residential blocks to restrict access by non-residents to the corridors and other public areas within the blocks, so that residents can control access to them as if it is their own private space. We aim to create small communities with a distinct sense of identity, ownership and belonging, so community ties in each neighbourhood will be stronger and residents will not feel compelled to move in order to upgrade. The upgrading programme will encompass: (i) Improvements within the flats, for example, changing of sanitary fittings and the addition of another bath/toilet for flats with one bath/toilet; (ii) Improvements in the block outside the flats, for example, upgrading corridors, staircases, the lift lobby and the facade design; (iii) Improvements in the precinct outside the block, for example, linkways between blocks and multi-storey carparks, so that surface carparks can be replaced by landscaped areas and children playgrounds; and (iv) Building of new blocks for sale on vacant land where rental blocks have been cleared. HDB will identify the types of improvements that are practical and give value for money. Different levels of upgrading are possible. Town Councils will be responsible for seeking the views of the residents and deciding on what upgrading works to carry out for each precinct before HDB embarks on the programme for that particular precinct. The extent and type of improvement works will thus vary between blocks and between estates, depending on what the residents prefer and how much they are willing to pay. The cost of this upgrading will be shared between the Government, Town Councils and the owners of the HDB apartments. How this will be done is being studied. As the upgrading programme will be a large-scale and long-term project, extensive studies and many pilot projects will be undertaken before we proceed with full-scale implementation. Starting this year, HDB will carry out its first pilot project on a few blocks of flats to test the design changes, construction techniques and cost of the programme. The first phase of the full programme should begin in 1991.

Mr Ng.

Sir, I was asked --

Mr Chiam, I gave the floor to Mr Ng.

I still do not know what the answer to this question is. It is a long policy speech.

Mr Chiam, can you please take your seat? You will rise only when I call you. Mr Ng.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Will the cost sharing formula for this upgrading programme be uniformly applied to all Town Councils irrespective of how old the HDB estates are?

Mr Speaker, Sir, no. The formula that is being worked out will take into account the age of the estate, the original design, the extent to which upgrading has got to be done. The approach will be similar to the approach that we have adopted for Town Councils in working out the subsidy for maintenance.

Sir, can I ask the Minister whether he can tell the House briefly about the scale and timeframe of this upgrading programme. In other words, how many flats approximately will be upgraded per year from 1991 onwards and how many years will it take for one whole cycle of upgrading? Also, how will HDB draw up the schedule? In other words, which estate is to be upgraded first, second and so on. My last question, Sir, is whether flats of newer estates which have suffered from poor workmanship could also be included in the upgrading programme?

Mr Speaker, Sir, we have at present more than half a million HDB flats that have been sold. Even though not all will have to be upgraded to the same extent it is still a massive exercise. I expect the programme to take at least 15 years. As to how we will schedule or which estates will be considered for upgrading first, this is a detail that is being worked out. Obviously, in the initial years, we will have to have a combination of the older estates and some estates which are not so old. I shall be making, Mr Speaker, Sir, in a month or so a full statement on the details of this programme. But I do welcome other questions which I can answer in general at the present moment.

Sir, what about those old shophouses, markets and old lifts? Will they be similarly upgraded too?

Sir, yes, the upgrading programme will include many items. It will include the lifts, lift lobbies, wiring in the corridors, putting the wires into conduits etc. It will include the shophouses or shops on the ground floor. All these items will be included in the programme. Mr Speaker, Sir, I think I forgot to answer a question that was raised by another Member just now about poor workmanship. Can I just take the opportunity to answer this?

Yes.

I want to, first of all, say that this upgrading exercise is not just an attempt to put right shoddy workmanship. It is not that. Most of the appearance of poor quality that we find in HDB flats today is due to really, I would say, cheap designs and cheap materials. This was what we could afford. We had to house the people. We had to build the houses as cheaply as possible. We could not afford expensive designs and expensive materials. So the priority, as I mentioned just now, was to house them as quickly as possible. Now that people can afford something better we can use better materials and better designs to replace some of the old materials and old designs and that is what this upgrading programme will try to do. Within the flats, most of the poor finishes have, in fact, been attended to by the owners. They have upgraded the flat by laying very nice tiles, putting wall paper, false ceiling, and so on. Little work is needed within the flat, except for the addition, as I said, of bathrooms, toilets, and so on. So a lot of the upgrading will be in the common areas outside the flat - in the corridors, staircases, and so on because this again will help to improve the value of the flat. The value of the flat does not depend just on what is within the flat but also in the environment within the block and between blocks. Many of the items that HDB is now considering, such as introducing common conduits for telephone wires, electrical wires, repairing the staircases to put stainless steel nosings, re-doing the corridors, replacing lifts, improving the lift lobbies, creating a sense of entry into each block - all these will upgrade the value of the flat, and in the process of course some of the poor workmanship will also be rectified. But I do want to emphasize that this programme is not just to put right shoddy workmanship. A lot of what people perceive as poor workmanship is not because it is poor workmanship but we had to use cheap design and cheap materials because that was all the people could afford. We had to sell the flats cheap and that was what we have done.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask two supplementary questions. First, if a person is financially unable to afford the upgrading, does HDB have any special financial scheme to help him to upgrade? Is the Minister considering allowing CPF to be used for the cost of upgrading? The second question is, what will happen if some residents do not wish to take part in this upgrading scheme? Does he need to move out from the flat?

Mr Speaker, as I have mentioned, the cost of this exercise or programme will be shared between the Government, Town Councils and the owners. We hope to work out some loan scheme for the owners, and these loans can be repaid over a period of time in cash. As to whether CPF can be used, this again is a subject we are considering. I will certainly be discussing with my colleague, the Minister for Labour, who is usually very reluctant to allow CPF to be used for various purposes. But I hope to persuade him to allow CPF to be used for this purpose. So we are in the process of working out the details of some special scheme which will make it easy for people to pay their share of the cost of this upgrading. As to what will happen to those who do not want to upgrade, the upgrading, as I said, will be of various types. For upgrading within the flat, obviously the flat owner will usually have the last say. For example, if he does not want to upgrade the sanitary fittings in his bathroom, so be it. He is prepared to accept whatever is there. We will not force him to upgrade. But certain improvements, for example, adding an additional bathroom, will have to involve everybody in the block. You cannot have somebody saying, "I don't want a bathroom." I think in such cases we will have to go on the basis of the majority. I think Members will be aware that in the case of the management corporations in private condominiums, if not more than 25% of the people living in that estate object to changes and improvements, it can be proceeded with. In other words, in order to stop an improvement, at least 25% must object to the improvement. We have not decided what ratio we should use. We can either adopt two-thirds, 75%, or simple majority. I think this will have to depend upon the type of improvement. Improvements in a block outside the flat, obviously, if more than 50% agree, we may have to proceed with the work; similarly for improvements between blocks. So I think different levels of support will have to be required for different types of improvements. These are details that are being worked out.

I wish to ask two supplementary questions, Sir? How would the HDB flat owners be charged for the cost of the various improvements, and would the charges be reasonable? Second, where would the pilot projects be implemented and would Tiong Bahru GRC be included?

We hope to keep the costs as reasonable as possible. Obviously many types of improvements are possible and we must keep the improvement cost in proportion to the total cost of the flat. That is one of the difficulties of this exercise - to try and get the maximum amount of improvement for the minimum amount of outlay. As I mentioned, the improvements involve some new techniques of construction. What we hope to do is to first try out the construction techniques and determine the cost by doing this in a few vacant blocks. We have selected some blocks in Yishun and in Jurong. Once we have already established what can be done and what it will cost, then we will select a few precincts as demonstration precincts where we can introduce all these changes. I think we would like to select for the initial demonstration project a mix of fairly old estates like Tiong Bahru GRC and some not- so-old estates, maybe 10 years or so. We have not decided when Tiong Bahru will really come in the schedule. But we have to make a very careful selection of the first few demonstration projects based on many criteria. When I have the programme in full, I will be able to give him more details.

Sir, would the upgrading exercise include the rectification of inherent defects in the flats, such as wall seepage and spalling concrete?

Mr Speaker, Sir, there is already an on-going programme to deal with spalling, and that will continue. For wall seepage, I think wherever there have been complaints, HDB has attended to such seepage. Some of the upgrading may involve attending to the roof for example, because we can even change the form of the roof. I cannot give him details now. If the problems are very endemic and they cannot be solved except by, say, putting a new roof, of course that will be done.

Sir, it is reported that there are something like 22,000 fami- lies who are in the poorer end of our society. How will this upgrading affect them? Who will help them?

Sir, I think the Member should know that we have many incentives for the poor (those who can afford just a 3-room flat) to buy a 3-room flat. We allow them to book for a 3-room flat without paying any downpayment. We spread out the payments over many years, 20 to 25 years, such that the monthly instalment payment for a 3-room flat is about the same, maybe a dollar or two different from paying rent for a 3-room flat. So those schemes will continue. There will still also be rental flats available. But about 95% of HDB dwellers will, in fact, benefit from this upgrading exercise because the latest figures of application show that nobody wants 3-room flats anymore. They want 4-, 5-room, executive flats. That is the present demand pattern. But for those who cannot afford, and there will always be some, there are rental flats and there will be 3-room flats.

The following Question stood in the name of Encik Wan Hussin bin Haji Zoohri - 4. To ask the Minister for Education what are the main findings of the survey on the teaching profession conducted by his Ministry; and what steps are being taken to overcome the shortcomings in the teaching profession as revealed in the findings.

Question No. 4, Sir.

Sir, I am answering on behalf of my Minister. The Ministry conducted a survey in April this year in connection with the Institute of Education (IE) admission exercise. The various steps taken by the Ministry to improve the image of the teaching profession, such as television advertisements and revision of starting salaries and IE bursaries appear to have made a favourable impression on the public. The impression is particularly strong amongst the younger age group. They feel that teaching contributes to society and is a satisfying career which provides opportunity for exercising creativity. However, parents still feel that their children should go into other professions. They believe that the career prospects of a teacher are less favourable than those in other sectors. The Ministry is aware of the need to improve the prospects in the Education Service. It is studying how the Education Service could be placed under a separate Education Service Commission. It is also reviewing the salary structure to see how those who take on positions of responsibility as Principals, Vice-Principals, Heads of Departments in schools and HQ officers can be better rewarded.

Was the IE able to recruit enough teachers from its recent intake this year?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the IE's target for recruitment this year was 454 graduates for the Diploma in Education programme, 120 for Diploma in Physical Education programme and 375 for the Certificate in Education programme, making a total of 949. With this number, the Ministry of Education would be able to fill vacancies arising from the projected retirements and resignations of officers in the coming one to two years. In the recruitment exercise, the selection board which comprises the PSC, IE and MOE members selected 391 University graduates for the Diploma in Education programme, 104 candidates for the Diploma in Physical Education programme and 460 'A' level candidates for the Certificate in Education programme. The selections were based on criteria such as proficiency in English and ability to communicate well, in addition to the qualifications of the candidates. In the case of university candidates, the Degree must be from an accredited university and the candidate must have two teaching subjects. The intellectual ability of the candidates, as indicated by the details of their qualifications, is taken into account in the selection. Sir, the outcome of this year's exercise was not as successful as we would have hoped. While we were able to get the targetted number of candidates for the Certificate in Education programme, we were short for both the Diploma in Education and the Diploma in Physical Education programmes. Further, not all offers made to the successful candidates have been taken up. So far, only 789 of the offers have been taken up, against our target figure of 949. Sir, teaching is a career that requires communicative and intellectual skills. It is right that these qualities should be present in prospective candidates. We cannot solve the problem of teacher shortage by simply lowering selection requirements. Rather, we should make the teaching service more rewarding in terms of better salary scales and promotion prospects. The establishment of an Education Service Commission and revising the salary scales for teachers holding positions of responsibility are necessary if we are to attract more able young men and women to become teachers.

Sir, may I ask the Minister of State what is the sex ratio of the new recruits and what efforts are being made to make sure that more men enter the teaching service?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Member for that question. It is a long-term concern of the Ministry of Education that there should be enough male teachers, particularly in our secondary schools and more so in our boys' schools. This problem is a difficult one and we are finding it increasingly difficult to persuade young men to come into the teaching service in the face of competition from many other sectors where they can go in and have a career. For this year's recruitment, I have the following figures. In the Certificate in Education programme which is preparing people for primary school teaching, 12% of the number who have registered are men; 88% are women. For the Diploma in Education programme preparing people for teaching in secondary schools and junior colleges, the position is slightly better. 21% are men and 79% are women. The figures are still very low.

Sir, is relief teaching still a problem in our schools? If so, what is the Ministry doing about it?

Sir, we have mentioned this before in the House that there is always a need for relief teachers. The reason is that there are a number of teachers every year who are away on study leave or who are on maternity leave, having just had babies. These are exigencies of service which will always be with the education service. And to fill these vacancies caused by exigencies of service, relief teachers are needed. So we will always have relief teachers. What we are working to reduce completely are relief teachers filling vacancies which should be filled by full-time teachers. And this is what the annual recruitment exercise strives to fill, in addition to teachers who are resigning or who are retiring.

asked the Minister for Education why only leaders from the People's Action Party are allowed to participate in seminars for Pre-U students and to address school children.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am answering on behalf of my Minister. Sir, the Member's question is unfounded. Out of the 20 speakers who addressed the Plenary Sessions at the last three Pre-University Seminars, only five were Government Ministers or PAP Members of Parliament. Invitations to participate in seminars or to address school children are issued to people who are considered by the schools to be appropriate for the occasion.

Sir, will the Parliamentary Secretary consider Opposition leaders appropriate to address the school children?

Sir, if Dr Lee would like to volunteer himself, I will pass his name to the organizers for consideration in future.

asked the Minister for the Environment whether the emissions from the Kallang Gasworks are harmful to residents living in the vicinity; and whether he will ask the Public Utilities Board to take steps to neutralise the odour emitted from the Gasworks.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Kallang Gasworks is an industrial plant. The emissions from the Gasworks arise from the combustion of naptha, the raw material for the manufacture of town gas. These emissions do not pose any health hazard to the residents. Normally, they are discharged through tall chimneys and dispersed in the atmosphere. But occasionally they are blown downwards by strong winds and residents in high-rise apartments nearby can smell them. Such emissions from an industrial plant can be minimized but not totally eliminated. The PUB has therefore installed gas detectors to monitor their level, and sound an alarm if it increases. In the long-term, the Gasworks should be relocated away from populated areas. In fact, the Government has drawn up plans to redevelop the Kallang area, and intends to move the Gasworks out within 10 years.

asked the Minister for the Environment whether the causes of the recent spate of dengue fever in Siglap and some other constituencies have been identified; and what measures his Ministry has taken and plans to take to avoid such future occurrences.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the recent spate of dengue fever in the Eastern part of Singapore was due to an unusually high mosquito population in the area. At the peak of the outbreak, up to 12% of premises inspected in one neighbourhood were found to be breeding the Aedes mosquitoes. And most of the breedings were found in roof gutters, vases, flower pot plates and other domestic containers. The Aedes mosquito, which is the vector responsible for the transmission of dengue fever, breeds in clean waters under shade. Its breeding habitats are therefore usually indoors or in the gardens of compound houses. An interesting observation was made in the recent outbreak. Fewer HDB homes were found to be breeding Aedes mosquitoes. The majority of the breedings were found in compound houses and consequently the majority of dengue fever cases occurred amongst residents of compound houses. It would appear that awareness of the breeding of Aedes mosquitoes amongst HDB estate residents is very high. The high awareness and cooperation amongst HDB residents in keeping their homes free from Aedes breedings is highly commendable. The Aedes mosquito breeds all year round but more so in certain months, such as April to June and November to December, coinciding with the higher rainfalls during these periods. An all year-round surveillance on mosquito breeding is carried out by health inspectors from my Ministry. Daily checks are made in areas with a track record of frequent breedings and complaints received from other areas are thoroughly investigated into. All mosquito breedings are destroyed and those found breeding mosquitoes are warned or fined. In addition, the Ministry has given wide publicity over the mass media and carried out public health education on anti mosquito breeding through the use of exhibitions, posters, pamphlets, newspaper advertisements, TV slides and filmlets. It is imperative, however, that everyone be constantly vigilant against breeding Aedes mosquito in his or her home. Dengue fever epidemics will occur whenever the Aedes mosquito population is allowed to build up. As there is no vaccine against dengue fever, the only means to minimize outbreaks is to prevent the breeding of Aedes mosquitoes. This can be achieved if members of the public help by preventing Aedes breeding in their homes. The Ministry of the Environment will continue to educate the public and monitor the Aedes population and the disease situation closely.

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs (a) what is his assessment of the Thai Government's response to the caning sentence on Somkid Kamjan, especially its impact on Singapore-Thai relations; (b) whether it will damage our business and other interests in Thailand; and (c) what is our Government's stand on the Thai protest.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Singapore Government has received several appeals for clemency for Somkid Kamjan, a Thai worker who was arrested on 20th June 1989 and sentenced on 22nd June 1989 to three months' jail and three strokes of the cane for the offence of illegal entry. Members are aware that the Presidents of four Thai labour unions wrote a joint letter of appeal to the NTUC on 28th June. The Chairman of the Committee on Labour in the Thai House of Representatives wrote a letter to his Singapore counterpart on 30th June. On 5th July, the Thai Deputy Foreign Minister, Mr Prapas Limpabandhu, was reported to have said that the Royal Thai Government will ask the Singapore Government to grant a second and final amnesty for illegal Thai immigrants in Singapore. On 4th July, the Thai Embassy sent a third party note to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs formally requesting the Singapore Government for an amnesty for residual Thai illegal workers. In response to these appeals from Thailand, various Singapore organizations have also appealed to the Singapore Government. On 1st July, the President of the NTUC informed the Thai unions that in view of their appeal and the close relation- ship between the two organizations, the NTUC would appeal to the Singapore Government to grant a final amnesty for Somkid Kamjan and all other illegal workers in Singapore. He has also invited his Thai trade union counterparts to come down to Singapore and together with NTUC officials, visit worksites to urge Thai illegal workers to give themselves up. On 4th July, the NTUC President submitted this appeal for a final amnesty to the Minister for Law. The Chairman of the Singapore GPC for Defence and Foreign Affairs also issued a statement on 7th July, in response to various Thai appeals, including an appeal by the Chairman of the Committee of Labour in the Thai House of Representatives. The Chairman of the GPC for Defence and Foreign Affairs recommended that the Government give a final amnesty for all foreign illegal workers still in Singapore. His appeal has been conveyed to the Chairman of the Committee of Labour of the Thai House of Representatives by the Chairman of the GPC for Labour. Mr Speaker, Sir, I am confident that relations between Singapore and Thailand will not be damaged by the issue of Thai illegal workers. Bilateral relations between Singapore and Thailand are strong and very broad-based. It cannot be in the interest of either Thailand or Singapore to allow this issue to cast a dark cloud over our good relations. But, as I said in this House on 29th May on the subject of Indian nationals who were convicted under our amended Immigration laws, it is an established principle in international relations that friendly relations between nations must be based on mutual respect of each other's laws and legal systems and non-interference in each other's internal affairs. We respect and understand that other countries have different laws, punishments and legal procedures. Just as we expect our nationals when abroad, to observe and respect their laws, foreigners coming to Singapore must observe our laws even if these laws are different from the laws of their own home country. Caning has been a part of Singapore's criminal law system since the British days. Singapore citizens and other nationals, including Thai nationals, have been caned when they breached the law. In this regard, my attention has been drawn to the fact that, like the Indian Government, the Thai Government has also acknowledged the right of Singapore to enact its own laws and that the Thai Government expects Thai nationals to abide by these laws when coming to Singapore. Their Deputy Interior Minister, Mr Wattana Assavahem, was quoted by the Nation as saying that their efforts on behalf of Somkid Kamjan "do not mean the government will help every Thai" found guilty of violating Singapore immigration rules and that although the Royal Thai Government was against the caning penalty, "Singapore has the right to implement any law it deems suitable and Thai workers must keep in mind what they will get if they violate Singapore laws". Sir, at this stage, the Singapore Government is unable to intervene in the case of Somkid as the matter is still before the courts. Mr Somkid Kamjan has filed an appeal against his sentence on 30th June. Somkid's case is different from the case of the nine Indian nationals who were granted clemency from the punishment of caning. The nine Indian nationals were granted clemency because they had been arrested and convicted before the repatriation exercise for Indian immigration offenders held from 8th to 20th May. Had they not been arrested, they could have been included in that repatriation exercise. Somkid was, however, arrested two and a half months after the end of the repatriation exercise for Thai overstayers and illegal immigrants. He, like the others arrested after such grace period and general amnesty, cannot claim that they were ignorant of the new law. Nevertheless, because of the close and friendly relations between Singapore and Thailand, the Government is studying the appeals made by the Royal Thai Government as well as from the various Thai organizations and their Singapore counterparts. We are considering a once and for all solution that will give all Thai and other offenders a last chance to leave without punishment. It would not be right to offer this only to Thai offenders. But, if we decide to grant such a final amnesty, then there can be no pleas for clemency after that. Therefore, a full effort must be made by all those who have made these appeals to reach out to their nationals because it will be absurd to have successive amnesties after each final amnesty.

asked the Minister for Communications and Information what is the justification for the recently announced increase in postage rates.

Mr Speaker, Sir, on 1st July 1989, Telecoms adjusted the rates of a number of postal and telecommuncations services. Some of them went down. Others went up. Overall, customers of Telecoms will save about $11 million per year as a result of this round of adjustments. It has always been Telecoms' policy to price each service according to the cost of providing it. This way, customers stand to benefit. They pay only for the service they use and not for those that they do not. In general, labour intensive services show rate increases, while technology intensive services experience rate decreases. Over the last decade, as a result of high productivity and increased use of technology, Telecoms has been able to reduce its rates on a large number of occasions, so that cumulatively over the last 10 years customers of Telecoms had savings of over $2,400 million. Today, postal and telecommunications services in Singapore are among the lowest in the world. With your permission, Sir, I would ask the Clerk of Parliament to circulate some of the rates (Cols. 397 - 402) that we have for postal and services in Singapore as compared with other countries. (Copies of document distributed to Members of the House). rates - SINGAPORE OUTGOING TELEX RATES VS. CORRESPONDING INCOMING RATES, SINGAPORE IDD RATES VS. CORRESPONDING INCOMING RATES, COMPARISON OF POSTAGE RATE FOR A 20 GRAMME DOMESTIC LETTER (Cols. 397 - 402)

Sir, is the increase in the postage an admission of inflation in the country?

Sir, the Member obviously has not been listening to the answer because overall there has been a decrease in rates collectively, combining both the postal as well as telecommunications services.

Those who have benefitted are not the ordinary man-in-the-street, Sir.

Sir, 90% of the postal services are used by commercial companies. And as for the ordinary consumers, people who use both postal and telecommunications services, they will also benefit from the reduction in telecommunications services.

asked the Minister for Communications and Information what is the rationale for the Registry of Vehicles' policy of debarring applicants from obtaining vocational licences for public buses and taxis if such applicants have criminal or drug abuse records.

Mr Speaker, Sir, on behalf of my Minister. Sir, the Registry of Vehicles has a responsibility to ensure the safety of the commuting public. This is because more than 3.5 million passenger trips are made on buses and taxis each day. For this reason, persons who have adverse criminal or drug abuse records are generally not allowed to hold bus and taxi drivers' vocational licences. However, the Registry is prepared to consider applicants with less serious criminal offences, provided that public safety is not compromised.

Sir, I would like to ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary whether he is aware that if the Government's licensing authorities and departments were to adopt the same policy in the interest of public safety, let us say, Ministry of the Environment adopting this policy for hawkers, and since many jobs and vocations in Singapore are governed by licensing rules, can he tell us how these people can be absorbed into the normal stream of society if they are not given a chance to earn an honest living? In the same light I would like to ask why the ROV insist on punishing these people twice since they have already paid their debts to society and they actually qualify in all other respects in terms of licensing requirements? And should not the ROV take into consideration that they are after all the licensing department and not really the employer? Perhaps in cases like this, they should leave it to the market, ie, the employers, to decide whether they want to employ these ex-drug addicts or ex-criminals with adverse criminal records. Finally, Sir, the Senior Parliamentary Secretary mentioned about less serious offences. I would like to know what these less serious offences are? Because I do know of cases where people now in their 40's with families are denied such vocational licences.

Mr Heng, are you making a speech?

I am not, Sir. In asking the question I am giving an example to illustrate the purpose of my question.

Complete your question, please.

I would like to know what these lesser offences are because I know of cases where people in their 40's with families are denied such licences when their only offences were perhaps drug-taking when they were 18 years old or in their teen-age years and they have been given a clean bill of health by the Central Narcotics Bureau.

Sir, I share the sentiments expressed by the Member. I cannot speak for other Ministries. As far as my Ministry is concerned, I do not think public safety should be compromised. As regards less serious criminal offences, if the Member were to let me have details of the cases, I will certainly ask the Registry of Vehicles to look into them again. Each case will be considered on its own merit.

Sir, I do not really understand what the Senior Parliamentary Secretary meant by public safety because, as I said earlier, these people do satisfy all licensing requirements except that during their teen-age years they may have an adverse record but they are today cured of such ailments. So I do not understand what he meant by public safety. Unless he says it is an on-going offence; by that, if he means that the applicant continues to take drugs. That I can understand. But I am talking about ex-drug addicts, Sir.

Public safety includes the safety of the commuters as well as other road users. For example, school bus commuters are school children and we are particularly concerned about the safety of our school children. Nevertheless, the points expressed by the Member are taken and I shall pass them to the Registry for consideration.

asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether police officers notify the parents of teenagers who have been detained overnight.

Mr Speaker, Sir, when a suspect is arrested and subsequently detained, it is an established procedure for the Police to inform the next-of-kin of the person arrested and, in the case of minors, the parents or guardian at the earliest appropriate opportunity. However, Sir, in certain special circumstances, the arrest is not immediately divulged as this may hamper Police investigations. Premature disclosure may lead to the alerting of accomplices, who have yet to be arrested, or to the disposal of other evidence.

asked the Minister for Labour how many Central Provident Fund members have opted out of the Dependants' Protection Insurance Scheme; and if he will give members the option to increase the insurance cover.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as at 26th June 1989, 175,000 CPF members have opted out of the CPF Dependants' Protection Insurance Scheme (DPIS), leaving 745,000 members insured under the scheme. The DPIS is intended to be a social security scheme to provide a minimum level of insurance cover for CPF members against the risk of permanent incapacity or premature death before the age of 55. Hence, the insured sum has been kept low at $30,000, equivalent to about three years' earnings of an average worker. The scheme is also kept simple to minimize the administrative cost to the insured members. Members who wish to have a higher level of insurance cover or other types of insurance should buy insurance on their own with private insurance companies.

Sir, is the Minister fully satisfied with the publicity given to the Scheme and that those who have opted out have done so because they have misunderstood the annual premium to be a monthly premium. Have they fully understood that it is meant to be an annual premium?

Sir, it is possible that some of those who have opted out may have done so out of ignorance. I hope they will reconsider their decision. There have been cases who had opted out but later came back to the Board to be re-insured and we have agreed to take them back. The scheme is basically a good scheme which was supported by all Members of Parliament, including the Non-Constituency Member, Dr Lee Siew-Choh. I take the point that there has to be better publicity and I hope that Members will also inform their own constituents that the scheme is really for their benefit. It is the cheapest form of insurance available in Singapore and the intention of the Board is to operate it at cost. And if there is any surplus it will be refunded to Members. In fact, even the Life Insurance Association has recommended to the public that they should think carefully before opting out of the scheme.

Sir, the Minister, of course, is right and the scheme is only cheap if more members are in the scheme. So my question really is, will the Ministry reach out and encourage those who have opted out to come back into the scheme? If more members opt out of the scheme, the premium will rise in time to come.

Sir, the scheme is still very viable with a base of 745,000 members. Among those who have opted out are a high proportion of females. Maybe they feel there is no need for them to insure themselves. There is also a high proportion of Malays, and a higher proportion of those with low income or low CPF balances and the older ones. We have assessed the scheme and find that it is still viable and the insurance rates will be maintained.

asked the Minister for Trade and Industry whether the Public Utilities Board will consider allowing people to fish in some specific sites at the reservoirs. The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr Eugene Yap Giau Cheng) (for the Minister for Trade and Industry: Mr Speaker, Sir, PUB's primary mission is to provide a secure, safe and adequate supply of water for the Singapore population. PUB's emphasis must therefore be to keep our reservoirs free from contamination and pollution. Nevertheless, PUB appreciates that its reservoirs and catchments are prime recreational sites for Singaporeans. As far as possible, the PUB will try to accommodate recreational activities in these areas which do not pollute the water, such as fishing and paddle boating. Over the years, PUB has developed reservoir parks to provide the public with scenic walks, jogging tracks, children's playgrounds and exercise stations. The PUB will progressively allow more activities at its reservoirs, especially the reservoirs in the unprotected catchment areas, as facilities like jetties and public toilets are constructed. The Kranji Reservoir has been open to the public for fishing since 1985. Pandan Reservoir is already heavily used for canoeing. From mid-1990, the PUB will open Sungei Seletar Reservoir to the public for fishing.

Sir, is the Senior Parliamentary Secretary aware that some of the amenities in these reservoirs are not in real good shape for use by the public. I wish to know whether PUB will take steps to improve public amenities in some of these reservoirs?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not aware of it but I will ask PUB to look into it.

asked the Minister for Trade and Industry if he will give the estimated value of investments by Singapore companies in the People's Republic of China and how these are affected by recent events there.

Mr Speaker, Sir, on behalf of my Minister. Singapore's investment commitments in China are estimated to be about S$1 billion. Actual investments so far are less, about half of that. The bulk are in the property and hotel sector, and the rest mainly in manufacturing as well as in the service industries which are related to construction, consultancy and tourism. Investments in hotels and tourism were immediately affected by the recent events in China, as the number of tourists going to China declined sharply. The occupancy rates of hotels in Beijing and Shanghai were reported to have declined substantially. Investments in export-oriented manufacturing industries are likely to be less affected. So long as China's open trade policy continues, such investments are likely to continue, albeit at a slower pace. How investments in the industries producing goods for domestic consumption will be affected is at this moment still unclear. 1.30 pm

End of Question Time. Pursuant to Standing Order 21(2), Written Answers to Questions Nos. 15 to 18 remaining on the Order Paper are reproduced at the section 'Oral Answers to Questions Not Reached' (Cols. 393-396).

"to amend the Planning Act (Chapter 232 of the 1985 Revised Edition)", recommendation of President signified; presented by the Minister for National Development (Mr S. Dhanabalan); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

"to give effect to the merger of the existing Urban Redevelopment Authority established under the Urban Redevelopment Authority Act (Chapter 340 of the 1985 Revised Edition) and the Planning Department and the Research and Statistics Unit of the Ministry of National Development by the establishment and incorporation of the new Urban Redevelopment Authority and to provide for matters connected therewith", recommendation of President signified; presented by Mr S. Dhanabalan; read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

"to amend the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act (Chapter 67 of the 1985 Revised Edition)", presented by the Minister for Home Affairs (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 for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This Bill seeks to amend the Housing and Development Act so that the Housing and Development Board (HDB) can discharge its functions more efficiently and effectively. The amendments are necessary to help HDB meet: (a) the Board's operational needs; (b) the move towards greater private sector involvement; and (c) the transition in estate management from HDB to the Town Councils. Clause 2 of the Bill will allow the Minister to increase the number of Board members other than the Chairman and Deputy Chairman from five to seven members. It will also allow the Chief Executive Officer to be appointed a member of the Board. I shall also be moving, Mr Speaker, Sir, during the Committee stage a further amendment to allow Board members to be appointed for up to three years. The present provision requires Board members to be appointed for three years, no more no less. This is too inflexible. Clause 3 will allow the HDB to form companies in the future for purposes which are approved by the Minister. At present, HDB cannot enter into joint ventures or bring in other partners into its projects. It can only form wholly owned companies. This is too restrictive. The Bill will allow HDB to participate in forming companies with others and to grant loans to such companies. Clause 4 will revoke the HDB's power to request the President to acquire private land for purposes of the Board. This is to comply with the directive of the Ministry of Law. All such acquisitions must now be undertaken by the Land Office. Clause 5 contains the consequential amendments. Clause 6 will enable HDB to make rules regulating the use and enjoyment of common property and open spaces of any land vested in or held in trust for the Board, and to impose a penalty on owners of HDB and HUDC properties for the late payment of loan instalments or other fees due to the Board. The imposition of such a penalty is to deter owners from habitually delaying payment of instalments and fees. HDB has to incur costs in sending reminders, monitoring the arrears that accrue and in recovering them. As at the end of April 1989, 11.1% (or 37,115) of all lessees were in arrears amounting to $30.2 million. Many are habitually late in their payments for no valid reasons. They put off paying their instalments until the HDB threatens them with legal action. The imposition of penalties to deter late payments is widely practised. Credit POSB, for example, charges 1% per month on any late payment of its loan instalments. Penalty fees will discourage such habitual late payments. Clause 7 of the Bill will give the HDB the power to compound certain minor offences under its rules, for example, parking offences and burning of incense papers on grass turfs. The amount of composition shall not exceed $400. This will enable HDB to deal more effectively with all offences under the rules. To facilitate action against those who commit parking offences, the owner of a vehicle that is not properly parked will be assumed to be the actual offender. He will, however, not be penalized if he can show that the vehicle was stolen or illegally taken or used. This provision is similar to the provision in the Parking Places Act. The provision is necessary if HDB is to effectively enforce its rule against motorists who park their vehicles indiscriminately in the void decks or on the Board's common property. Clause 8 of the Bill will assist the Town Councils to carry out their mandatory estate management duties effectively. This clause will allow the HDB to delegate to Town Councils, and its employees and agents, the enforcement powers contained in the rules made under section 27 of the Housing and Development Act. Clause 9 deals with the appointment of the HDB's auditor in line with the Auditor-General's financial and auditing guidelines that statutory bodies have to comply with. The auditor appointed in consultation with the Auditor-General must be an approved company auditor, and be allowed to report directly to the Minister on any matter arising out of his audit work. Clause 10 will bring HDB's system of collecting and refunding tender deposits in line with Government's tendering procedures. The clause will allow HDB to accept a cashier's order and other forms of bank drafts instead of using cash for the collection and refund of tender deposits. It will also allow the HDB to retain tender deposits without banking them until the outcome of the tender is known. It gives tenderers and the public greater flexibility in choosing the most convenient form of payment. Clause 11 will enable HDB to use its funds for investment purposes. It will allow the Board to invest in the shares of any private company including its partially owned companies permitted under clause 3 and in any public company or in trust funds. Clause 12 of the Bill will help enforcement officers to be more effective in enforcing the Act and any rule made under the Housing and Development Act. This clause will empower HDB officers, members and employees of the Town Councils who reasonably suspect a person of committing an offence within the estate or town to request that person to furnish evidence of his identity. If the person fails to do so, he will be guilty of an offence. He will, upon conviction, have to pay a fine not exceeding $200. Finally, clause 13 of the Bill will enable HDB to serve summons for any offence under its rules or regulations, and any notice or document on persons other than owners of flats sold by the Board. The Board can do so by sending the summons, notice or document by registered mail addressed to the usual or last known residence or place of business of the person concerned or by leaving it at that address in a cover addressed to that person. This is similar to section 17(2) of the Parking Places Act. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill, particularly on clause 6, (Section 27(2)(d)) which allows the HDB to prescribe a charge for late payment of rents and mortgage payments. As the Minister has mentioned, there is a real economic cost on late charges. One is the administrative expense which he mentioned. The other, of course, is the $30 million in rental arrears. If you take it over a period of one year, interest charges work out to something like $2-3 million lost. Sir, the HDB gets a subsidy from the Government and late payments by those who do not exercise financial discipline result in subsidies and costs to other taxpayers. I have only three points to raise with the Minister when he implements these charges. One, there should be sufficient publicity and time given so that all HDB tenants and flat owners will be fully apprised of the status of these late charges. Two, there should be a reasonable grace period for those who are not used to paying their bills on time; and lastly, Sir, the HDB should exercise some flexibility in dealing with cases where there is real financial hardship. Out of 11.1%, I am sure, some must have come from the lower-income group whereby meeting the payment is actually a real problem.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Bill seeks to allow the Board to grant loans and to invest in shares. The Minister has just told us that it would help discharge its functions more effectively and efficiently. I have some queries, Sir. Why is it necessary to do that, that is, to grant loans and to invest in shares? Are there going to be huge profits to be made from the investments and loans? What are these private or public companies the HDB would like to invest in? The Government's own Report of the Economic Committee has recommended that Government should participate less and less in business, especially business that can be carried out by the private sector. Why then does the HDB go against its own Government's recommendations and again invest in private business? Government has its fingers already, Sir, in hundreds of business enterprises and many of them have gone bust in the past, incurring substantial losses. What if the HDB's new investments should also go bust? And what if the loans later on should not be recoverable? Who is then going to be responsible? And if the losses are incurred, will that also mean that the HDB will in future increase the price of the HDB flats? Sir, I have been given to understand that the HDB is a statutory body incorporated to build cheap rental housing for all the people. But the HDB has not kept its original objective. From the building of cheap flats for rental, it has moved into sale of flats, more and more expensive flats and also into the leasing of land. The proceeds of such sales and leasings have amounted to hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars, and this has been clearly stated in the reports of the audits of accounts of the HDB since 1980, and repeated yearly for several years after that. In 1981, the Auditor-General stated that the activities of some of the subsidiaries of this company (it was referring to the MND Holdings Pte Ltd) were not connected with the functions of the Board and that the investment of the MND Holdings Pte Ltd was not in accordance with the provisions of this Act. I believe, Sir, the same position still holds, that is, until today the HDB has made investments and gone into business which the law has not authorized. And in the case of the MND Holdings, which is a holding company, HDB has been doing that unlawfully since 1976. The Bill's amendment to section 15 by inserting the new section 78 is intended to legalize what has been done unlawfully for many years. I do not know whether the Minister will agree with what I have said. But, of course, the Government is adept at first doing things unlawfully and then legalizing them after some time. his has happened with the amendment to the Constitution early this year, and again when Government amended the Code of Conduct for Ministers through the Command Paper presented to the Parliament but not debated, in order to legalize the position of the Second Deputy Prime Minister as the Secretary-General of the NTUC, a position which he had been holding unlawfully for some years. In 1982, Sir, the Auditor-General reported, under the Housing and Development Act, "the Board may, with the Minister's approval, invest in funds in companies having as their object any or all of the functions of the Board set out in the Act." And the object and functions of the Board are set out in section 13 of the principal Act. In the new amendment as set out in clause 3, the private company to be formed will have "such object as may be approved by the Minister," that is, the amendment allows the Minister to have a carte blanche to do as he likes in forming a company or/and whether or not the company has functions and objects set out in section 13 of the Act. This is most unwise, Sir, as funds may be recklessly squandered. If we pass such amendments and if investments turn into losses, then we shall all be responsible for the losses. I suggest that the HDB confine itself to what it can do best, that is, to build flats. Go back to building cheap rental flats for those who cannot afford to buy flats and the HDB should not dabble in jobs which should be done by other departments or by the private sector. Clause 7, Sir, seeks to impose liability on owners of vehicles in respect of which a parking offence under rules made under the Act is committed. The owner of the vehicle is now supposed to be guilty of the parking offence in all respects as if he were the actual offender guilty of the offence. I believe this is most unfair. It imposes the liability on the people and penalize people unnecessarily. Recently, Sir, in the Enlistment Act, the reservist is made to bear the burden of proof of not knowing about the mobilization call-up early enough, and now we have this Bill trying to impose unfair liability on the vehicle owner. I understand that there are provisions in the Road Traffic Act under which notice can be served on the owner as to who was the driver of the vehicle at the material time. And the owner can be punished if he fails to provide the information required. Why cannot the same provision be applied to the parking offences in the HDB estates and in parking lots? In principle, Sir, no one should be punished for what he has not done. The position of vicarious liability on the owner is morally wrong. Or is it intended just to render it administratively easier for the HDB? I hope the Minister will answer some of the queries I have just raised.

I am much obliged to you, Sir. Sir, first of all, I would like to ask the Minister a question in regard to clause 6. Under the principal Act, section 9 -- ''There shall be paid to members of the Board out of the funds of the Board, such salaries, fees and allowances or expenses as the Minister may from time to time determine.'' Can the Minister please tell us, for our information, what are the present remuneration rates, if any, and salary expenses to members of the Board, including the Chairman and the Deputy Chairman. Sir, I would think that if the Minister has increased the number of members on the Board from seven to 9, he should also have amended section 10 of the principal Act to increase the quorum which is fixed at three. If you increase the number of the Board, I would imagine that you would surely increase the quorum accordingly. Sir, I will next dwell on clause 3 which has been dealt with by the NCMP. But I will view it from a different Looking at clause 3(1) - ''The Board may, with the approval of the Minister, form or participate in the formation of a private company or companies (referred to in this section as the company) having such object as may be approved by the Minister.''. Sir, this is a very material amendment because the Minister will be given full authority to form companies and to approve whatever objects the company may have. I am told that private developers have been complaining against the Housing and Development Board. They said that they were not allowed to do certain things which the HDB is allowed to do, thus giving the HDB an advantage over them in the construction industry. Today we are being asked to give companies formed by the HDB unrestrained advantage over all other businesses in the private sector in that the HDB companies can carry out any business activities they like as long as they get the approval of the Minister. These HDB companies will have extra legal powers so to say. They need not comply with the ultra vires rule of the Company law. As you know, any company formed under the Companies Act can carry out only certain businesses for which they have been registered. Those businesses which are not included in the object, if they do them, will be considered illegal or ultra vires. In the case of future HDB companies, they can carry out any businesses even outside the objects for which they were formed as long as they get ministerial approval. So these are very sweeping powers. Sir, Dr Lee has pointed out the law. Section 13 spells out basically what the HDB can do - to build flats, to develop land, to acquire land, to maintain, lease out, sale, and so forth. And if you read the old section 15, Sir, they are not given such widespread powers. At least the principle of the ultra vires rule is adhered in the old law. Sir, may I refer you to the old law, section 15(1) - ''The Board may, with the approval of the Minister, cause to be formed, under the provisions of any written law for the time being in force relating to companies and incorporated private company or companies (referred to in this section as the company) limited by shares to be held by the Board and having as its or their object, all or any of the functions of the Board set out in section 13.'' In other words, the HDB can form companies but the activities must relate to those activities mentioned in section 13. But now with these sweeping powers given in the new section 15, the HDB can carry out any businesses they like as long as the Minister approves of the business. Naturally, I think as long as the company makes money, I think the Minister will approve. Sir, there is nothing to stop the Minister from approving as long as the company approved seems to be making money. This, as Dr Lee has pointed out, is not a very good policy because there will be unfair competition as the HDB companies are not stopped by the ultra vires rules. There will be a proliferation of activities. They can carry out any business they like, not necessarily related to those mentioned in section 13. As it has already been mentioned, at the ground, the Government has carried out all kinds of businesses, including maintaining funeral parlours, except they say that the Government has not gone into coffin-making. Maybe the HDB will go into this business. We will never know, because I hear it is a lucrative business. Small business enterprises are already feeling the competition, very keen competition, because of the participation of Government also in small businesses. Sir, with the introduction of these new laws, I think that competition for small businesses will be even keener. I hope that the future HDB companies will not go into traditional local businesses, thus making life more difficult for our local businessmen. Sir, the other clause I want to turn to is clause 6 which reads: ''Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), the Board may, with the approval of the Minister, make rules for or in respect of all or any of the following matters: (a) regulating the use and and enjoyment of common property and open spaces in any land vested in or held in trust for the Board.'' Sir, as I read this section, it would appear that it would be repugnant to the Town Councils Act. Under section 18 of the Town Councils Act, the Town Council has authority to control, manage, maintain, and improve the common properties. They are supposed to control the property. How can the Town Councils control the property and have use of the property if the HDB can make regulations? If regulations are made not to allow the Town Council to carry out certain activities, the Town Council will thus have no controlling power. So the Town Councils Act would, in fact, be overruled by this particular section. Sir, I would suggest that this section should be further amended. After the words "in trust for the Board", to add the following words: ''except those common properties and open spaces in land controlled by the Town Councils;'' Because the Town Councils are allowed to make by laws. Therefore, they can make by laws which will control these open spaces and common property in lands controlled by them. Sir, I see that the HDB is given power to compound fines and that the amount is $400. I think this is too high an amount and I would suggest that it should be reduced to $200.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like, first of all, to deal with the points raised by Mr Chng Hee Kok. I not that he is not here. I am glad that he supports the need for penalty for late payment of instalments. As I mentioned, many cases of arrears arise not out of difficulty in paying,but because people know that there is no penalty interest and therefore they wait until the last moment. The interest is calculated on six months rest. So they wait until just before the six months before they pay the instalments. We shall certainly give sufficient publicity so that all HDB owners who owe money to the HDB will know that penalties will now be imposed. As to whether a reasonable grace period is required, this is something that can be looked into. I think with sufficient publicity, I do not see the need for a grace period. We shall certainly exercise flexibility in the sense that those who have genuine difficulties in meeting the mortgage payments, if they come early to the HDB and put forward their problem with a revised payment schedule and the payment schedule is reasonable, HDB will then revise the payment schedule. But what we do not want is the present situation where HDB has to write many letters of reminders, visit the owner many times and then ultimately threaten to take legal action and only then the mortgage payments are made. So where there are genuine difficulties, HDB will be prepared to be flexible. Let us say a main wage-earner has lost his job or is temporarily unemployed, if he approaches the HDB with a revised schedule HDB will be prepared to consider it. We will give as much publicity as possible. We will exercise flexibility in the same way that we have exercised flexibility until now. But I am not so sure whether a long grace period is needed. Maybe one or two months before the law comes into operation. Now I take the points made by Dr Lee and Mr Chiam. First of all, Sir, quite a number of comments have been made on the amendment that will enable HDB to enter into joint ventures. This amendment has two results. (1) Under the present Act, HDB can only form wholly-owned companies. It cannot enter into joint ventures even for the purposes set out in section 13. This is very restrictive. Just to give one example, Mr Speaker, Sir. With the establishment of town councils, HDB set up a company to provide management services as well as cleaning and other services to town councils. Under the present law, these companies must be wholly-owned by the HDB. And HDB does not want to go on doing these functions. In fact, it wants to bring in other private shareholders into the companies and after some time divest its interest in these companies so that these functions can be performed by the private sector. But as the law now stands, it cannot do so. It cannot go through this interim period of bringing in the private investor and allowing the private investor to learn to do the job and then ultimately divest all the shares in the company. So the amendment now will enable HDB to form joint ventures to carry out any functions so that functions like estate management, estate cleansing and maintenance and so on can be done by the HDB together with other private investors. And at some future time, HDB can either completely divest itself or be just a minority shareholder. That is the first purpose that will be achieved by this amendment. (2) As has been pointed out, the amendment is a material one, I admit, in that HDB will now be able to form companies to carry out functions other than the functions that were set out in section 13. There is a very good reason for this. HDB has now been in existence for almost 30 years. It has accumulated vast knowledge and expertise in building and maintaining public housing as well as factories, as well as other public amenities, swimming pools, stadiums and so on. There is a tremendous market for this expertise outside Singapore. And I think we will be foolish if we do not take advantage of the knowledge and expertise that HDB has gathered so far to work with other private investors in Singapore or on its own to export these services. It will also be foolish for HDB not to enter into joint ventures with others to spread this expertise and knowledge within Singapore in the private sector. That is the reason why the present Bill amends the Act to enable the HDB to carry out these other functions. Of course, as drafted, HDB can do almost anything. But obviously commonsense will say that HDB will only go into areas where it already has expertise, or where it is necessary for HDB to invest in order to carry out its objectives. For example, HDB invested and owns brick factories and granite quarries. These were necessary in order to maintain a steady supply of essential building materials for HDB to carry out its functions. I am not a lawyer, Mr Speaker, Sir, but I was quite dumbfounded with the interpretation of Mr Chiam that because this clause enables HDB to perform functions as approved by the Minister, it therefore follows that the HDB can form companies to carry out functions ultra vires the Companies Act. I do not see how that follows. Clause 3(1) says: ''The Board may, with the approval of the Minister, form or participate in the formation of a private company or companies ...'' I would assume that when you form a company, you form it under the Companies Act. And when you form it under the Companies Act, you must be subject to the provisions of the Companies Act. Just as if this clause had read, "the Board may form societies", then it might form societies under the Societies Act and they will have to be subject to the provisions of the Societies Act. There is nothing here which says that a company formed under this clause will enable the company to completely ignore or act ultra vires the Companies Act. I do not know how that interpretation follows. Certainly, the people who drafted this never had that in mind and I am sure that that is not the reading of this particular clause. The second point I would like to make is the point that was much elaborated by Dr Lee. He said that HDB has formed companies which are illegal and that this is an attempt to make past illegal acts legal. I think Dr Lee knows that as far as this Government is concerned, we are always ready to be challenged on any Act and if he thinks that we have formed illegal companies, please by all means take the necessary action, take us to court, take the HDB to court to show that we have formed illegal companies. I deny certainly. All the legal advice that we have has enabled us to ensure that whatever HDB has done is within the HDB Act. The other point that he made was that this amendment would enable HDB to enter into all kinds of businesses which may end up in HDB losing money. And in passing, he mentioned, "many Government investments have gone bust." I think Dr Lee owes this House an explanation on a list of Government investments that have gone bust, a list of Government investments that are doing well, a list of Government investments that are doing extremely well, to justify or to back up his statement that many Government investments have gone bust. This is news to me and I am sure it is news to many Members here. The HDB was set up to build flats for the population. Earlier in the sitting today, I explained how people's aspirations have changed. And for HDB to now confine itself, as Dr Lee suggests, to just building cheap flats for rental, it is just utterly ridiculous. I do not know where to start to explain the changes that have taken place in Singapore. We cannot even find buyers for 3-room flats, let alone cheap rental flats. Singapore has changed a lot. People can afford things quite different from what we thought they could afford 20-30 years ago. And if HDB is to build only cheap rental flats, I think it can just wind up. Because we have enough flats to last us for a long time for rental purposes. On the other point that Dr Lee made, I am afraid he just read the first part of the clause and did not read further down. He said that new section 27B is unfair as it puts the liability on the owner of the vehicle when a parking offence has been committed. And he said, "Why can't we follow the provisions of the Parking Places Act?" In fact, that is exactly what is provided for in this clause. If he reads further down, new section 27B, subsection (3) says: ''Notwithstanding subsection (1), [this is the one that Dr Lee quoted] no owner of a vehicle shall by virtue of this section be guilty of an offence if he -

Some clarifications, Sir, from the Minister.

All right.

He said that everything was done legally. May I quote him, Sir, the Report on the Audit of Accounts by the Auditor-General in 1981, and here under (4), it says: ''As the activities of some of the subsidiaries of these companies [he was referring to the MND Holdings] are not connected with the functions of the Board, Audit expressed the view in August 1980 that the investments in MND Holdings Pte Ltd is not in accordance with the provision of the Act. The matter is under review by the relevant Government authorities.'' That is what it says, Sir. And now he asks me to take legal action. The Auditor-General was already complaining. Why has not the Government done anything about that? Does he not realize that he has got to give us an explanation instead? Again, Sir, he says everything is legal. I have here a name of one of the subsidiaries of MND Holdings, Primary Industries Enterprises, which is meant for animal husbandry and trading in foodstuffs. What has that got to do with the HDB? I just like to know. I cannot see anything that is there. And he has asked: what are the companies that have gone bust? I think all he has got to do is to go back to the early 1970's and I am sure the Minister for Finance will be able to produce all the answers. I cannot remember any offhand, but straightaway I can remember Firestone, not Firestone, but one tyre company anyway and a few others. I am sure the Minister should know. He should provide us the answer, not me. As for cheap rental flats, does he not realize that there are quite a number of poor people today who have not been able to provide even the first downpayment for the buying of so-called cheap flats from the Government? Does he not think that it is only fair that those people who cannot afford to buy flats be allowed to rent flats, cheap rental flats? That is what I have been trying to drive at, Sir.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I really admire Dr Lee's capacity to create facts out of his ignorance by just throwing so-called examples. First of all, I think he referred to Bridgestone. Government had absolutely no interest in that company. Primary Industries Ltd is not an HDB company. It is a company in which MND and now I think Temasek has the investment. It is not an HDB company. As to MND Holdings, yes, there was a dispute. MND Holdings is not held by HDB. I think it is held now by Temasek or by Minister for Finance. There was a dispute in the sense that whether certain operations such as the ownership of brick factories or granite quarries is entirely in accordance with section 13. I think it is. I think the Board's legal advisers held that it was so because it does say here expressly in section (e) "to do all such other matters and things as are necessary for the exercise and performance of all or any of the functions and duties of the Board." So I think it is a matter of interpretation. But in any case, to put this matter beyond doubt, that company is not held by HDB any more. Cheap rental flats. We have enough rental flats to meet the needs of all those who want to rent flats. We have enough 1-room flats, we have also enough 3-room flats for sale. We have more than 8,000 3-room flats. There are only 2,000-odd applicants on the waiting list. So we have something like four times the number of registrants for 3-room flats. The mortgage payment of 3-room flats, I have already explained, is almost equal to the rental for 3-room flats. And the terms for the purchase of a 3-room flat are so generous that I do not think anybody can say that he cannot afford it. In fact, the way we worked it out, anybody who is earning $500 per month should have enough in his CPF to be able to afford a 3-room flat. And if he still cannot afford that, he can rent a 1-room flat or, where it is available, a 2-room flat. So we have enough flats to meet the demand. And I think Dr Lee must really go around Singapore and find out for himself what the present situation is. It is not the early 60's. They are not. We do not have thousands of people wanting to just rent cheap flats. People now have savings. They want to buy good flats. And that is what HDB intends to provide.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Mr Dhanabalan]. Bill considered in Committee.

Clause 1 -- ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 2 --

Sir, I beg to move, In page 2, after line 9, to insert - "(c) by deleting subsection (2) and substituting the following subsection: "(2) Members of the Board shall hold office for such period, not being more than 3 years from the date of their respective appointments, as the Minister may determine and shall be eligible for reappointment on completion of that period.'.". The amendment will give the Minister the flexibility to appoint Board members of the HDB for any period up to a maximum of three years. This is similar to the provisions in the principal legislation of other major statutory bodies such as the Port of Singapore Authority, the Economic Development Board and the Telecommunications Authority of Singapore. Amendment agreed to.

Consequential amendments will have to be made: (1) In page 2, line 4, to leave out "and". (2) In page 2, line 9, to leave out the full-stop at the end, and insert "; and". These will be done. Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 3 to 13 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported with an amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 2.25 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, this is essentially a technical Bill to update and tighten the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act. These amendments are based on the recommendations of the Attorney-General's Chambers and the Director of the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau in the light of the experience of the Bureau. The Act was enacted in 1960. However, in the 29 years since then, the monetary penalties for corruption offences under the Act have remained unaltered. Therefore, they need to be revised if they are to have a sufficient deterrent effect today. Clause 7 of the Bill enhances the maximum fines for these offences from $10,000 to a maximum of $100,000. In addition, fines will also be enhanced for offences of failing to comply with the notice of the Public Prosecutor to provide information, and for offences relating to the obstruction of duties of the Director or his officers. These fines are to be increased from a maximum of $2,000 to $10,000. Next, Sir, clause 6 of the Bill will create a new seizable offence of knowingly giving false or misleading information to the CPIB. The penalty for this new offence will be a fine not exceeding $10,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year or both. This amendment is needed because persons who deliberately give false or misleading information to the CPIB can at present only be prosecuted for the general offence of giving false information to a public servant under the provisions of the Penal Code section 182. But the penalty for that offence under the Penal Code is imprisonment not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding $1,000 or both, a penalty hardly adequate to deter persons from deliberately giving false or misleading information to the CPIB. Such persons who commit these offences must be subject to greater penalties because their actions can not only detract the CPIB in its investigations but can cause a great deal of harm to others. The remaining amendments are more of a technical nature. Clause 2 empowers the Director, CPIB and his officers to release an arrested person on bail or bond. At present, all matters concerning bail or bond are referred by the CPIB to the Police who have powers under section 352 of the Criminal Procedure Code to release arrested persons on bail or bond. The powers conferred on the Director and his officers are similar to those in section 352 of the Code. At present, section 16 of the main Act confers on the Director and his investigating officers certain powers of investigation into seizable offences which are conferred on police officers by the Criminal Procedure Code. These powers are contained in sections 120, 121, 125 and 126 of the Code. Clause 3 seeks to amend section 16 to confer on the Director, CPIB and his officers all the powers of investigation of a police officer under the Code and not merely under those four sections. The amendment therefore, will give the CPIB wider powers of investigation, including the powere to sumon the production of documents. If I may move on. Clause 4 empowers the Public Prosecutor to authorize the Director, CPIB or any of his special investigators to exercise the powers of investigation conferred by the Criminal Procedure Code in connection with any offence under any written law. This is to provide for exceptional situations where it may be necessary for the Public Prosecutor to authorize the CPIB to investigate any offence under any written law. Finally, clause 5 covers a loophole in the main Act, specifically section 20(1)(b). The amendment will empower the Public Prosecutor to require a suspected person to furnish a sworn statement of any money or other porperty sent out of Singapore by his spouse, sons or daughters. This amendment is to bring the provision into line with section 20(1)(a) of the main Act. Sir, I hope this Bill receives the support of Members. Question proposed.

Sir, the Minister has said that this is a technical Bill. I do not think it is completely a technical Bill. And as I have told him a little while ago outside this Chamber, I am tempted to give my support to the Bill but I just cannot and I will explain why. Sir, the increase in fines in the various sections of the principal Act should certainly help to deter many would-be corruption offenders. But, of course, much depends on the value of the gratification that is offered, promised or expected in comparison with the risks involved and the possible penalties, if caught. If the gratification amounts to very huge sums, the person committing the offence may well feel that that is sufficient compensation for the risks involved. Then even the proposed increase of fines up to $100,000 will not deter any big corruption offences. In the past, Sir, there were cases of persons willing to go to prison for a few years because of the few million dollars stashed away for a cushy life after the prison term. Nevertheless, the proposed increase in fines will certainly be seen by many people that the Government is very serious about prevention of corruption in Singapore. Clause 5 which introduces the amendment to section 20(1)(b) of the principal Act, I agree, Sir, is very timely. It will definitely block up a loophole by which money is sent out of Singapore by persons who have corruptly received large sums of money or other property. But merely inserting the words "his spouse, sons and daughters" may not be sufficient. I would have thought that such a person could also send money or other property out of Singapore through a girlfriend or a boyfriend. In recent years, we have seen cases of girlfriends and boyfriends having been involved in taking money out of Singapore. Therefore, if the Minister should think fit, some appropriate word or phrase relating to boy or girl friend could be added to the proposed amendment. Under clause 6, a new section 26A is proposed to be added to the principal Act. Both subsections 26A(a) and (b) refer to any person giving, and I quote: ''false or misleading information relating to the commission of any offence under this Act ...''. Now, what is "misleading information"? Would information honestly believed to be true misleading? I believe that information honestly given could be false. But it is up to the investigator to investigate, to find out the actual position and the facts of the case. That is what the investigator is paid to do. We must remember, Sir, that corruption offences, especially the big ones, are usually well camouflaged. It is not easy for an outsider to know the facts and all the full facts. If the facts are well-known, then there is no longer any corruption offence. Therefore, if there should be a strong suspicion that corruption offences are being committed in spite of the scanty information available and if someone is public-spirited enough to forward such information as is available to the CPIB, then it is the duty of the CPIB to investigate. If the information should turn out to be untrue or if the information should lead to a blind alley, then that is not the fault of the person who gave the information. It is just sheer bad luck. In fact, we should be thankful to such public-spirited people who venture forth to give information to the CPIB, sometimes with some danger to themselves. Instead I now that see in the Bill, we want to penalize him for giving misleading information. As I said, Sir, information is difficult to come by and we should encourage whatever information that is available if we are serious in detecting and preventing corruption. But the Bill does not encourage but discourage people from giving information to the CPIB. Information honestly given should not be penalized. Otherwise no one would dare give any information about suspected corruption offences to the CPIB. I support the principle of prevention of corruption but I cannot support the Bill that discourages the giving of information. Indeed, Sir, the Bill gives the impression that it is intended not to encourage the giving of information but, on the contrary, to discourage the giving of information. Therefore, Sir, I cannot support the Bill.

( In Malay): Mr Speaker, I support the amendments proposed in the Bill. Having listened to the arguments put forward by the Minister for Law, I am convinced of the necessity to impose stiffer penalties in today's circumstances to check corrupt practices. Sir, all of us know that corruption is something that is not easily seen or detected and that it takes long time to uncover. More often than not, its detection depends on the willingness of the parties involved to volunteer information and cooperate closely with the CPIB by reporting such malpractices. And in this regard, I disagree with Dr Lee that the amendments in this Bill well discourage people from giving information. Corruption is a serious offence and anybody who wishes to offer information must be serious about it, because the penalty involved is severe. Thanks to the relentless efforts and the determination of the Government in combating corruption for the past 29 years, Singapore has now achieved international reputation as a clean, honest and efficient country. It is an achievement not easily attained, and it has brought about prosperity and peace to all our citizens. Sir, last week we read in the Business Times that Singapore has been rated highest in terms of competitiveness (ahead of Hong Kong, Taiwan and South Korea) in a group of 10 Newly Industrialised Economies (NIEs). This finding is contained in "The World Competitiveness Report of 1989" - a clear reference to Singapore's attractiveness as an investment centre. I believe, Sir, the amendments prescribing heavier penalties in this Bill would be welcomed by many of our citizens and viewed in its correct perspective, that is, as a means to safeguard, protect and preserve a valuable national asset (the integrity and honesty of our public institutions). This is a priceless asset that has taken us three decades to build. With regard to the additional powers granted to the CPIB, Sir, I would like to ask the Minister for Law whether there will be sufficient check against any abuse of power although he has informed the Housethat these additional powers will be used only in "exceptional situations". On this note, Sir, I once again support the amendments in this Bill. 2.30 pm.

( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Bill moved by the Minister for Law. I have read the Hansard report of the previous Parliament regarding the investigation committee on Teh Cheang Wan's case. Obviously all people would like the CPIB to be very meticulous and thorough in their investigation into corrupt cases. The amendments moved by the Minister will give them more powers and facilities to enable them to conduct investigations into corrupt cases with better efficiency and thoroughness. It is hoped that CPIB officers with added powers will also be able to exercise such powers with care and fairness to ensure that innocent people will not be victimized or suffer any unfair treatment. After the passage of this amendment Bill, cases of corruption will naturally decrease. Senior officers both in the Government services and in the private sector will also be able to continue to set good examples of integrity to the people of Singapore. This kind of corruption-free society of equal opportunity will encourage the people of Singapore to achieve success through their own effort and merits. It is not easy to achieve integrity of public organizations which is a precious asset to our country. Through this amendment Bill, we will be able to continue to preserve suchstate of integrity in Singapore. I support the amendment Bill moved by the Minister.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Members who have spoken. If I may first deal with the point raised by Mr Zulkifli who asked in regard to the power which the amendment seeks to give to the CPIB to investigate additional categories of offences, whether there are adequate safeguards. The answer to that is yes. First, they cannot investigate under these provisions on their own. They must first be authorized by the Public Prosecutor. They cannot initiate it. Secondly, no new offence is created under the Act which they can investigate and any persons who are investigated will not be charged under the Act if they are being investigated for an offence other than under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Let me now turn to the points raised by the Non-Constituency MP. I thank him for the support of some of the provisions of the Bill. He asked why confine to spouse, sons and daughters. There are two reasons for this. This amendment is to bring it into line with the existing provision in the Act which uses the same phraseology. As to whether we can extend it to cover girlfriends and others, we can give consideration to it but I believe these time-honoured provisions in the law have a certain assumption in them. The assumption is that where you place the onus on a party to provide information about sons, daughters and spouse, it is reasonable to expect him to have such knowledge so as to comply with the provisions of the law. If we extend the categories, one can question whether that same assumption applies because you are really creating a legal obligation which carries with it sanctions and penalties. But the main point made by the NCMP related to the new provision which provides for the offence of knowingly giving false or misleading information. This gives me an opportunity to explain a bit further and I hope, after my explanation, the NCMP will be able to give unqualified support to the Bill. It is not right, Sir, to interpret this provision as discouraging the giving of information to the CPIB. The phrase used by the NCMP was we should not discourage knowledge or information or facts which are honestly given. I completely agree with him and I would like to inform him that from the viewpoint of law and interpretation, this is exactly the scope of this provision. I would like to draw his attention to a key ingredient in the very first line of the new section 26A which says, "Any person who knowingly - ". So the prosecution will have to prove in a court of law knowledge that that person knew that the information that he was supplying to the CPIB was false or misleading. And when a person is proved to have knowingly given false or misleading information, it cannot be said that he was honestly giving such information and it also cannot be said that he was giving such information in good faith. If I may put it the other way round, Sir, this section should not in any way cause apprehensions among people who give information in good faith. Apart from the fact that corruption offences are serious and persons who give information must be expected at the minimum to give information in good faith, let me also explain what happens if information which is false and misleading is deliberately given. It will throw the CPIB off track. Supposing we have CPIB investigating a case involving corruption by Mr A. Now, two other persons come to CPIB and knowingly giving false information that Mr A is innocent and that the corruption was done by Mr B. If the information is given in good faith, this section does not apply at all. But if those two persons knowingly give false information, the effect is that it impedes and hinders CPIB's investigations and throws them off the track. So, far from causing any apprehensions, this protects those who give information in good faith or honestly, as the NCMP has described it, and the only persons who need to worry about this provision are persons who deliberately, wilfully and intentionally give false and misleading information. With that explanation, I hope the NCMP is clear in his mind and that he and other Members can support the Bill.

Would the Minister still explain what is "misleading"?

Sir, I would have thought the answer is quite clear what is misleading and what is false.

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

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." On 23rd March 1989, the First Deputy Prime Minister in his Ministerial Statement on salary revisions for political, judicial and other statutory appointments explained to this House the need to raise the salaries of the Chief Justice and the other Judges of the Supreme Court. Salary changes for the Chief Justice and the other Judges of the Supreme Court must be formally effected by amendment to the Judges' Remuneration Act (Chapter 147 of the Revised Edition,1985). This Bill seeks to amend that Act and increase the annual pensionable salary of the Chief Justice from $225,600 to $347,400, and the other Judges of the Supreme Court from $163,200 to $234,600 with effect from 1st April this year, as was announced by the First Deputy Prime Minister on 23rd March and debated in this House on the same day. The additional cost to Government will be of the order of $1.7 million a year. Sir, I beg to move.

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

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Bill seeks to provide the legal framework for the CPF Education Scheme. It will allow CPF members to invest part of their CPF savings in tertiary education in Singapore for themselves and their children. When I announced the Scheme in March this year, I informed hon. Members that the Bill might have to be back-dated to enable parents to make use of the scheme this year. Hence clause 1 of the Bill sets the commencement date at 1st June 1989 which is before the start of the academic terms of our tertiary institutes this year. Clause 2 enables withdrawals under the Scheme to be made from CPF members' ordinary accounts. Clause 3 contains the main provisions. It will enable a member to withdraw part of his CPF savings to pay the tuition fees at an approved tertiary institution in Singapore. The beneficiary could be the member himself, his child or such other dependent relatives as the Board may approve. The approved institutions are the National University of Singapore, Nanyang Technological Institute, Singapore Polytechnic and Ngee Ann Polytechnic. The Scheme will not cover overseas tertiary institutions for reasons I have previously stated. Overseas tertiary education is extremely expensive. A 3 or 4-year course will easily cost more than S$100,000. This is far more than the CPF balances of most Singaporeans. Parents who can contemplate sending their children on such courses are likely to have substantial income. If we allow those who do not have such resources to use CPF for overseas tertiary education, we will be placing many of them under great pressure to send their children when they really cannot afford to do so. Furthermore, overseas institutions and courses vary enormously in type and quality. The Government is in no position to assess, much less pass judgment on, the quality of foreign tertiary institutions, whether individually or by categories. To approve some institutions while excluding others will lead to contention. Yet to allow Singaporeans to use their CPF for all of them, regardless of the character of the institutions, will be irresponsible. The Government has therefore chosen a cautious approach in implementing the CPF Education Scheme, and excluded overseas institutions altogether. As with the Approved Investments Scheme, a CPF member must have at least the minimum sum of $30,900 in his Ordinary Account (inclusive of amounts withdrawn for housing), before he can participate in the CPF Education Scheme. This is to ensure that the member will have at least the minimum sum to survive on at subsistence level if the loan is not fully repaid for whatever reason. The amount that members can withdraw will be limited to 40% of their CPF balances in excess of the minimum sum (same as for the Approved Investments Scheme) or the full tuition fees for the approved courses, whichever is the lower. The approved courses are full-time degree or diploma courses at our tertiary institutes. The CPF Education Scheme is basically a loan scheme. This is to comply with the basic objective of the CPF Scheme which is to safeguard members' CPF savings for their own old-age needs. It will ensure that the member's CPF will be reinstated to the position that it would have been had he not withdrawn his savings for education. Various provisions are contained in clause 3 for this purpose. The borrower will have to give an undertaking to the CPF Board to repay in full the amount withdrawn plus interest to the lender's CPF account. A guarantor is required as in the case of the NUS and NTI loan schemes. If the loan is defaulted, the CPF Board may have to take legal action to ensure repayment. Other details of the Scheme will be set out in Regulations, such as the withdrawal limits and the repayment terms. The education loan will carry interest pegged at the CPF rate. Interest will be calculated from the date funds are withdrawn. There will be a charge by the CPF Board to cover the cost of administering the scheme. The borrower will be allowed up to 10 years to repay the loan plus interest. He will be required to start repaying within one year after graduation or leaving the course for whatever reason. Repayment will be in cash. Otherwise it could lead to his CPF savings being siphoned to his parent's CPF account and thereafter withdrawn prematurely. Repayment will continue even if the lender has reached the age of 55 years. This is to prevent the scheme from degenerating into an early withdrawal scheme. Under existing CPF rules, money repaid into the member's account after age 55 will be withdrawable when the lender reaches the age of 58 years and every third year thereafter. The CPF Education Scheme is available to about 500,000 CPF members who are eligible to participate in it. It is especially helpful to low-income Singaporeans who have difficulty supporting their children through our local tertiary institutes. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 3.00 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support this Bill. This issue of allowing CPF to be used for education has been discussed over many Parliament sittings. It has been a long drawn affair. Today, I am indeed glad that the Minister has agreed to the proposals laid out by my GPC and he has actually accepted many of the points raised in our Report. But to be fair, we must give credit to many Members of this House, especially some Members who have already left this Chamber, like Eric Cheong, Mansor Sukaimi, Chai Chong Yii and Tang See Chim. They pioneered this and I think they should be given some credit. I therefore propose not to speak on the pros and cons of the CPF issue again. I just want to zero in on this Bill. I would like to ask the Minister whether he would like to consider deleting two words. Can I refer him to page 3 of the Bill, new section 21A, subsection (6), on the definition of "approved tertiary institution"? I would like him to delete the words "in Singapore", so that "approved tertiary institution" would now be redefined to read, "means any tertiary institution approved by the Minister for the purpose of this section;". I seek this amendment to make the Bill neater. I foresee the possibility of extending the use of CPF for overseas education in the years to come. I think it is being realistic. There are about 11,000 Singaporeans studying abroad and I think there will be pressure on the Ministry. And this little deletion of two words would save him a lot of trouble in future. There is flexibility of purpose. Then there is ease of operating future requests and, of course, there is this administrative readiness for him if he could just delete these two words. He need not come back to Parliament to seek approval. Mr Speaker, Sir, we have established the purpose to allow the use of CPF for education. We have already agreed that CPF can be used for education and we are going to pass this CPF (Amendment No. 2) Bill after this Reading. I see a greater need for overseas students. I see an ever greater need for them because of the high cost. Singaporeans want to go abroad for quality tertiary education. They would add to our talent pool with their cross cultural exposure and experience. It also provides them with a wider perspective of life. However, I understand that there is a fear of the depletion of the member's CPF account because of the large sums involved for overseas education. I therefore would like to suggest to the Minister that the Ministry put a limit on the amount to be spent for overseas education to an equivalent sum for a similar course at our local tertiary institution. Let me give you an example, Mr Speaker, Sir. An account holder can only withdraw up to a maximum of $7,200 which is the fee for a medical course locally. Even if his overseas medical course in the United States is $31,000, you place that limit. I think this limitation is fair because it does not discriminate against students studying overseas. To ensure that students leave Singapore for quality tertiary education, the Minister could also, as pointed out in our GPC Report, draw up a list of approved courses. This means that members who wish to draw their CPF savings for overseas education must choose courses that are relevant to the needs of the country. This ensures that the students upon their return are more likely to have employable skills and could therefore contribute positively to society. I support the other provisions in this Bill. There is the signing of an undertaking to return the amount withdrawn. I think this is in line with what my GPC proposed. However, in subsection (3)(b) of new section 21A, I am drawn to conclude that the Board is going to allow exemptions on the requirement of a guarantor. May I be allowed to read that subsection? Please refer to page 2. It says: ''(3) Where a member wishes to make any withdrawals for himself, his child or relative for the purpose of subsection (1), that member, child or relative shall -

Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill. However, I have one request for the Minister's consideration. In the case of a retiree who has withdrawn his CPF contributions from his ordinary account and has exhausted the money, he would have difficulty financing the expenses of his children's tertiary education in an approved institution. However, if the retiree has other children who are gainfully employed and who have CPF contributions and are prepared to finance the expenses of their siblings' tertiary education, would the Minister consider approval for such requests?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I speak in support of the Bill. The original objective of the CPF scheme when it was first introduced was to ensure that Singaporeans have sufficient funds to see them through their old age after retirement. Through the years, the uses of CPF savings have been expanded to include the purchase of HDB flats and private properties, medical treatment, purchase of shares for investment and now for higher education under the CPF education scheme. The cost of tertiary education in Singapore is still affordable to most Singaporeans, except fom some lower-income groups. Therefore, the introduction of the CPF education scheme will greatly benefit the lower-income groups. The Minister for Labour has pointed out in his speech that about 500,000 CPF members will be eligible to participate in the CPF education scheme. Currently, this represents more than 52% of the active CPF members. The Minister for Labour has emphasized that the CPF education scheme will not cover expenses for overseas tertiary institutions as a 3- or 4-year course will easily cost more than $100,000. Unlike the Member for Ayer Rajah, I support this policy, as this is essentially a loan scheme and repayment of interest plus administrative fees will have to be made over a 10-year period once the course of study is completed. If overseas tertiary education is included in the CPF education scheme, then the debt of the recipient will be an enormous one. I am sure most parents would not want their children to be responsible for an enormous 10-year debt the moment they start their first job. Moreover, an examination of the balances of CPF account holders reveals that as at December 1988, less than 4% of active CPF account holders are really in a position to spend $100,000 from their CPF to pay for overseas tertiary education. The income bracket of this upper 4% is perhaps high enough to enable them to afford overseas tertiary education without drawing upon their CPF savings. In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, the CPF education scheme will benefit the lower income Singaporeans. It is also a step in the right direction. And it would be difficult for any Singaporean in future to say that he was deprived of an opportunity for tertiary education in Singapore because his parents could not afford it.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank all the Members who have spoken for their whole-hearted support of the Bill, although there were a few reservations here and there, as expected, from Dr Tan Cheng Bock. He has very temptingly suggested that I delete the two words "in Singapore" from the definition of "approved tertiary institutions". This will obviously save me a lot of trouble and work eventually if the Government decides to allow the use of CPF for overseas education. We did debate this at length in my Ministry. Eventually, we decided that it is better to limit it to "in Singapore". Because to do otherwise would be to send the wrong signal. The Government as decided that it will only allow the use of CPF for approved local institutions, at least for the time being. If after a lot of debate and consideration and if Government were to agree to allow the use of CPF for overseas education, that will be a major decision. And I think it is proper that the decision should then come back to the House and be thoroughly debated. So despite the tempting offer, I must decline to accept the deletion of those two words. I have already given the reasons why the Government is reluctant to open this up to allow for overseas education and Dr Wong Kwei Cheong has also given a few reasons. Perhaps I can supplement that by giving Members some other data. As at 30th April 1989, that is about two months ago, the latest information, considering the amount that is available for withdrawal under the Approved Investments Scheme (that means the amount that members can take out from their accounts either for shares, gold or for the CPF Education Scheme) only 12,500 members have more than $40,000 available. These are perhaps the ones we could consider to have the financial muscle to send their children overseas. The number is really very small (12,500) compared to a total of about half a million who can qualify for the Scheme and who can probably afford only to send their children to local institutions, either NUS, NTI or the Polytechnics. The number who have amounts exceeding $80,000 available under the Approved Investments Scheme is even smaller, 6,400 only. And the number exceeding $100,000 is only 3,500 members. This is not all. In fact, only a fraction of these members may be planning to send their children overseas. Others may have children in the local universities or polytechnics or who have children who are already grown up or who may not qualify for university education. So, in fact, we are talking of a fraction of this number that I have just mentioned. Most of these people who have high CPF balances have high incomes. They have probably used their CPF for properties and have other savings. So it is not really a problem for them. I was persuaded to support this scheme to allow CPF for local education because I feel that now it is, in fact, more difficult for the lower income groups to support their children through university, to pay for transportation, food, fees and so on. If you look at the five-year medical cost at $7,200 per year, it is already $36,000. So the amount that can be made available under this Scheme, as it is, is substantial. I know of quite a lot of people who are very happy to have this Scheme and there have been appeals from families, from siblings, wanting to use their own CPF in cases where the parents are already dead. So long as the brothers and sisters are dependent on the elder brother who is the main breadwinner, I think we can allow under the scheme. Those will be straightforward cases. In fact, this is an extension of the original idea that was meant only for the members themselves and their children but now also extended to deserving cases of dependent siblings. The Member for Changi has asked whether we can allow in the case where the parents are unemployed and have no CPF. I will ask the CPF Board to look into those cases. My own feeling is we should try and be as liberal as possible. Dr Tan Cheng Bock asked under what circumstances we would not require a guarantor. One situation will be when the CPF member has other forms of collateral. For example, he may pledge something else, although it is rather unusual. At the moment all those who have borrowed from the Scheme have provided a guarantor. The requirements are very minimal. We only need a guarantor who is above 21 years of age, who is employed and drawing more than $500 per month salary, who is not an undischarged bankrupt and who is below 60 years of age. The intention is really to have somebody else to apply moral pressure on the child repay the lone. So we make the conditions very simple. I think I have covered all the points. I thank the Members once again for their support.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. [Mr Lee Yock Suan]. Bill considered in Committee.

Clause 1

Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to seek your consent and the general assent of Members to move an amendment.

You have my consent. Does the Minister have the general assent of Members to move the amendment? Hon. Members indicated assent.

Mr Speaker, Sir, clause 1 of the Bill reads, and I quote: ''This Act may be cited as the Central Provident Fund (Amendment No. 2) Act 1989 and shall come into operation on the 1st June 1989.'' As the Bill is being considered after this commencement date, a minor drafting amendment has to be made to the clause to reflect this. Sir, I beg to move, In page 1, line 4, after "shall", to insert "be deemed to have". Amendment agreed to. Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 2 and 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported with an amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed." - [Mr Lee Yock Suan]. Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-four minutes past Three o'clock pm to a date to be fixed. Appendix I

asked the Minister for National Development, in light of the land transport policy, whether he will consider building car parks near Mass Rapid Transit stations in rural areas where the presence of available nearby land permits such car parks.

There are sufficient carparks in HDB new towns near the existing MRT stations for commuters who wish to park and ride. These carparks are either within the town centres or within the residential areas. There may be vacant land around MRT stations in the fringe areas. However, these are earmarked for development. We will not be optimising the potential of the vacant land around the MRT stations if these are used for building carparks only.

asked the Minister for National Development whether the Housing and Development Board will provide lorry parks in the vicinity of Simei Housing Estate in Changi Constituency.

In the past, HDB used to provide an exclusive lorry park in every HDB housing estate near the Neighbourhood Centre. To optimise on land use, however, HDB has since decided to provide lorry parking lots at the ground level of a multi-storey garage near the Neighbourhood Centre. In the case of Simei Housing Estate, 16 lorry parking lots, presently under construction will be provided on the ground level of the multi-storey garage at Block 248 near to the Neighbourhood Centre. Construction work is expected to be completed by August this year.

asked the Minister for Education how many students have taken up a third language (Japanese, French or German) since the inception of the scheme and whether the scheme will be expanded.

The Foreign Language Programme was introduced in 1978. The scheme is intended for bright students who can cope with and wish to take a third language. Since the start of the programme, 7,842 secondary school and junior college students have been admitted into the programme. The breakdown is as follows: 3,384 took French, 1,487 took German and 2,971 opted for Japanese. The present scheme is catering adequately for students who have an aptitude for languages. The Ministry of Education will expand the scheme if there is a need to do so.

asked the Minister for the Environment whether his Ministry strictly enforces the requirement that packaged perishable foodstuffs bear the expiry date of the contents; and whether he is satisfied with the present regulations.

The Ministry first introduced date marking of pre-packed food in October 1979 to four items of perishable food, namely, cream, cultured milk drink, pasteurised milk, and yoghurt. In September 1986, another 12 food items were added to the list. Items of pre-packed food selected for date-marking are those that have relatively short shelf-lives, ie readily perishable food and food products that are often found to be spoilt or infested with weevils due to prolonged storage. Officers from my Ministry enforce the requirement for date- marking very strictly. Routine inspections are carried out daily in supermarkets, provision shops and other retail outlets. The health inspectors will check amongst other things, that food which require date-marking are properly date-marked and that they are not expired. From last year until to date, a total of 272 offences involving date-marking were dealt with. There were 161 offences on the sale of food with expired date-mark, 100 offences on food without date-mark and 11 offences for tampering with date-marks. My Ministry has organised a number of seminars to familiarise food traders, manufacturers, importers and retailers with the food laws. We are satisfied that those in the food business are familiar with and understand the requirements in our food laws. My Ministry is also satisfied that the existing regulations on date-marking are adequate. However, such regulations are reviewed from time to time and if deemed necessary, more food items may be required to be date-marked in the future. rates - SINGAPORE OUTGOING TELEX RATES VS. CORRESPONDING INCOMING RATES, SINGAPORE IDD RATES VS. CORRESPONDING INCOMING RATES, COMPARISON OF POSTAGE RATE FOR A 20 GRAMME DOMESTIC LETTER (Cols. 397 - 402)