Hansard, 1989-08-04

Under the provisions of clause 2(d) of Article 46 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, the following Members have been granted permission to be or to remain absent from sittings of Parliament (or any Committee of Parliament to which they have been appointed) for the periods stated:- Mr Chng Hee Kok (Tiong Bahru GRC) - from 17th to 19th July, 1989. Dr Ong Chit Chung (Bukit Batok) - from 17th to 20th July, 1989. Encik Yatiman Yusof (Tampines GRC), Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs - from 17th to 19th July, 1989. BG George Yong-Boon Yeo (Aljunied GRC), Minister of State, Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Foreign Affairs - from 24th to 26th July and from 20th to 27th August, 1989. Dr Seet Ai Mee (Bukit Gombak), Minister of State, Ministry of Community Development and Ministry of Education - from 24th to 26th July, 1989. Mr Choo Wee Khiang (Marine Parade GRC) - from 24th to 28th July, 1989. Dr Wong Kwei Cheong (Cairnhill) - from 27th to 29th July, 1989. Mr Wong Kan Seng (Toa Payoh GRC), Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Community Development and Leader of the House - from 29th July to 3rd August, 1989. Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam (Sembawang GRC), Minister for Education - from 30th July to 1st August, 1989. Mr Sia Khoon Seong (Moulmein) - from 1st to 3rd August, 1989. Mr Chew Heng Ching (Eunos GRC) - on 1st August, 1989 Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon (Yuhua) - on 4th August, 1989. Mr Bernard Chen (Pasir Panjang GRC) - from 4th to 7th August, 1989. Mr Ong Teng Cheong (Kim Keat), Second Deputy Prime Minister - from 11th to 19th August, 1989. Mr Peter Sung (Buona Vista), Minister of State, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Ministry of National Development - from 15th September to 7th October, 1989. TAN SOO KHOON Speaker Parliament of Singapore

The following Bills were assented to by the President of the Republic of Singapore on the dates stated: 18th July, 1989 Judges' Remuneration (Amendment) Bill. 22nd July, 1989 (i) Central Provident Fund (Amendment No. 2) Bill; (ii) Housing and Development (Amendment) Bill; and (iii) Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Bill. TAN SOO KHOON Speaker Parliament of Singapore

asked the Minister for Education whether his Ministry has any plans to air-condition the classrooms in our schools.

Mr Speaker, Sir, on behalf of my Minister. The Ministry of Education presently has no plans to air-condition the classrooms in our schools. However, the Ministry intends to continue improving the learning environment and working conditions for students and teachers in our schools by air-conditioning selected facilities such as the library, staff rooms, AVA rooms, music rooms and language laboratories in the schools. In exceptional circumstances, such as excessive noise, air-conditioning has been extended to the whole school, including the classrooms. For example, in Jurong Junior College, the above facilities as well as the classroom blocks are air-conditioned as the college lies directly under the flight path of RSAF aircraft.

Sir, I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for his answer. I have a couple of supplementary questions for him. Firstly, is there a timeframe or a programme to implement air- conditioning in these special facilities, like staff rooms, principal's room, AVA rooms? Secondly, Sir, has the Ministry identified similar schools like the Jurong Junior College, which the Senior Parliamentary Secretary referred to? Thirdly, if these programmes are to be implemented, what is it likely to cost the Government?

Mr Speaker, Sir, all these facilities were given to all JCs. But as far as primary and secondary schools are concerned, they are in the Ministry's future plan. On the amount of money that needs to be put aside for this programme, it is roughly about $30 million. In the case of Jurong Junior College, as far as we are concerned, it is the only case. But if there is such a case, I am quite sure the first thing to do is for the principal to write to the Ministry. The Ministry together with PWD will then assess the situation and finally find the best way to solve the problem.

asked the Minister for the Environment whether his Ministry carries out a thorough evaluation of the risk of environmental pollution before companies are allowed to set up plants in Singapore; and if he will comment on the setting up of a titanium dioxide plant in Tuas whose production process has generated much controversy in certain countries because of the potential hazard to health and the environment.

On behalf of my Minister, Sir. Before companies are allowed to set up plants in Singapore, the Ministry of the Environment thoroughly evaluates the risk of environmental pollution. This was done for the titanium dioxide plant in Tuas. Titanium dioxide is a non-toxic, inert material that is used as a high quality white pigment in paints, printing inks, plastics, rubber, synthetic fibres and cosmetics. There are two basic types of processes used to manufacture titanium dioxide. The first is the sulphate process which the Tuas plant does not use. The sulphate process uses large quantities of sulphuric acid to produce titanium dioxide from low grade titanium dioxide ores. This process generates about 9(r) tons of acid wastes and iron salts for every tonne of titanium dioxide produced. Such a large amount of waste is very expensive to treat and the plants which use this process usually discharge the waste into the sea. The wastes will acidify the sea water and discolour it red. This process has therefore generated much controversy in countries with plants using this process. The titanium dioxide plant in Tuas uses the chloride process which is much cleaner. It also refines high grade, not low grade, titanium dioxide ore. As a result, less waste is generated. Only about 20 to 40 kg of wastes such as unrecovered titanium dioxide, iron oxides, coke and alumina, are generated for every tonne of titanium dioxide produced. These wastes are non-toxic and they are safely disposed of by landfill. The chloride process, however, uses chlorine which is a toxic gas. To avoid transporting chlorine on the roads, the Tuas plant generates chlorine on-site. The amount of chlorine stored in the plant at any time has been kept to a minimum. In addition, the plant has installed equipment to collect and reduce chlorine emissions to safe levels in case of a leak from the chlorine tank. Besides having a cleaner process and using only high grade ore, the plant at Tuas has also taken all the necessary measures to comply with our standards on air and water pollution. As for other industrial premises, regular inspections are being made to ensure all pollution control equipment installed at the plant are correctly operated and adequately maintained. No emissions exceeding our standards have been detected.

Sir, can I ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary whether the Government has ever turned down any potential investment based on environmental considerations?

Yes, we have disallowed a few that were known to have pollution hazards. In fact, as a matter of interest, in the early eighties, another investor approached us to produce titanium dioxide using the sulphate process and we had turned it down for the reasons which I have just stated.

asked the Minister for the Environment whether the allocation of hawker stalls has been suspended and, if so, why.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there are currently 902 approved hardship cases, and only 119 vacant hawker stalls in food centres. These hawker stalls are mostly in unpopular food centres. They have repeatedly been offered to applicants for hawker stalls, but they have not been taken up. My Ministry is therefore reviewing its policy on hawker stalls and pending the outcome of this review, it has stopped allocating hawker stalls and processing new applications.

Sir, can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary be more specific as to what aspects of the policy are being reviewed and how long does his Ministry expect to take to complete the review?

Sir, I thought I have been very specific because the Question was on whether the allocation of hawker stalls has been suspended. However, on the other part of it, ie, the review part, what I can say is that we will do all we can to complete the review as soon as possible. There will not be any delay.

Sir, will the criteria for applying a hawker licence be affected?

I think in all reviews, Mr Speaker, Sir, in all possibility, all criteria will have to be reviewed. I am afraid that will be affected.

asked the Minister for Home Affairs how many Singapore citizens have renounced their citizenship in order to emigrate and acquire citizenship of other countries for the years 1986, 1987 and 1988.

Mr Speaker, Sir, for the years 1986, 1987 and 1988, 773, 1046 and 892 Singapore citizens respectively have renounced their citizenship to take up citizenship of other foreign countries. The reason why I worded my answer as people who have renounced their citizenship to take up citizenship of other foreign countries is, first, we do not know the reasons for many of them who had renounced. Secondly, many who emigrate do not necessarily renounce their citizenship.

asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether, in view of the recent liberalization of rules for permanent residence, he will (i) review the criteria for approving other immigration requests, such as applications from foreigners married to Singaporeans to become permanent residents, and (ii) reconsider those applications and appeals which were pending on 10th July 1989.

Mr Speaker, Sir, since the Member's Question is related to the announcement of the Government on the liberalized immigration policy, let me preface my answer by reiterating the reasons for the liberalization of this policy. I think Singaporeans have been aware for some time of the problem of population decline. Despite the Government's efforts to increase fertility rates, this decline is likely to continue because too many women are not marrying and those who do marry are doing so later and having fewer children. Emigration of Singaporeans, especially the better qualified ones, to countries like the United States, Australia, Canada, further compounds the problem. The long-term consequences of population decline are quite grave. Over the next 20-30 years, the population will age dramatically. We now have a young, vigorous population. Today, only 8 out of every 100 Singaporeans are over the age of 60. But in just over 30 years, 22 out of every 100 will be over 60. The burden of such older people on working Singaporeans - what we call the dependency ratio - will become much heavier. Our economic vitality will be affected and there will also be fewer young men available to do National Service. Our security will be threatened. We must therefore top up our population. We should try to top up each cohort size to at least 50,000 by the time that cohort reaches working age. In the 1950s, our cohort size at birth was over 60,000. Our average is now well below 50,000. Last year, we had 52,000 but I think, as Members know, that was only because it was a dragon year and those 52,000 babies were produced by parents who were themselves born in the boom years of the fifties. The next dragon year in the Year 2000, I am told, will certainly see far fewer births than in 1988. But we must not top up indiscriminately. Every immigrant should be an asset, not a liability. The objective is to strengthen our nation and not weaken it. If we only want numbers, we can easily get hundreds of thousands overnight. But surely that would be madness. Our immigration policy obviously must be selective. The higher the quality of the immigrants the better off all Singaporeans will be. We must also consider the multi-racial character of Singapore. The present racial composition in Singapore has worked well for us. We should not lightly change it. The statement of the Ministry of Home Affairs of 10th July did stress that this liberalization applies to immigrants from all sources, whatever their ethnic background, so long as they can be integrated into Singapore society without upsetting the present balance in its multi-racial character, a balance which the Government will maintain. If the numbers from Hong Kong are so large as to increase the percentage of the Chinese population, the Government will admit more Malay and Indian immigrants to restore the balance. As for immigration from Hong Kong, it is not in our interest to weaken the Hong Kong economy or drain it of its talent. That is why we are offering Hong Kong residents in principle approval for PR without requiring them to come down to Singapore. In fact, it is in Singapore's long term interest for Hong Kong to be assured and confident of its future. But if those in Hong Kong are going to leave Hong Kong anyway, it is better for them, in our view, to remain in this region than for them to cross the vast Pacific Ocean to North America or Australia, from where they may never return. If I may now turn to the specifics of Dr Arthur Beng's question. Following the liberalization of the immigration policy, my Ministry has already reviewed the criteria for approving other immigration requests such as applications for permanent residence from Singaporeans married to foreigners. I wish to assure the House that we will further liberalize this policy for applicants with Singaporean ties, especially if they are wives and children of Singapore citizens or if they have strong roots or family ties in Singapore. Those who are married to Singaporeans or have strong family ties will be considered for permanent residence more favourably than applicants who have no roots here. For example, my Ministry will now grant permanent residence to the wife and children of a Singaporean who can show that he and his family will not be a burden on the State. Similarly, it will now be easier for the foreign husband of a Singaporean woman to qualify for employment pass and permanent residence. However, for those from Hong Kong who do not yet have links to Singapore, they must fulfil a certain educational level and earn at least $1,500 per month before they and their families can be considered for permanent residence. The requirements which we impose on those from Hong Kong are an indication of the minimum economic status that we are looking for. As for the third part of the Member's question, my Ministry will consider all applications and appeals pending on 10th July 1989, that is the date when the new policy was announced, under these liberalized guidelines. Indeed, Sir, in the two weeks following the announcement of the new policy, about 60% of appeals from MPs to my Ministry were approved, where previously about 20% to 30% were approved. Those who had been previously rejected but are now eligible to apply for permanent residence will be so advised when they renew their social visit pass. Although our immigration guidelines are now more liberal, I must reiterate that marriage to a Singaporean or a Singaporean permanent resident still does not confer an automatic right of permanent residence for the foreign spouse. We can accept those as permanent residents who can integrate into our society and contribute to our society and unlikely to become a burden on the State. If I may sum up, Sir, Singapore's immigration policy aims to correct the population decline and to keep our nation young, vigorous and talented. Singapore is competing with developed countries for skilled workers, technicians and professionals. To grow, our economy requires more such people than we can produce ourselves. Shortage of talent means fewer foreign investors establishing businesses here, slower growth and fewer opportunities for Singaporeans. Singapore therefore welcomes foreign immigrants who can contribute to Singapore's economy and be integrated into our society.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have three supplementary questions. Firstly, will the Minister please clarify further on the liberalization of permanent residence status for the spouses of Singapore citizens? For example, will he allow those spouses who do not have five '0' levels but whose husbands have got good earning capacity to be allowed to come in as permanent residents? Secondly, what measures are being planned to ensure that enclaves of foreigners are not formed and what measures are being taken to ensure that these immigrants will be integrated into our society? Thirdly, will the Government consider giving priority to the residents of Hong Kong who are working in Singapore-based companies, that is Singapore companies who have branches or offices in Hong Kong?

If I may deal, Sir, with his first supplementary question. It was with regard to spouses married to Singaporeans who may not fulfil the educational requirements but whose husbands may well be able to afford. The general approach which we take is whether the sponsor will be able to maintain the wife and the family. So in the type of case that he described, if the wife does not meet the requirements but a Singaporean citizen sponsor can satisfy us, I can assure him that my Ministry will view such cases sympathetically. As to the second part of his question, the formation of enclaves, I must point out that we are not expecting thousands to descend on Singapore immediately. This is going to be a gradual process over a period of years. I think we will be lucky if we get several hundreds to come in the next year or so. But his point is taken. And if I may respond, there is a committee which is coordinating all aspects of integration. Obviously, matters of schooling, housing and other consequential matters when we launch an exercise like this have to be coordinated. In this coordination, the concern expressed by Dr Arthur Beng will be borne in mind. As for integration into society, as far as the Government is concerned, this is being looked into not only by Immigration but also by other agencies which are involved in placing the workers, their families, and housing, schools and so on. But I would say their integration, whether or not it is smooth and less painful, depends not only on the Government agencies but also depends on how Singaporeans receive these Hong Kong residents. Thirdly, his point about Singapore companies. Yes, the answer to that, Sir, is yes; Singapore companies which are recruiting workers directly from Hong Kong are able to make block applications for such workers when applying for permanent residence. Similarly, Hong Kong companies in Hong Kong who wish to make block applications for permanent residence are also able to do so and these will be processed as such by EDB and Immigration.

Sir, can I ask the Minister, in view of the relaxation in the rules for permanent residence and the expected influx of more workers coming to Singapore as a result, whether a situation will arise where our workers will face greater competition for jobs and in the process result in a reduction in wages for our own workers in Singapore?

I am aware of the concern which the Member has expressed - that Singaporeans fear greater competition. First, we must remind ourselves that we have a labour shortage problem. Employers are crying out for more workers and we have some 150,000 work permit holders here. Secondly, it should also be borne in mind that many of the Hong Kong workers generally earn more than Singaporeans and I think quite a number of them in coming to Singapore would actually suffer a loss in wages. I would also like to add that in a sense, whether or not the Hong Kong workers come here, Singaporeans have always been competing with people in Hong Kong at a long distance, shall we say. And if the Hong Kong residents do not come here, Singaporeans will still have to compete with Hong Kong residents who may not come to Singapore and settle elsewhere and will have to compete with them for the world market. I think it is far better that we try to get them here and be part of our team, the Singapore team. In the longer term, talented immigrants will not shrink the share of our economy, will not shrink the economy which accrues to Singaporeans. On the contrary, the enterprise, the ability, the skills which they will bring with them should make Singapore really more competitive internationally, provided of course we admit the right quality of people. The immigrants we hope to attract should be able to bring in more investments, in turn to generate more jobs, expand our economy and eventually create more opportunities and greater prosperity for Singaporeans. In a sense, this is what had happened in the past when our own forefathers came and built up modern Singapore.

Sir, under the very liberal policy granted to Hong Kong residents, the Minister cannot be really certain of the numbers that will finally come to Singapore, will he? In other words, the Hong Kong resident may apply for PR as an insurance cover only but not make his way here eventually.

The answer to that is yes, we cannot be very certain. But we hope, and we are confident, that a good number of them will come across because they know that if they do not accept the offer, this is not something that Singapore will hold out indefinitely or forever.

Sir, may I ask the Minister whether he could assure the House that whatever rules and guidelines that might be applied to the granting of permanent residence or citizenship would be equally applied to relatives of men or women Singapore citizens.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thought that was the substance of my reply. In any case, if that was missed, let me assure the Member that that is the principle on which we work.

In relation to the admission of husbands into Singapore, did the Minister not mention the question of work in regard to employment pass? Is there going to be this requirement? Would it not be fairer to say that whatever requirements are made applicable to the men citizens of Singapore would be equally applicable to the women citizens of Singapore?

I will give that further consideration, Mr Speaker, Sir. But I think we are quite liberal in the case of women citizens who qualify under the guidelines for sponsorship. What we do is to allow the foreign spouse ample time to come to Singapore on renewable social visit pass to obtain an employment pass. I am sure the Member will agree that it is necessary that he gets some employment here. Otherwise, he may be caught by the strict immigration laws for illegally working here.

asked the Minister for Labour if he will readily grant permission to those Singaporeans who meet the criteria under the new rules for permanent residence to contract marriage with foreigners.

Mr Speaker, Sir, foreign workers are given work permits to work in Singapore on condition that they seek approval from my Ministry if they wish to marry Singaporeans. My Ministry will revise its criteria for approving such applications to be consistent with the new criteria for permanent residence announced recently. Singaporeans wanting to marry foreign spouses will be treated no less favourably than non-Singaporeans seeking permanent residence for themselves and their families. Whether a work permit holder is allowed to marry a Singaporean will depend primarily on the merits of the work permit holder herself or (himself), although we will also consider the qualifications of the Singaporean partner and his or her ability to support the work permit holder. Approval will be granted if the foreign worker has skills or qualifications of value to Singapore, has adjusted to our social and work ethos, and is unlikely to become a burden to the State. There are more than 150,000 work permit holders in Singapore, mostly unskilled. I do not want them to misunderstand that it will be easy for them to sink roots here by marrying Singaporeans. It will not be easy. We cannot absorb all of them or hold out the false hope that they can all settle in Singapore. Very few of the work permit holders, whose applications for marriage have been turned down in the past, can satisfy the new criteria for permanent residence. We must continue to be selective in attracting those foreigners who can integrate into and contribute to our society and are unlikely to become a burden to the State. This is the way to protect the interests of the vast majority of Singaporeans.

Sir, will the Minister confirm that, under the new criteria, the income and educational qualifications of the permanent resident himself are the main consideration, and not the family's? In other words, are the qualifications of the wife of the potential permanent resident also considered? Otherwise, the Singaporean who has the same qualifications as the potential permanent resident can bring anyone into Singapore, including an ex-work permit holder, for example, and yet the same Singaporean cannot marry a work permit holder as the latter's qualifications are considered.

Sir, I thought my answer is quite clear. When we look at the applications from work permit holders to marry Singaporeans, we look mainly at the qualifications of the work permit holder. That is the primary consideration. We want to attract people of value to Singapore. At the same time, we have to be fair to our own Singaporeans. We also look at the qualifications of the Singaporean spouse to see whether he is able to maintain the work permit holder. So the principle will be that we will treat the Singaporean partner no less favourably than, for example, the Hong Kong people that we are going to recruit.

My question really is this. Under the new scheme, the qualification of the spouse is not seen to be considered. As long as the potential applicant can satisfy the income and qualifications criteria, he is granted permanent residence. The spouse automatically gets permanent residence. On the other hand, in the case of a Singaporean who is similarly qualified - and wishes to marry a work permit holder, the latter's qualifications are considered. In other words it is not quite the same thing. I support the stand taken by the Minister about making sure that we bring in people withtalent. The point I am trying to establish is that the new permanent resident should not have more rights than the Singaporean.

Sir, I think my position is no different from his understanding. It is just that we have to be careful about this large pool of unskilled foreign workers here and that we do not give them the wrong signal. That is my basic point.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister has said that he will reconsider these cases. Does this mean that he will reconsider it retrospectively, ie, those cases that were previously turned down for marriage will now be reconsidered?

Mr Speaker, Sir, yes, if there are past cases that have been turned down and they now meet the new criteria, I am prepared to relook at them.

asked the Minister for Trade and Industry what is the state of progress of the negotiation with Malaysia on the supply of water to Singapore and when will a treaty with Malaysia for this supply be expected to be signed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in March this year, I informed Members on the progress of the water agreement with Malaysia, following the Memorandum of Understanding signed between the Prime Ministers of Malaysia and Singapore on 28th June 1988. Since March, the Public Utilities Board has completed the site survey and soil investigation works for the Linggiu Dam project. Preliminary site clearance work and the construction of the access road are now in progress. PUB is pre-qualifying contractors for the construction of the Linggiu Dam. The project is expected to be completed by the end of 1992. PUB is still negotiating the compensation payable for the land required for the project and the pricing formula for the purchase of additional water from Johor with the Malaysians. These two issues were among the matters discussed at a meeting of the Malaysia-Singapore Joint Committee on the Johor River Water Resources held on 2nd and 3rd August in Singapore. After these outstanding issues are resolved, the agreement on water can be signed.

Sir, I have two supplementary questions for the Minister. First, how dependent is Singapore on Malaysia for its water supply? Secondly, what other alternative and feasible sources of water supply are available to Singapore?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I shall answer in general terms. We have over a period of decades increased our domestic ability to store, purify and supply potable water to Singaporeans. We are pushing it as far as we can. Water is a strategic resource to Singapore, and it is vital to preserve this aspect of our security. Of course, because of the heavy investments which we have put in, and because of our urban environment, the water which we collect in Singapore needs more processing than what we can draw, from the Johor River and it costs more to produce per cubic meter. We can produce more if we need to, but in normal circumstances we see no need to push it to the limits, so we purchase more from Johor. But when it rains in Singapore but not in Johor, then of course we produce more in Singapore. So the proportion varies from time to time. We have adequate supplies here. As for alternate sources of supply, as you know, in the Middle East, people do desalination. We have looked at it. It is feasible, although there are very few precedents for desalination on the scale which we would need. We have 2(r) million people, not a few tens of thousands. The cost of purifying rain water. It really depends on energy costs. If energy is cheap, then of course we will have distilled water in abundance. It is an option which we do not rule out, but we do not need to embark upon immediately.

asked the Acting Minister for Health if he will report on the status of the catastrophic insurance scheme and whether this scheme will be combined with other insurance schemes administered by the CPF.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government has approved the concept and framework of the Catastrophic Illness Insurance Scheme. The implementation details are now being worked out by my Ministry and the Central Provident Fund Board and these will be announced at the end of the year. The Scheme is expected to be implemented by April next year. This will provide adequate time for my Ministry and the CPF Board to explain the Scheme to the general public through the mass media and public seminars. It will also provide time for Medisave Account holders to either opt out or to register their dependants into the Scheme. The insurance premium will be low, ranging from $1 to $8 per month depending on the age group. Medisave can be used to pay for the premium. The Scheme will be underwritten and administered by the CPF Board and will be run at cost. It will be independent of other CPF insurance schemes.

asked the Acting Minister for Health what is the average bill size per patient day for representative categories of treatment at restructured, Government and private hospitals.

Sir, the hospital bill size depends on a number of factors. These include whether it is a medical or surgical case, the acuity level of the patients, the type and extent of treatment and investigations carried out, the type of ward accommodation chosen, the rates of hospital charges and also the length of stay. The average bill size per patient per day for various classes of ward at Government, restructured and private hospitals is summarized in the table (Cols. 481 - 482) that has been handed out to Members. The table also provides some comparison of the average bill size of a typical medical as well as for some representative surgical cases in the Government, restructured and private hospitals for a patient admitted to A Class ward. table - Average Hospital Bill Size Per Patient Day, Comparative Average Bill Size (Cols. 481 - 482) The table shows that the fees for A and B1 wards in the Government and restructured hospitals are much lower than those in the private hospitals. The fee structure for SGH has been higher than for the other Government hospitals, reflecting the better and newer facilities and equipment and the larger number of medical and other staff available.

Sir, from table 2, the NUH charges are much higher than the Government hospitals or SGH. May I ask the Minister why is this so? Does it mean that NUH has been making quite a bit of profit? Or what is the reason? The second question: for SGH's charges for surgical cases, the patient still has to pay on the average $500-$600 more for the representative treatments quoted. Does this difference in bill size have anything to do with the present practice of SGH to charge by itemizing the bill for every kind of surgical materials used, X-ray test, etc. If so, would the Ministry take steps to inform incoming patients of SGH of this practice so that the patient will know roughly beforehand what he can expect?

Sir, the fees at NUH are higher, but it does not mean that NUH is making profits from the higher fees. In fact, NUH in 1988 had a loss of $2.2 million after receiving a subvention of $21 million from the Government. This reflects the actual cost of providing a high level of services for patients. It also reflects the policy of the Government to charge the full cost to the 'A' and 'B1' class patients. In NUH the 'A' class patients are paying close to the full cost already. Also with NUH being a teaching hospital, the patients tend to be subjected to more extensive investigations, and that partly accounts for the higher per-day fee that is being experienced by the patients. Sir, the scale of SGH fees has always been higher than for the other Government hospitals. As I said, this reflects the newer facilities, better facilities, and also the much higher level of manning that is available in SGH. Let me give some examples. In SGH the number of doctors to admissions is 1:66 as compared to 1:81 in the Government hospitals. The nurse-to-bed ratio is also higher. In the other Government hospitals the nurse-to-bed ratio is 1:2. In GH, before the restructuring, the ratio was 1:1.4 beds, and because the restructuring programme allows SGH to recruit its own nurses, the nurse-to-bed ratio has now gone down to 1:1.1 beds in order to remedy the shortage of nurses that is being experienced. As regards informing the patients about the scale of charges, including itemization, the patients will definitely be told about this.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to clarify with the Minister what he means by "full cost"?

Sir, patients in 'A' class wards who wish to enjoy the privacy of a single bedded ward, the better and more personalized level of services, will have to pay the full cost that is being incurred in the provision of such services. That means the cost of labour, cost of overheads, including the depreciation costs for the physical facilities that he is enjoying.

Does the Minister then mean that the full cost for an appendicectomy is reflected by the NUH cost of $2,670? Or is it the private hospital's cost of $4,300 which, I assume, would include profits of the private hospital and the doctors? So what does he mean by "full cost"?

In NUH the full cost is slightly higher than the figure shown here because, as I stated earlier, NUH is still experiencing some losses. For NUH, the figure quoted is close to full cost, and for private hospitals it will be full cost plus the profit element.

Mr Speaker, Sir, one final clarification. Does it then mean that for an appendicectomy to be met at full cost, it will be more than $2,670?

Sir, I have already said that just now, that if NUH were to actually charge the full cost it would be higher than $2,670.

Sir, will the Minister enlighten the House as to the long term pricing policy for all the restructured hospitals, especially the 'B' classes? And also, would the Minister tell the House whether consideration will be given to standardize charges for all the restructured hospitals?

Sir, the policy for private patients or non-subsidized patients is that over the next few years non-subsidized patients should be paying the full cost of their treatment in hospitals. A choice is made available to all Singaporeans whether they wish to opt for the better accommodation and the high level of services in the 'A' and 'B1' wards or, for those who cannot afford it, to go to the subsidized facilities, like 'B2' and 'C' class wards where the facilities are more basic, although the medical services are similar. As to whether we should standardize the fees for all the restructured hospitals, Sir, one of the objectives of the restructuring programme is to allow all the hospitals to be run autonomously so that each can then compete with the other in terms of value for money. It means that they will have to compete on the level of efficiency, compete on the level of quality of services provided and compete on pricing.

As to where a patient should go to, is it a matter of free choice of the patients? Actually we hear that where a patient should go to for hospitalization is upon the recommendation of the doctors who are consultants to these Government hospitals or private hospitals. And also, when they go into A&E wards, will the ambulances actually take them to the designated regional hospitals?

Sir, patients who are referred by doctors, for example, general practitioners, have a choice of which hospital they wish to be referred to. For A&E cases, yes, we have catchment areas, and the reason is that it is in the best interest of those patients who are in an emergency to be taken to the nearest hospital rather than to the hospital of their choice. Of course, after admission, if they wish to be transferred, the patient is free to choose to do so.

Sir, following the Acting Minister's reply, I would like to ask the Acting Minister precisely what is the long term pricing policy for 'B' wards, and indeed 'C' class wards? If I may add, after the restructuring of the other two hospitals, I would presume that there would not be any 'C' class wards left. I think that is the concern of most common people in Singapore.

Sir, the Member should remember what was stated in the last budget debate. I assured the House that 'C' class beds will always be available as long as there is a need for them. So in the older hospitals that are going to be rebuilt, the 'C' class beds in those new hospitals after redevelopment will still be available. In terms of the longer term policy, Sir, the policy of the Government is that those who can afford to pay should pay for the services that they are receiving. Whilst those who cannot afford should not be deprived of the medical care that they require. In terms of the level of subsidy for the 'B2' beds, the level of subsidy at the present moment is 69%. This will gradually be decreased as the average Singaporean's ability to pay improves with our improving economy. For the 'C' class patients, it will still remain highly subsidized so that 'C' class will be available and affordable to the low income group. Of course, we will still retain the policy of waiver of fees for the indigent.

I am very pleased to hear from the Acting Minister that for the 'B' class and 'C' class, the basic facilities are bare and are not as good as the 'A' class. However, the medical services will be exactly the same as the 'A' class. But I would like to bring to the attention of the Minister that yesterday on the Forum Page, he would see ---

Mr Choo, can you ask your question?

Yes, I will ask my question. Sir, patients are referred to 'A' class services rather than 'B' class services, and invariably when patients want to opt for the 'B' class wards, they are forced to go to the 'A' class. Would the Minister explain?

Sir, the specialists in the hospitals are meant to be referral doctors, not family practitioners. Patients who are sick should first see their own general practitioners or the doctors in our polyclinics. If the acuity of the illness warrants it, the GPs or the doctors in the polyclinics will then refer these patients to the specialist departments in the hospitals or in the private sector. Such patients who are referred to the hospitals by our polyclinics will then be treated as subsidized patients. However, they will be referred to the department and they will be seen by the doctor on duty. If a patient insists on seeing a particular consultant, then the patient will have to make his own appointment as a non-subsidized patient.

Sir, would the Minister tell us what was the 'C' class expenditure in SGH and NUH? And if there was no 'C' class there, how was the absence of 'C' class ascertained in regard to demand?

Sir, the availability of 'C' class beds is seen at the national level. That means for patients who can afford only the 'C' class beds, there are many empty 'C' class beds available in our other hospitals. They can opt for that. However, for those who are referred to NUH or SGH, depending on the complexity of the case and if they cannot afford to pay for the 'B2' rates, they are given waivers or partial remissions. In fact, in a previous sitting of Parliament I had given information as to the rate of remission or waivers in SGH as well as NUH.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I first declare my pecuniary interest as a GP. May I ask the Minister why is it that when a patient is referred by a GP to the Specialist unit, he must be considered as a 'B2' or 'B1' patient or an 'A' patient, and not a 'C' class patient? He may well be present to the GP as having a stomach ache, diagnosed as an appendicitis. Just because he goes through a GP, why should he be classified as a higher class patient and be asked to pay more? Or would the Minister prefer that these cases be referred to a Government outpatient clinic, waste the outpatient clinic's time and also endanger the life of the patient?

Sir, the policy of the Government is based on affordability, that is, those who can afford to pay for care in the private sector should then not be asking for subsidies. Those who can afford to see the practitioners in the private sector should be prepared to pay for the services at the non-subsidized rates. But, of course, if they are referred by the GPand they wish to receive the subsidized fees, they can make a request, and these requests are always looked into. Prime Minister: Carefully.

Mr Speaker, Sir, how does a patient make a request?

Sir, he makes a request when he arrives at the counter and tells the nurse, "Look, I cannot afford to pay." He will still receive the treatment. If he cannot afford, he pays what he has and we will investigate carefully. If it is true that he cannot afford, the remaining fees will be waived. But, of course, if we find that he can afford, the remnant will then be billed to him.

Can I ask a supplementary question?

It is end of Question Time. The answer to your Question No. 10 will be circulated to you and to hon. Members. 1.30 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, on behalf of the Foreign Minister, I would like to keep Parliament informed of the ongoing discussions between the US Government and Singapore on the future of the US military presence in the region, and of the visit of a US site survey team to Singapore in June. Singapore endorses the ASEAN consensus to establish a Zone of Peace, Freedom and Neutrality (ZOPFAN) over the long term. However, it also recognizes that until this is achieved, a continued US presence in South East Asia is desirable. This is why it has always expressed its support for a continued US presence in the region. The impressive economic growth and prosperity enjoyed by ASEAN countries, including Singapore, over the last two decades have been made possible in large part by the stabilizing influence of the US presence in Asia, including the US bases in the Philippines and the periodic visits of warships from the US Seventh Fleet and aircraft from the US Air Force. At a time of considerable fluidity in the international environment, a sustained US presence will maintain the balance of power in the wider region, reinforce the stable and peaceful regional environment, and enable the non-Communist countries in South East Asia to concentrate their resources on economic development. The Philippines Government has publicly stated its desire for other ASEAN countries to share in hosting US military facilities in the region. Philippines Foreign Affairs officials have said that if other ASEAN countries are prepared to host some US facilities, they would be able to assure the Filipino people that they are not alone and that there are others who are prepared to share what they call "the political burden" of hosting US bases. Singapore has publicly supported the presence of US bases in the Philippines. Singapore is prepared to host some US facilities to make it easier for the Philippines to continue to host the US bases there. Both the Singapore and US Governments agree that Singapore's facilities could not possibly replace the large US facilities at Clark Airbase and Subic Naval Base. Singapore lacks both the size and the strategic location to do this. The US and Singapore have discussed the possibility of greater US military use of some facilities in Singapore. This would not be unprecedented: the US Navy currently calls at Singapore for bunkering and repairs, US fighter aircraft have been deployed to Singapore for exercises with the RSAF and US transport aircraft use Singapore as a transit point. The US Government sent a site survey team in June to Singapore to study our naval and air facilities, and determine what US forces might use. The survey team comprised technical personnel, headed by a Rear Admiral from the Headquarters of the Commander in Chief, Pacific (CINCPAC). Singapore and the US agreed that the survey team's visit would be strictly exploratory and fact-finding, and would imply no commitment by either side to the deployment of US forces in Singapore. Its findings would not be binding, and would only form the basis for further discussions. Singapore's hosting of the site survey team in no way lessens Singapore's commitment to the Five Power Defence Arrangements (FPDA), nor should it weaken the FPDA, which will continue to contribute to regional stability. It is also consistent with the principles of the Non-Aligned Movement, to which Singapore belongs, as any increased US military presence in Singapore would be to strengthen regional stability, and not for the advancement of great power rivalries. Singapore advised all the other ASEAN and FPDA governments of the site survey before the team's visit.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have a number of questions for the Minister of State. Firstly, Sir, in agreeing to host the US facilities in Singapore, has the Government taken into account possible reactions from our neighbours, particularly Malaysia and Indonesia? Secondly, Sir, I would like to know from the Minister how the US presence in Singapore will affect our Five Power Defence Arrangements although he made some references to it. Lastly, Sir, will the Minister keep this House informed of further developments on this subject?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to seek certain clarifications from the Minister of State. While agreeing with the general thrust of his statement that we should consider hosting certain facilities of the US, I am concerned as to the extent which we will host US facilities here. I would like to ask the Minister whether the ASEAN governments have been made aware of the present position of the Government and whether the Government has taken into account the sensitivities of some of the ASEAN governments concerning foreign military bases or facilities in our territory. I would like to ask the Minister of State whether this is the beginning of a formalized agreement with the US, ultimately leading to some kind of bilateral security arrangement.

Sir, the Minister is aware of course that last year at the height of the Hendrickson affair we were all told to be wary and to beware of American intentions and actions. Now, as he announced, we are considering extending our base facilities to them. Of course, we remember what the British statesman said that we have no permanent friends or enemies but permanent interests. But how are we going to explain to the people on the ground that it is in the long-term interest of a nation to extend further facilities to the Americans? Sir, if the Americans have base facilities here, would they defend Singapore if we were under attack by regional powers? With the extension of the base facilities to the Americans, Singapore would, I believe, become a prime target for conventional and nuclear attack in a global conflict. Is it worth the risk involved? What about the social costs? Would the presence of the American servicemen lead to a higher incidence of VD and Aids, more girlie bars in Orchard Road?

Mr Speaker, Sir, can I answer as the questions are fielded, otherwise there might be too many and I may not be able to recall all of them?

All right.

First, let me emphasize, Mr Speaker, Sir, that the discussions are still at a very preliminary stage and no commitment has been made on either side. With respect to our neighbours, we have kept them informed even before the site survey team came and we will continue to keep them informed. Of course, we will have to take into account their sensitivities but the final decision is ours. As to speculations on our future relationship with US, our objective is principally to maintain and preserve the status quo. If by hosting some facilities here, we make it easier for the Filipino government to continue to host US forces in Clark and Subic, then we would have achieved our objective of helping to maintain the status quo. Therefore, the question of a military pact or treaty with the US really does not arise because that is not what is envisaged. As to the question of American interference in our domestic politics as a result of their military presence here, they know our position. Domestic politics in Singapore are solely the preserve for Singaporeans. They are aware of our position. They know our position. They respect our position. They accept our position. Social problems like VD, Aids and such like, if the Americans do come, we will have to insist that they be on their best behaviour, as indeed they have always been. We have to be mindful of the social aspects. They are aware of our concerns and this will be taken into account. I think I have answered most of the questions.

Sir, I would be interested to know the extent to which these facilities would be given to the Americans. Are we just giving garage facilities or up to nuclear facilities?

They have come down to take a look at our air and naval facilities. They have visited Paya Lebar Air Base and Sembawang Naval Base and they have not yet reverted to us. So concrete discussions have not taken place yet. We are not quite aware of what they are interested in nor have we told them what we are prepared to offer. One thing is certain. That whatever we can offer here can never replace the massive and extensive facilities that they have at Clark and Subic. The question raised earlier by Dr Ong Chit Chung on the nuclear targetting of Singapore as a result of any deployment of US forces here, I think that question is really not the point. If we are going to be targetted, I think we are going to be targetted anyway because of our geo-strategic location. We have warships from the big powers sailing by Singapore all the time and I would be very surprised if all of them are non-nuclear.

"to amend the Immigration Act (Chapter 133 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.

"to amend the National Computer Board Act (Chapter 195 of the 1985 Revised Edition)", presented by the Minister of State for Finance (BG George Yong-Boon Yeo); 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." The Planning (Amendment No. 2) Bill 1989 serves two main purposes. First, it redefines the scope of the planning functions in the Planning Act. This is done in conjunction with the establishment of the new Urban Redevelopment Authority which will amalgamate the functions of the present URA and the Ministry of National Development's Planning Department and Research and Statistics Unit. The new URA will be established under the Urban Redevelopment Bill 1989. I shall be moving the second reading of this Bill later today. The second purpose of this Planning (Amendment No.2) Bill is to revise the system of imposing development charges for permission to develop land. Let me first take the re-definition and consolidation of the planning functions. Mr Speaker, Sir, because of URA's present role in the planning of our Central Area and its role as the conservation authority, some planning functions are at present in the Urban Redevelopment Authority Act. Other planning functions are in the Planning Act. With the establishment of the new URA, we are taking the opportunity to re-define the legal framework for land use and development planning by placing the main planning functions in the Planning Act. These functions include the preparation of the Master Plan, the control of development, the regulation of car parks and urban conservation. This Bill will bring all these functions within the purview of the Planning Act. The Planning Act will therefore embody the full range of powers necessary for the Government to control, guide and promote proper land use and development in Singapore. The actual department or authority which will administer the provisions of the Act is not stated in the Planning Act. The appointment of competent authorities by the Minister to administer the Act can be done by notifications in the Gazette. With this intention in mind, the Bill will delete all references to specific government departments and agencies, for example, the Planning Department and the URA, from the principal legislation. It is important to keep the Planning Act detached from any organization so that there is flexibility in future to appoint any person or organization with the right expertise as the competent authorities to administer the Act without the need to amend the Act each time such an appointment is necessary. We intend that the new URA will carry out these planning functions through the appointment of its Chief Executive as the competent authority. This will be done by gazetting the Chief Executive Officer of the URA as the competent authority. These are the broad principles re-defining the legal framework for planning which I have stated as the first purpose of the Bill. Let me now take the main clauses in the Bill relating to this first purpose. Clauses 2 and 3 delete references to the Planning Department and URA. I have explained the reasons for this. Clause 4 will introduce the term "provisional permission". The term is the same as what is generally known as the "in-principle approval" which is given to a development application prior to written permission. It is valid for a period not exceeding six months unless extended by the competent authority or Minister. The provisional permission ceases once written permission is granted or refused. The introduction of this term will give legal status to a well established administrative practice. All in-principle approvals granted before the commencement of this Act will have the same force and effect as provisional permission. The introduction of the term is also related to the implementation of the revised development charge system which I shall explain when I come to the second purpose of the Bill. Clause 5 of the Bill will insert a new section to enable the conservation authority to issue conservation guidelines for the conservation of any building or land within a conservation area. The conservation authority is required to publish and make available copies of such guidelines for free inspection and for sale at a reasonable price. Clause 6 will enable the Minister to make rules on the provision and requirements of car parks and the collection of the related fees. These functions will be deleted from the URA Act where they are at present. Clause 7 of the Bill will empower the Minister to make rules for the collection of fees and charges for services performed under the Act by the competent authorities. Such fees and charges shall be paid into the Consolidated Fund unless the Minister directs otherwise. The Minister may direct that such fees be paid to that agency or board. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to now move to the next objective of the Bill, that is, to give effect to the revised development charge system. Sir, my Ministry has received feedback from the building industry that the present development charge system has introduced uncertainty in development and has given rise to delays in obtaining planning permission. In response to this, in May this year my Ministry announced the implementation of a revised system of calculating development charges which will minimize the uncertainty and be simpler to use and easier to administer. Sir, I will highlight the three significant aspects of the revised system. First, modification of the conditions under which development charge is levied. The development charge is a tax levied on a developer when he is allowed to use his land for a purpose that is more valuable than what is prescribed in the Master Plan. For example, a developer may propose a commercial building on a piece of land in an area which is designated as a residential zone in the Master Plan, or he may propose development with a plot ratio that is higher than the plot ratio that is prescribed in the Master Plan. Sir, when we compute the development charge at present, we measure the intensity of development in commercial, industrial and other non-residential developments by using the plot ratio. The plot ratio is the ratio of the proposed total floor area of the development to the total site or land area. For example, if you have a site which is 10,000 sq feet and you build a building with a floor area of 20,000 sq feet, then the plot ratio is 2, the floor area being twice the land area. So the plot ratio is the system of measuring intensity in the case of all non-residential developments. In the case of residential properties, the intensity of development is measured by density, which is the number of persons per hectare. There is an assumption, for example, that any house or flat which is up to 80 sq metres would be occupied by two persons, and that is how the number of persons per hectare is measured. So density which is the number of persons per hectare is a way of measuring intensity for residential properties and plot ratio is a way of measuring intensity for non-residential developments. Clause 8 of the Bill will streamline the system of computing the development charge. We will compute the levy according to the total floor area proposed in the development. In other words, we will use the same measure for all developments, whether they are residential or commercial or other types of developments. The second aspect is the separation of the development charge system from the planning system. Sir, under the present section 26 of the Act, the zones and development intensities shown in the Master Plan form the basis for computing the development charge. The Master Plan is basically a 1958 document. Our present and future requirements as we see them today are quite different from what they would have appeared to planners in 1958. We may, for example, want to change an area that is zoned for industrial use in the Master Plan to residential use to reflect current needs and current standards. If the Master Plan is changed, the basis for computing development charge may be affected. As a result of this connection between the Master Plan and the development charge, the planning authority is reluctant to make changes to the Master Plan even though such changes may be necessary to show the long term planning intentions for an area. For example, if an area is zoned as green belt today and we want to change it to residential and the planners made the change, then the owner of a plot in the green belt would expect to be automatically allowed to develop housing in that area. For this reason, the planners are reluctant to make changes. To overcome this inflexibility, the Bill stipulates that the Master Plan to be used for the purpose of development charge will be the Master Plan approved in 1958, including of course all subsequent alterations and additions that have been made to it and for which development charge has already been paid. That will be the basis for calculating development charge. On the other hand, for purposes of guiding and approving development, the Master Plan could be a series of development guide plans, street plans and other documents which will incorporate the latest thinking of the planners. With this stipulation, the base for computing development charge is fixed and the planning authority is free to make changes to the Master Plan without being concerned about how they will affect the development charge. This will give the planning authority the flexibility to update the current Master Plan, for example, by drawing up new development guide plans for various areas in Singapore and to make known the long term planning intentions of an area to the public. The third aspect is that this new system is a simpler way of computing the development charge. The present development charge system requires the Chief Valuer to determine the enhancement of land value arising from each and every development approval when it is granted. Not only is this time-consuming but it also makes it difficult for a developer to know how much development charge is payable at the outset when he has to assess the viability of his development. For example, somebody may want to buy a piece of land where the plot ratio is, say, 1.

2. But he is thinking in terms of developing something with a plot ratio of 2, or he might buy a piece of land where the density is 125 persons per hectare, and he might want to buy the piece of land to build something of 250 persons per hectare. Before he buys the piece of land he must know what development charge he would have to pay in order to calculate the viability of the project. At present he would not know the development charge until he actually submits an application for development and the valuer has valued that piece of land. Based on difference in valuation for the changed use, a certain development charge would be levied. So he would not know the development charge before he buys the piece of land. Clause 9 of the Bill will introduce a simpler system which will enable the development charge to be computed in accordance with a set of prescribed rates determined by the Chief Valuer and with a definite method of calculation. As the prescribed rates have not yet been fully tested by the market, clause 9 of the Bill allows an applicant to request the Chief Valuer for an individual valuation if the applicant feels that the prescribed rate does not reasonably reflect the value of a site. I think Members know that there were quite a few comments and discussions on the system and some felt that the prescribed rates do not accurately reflect the value of the land. So in order to test the system, in the initial stages, we will allow the owner of a land the option of choosing an individual valuation to be made for development charge purposes rather than just using the table. Clause 10 will allow this option by retaining the present system of appeals for individual valuations. Once somebody chooses to use the prescribed table, then there would be no appeal. But if he chooses to have an individual valuation made, and the valuation by the Chief Valuer is something that he does not accept, he can make an appeal. However, Sir, to maintain the simplicity of the system, clause 9 will give the Minister the power to limit requests for individual valuations to cases where the development charges are more than a prescribed amount. Sir, this provision to limit requests for individual valuations will be brought into effect at an appropriate time after we have tested the prescribed rate system. In the initial stages, we will allow everybody to make requests for individual valuation and to make appeals. But after some time of implementing this system, the Minister can have a cut off so that all development charges below a certain amount will not have this option of asking for individual valuation. Now, to the implementation of the revised development charge system. To clearly establish the cut off point for the implementation of the revised system, clause 13(6) provides that the revised system will not apply to all development applications that have already been granted provisional permission before the commencement of the Act. There are a few other transitional provisions, Sir, that I will just mention. Clause 13 of the Bill sets out the transitional provisions to spell out clearly how existing operational, financial and contractual arrangements are to be dealt with following the amalgamation of the present URA and Planning Department. The salient provisions are: (a) under sub-clause (2), conservation guidelines issued by the present URA before the commencement of the Act will be deemed to be issued under the amended Act; (b) under sub-clause (3), the car parking waiver charges paid to and held by the present URA at the effective date of the amalgamation will be paid into the Consolidated Fund; and (c) under sub-clauses (4) and (5), any requirement or conditions imposed regarding the provision of car parking spaces made by the present URA will continue to have effect and can be enforced under the Planning Act. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, my GPC supports the Bill as it will enable the Ministry to streamline its planning functions and to establish a clearer system of imposing development charges for permission to develop land in Singapore. My GPC has also been following closely the developments concerning the proposed implementation of the revised system of determining development charges by a set of prescribed rates and a definite method of calculation. In particular, we have been monitoring the Ministry's recent decision to allow from 1st September 1989 the present system of computing development charges based on a case by case valuation of enhanced land value by the Chief Valuer to run parallel with the revised system based on a published table of rates drawn up by the Ministry. The trial period will be for one year to enable developers and the Ministry to iron out the problems in implementing the new system. My GPC is happy that the Ministry consulted the building professionals and developers on the revised development charge system. As a result, we understand the Ministry will be modifying the original proposed system to take into account recommendations made by the developers. My GPC Members and I are not experts in determining land valuation. The system of determining development charges is extremely technical and complicated and we do not profess to have a complete understanding of the issues involved. But whatever system is to emerge ultimately must be one that is practical, equitable and simple to implement. I hope the Minister will continue to consult the building professionals and developer groups and take their professional advice seriously when making further refinements to the revised system of computing development charges. On the aspect of conservation authority, the Bill also empowers the Minister to appoint any person to be a conservation authority. Conservation carried to its absurd limits can stifle development. We have seen how many major projects in other countries can be stalled simply because someone found good reason through conservation protection to block or to prevent new development. In Singapore, with our limited land resources, we need to maximize the use of land for development purposes. But at the same time, emphasis on history and heritage is also important to give our young nation the guidepost to our sense of history. Good judgment must prevail when weighing the benefits of development on the one hand, and keeping our heritage through conservation on the other. The Ministry has to consider the cost versus the benefits carefully when making the decision. Conservation must not stifle development, nor indiscriminately demolish structures of immense historic value. The Ministry must therefore have a set of balanced objectives to guide intelligently the development in Singapore.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Member for his support for the Bill. We will continue to monitor the implementation of the development charge system. As a result of discussions and consultation with the professionals and with the industry, we have already made changes in this Bill to allow the prescribed rate system and the present individual valuation system to run parallel for some time so. This modification has already been built in and we will see how it operates. As a result also of discussions with the industry, we, together with the Chief Valuer, have increased the number of sectors. In other words, Singapore was originally divided into about 20 sectors for valuation purposes which were just too few. We have now increased it to 47 sectors and 28 of them are really within the City area. We hope that this would remove a lot of the initial unhappiness with the valuations that were indicated for each sector. As I said, we will continue to work closely with the industry. The whole purpose of this system is not to impose something that is unacceptable and that is likely to adversely affect the building industry in Singapore. The purpose of this system is to make things easy, expedite and encourage. And as long as we have those objectives clearly in mind, I am sure that, together with the industry, we can work out a system that will be acceptable and good for Singapore. Regarding conservation, I entirely agree with the Member's views. In the initial stage of our development, we did not pay much regard to the historical or architectural merits of buildings and we were rather indiscriminate in knocking down some buildings which we regret now. But we must guard against swinging to the other extreme of wanting to preserve everything, because there is a cost to this effort. So we will be very careful. In the Ministry, we will be monitoring the various proposals put up by the URA which will be the conservation authority. We will be monitoring very carefully to ensure that we only conserve those areas that are really worth conserving. On conservation, of course, once you have dealt with very clear cases, there is a large grey area where it can be quite subjective. And we are very very mindful that the economic imperatives should prevail in many cases. So we will make sure that we will not stifle development or unnecessarily devalue people's properties because we have swung to the other extreme of wanting to conserve everything.

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; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

2.11 pm Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, in my earlier reading of the Planning (Amendment No. 2) Bill, I mentioned the amalgamation of the Urban Redevelopment Authority and the Ministry of Development's Planning Department and the Research and Statistics Unit. The Urban Redevelopment Authority Bill seeks to give effect to the amalgamation by the establishment of a new Urban Redevelopment Authority. The present Urban Redevelopment Authority Act was enacted in 1974 to establish the URA, when it took over the functions of the former Urban Renewal Department of the Housing and Development Board. In the present Act, there are specific provisions which relate to the transfer of staff from the HDB as well as the transfer of the Board's property, assets and liabilities to the URA. There are also various references as to how existing rights, commitments and pending proceedings which relate to the HDB are to be dealt with. The amalgamation of the present URA with the Ministry's Planning Department and the Research and Statistics Unit will really mean that a new Authority is being established. Many of the provisions which relate to the previous Urban Renewal Department of the HDB which are found in the present Act will no longer be applicable. New provisions which relate to the transfer of the existing staff, assets, liabilities and commitments of the three component organizations have to be spelled out. New functions have to be added to the Act with the amalgamation and some existing functions have to be deleted and placed in the Planning Act. At the same time, we would like to take the opportunity of the amalgamation to streamline the operations of the existing URA to bring them in line with other major statutory boards. Mr Speaker, Sir, to accommodate all these new provisions, we could have made extensive changes and rearrangements to the present Act. But we believe that it is neater to accommodate these changes by repealing the present URA Act and enacting a new Act altogether. Moreover, since we are constituting a new organization, it is appropriate to establish it by enacating a new Act. We therefore have the present URA Bill which has the provision of repealing the present URA Act. Mr Speaker, Sir, the physical development of Singapore in the coming years will be increasingly undertaken by the private sector. The public sector will guide the course of our physical development rather than become involved in the direct implementation of projects. The Planning Department has to be strengthened to enable it to provide strategic guidance. At the same time, the URA, having hived off its commercial undertakings in development and property management to a new company called PIDEMCO, will become primarily an urban planning agency. My Ministry therefore proposes that the present URA and the Planning Department be amalgamated so that there will be a single authority in a position to administer the Planning Act. The Research and Statistics Unit of the Ministry of National Development will also be amalgamated with the new URA to give it the statistical and research support it needs to undertake its planning activities. Sir, let me now enumerate the advantages of the amalgamation. First, it streamlines planning functions. The URA is currently the Conservation Authority and the planning agency for the Central Area, while the Planning Department is the planning authority for the rest of the Island. Through the amalgamation, the planning and development control functions will be centralized under a single authority. Second, it facilitates the sharing of expertise. With the amalgamation of URA's expertise in Central Area planning, particularly in urban design, and Planning Department's experience in strategic plan- ning, there will be better coordinated planning for the whole island. Third, it minimizes the duplication in supporting services. Duplication in data collection, analysis and land data computerization will be minimized with the amalgamation. New and better technical and administrative support will be provided with the shared resources. Lastly, it attracts talent. The amalgamation will widen the scope of planning work, making the new organization more attractive to talented young architects, planners and engineers. Besides, it will provide greater opportunities for job enrichment and career development to staff of the three existing organizations. Sir, the new planning authority will retain the name Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) because of the reputation and goodwill which has been built up both locally and abroad by the URA. Sir, let me now highlight the main provisions of the Urban Redevelopment Authority Bill 1989 with regard to the functions, duties and powers of the new Authority which are in addition to the provisions in the present Act. Part III of the Bill sets out the functions, duties and powers of the new URA. These will remain the same as those of the existing URA, with the following additions: With the amalgamation of the Research and Statistics Unit, the authority will collect and analyse statistical information which relate to building, construction, land use, etc. It can publish information as long as it observes the confidentiality of such information. The new URA can also provide advisory and information services which relate to planning and land use. In this connection, the Authority will take over the administration of the Ministry's records and data and the computerized Land Information System (ILUS). In line with our intention to have the main planning functions contained in the Planning Act, the following functions will be removed from the present URA Act: (1) The planning function to control and regulate the provision of car parking spaces for developments (Section 49 of the present Act), and (2) The planning functions which relate to conservation of land and buildings and the designation of conservation areas and the issuance of conservation guidelines, ie, section 18 of the present Act. As the new Authority will effectively be undertaking various planning functions under the Planning Act, through the appointment of its Chief Executive as a Competent Authority under the Act, clause 6 (l) will have a general provision to empower the Authority to carry out the functions and duties as are imposed upon it. The power of the Minister with respect to the Authority remains unchanged. This includes the power to give specific directions to the Authority and to require it to keep the Minister informed of its activities. Mr Speaker, Sir, to effect the amalgamation, Part IV of the Bill will make the necessary provisions with regard to the transfer of existing staff, existing rights and liabilities of, as well as pending proceedings against, the component organizations. The salient provisions are: (a) Staff in the Planning Department, Research and Statistics Unit and the existing URA will be automatically transferred to the new URA from the effective date of the amalgamation on terms not less favourable than what they were enjoying before the transfer. Pension benefits will be preserved. The Minister may, however, determine that certain grades of persons in the Planning Department and the Research and Statistics Unit, for example, common user staff, will be given the option to remain in Government service. (b) The new URA will take over the existing liabilities and pending proceedings of the Government in respect of the Planning Department and the Research and Statistics Unit. (c) Existing rights and liabilities in relation to the existing URA, Planning Department and the Research and Statistics Unit will remain after the amalgamation. (d) Information collected by the Research and Statistics Unit before the appointed day and transferred to the Authority shall be subject to the same safeguards with regard to disclosure as provided in the Statistics Act. Sir, let me now just deal with a few other salient provisions. We are also taking the opportunity in this Bill to streamline certain of the operations of the URA to bring them in line with the practices of other major statutory boards. For example, clause 18 will allow the new URA to appoint, with the approval of the Minister, a Chief Executive, to be known by a designation as the Authority may determine. On matters of finance and audit, the URA will follow the model provisions developed by the Auditor-General which all statutory bodies are required to incorporate into their respective Acts. These are contained in the Third Schedule to the Act. 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. - [Mr S. Dhanabalan]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order. I suspend the sitting and will take the Chair again at 2.50 pm. Sitting accordingly suspended at 2.25 pm until 2.50 pm. Sitting resumed at 2.50 pm

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, this Act came into effect on 21st October 1955, and its duration has been extended by Parliament on seven different occasions. The current life of this legislation will expire on 20th October this year, and the purpose of this Bill is to extend the Act for another five years. The Act provides for the maintenance of public safety, peace and good order and, in particular, for the detention and supervision of persons associated with secret society and criminal activities. Over the years, it has proved to be an effective weapon for the suppression of secret society activities, drug trafficking activities and other serious crimes in Singapore. Why do we need these preventive detention provisions? The reason is that some secret society elements and drug traffickers cannot be prosecuted in the courts in the normal way because potential witnesses fear reprisals and are unwilling to testify. Secret society members also refuse to give evidence in court against their fellow members. The number of secret society incidents fell from 416 in 1959 to 10 in 1988. Detention Orders issued against secret society elements fell from 158 in 1984 to 31 in 1987 and 73 in 1988. The Act is a strong deterrent to would-be secret society members and has brought secret society activities under control. The figures I have just given bear out this fact. But we must not let such favourable statistics lull us into any complacency. The trend can very easily reverse itself and gangsters and other criminal elements will resurface and mount their activities if they detect even a slight wavering of the Government's will. They can very quickly revert to their old and lawless ways to terrorize and victimize innocent people. Sir, in the initial years, most of those who were detained under this Act were secret society and other vicious criminal elements. But, as I have said, the number of detention orders in this category has come down. Instead, in recent years, the number of Detention Orders for drug traffickers has increased. In fact, from 1987 onwards drug traffickers constitute the majority of all criminal law detainees - 54% in 1987, 58% in 1988 and 59% as at March this year. But I make no apologies for this development. In my view, drug traffickers can be considered to be the most despicable of criminals, in a sense they are even worse than a murderer who kills a single person, because the drug trafficker, for monetary returns, undermines both body and soul of our young and really erodes the fabric of society. That is why many countries now consider drug trafficking as a threat to national security. It renders our young useless to themselves, to their families and to the country. True, we have very strict laws, including mandatory death penalty. But what should be done if we cannot prosecute them just because they succeed in intimidating witnesses? Are we to let them loose on the streets? And indeed that is the course of action which several other countries,especially in the West, are forced to do. But we in Singapore have decided that the interests of the majority of our people who are law-abiding must come first and the majority of the people must be protected and they, their families and their children must feel safe and secure, whether at home or in the streets or in workplaces and also visitors coming to Singapore should be free of harm and of criminal activities. Detention under this Act has therefore crippled big time drug traffickers and their syndicates and distributors. Criminal law detentions together with the death penalty are therefore indispensable weapons in our fight against drug traffickers. The Act also has provisions on the prevention of strikes and lockouts in essential services and it stipulates that no workman in the water, gas and electricity services can go on strike. Employees in other essential services must give ample notice before they can go on strike. These provisions continue to be necessary. There are adequate built-in safeguards in the Act to prevent it from being abused. There are also additional procedures which we on our own have introduced as safeguards to ensure that enforcement agencies do not resort to using the Act without the strongest justification. Any proposal by the Police or the Central Narcotics Bureau to detain under criminal law detention or to place him under compulsory police supervision must first be submitted to my Ministry where my senior officers as well as legal officers scrutinize the case which has been put before it is personally approved by the Permanent Secretary. Thereafter, it must be submitted to the Attorney-General who personally has to satisfy himself that this is indeed a proper course of action and that normal prosecution is not possible. Only when he gives his consent will the detention order or the police supervision order be issued by the Minister. Then all such cases are reviewed by Advisory Committees which comprise Justices of the Peace, senior lawyers and community leaders. All reports of the Advisory Committees must be submitted to Cabinet which will advise the President whether or not to confirm the orders. Cases where detention orders are confirmed are reviewed annually by a Review Committee. Sir, to briefly summarize the rationale for this Act, its provisions are only resorted to when the securing of a court conviction is well-nigh impossible because of the unwillingness on the part of the complainants and key witnesses to testify in court for fear of reprisals. The Act has substantially contributed to the maintenance of law and order in Singapore. It is still required as a weapon to suppress secret society and drug trafficking activities as there is no indication at the present stage that these criminal activities can be completely eliminated in the very near future. It is therefore necessary, Sir, to extend the Act for a further period of five years. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill which seeks Parliament's approval for an extension of the Act for another five years is concerned with crime in Singapore and how our law enforcement authority can take adequate measures to deal with crime. As a result of the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act which has been in operation since October 1955, secret society and gangster organizations have been suppressed, and Singapore's crime rate today is one of the lowest in the world. While secret society and gangster organizations are under control, we still need strong measures to ensure that they do not return to the scene. Sir, I agree with the Minister that drug traffickers are the worst type of criminals. Very stringent measures are therefore required to control or curb drug trafficking. At present even with the mandatory death penalty and the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act, drug trafficking still constitutes the majority of all criminal law detainees. One can imagine what will happen to the Singapore drug scene if Parliament does not extend the Act for a further period of five years. I therefore support this Bill, Sir. The Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act has been brought before Parliament for extension every five years since 1955. Much has been debated on the pros and cons of this Act and I do not intend to repeat that again. I just want to seek some clarification. The Act itself includes built-in safeguards to prevent its abuse. I would like to find out from the Minister if the built-in safeguards are adequate in today's context. Are the built-in safeguards reviewed regularly to ensure they are effective?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I cannot support this Bill because there are several aspects of the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act which are very unsatisfactory. The criminal detention law, as its very name implies and makes clear, was supposed to have been a temporary law, operational for only a limited period, and to have been revoked the moment it was deemed unnecessary. But except for a part of the law concerning the control of supplies to the then Federation of Malaya, the law has not been revoked. Instead, more provisions like the special identity cards for criminal supervisees have been added. Government has always found excuses to say that the Act is needed. Their pet excuse, as the Minister has aptly put it, is for the maintenance of public safety, peace and good order, and because it happens to be an effective weapon. Is the Government saying that, without the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act, there will be no public safety, peace and good order? If that is so, then all the funds spent on modernizing the Police Force and the Singapore Armed Forces would have been totally wasted. How real is this need to keep extending the life of the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act? Are conditions in the late 1980's today the same conditions that existed in the 1950's? What is our crime situation today? The Minister has already said that the crime rate has gone down. The Straits Times echoes that. Sir, it is true that all types of crimes still abound. They are part and parcel of the free market, free enterprise system that we have in Singapore. But these crimes are mostly crimes committed by individuals. They are certainly not committed in most cases by organized or major gangs and secret societies. Gang fights are very infrequent. There are comparatively few cases of gang lawlessness and of secret society thugs brazenly terrorizing law-abiding people going about their normal business. Where then is the need for the laws of criminal detention without trial? I object to criminal detention without trial. In 1958 when the British colonialists introduced detention without trial, they said that it was "only the exceptional gravity of the present state of gang lawlessness which compels the Government to seek these exceptional powers for immediate use". That is, the crime situation then was of exceptional gravity. In 1959, the then PAP Government said in a similar vein, that "the situation is extraordinary and, therefore, it is necessary that the Government seeks extraordinary powers to deal with this very abnormal criminal situation". That is, it was only because of the crime situation in the 1950's being of exceptional gravity, extraordinary and very abnormal, that the Government sought exceptional, extraordinary powers of detention without trial. Such extraordinary, very abnormal crime situations no longer exist in Singapore today. Moreover, we have a much more professional and efficient Police Force, armed with the most modern up-to-date equipment aided by the Neighbourhood Watch Groups and crime prevention committees. And the press has also highlighted the effective policing and its close cooperation with the public. The YearBook does not fail to praise the Police. Sir, in short, everything tells us that the crime situation in Singapore is well under control. Even foreign visitors, as the Minister has said, have said that only very minor crimes are seen in our city. Why then the need to extend the life of criminal detention law for another five years? What good reason is there? The short answer, Sir, is that there are no good reasons, no really valid reasons. Powers of detention without trial are exceptional, extraordinary powers and there is no exceptional, extraordinary crime situation in Singapore today to justify the continued extension of such powers. But the PAP Government, nevertheless, wants to extend the life of the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act. What then is the real reason? The only reason, I believe, is that the PAP Government does not want to give up any of the powers it now holds and it, in fact, wants to arm itself with even more and more dictatorial powers over the people. The PAP has ruled Singapore for 30 years. How has this been done? Mainly, I suggest, by striking fear in the hearts of would-be opponents. Section 30, (previously to be section 55) of this criminal law is intended to, and indeed does, terrorize many people with fear of prolonged detention without trial. Think of the recent amendments, Sir, to the Constitution, the Internal Security Act, the Legal Profession Act, and the Judicial Committee Act. All of them are intended to strike fear in the hearts of political opponents in various ways. Now, add to these amendments, the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act. Powers in the hands of Government are now total and complete, and armed with powers from these laws Government may arbitrarily arrest and detain without trial for prolonged periods any person, political opponent, critic, or anyone called a "criminal". This is how the PAP has ruled Singapore for 30 years and hopes to maintain its rule for years to come. The First Deputy Prime Minister said that the PAP cannot rule Singapore without the ISA. It would appear, Sir, to be more correct for him to say that the PAP cannot rule Singapore without the ISA and the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act. The law is entitled "Temporary". It is a misnomer. Criminal detention without trial has become a permanent feature of PAP rule and Government should therefore give the Act its proper title. Since it is a law of detention of criminals without trial, why not simply call it "Criminal Law Detention Without Trial Act", rather than say "Temporary Provisions"? Government should call a spade a spade, and it could at least honestly say that it does not camouflage the title in order to mislead the people. A frequently used excuse for the need of the criminal detention law is that it is difficult to get witnesses to give evidence in court because of the fear of reprisals from accomplices of the convicted gangster. In certain cases, Sir, if there is such a fear, then it is the duty of the police to provide all the protection that is necessary. Also, the judge could decide whether or not it is appropriate for the person to give evidence in open court in the concrete circumstances. It is difficult to imagine that with all the modern equipment and cooperation from the public today, the Police should still find it almost impossible to collect sufficient evidence to convict a criminal if he is really guilty, even if he should be a drug trafficker. The Workers' Party feels that if the Police has enough evidence to detain a person, then that evidence should be placed before an open court, and the person concerned should be given an opportunity to present his case so that an impartial judge may determine whether or not a mistake has been made by the Police. The law gives very wide powers to the Police and there is always a possibility of abuse. If the Police has insufficent evidence, then the criminal detention law should not be made as a short cut to laborious and painstaking investigations. The law provides certain safeguards as the Minister has tried to tell us. But much hinges on the police report. And the Advisory Committee is after all only advisory. It does not have executive powers and cannot order the release of any person already detained by the Police. Ultimately, all decisions rest in the hands of the Minister. Section 30 tells us that all that is required is that the Minister is "satisfied" with the material provided in the police report and the person can well lose his liberty and be detained for many years. "Satisfied". How can we be sure that this satisfaction is not whimsical? Detention without trial may accord with legislation passed in Parliament by the PAP government, but that is not in accordance with the concept of the rule of law, as I have been told, that is accepted by all civilized countries. It is, in fact, the very negation of the rule of law, also guaranteed by Article 9 of the Constitution. Therefore, Government should not continue to ignore the concept of law that is practised by all civilized countries. Section 30 of the Act also deals with the period of detention and supervision. In 1958, the period of detention was only for 6 months, with a maximum of 2 years in all if the detention order was extended from time to time. In 1959, after the PAP took office, the Government quickly extended the period of detention from 6 months to 1 year. And following that, the next year, the maximum period of detention of 2 years was lifted and the detention order can now be extended again and again ad infinitum. The result is that a criminal law detainee could be detained for 10 or 20 years. Of course, the longer a person can be detained, the longer he will be subject to fear, and that is what the PAP is trying to do. Sir, everybody knows that South Africa is a fascist state. Yet, a detention order in South Africa does not exceed 3 years. A life sentence is after all only 20 years, and with remissions, the prison term may be reduced to only 13 years. Does the Government also intend to detain criminal law detainees for 23 years or more as it has detained Chia Thye Poh? Is such a detention fair and just? According to press reports, there were 1,500 criminal law detainees at the beginning of this year. I have been told that some criminal law detainees have been detained for more than 10 years. How many have been detained for 10 years? The Minister has not told us. How many have been detained for 5 years? Neither has this been revealed. How many have been put under supervision, and how many have been issued with special identity cards? From the figures that the Minister has revealed, how many are real drug traffickers and drug abusers? We would like the Minister to give us the true facts and figures. Sir, we give our fullest support to the fight against crime, especially drug traffickers. We also give our fullest support to the fight against gangsterism and secret society lawlessness. But the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act, like the Internal Security Act which provides for detention without trial, is an anomaly in our modern society today. No country that claims to be a democracy, parliamentary or otherwise, should have such detention laws except in a real emergency, in which case Parliament should meet to decide on the powers necessary to deal with the situation. But we have no emergency in Singapore today. All is peace and quiet. There is hardly any strike, no riots, nor are there large scale organized crimes. If there are illegal strikes in essential services, Government could easily deal with them through other existing laws, for example, the Industrial Relations Act. If there are drug traffickers, there is the Misuse of Drugs Act. If there are other serious crimes, then there is the Penal Code. So what is there that makes it so necessary to continue with this law of detention without trial? There is no good reason and the Government extends the life of this law with but one full intention, namely to strike fear in the hearts of the people. I suggest, Sir, it is time that the law be scrapped.

Sir, it cannot be denied that this Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act (CLTPA) nags our conscience. We call it a temporary provision because we hope that someday we will do away with it. The question that has to be answered is: under what circumstances we will do away with it? That must be explained carefully and clearly and we have to set out what are the parameters, what are the social conditions under which this Act will cease to be necessary. This is because the original justification for the CLTPA and, in particular, the powers of administrative detention, was that Singapore was a struggling country, gangsters and secret societies were a serious threat, and our Asian psyche was such that people would not willingly testify in court. The only way then to tackle the problem was to lock up gangsters, people involved in secret societies, without trial. That was effective. I think very few people will question the effectiveness of the CLTPA in those days and the role it has played in our nation building. However, with the appearance of prosperity and stability and perhaps not a fully mature democractic society, certainly on the road to that, it will be increasingly questioned as to whether we continue to need it. The Internal Security Act can be justified under our circumstances. For the CLTPA, there may be more questions And it has to be accepted that we cannot ever eliminate crime. We can only control it within acceptable tolerable limits. So the Minister has to focus on that and tell the House whether at the present stage the situation is such that secret societies, gangsters, the original justification continues to exist at the same level of seriousness which justifies powers of administrative detention. If he does so, then I would still ask that he considers one structural change to the existing provisions. This is to ensure that the CLTPA is not abused. At present, the CLTPA is such that the Minister decides on the detention. The Advisory Committee advises the President and the President has ultimate powers. I would suggest that the Minister still decides on the detention but perhaps powers of review be given to the courts. The reason I say that is, if the Minister takes a reasonable view on the facts that a certain person poses a danger, then presumably the Act can be worded such that the courts can look at the facts, the reasons for the Minister's decision and then come down on the side of the Minister. If the courts disagree, if the judges disagree, then again the Minister's decision will be overturned. So remove it from the Presi- dent to the Executive and give the power to the courts. This is not to suggest that it has been abused, but only to prevent the CLTPA from being a convenient route where the Police do not have sufficient evidence against common criminals to prosecute them in court and therefore use the CLTPA. The Minister is a busy man. He has to rely on the reports that are put up to him by his Police Force. And the Police do not have a monopoly of virtue or morality more than any of us. So that is an important point and that particular provision worries me. I take note of what the Minister says about drugs and the need to ensure that we remain a drug free society and that we need draconian powers to take care of the problem. But one question would be: is that better tackled by an amendment to the Misuse of Drugs Act? The reason being again the Misuse of Drugs Act sets out various criteria that the Minister or the courts will have to take into account before a person is prosecuted or detained under that Act. The CLTPA is not bound by any such parameters. It is a general provision. So rather than having very wide powers under a general provision to tackle a particular problem, particularly as this is a serious Act, I would suggest that the Misuse of Drugs Act be amended to give the Minister perhaps powers of administrative detention to tackle that particular problem. Sir, these are my only reservations. And it has to be realized that a growing number of people, not all of them totally irrational, question the necessity of the Act. That is why I said because Singapore gives an appearance of prosperity and stability, satisfactory answers must be given to them, if the Government is interested in winning not just the minds but also the hearts of these people. I trust that these questions will be answered before we vote, Sir.

Mr Speaker, Sir, my GPC gives its full support to the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) (Amendment) Bill. Sir, having heard the last two speakers, one point stands out very clearly. Firstly, why is the Act called "temporary"? It has been in existence for more than 30 years and now the Minister comes to the House asking for a further extension. I agree with them that the term "temporary" may be a misnomer. Indeed, the GPC discussed this matter with the Minister and we tried to urge the Minister to make this a permanent Act. Why do we say that this Act should be permanent? This Act should be permanent because essentially human beings will not change. Society can change, but the basic fears will not change. The fear of being victimized by big-time gangsters, secret societies, the fear of complainants to complain, the fear of witnesses to testify, will always be there. The Minister here is more hopeful than the GPC and he is much more optimistic. We are more pessimistic. I am sure that up till today many people do not want to tangle with the secret societies, to be complainants or witnesses. But the Police need witnesses and the courts also need witnesses for the judge to come to a logical conclusion of the case. Based on these grounds, I feel that the CLTPA still has a role. A whole generation grew and prospered under it. Because of the CLTPA, we know little of the triads, secret societies and the like. We do not experience the terrors of organized crimes. For most, walking in the city is simply that of a mechanical movement from point A to point B, uninterrupted by the flash of a switchblade and unhindered by a dense of bullies within our city limits. We do not fear the coming of darkness daily for there is no menace in it. City life in Singapore shines only on those who would wander in legitimate business. Many a tourist and expatriate have testified to how safe they are in our country. Of course, it will be very simplistic to say that the CLTPA brought all this about and that without the CLTPA we would not have this. Credit must be given to the vigilant Police Force, an upright civil service, a Government with a political will to ensure public safety and a people willing and have made sacrifices that has led to our success and our secure society today. But the CLTPA was and is part of our internal vigilance system. It stands as a pillar against the few but powerful criminal forces that if left unchecked could intimidate a whole nation. We sleep easy because we know that the criminals in heart and mind do not under the CLTPA. I move even to say that the CLTPA is an integral part of our system of law enforcement and justice. It provides the freedom for our shopkeepers to thrive, for the hawker to sell his food, for the businessman to run his dreams, for the nation to fuel its hopes based on the rule of law and not the barrel of the gun and the two-edged sword. All these within a framework where protection is not an euphemism but a right under law which is controlled, policed and governed. Today, in place of the triads of the past, we face the invidious influence of drugs. We fight now against drug traffickers whose network crosses national boundaries and whose tenacity knows no limits. As the Minister has earlier pointed out, the CLPTA is an indispensable tool in this fight. The CLPTA has served us well. We still need it and the feeling of our GPC is that we will continue to need it. Let us keep it for the next five years and longer, if necessary.

Mr Speaker, Sir, what my colleague, Mr Shanmugam, has said has much force in it. I share his views and his concern in relation to the applicability of the Act to our modern day conditions in Singapore. I also share his concern in connection with whether the Act ought to continue in its present form or ought to be watered down and if structural reforms ought to be made. Sir, I would, however, take a different stand from him for one reason, and one reason only which, I suggest, is justification for the continuation at least, in the first instance, for five years of this Act, and that is, the liberalization in the policy of admitting foreigners to Singapore. Sir, secret society activities and drug trafficking are not home-grown activities. One, generally speaking, is imported from the east, the other from the west. Singaporeans now understand that they should not mess with these activities. It does not serve us any good and so we keep away from them. We are changing our rules though. In the next five years, we are going to see thousands of foreigners coming into Singapore from different countries, from different backgrounds, social, cultural, legal. They may not share our values in terms of how we view such activities. It would be, in my view, very silly if having done such a good job with Singaporeans we suddenly change the rules for foreigners and allow them to operate in a different environment. I would suggest that, with more foreigners coming into Singapore, there is a greater risk, a risk greater perhaps than existed in the last l0 years in Singapore, of proliferation of such activities. We have got to make the rules plain and if the CLTPA would serve that purpose, Sir, I would support the move to continue it for five years at least.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the amendment Bill. Sir, when the Government decides to make the Act a temporary one there are criticisms as to why we allow it to be temporary but the merit of it all is that we are able to review it after a period of time and I think that is the very merit of the "Temporary Provisions" given to this particular Act. And credit is to be given to the Government which is prepared to review this Act from time to time. The crime situation in Singapore has indeed improved. But the question is: should it be the cause for us to reconsider and abolish the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act altogether or is it the effect of the success of these Temporary Provisions that reinforce our thinking that these provisions ought to continue? My assessement of the situation, Sir, is that we have been very fortunate to recover very quickly from the economic recession of 1985. There are jobs aplenty, many of our Singaporeans are gainfully employed. We need time to allow our economy to develop further and that this becomes institutionalized and that this problem of crime in Singapore will be under control. It is my submission that the present pleasant situation has to be allowed to settle and get entrenched in our society. Singaporeans will support this Bill because we believe it is a small price that we have to pay in the interest of the large majority of Singaporeans. Singapore is a safe country. It is this particular feature that we are all proud of and I believe all of us can support this Bill because we desire the continued safety of our country.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Members who have spoken and if I may respond to some of the points. Dr Ho Tat Kin asked about the safeguards and whether we periodically review the safeguards and the answer to that is yes. We do it in two ways. Firstly, I personally meet with the Chairmen and members of the various Advisory Committees not only in criminal law but also Drug Review Committees and others who are associated with various aspects of law enforcement agency to obtain feedback and criticisms and they have given us suggestions from time to time. Secondly, we also appoint committees to look into how we can better administer the Act and, only recently in the past two to three years, we appointed a committee chaired by a former Permanent Secretary, other members being drawn from legal practitioners as well as Justices of the Peace who have also examined the workings of the criminal law system and they have interviewed many people and have given their suggestions. I would like also to say that we take the views of the Advisory Committees very seriously and when they give their views on any particular case and if they feel that the person should be released or instead of detention they should be converted to police supervision, these are fully deliberated in Cabinet and their views and recommendations seriously considered. The NCMP's criticism of the Bill and his call for its abolition is contradicted by his own speech. Throughout the speech he applauded the relative crime-free state in Singapore. Crime rate has gone down, secret society activities have been brought down. His conclusion is that we should therefore abolish it. My response to that is, as Mr Loh Meng See has very vividly put it, if this is the pleasant state of affairs, it is precisely because the Government had the foresight and the political will to take tough measures such as the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act. If secret society activities have come down, it is because fear has been struck yes, indeed fear has been struck but not in political opponents - but fear has been struck in the hearts of criminal elements, and I make no apologies for that. That is the way to govern. Other countries take an opposite course. They cannot prosecute in a court so their option is let them loose on the streets. When you do that, this is what you have. Two days ago on BBC - I think it is worthwhile reminding ourselves what happens in other countries - this is from BBC two nights ago and I quote from News Desk: 'Murder of a woman Judge in Columbia has prompted a nation-wide strike by Judges. They want the government to take stronger steps to deal with drug-related crime and to give them more protection. The 24-hour strike by Columbian Judges is not the first of its kind. In the last 10 years, dozens of judges investigating narcotic cases have been murdered by drug traffickers. The Judge who was killed, Judge Maria Elena Daiz, was investigating the massacre of plantation workers by a group suspected to be the largest cocaine ring. She refused to revoke the warrant. Shortly afterwards, she and two of her police escorts were shot dead by gunmen.' This is perhaps an extreme example. Colleagues in the House who have travelled to various countries will know that in many countries, including "civilized" countries which the NCMP mentioned, it is not safe to walk on the streets at night and in some places even during day time. Here, tourists and visitors readily applaud the fact that they feel safe and secure and our people feel safe and secure. The best testimony and the best reasons for the continuation of the Act are indeed the reasons given by the NCMP, ie, we have achieved a relative degree of security, peace and safety and we must continue with that. If you abolish this Act, what signals are you giving? A clear signal to the drug trafficker and to the secret society elements is that now the only option is for the Government to get a court prosecution and therefore reprisals of witnesses, intimidation of witnesses, buying of witnesses, will lead to no prosecution and you will have a proliferation of both secret society and drug trafficking activities. The NCMP said that preventive detention in this form is a negation of the rule of law, not to be found in any civilized society. Mr Speaker, Sir, I meet from time to time with visiting delegations of law enforcement officers in other parts of the world. When they hear about our preventive detention laws, they tell me privately that how much they wished they could have this law in their country but, alas, they wring their hands in despair and said that the political lobbyists and the human rights lobbyists are so powerful that they will never be able to get this legislation through. But countries in our region are also aware and, far from deploring our legislation as a despicable act of departure from the rule of law, our Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act has in fact been cited as a model and from time to time ASEAN drug enforcement experts have urged governments to adopt such preventive detention. Indeed, the ASEAN Inter- Parliamentary Organization (AIPO) of which this Parliament is a member and participates, has repeatedly adopted resolutions to this effect and if I may quote a typical AIPO resolution. This is the resolution of the ASEAN Inter Parliamentary Organization's General Assembly: 'Urges ASEAN Governments to incorporate in their legislation governing narcotic drug abuse, the following features: (1) Preventive Detention on those suspected to be involved in drug trafficking.' Are these ASEAN Parliamentarians uncivilized? Surely they know what they are talking about. Sir, let me now go to the points raised by Mr Shanmugam. I understand that from the purist legal approach, this surely must nag the conscience of any constitutional lawyer. So when he asked, and I think the NCMP asked, is "temporary provisions" a misnomer? In a sense yes. Maybe the Chairman of the GCP is right - change it! But would that be right? I do not think so. We need to have this law so long as the problem exists, so long as you want to be sure that it does not rear its ugly head and go back to the days of the 1950's. But why do we come to Parliament every five years? It will be far easier, is it not, since Government has the majority, to make an amendment so that we do not have to come back to Parliament every five years to justify. It will save the Minister for Home Affairs a lot of work. But I think that is wrong. This detention is a departure from the normal processes. We recognize that. And because it is, I think it is right that we come, explain to this House and get the House's approval and endorsement for its continuation for another five years. Mr Shanmugam asked, when can we do away with it? My answer to that would be: we can do away with it when we are satisfied that both the secret society component of our objective and the drug traffic component of our objective are reduced to such small proportions that we can safely say that we do not need this to control both aspects. But, as I said, while the secret society element has come down, the drug trafficking aspect has gone up. I must correct Mr Shanmugam's impression that because we are prosperous and stable perhaps we can do away with it. True, the secret society element incidents have come down, but we will be misleading ourselves to think that we do not have these events. I think you just look at the newspapers. There is no dearth of incidents being reported where for just a simple staring incident, a whole gang descends on the suspected starer and knives, choppers, bearing scrapers, batons studded with nails are used to mercilessly attack the victim as well as others who are nearby. Let me just take one typical example of the problem that confronts us - 23rd May 1989, a recent example. It was in Redhill Close. I am not sure whose constituency is that. A male Chinese was seen running near Redhill Lane Market pursued by six to seven male persons armed with wooden poles and knives. They caught up with him, slashed him. He died. The dead person was a fighter of a Sio Ang Koon Secret Society of the 24 group operating in Redhill Lane Market Centre. He was a former criminal law supervisee. Investigations showed that he had a misunderstanding with a member of a rival gang. As a result of the misunderstanding, the fight occurred between two rival gangs. 23rd May 1989, 2 am, the deceased was with some of his gang members drinking at a stall when his rival gang members pounced on him. I have a whole file replete with such examples, including examples where the gang descends for a revenge, and even innocent people sitting at nearby tables are attacked, slashed, and even killed on a blunderbuss type of approach. So this is the real world in which we have to view such laws. He has suggested the point that police ought not view the Criminal Law Act as a convenient way out. I agree with him. Because if they did that, it will be a serious abuse. But it is not. As far as the police submissions for detention orders, in 1988 1,293 offenders of major crimes were prosecuted in the court. It was only 73 persons who were dealt with under detention orders. Likewise, drug cases, in 1987 there were 340 court prosecutions, and only 157 detention orders. Sir, the position of the Ministry, the position of the Police and the position of the Central Narcotics Bureau is clear. From a point of view of public impact and deterrence, we would far prefer to have court prosecutions because there is publicity and the publicity makes an impact. Criminal law detention might deter the individual but there is very little publicity. It is only when we cannot prosecute that we will have to refer to provisions of the CLTPA. It is not a question of the Asian psyche of being unwilling to testify in court. It is the terror which drug traffickers and secret society elements instil in the minds and hearts of potential witnesses. So, much as he appears to have merit in his argument that let the review be in the hands of the judge, we still have to tackle the question as to how to overcome this problem. Because if you have this being reviewed in a court, surely they must follow the rules of evidence, surely the detainee must confront his accusers and witnesses. Once that happens, none of them are going to come forward and give any evidence. So that will be an exercise in futility. Even if it is held in camera, it only means that there is no press, there is no audience but no secret society member and no victim is going to come and give evidence. Sir, if I may mention from my personal experience, and this goes back some time, I used to work as a reporter in a newspaper and I was on the crime beat. We had a tip-off that there was a gangland clash. The photographer and I arrived at the scene in Chinatown. The killing was over, the dead victim was on the street, body covered, the wife and children were crying away. Police were interviewing them, reporters were trying to interview them. They would not say a word. But they said, please catch so and so. They knew where he was and gave us the details. If that situation ceases to exist in Singapore, then I can say maybe this Act will have a short life-span. But if it continues to exist, I ask Members to seriously consider whether they opt to have a situation where it is better that we have this law and we lock out 1,200 or so persons or would you, your families, sleep better if they were released on the streets tomorrow.

Clarification, Sir. The Minister says that I have contradicted myself. I do not think so. What he is trying to tell us is that because there is a good crime situation today, that is entirely because of the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act. What I am suggesting to him is that the situation is good and it is not necessary to have such a law because, in the first place, such laws are only used when there is a bad crime situation. Has he ever tried, for example, to see what sort of crime a situation there is if no detendtion orders are issued? Has he compared the results? If he says the ASEAN Parliamentarians have recommended detention without trial, have these countries really implemented that law? In which case, how can he bring that example to show that we need such a law?

I do not want to be repetitious, Sir. He has missed my point. The point that he has to consider is, does he want 1,200 who are in detention to be released? Is he seriously suggesting that? Secondly, I have cited AIPO resolution to show that our legislation is a source of inspiration to others. As to others who have implemented, I believe India has preventive detention, I believe Malaysia has. And if he wants to ask how many other countires, he can file a question, I will give him further information.

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.

On behalf of hon. Members, I extend a warm welcome to His Excellency Mr Munawir Sjadzali, Minister for Religious Affairs of the Republic of Indonesia, who is present in our Gallery. [Applause].

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move the motion* standing in my name. *The motion, standing in the names of Dr Hong Hai and Encik Yatiman Yusof, reads as follows: That this House appoints a Select Committee to conduct public hearings on Singapore's land transportation policy with the following terms of reference: (i) to examine the need for measures to curb road usage and the effectiveness and appropriateness of measures currently in force; (ii) to examine current policies for controlling the population of motor vehicles; (iii) to study the role of taxis in the national transportation system and to examine the need for regulating the taxi population and taxi fares; (iv) to assess the adequacy of the public transportation system; (v) to consider any other policy or measure pertaining to land transportation as the Select Committee deems appropriate; and (vi) to make recommendations. Sir, the House will recall that in the previous sitting, I called for the GPC for Communications and Information to hold public hearings on land transportation policy in Singapore. My GPC felt then that land transportation had become not only an issue of national importance, but also one over which strong opinions and indeed strong emotions were being expressed by the public. We felt then that public hearings could serve to educate not only the public but also the Government as to the complexity and sensitivity of the problems associated with land transportation. We also hope that the hearings would be able to bring forth fresh ideas for a solution to these problems. Sir, in the months that have passed since we proposed the hearings, there has been more evidence than ever of the need for these hearings. Letters to the press continue to pour in. One would think that everyone in Singapore was an expert on land transportation. And indeed there is an element of truth in it. This is because everyone in Singapore is a user of roads or the MRT and his personal experience makes him an expert on his particular aspect of the transportation problem. Sir, it is because we believe that members of the public have useful contributions to make to solving our transportation problems that my GPC would like to hold the proposed public hearings. We are proposing to use the format of a Select Committee of Parliament for this particular hearing because a Select Committee would give us latitude for widening the composition of the Committee which we hope would include not only my GPC members but also a member of the opposition bench. The Select Committee would the rules of formality and conduct that could be useful in achieving a fruitful exchange of ideas on an issue that has attracted so much public interest. Finally, Sir, I would like to say a few words about the terms of reference of the Select Committee. As a practical matter, it would not be realistic for the Committee to cover all or even most aspects of land transportation in Singapore. What we have done has been to highlight under items (i) to (iv) some of the more prominent issues - car usage, car population, taxis and the adequacy of the public transportation system. Item (v) gives the Select Committee the flexibility to include other important issues that could crop up in the course of its deliberations. Sir, it would also be useful for the Committee to focus on some specific questions. The following three questions among others could be considered in depth: First, is taxation the best way to limit the car population? Should we move to a quota system by which the government fixes the number of cars and lets the market fix the price? In other words, you can buy a car only if you scrap your existing car or buy a car to scrap or buy a licence to purchase a car. These licences would be auctioned by the Government from time to time. The quota can be increased periodically depending on the capacaity of the road system to absorb increases in the car population. This idea of a quota system was mooted at the recent Minister-SAFRA marathon dialogue last Saturday. I think it is worthy of further consideration. Second, evening ALS. This is a controversial matter. The question is: have we gone from the frying pan to the fire? The Ministry says no. Many commuters say yes. Because the jam apparently has moved from the CBD to the ring roads and the highways. The result is that some think they take more time than before to get home. Perhaps it is only a vocal minority who have experienced this. But it should be looked into. Third, Sir, feeder services to private estates. The MRT was built with two main objectives; to get motorists off the road and to slow down the growth in buses which also cause road congestion. The bus-MRT integration scheme will help achieve the second objective. But the first objective will not be met unless convenient feeder services are available to private estates where the bulk of motorists live. Sir, I hope hon. Members of this House will support the motion.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the motion moved by the Member for Bedok GRC, the Chairman of the GPC for Communications and Information. At the outset, let me first restate the long accepted fact that through our roads and streets run the very life line of Singapore's economy. Clog it in some intersections, it will cause a "stroke". A massive jam will cause a temporary paralysis. Turn such massive jams into norms of our road, it will be fatal to our economy. The effect of our traffic jams will not be confined merely to roadusers. It will also spill over and upset the smooth running of the air and sea ports which in turn will disrupt arrivals and departures of our tourists, investors and businessmen, delay the handling and transfer of our cargoes, hence undermining our capacity as an efficient centre for distributors and the region beyond. As our manufacturing sector is very much dependent to a large extent on the steady flow of raw materials, half finished and fully finished products to and from other countries, regular traffic congestions will definitely cause a decline to our exports, thus affecting our economic growth. It is for this reason that the terms of reference for the motion covers the qualitative as well as the quantitative aspect of the problem, as explained by Dr Hong Hai, and also the long-term strategies that we need to adopt to put the problem under control. Sir, we must examine the need for measures to curb road usage and the effectiveness and appropriateness of measures currently in force. In addition, we need to consider alternative measures. Based on previous public debates on this issue, Singaporeans generally agree on the need to control road usage. However, when it comes to specific measures, there is always a diversity of opinions. Are current measures taken to control road usage sufficient and effective? Are they appropriate? Well, some are effective but are considered inappropriate. Some seem to be appropriate but are ruled as ineffective. We have to take this discussion into the open. Sir, we must also examine current policies for controlling the population of motor vehicles and, if possible, come out with better alternatives to such policies. In doing so, we have to be bold in our thinking if we truly want to be successful in our search for alternative policies. We have to ask many questions. Has the current policy approach using price mechanisms been effective in curbing the growth of the motor vehicle population? Or can we introduce a different policy such as the one practised in Japan by controlling it through, eg, the availability of car parks? We have applied this approach at least partially in our new housing estates. The HDB is changing its car park ratio per block. Could we then extend it to the CBD? Is it desirable for us to be drastic enough to ask for a review to the existing building requirements by giving the option, or even incentive, for the building owners to convert the existing multi-storey car park to that of office spaces? All these questions would be answered through a Select Committee hearing. This approach is based on the simple notion that car owners will not drive their vehicles into the CBD if there are not enough car parks. We have made it expensive to park cars in the CBD but they are still affordable. Why not make car parks extremely scarce so that the car park charge is so ridiculously exorbitant that people would not drive into the CBD? Such possibilities need to be aired publicly and response obtained from the public. Sir, in introducing the terms of reference, we are also fully aware of the current effort made by the Minister for Communications and Information to initiate and encourage dialogues amongst those affected. We are also fully appraised by discussions taking place in the mass media regarding this issue which Dr Hong Hai had earlier elaborated. Let us invite all the experts and the so-called experts to participate in our Select Committee. On that note, Sir, I support the motion.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not oppose the motion except that I am a little curious. I would like to seek some clarification from the movers of the motion as to why it is necessary to have this Select Committee, especially after the Minister had a 6-hour marathon session which was publicly aired. And there has been sufficient feedback on the various policies and the Minister is not budging his ground. So I am really wonderingwhat more this Select Committee can do.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think this question is better answered by the Minister concerned. But for what it is worth, I was present for a short time at the invitation of the Minister at the marathon dialogue. I did notice that most of the audience were SAFRA members and the press. So it was a more limited audience than what we have in mind for the Select Committee hearings. The Minister was very lucid and very persuasive. But if I may make a comparison, he was a little bit like a pastor on Sunday morning, preaching to the converted.

Sir, I do not intend to go on for six hours. I support the motion. I disagree with Mr Chandra Das. I think there is value in having more points of view. For six hours we talked and talked and talked. But I suspect that there are lots of other Singaporeans who would also like to talk about the subject. I think it would be a good move. The members of SAFRA were part of the policy gaming committee. They formed two groups, two Cabinets as it were. They spent more than two months each studying the problems of land transport. They had briefings from the various Ministries that were involved in public transportation, PWD, ROV, the various agencies, and various organizations such as SBS, SMRT and MRTC. With the appropriate background, with the appropriate facts at their disposal and all the data made available to them, they studied the problem for more than 2(r) months. In effect, they represent the most knowledgeable of all laymen in Singapore on land transport. My Ministry also invited the representatives from the media. They have been covering the transportation beat. They know the arguments backwards and for- wards because they have been covering it for a long time. At the end of six hours, nothing was left to clarify. But these are people who have spent a lot of their time on this particular subject. I am sure there are lots of other Singaporeans who wish to give their views. Sir, I need to remind Members of the House that those present at the dialogue session were not only just airing their points of view because we did encourage the media to go out and collect questions, collect ideas, collect suggestions, from the general members of the public. The media had indeed been very supportive. A lot of people had given valuable points, suggestions, feedback, by the hotline. Some of them wrote in. Some wrote fairly long letters as I am told. We collected well over 100 of such proposals and suggestions and points of view. These were grouped into the various categories and brought up by the members of the media and we had a very thorough discussion. Notwithstanding, I think the open hearing by the Select Committee will permit others who have not had the opportunity of putting their views across to do so and we will have another independent group of experts to look into the problem. I welcome that.

( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion raised by Dr Hong Hai urging Parliament to set up a Select Committee to conduct public hearings on our road transportation policy with six terms of reference. I support the motion for the following three reasons. First, undeniably the tackling of land transportation is a very important task in Singapore. Just as Mr Yatiman has stated earlier land transportation policy plays a very important role in our economic development. This is because land transportation policy has a great deal to do with the use of our land resources, as it directly affects the speed of turnover of our commercial and industrial goods, business activities and even our attractiveness for foreign travellers and tourists to visit Singapore. Also it has a direct impact on the lifestyle and consumption habit of our people. It has become a matter of great concern to all our people. Therefore, it is something which calls for our careful consideration and handling with full discussion in order to work out effective solutions. Secondly, the appointment of a Select Committee would enable more Members of Parliament to take part in this task beyond the membership of the GPC on Communications and Information. Thus, with the participation and contribution of more MPs, we would have a stronger committee which would be able to complete and achieve its tasks more effectively. Thirdly, the setting up of the Select Committee will give it a proper standing with proper mandate to proceed with this task so that it can study, research and work on the problems more extensively, more comprehensively, more thoroughly and in-depth concerning problems of all aspects of land transportation. This is why there are six terms of reference clearly listed in the motion. These terms of reference embrace all questions and matters that would merit the discussion by the committee and also authorize the Select Committee to make recommendations. Mr Speaker, Sir, in view of the reasons I have stated above, I believe this motion will certainly be supported by the Parliament.

I thank Members for their support.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this House appoints a Select Committee to conduct public hearings on Singapore's land transportation policy with the following terms of reference: (i) to examine the need for measures to curb road usage and the effectiveness and appropriateness of measures currently in force; (ii) to examine current policies for controlling the population of motor vehicles; (iii) to study the role of taxis in the national transportation system and to examine the need for regulating the taxi population and taxi fares; (iv) to assess the adequacy of the public transportation system; (v) to consider any other policy or measure pertaining to land transportation as the Select Committee deems appropriate; and (vi) to make recommendations.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed.

Mr Chiam, I understand that you will not be speaking on the motion.

Yes. Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed." - [Mr Wong Kan Seng]. Adjourned accordingly at Twenty Minutes past Four o'clock pm to a date to be fixed.

asked the Acting Minister for Health what kinds of information will be stored in the MEDINET system; who will be its major users; and what safeguards for confidentiality will be built into the system.

MediNet is a proposed computer network linking public and the private sector participants in the health care delivery system. The objectives of MediNet are to reduce the cost and turnaround time for the preparation, transmission and processing of health care information, and to facilitate a better understanding of the utilisation of health services, and to enable faster access to health information. This would contribute to higher productivity, better patient care and help slow down cost increases. A MediNet Steering Committee, comprising representatives from government and private hospitals, various government agencies, professional and trade associations, has been formed to look into the feasibility, requirement specifications and other issues related to the implementation of a nationwide medical network, including confidentiality and data access rights to sensitive information. The kinds of information being considered for storage or processing by MediNet System will include Medisave claims data, health notifications for immunisations and communicable diseases, etc, patients' medical information, drug and surgical supplies data and general medical information databases which will facilitate healthcare planning, patient treatment and research. It is envisaged that the major users of the network will include government agencies eg. Ministry of Health, Ministry of the Environment, Ministry of Labour, CPF Board; government and private hospitals, clinics and pharmacies; medical and surgical suppliers; medical associations and research organisations eg. NUS and insurance companies. To safeguard confidentiality of data, there will be stringent procedural as well as system controls. Procedural control will include proper and documented work procedures and clear definitions of types of access based on user's job functions and responsibilities. System access control will include use of authorised and predefined terminals, multiple levels of passwords for access and audit trail to enable trace back for subsequent external or internal audit review. Access to patient data will be further safeguarded by an appropriate form of personal authorization. The MediNet Steering Committee is expected to complete the studies and submit its recommendations by the end of this year.

asked the Acting Minister for Health if he will give the number of cases seen at the National Skin Centre since its operation and whether the charges are reasonable to encourage the use of its services.

Up to June 1989, the National Skin Centre (NSC) had seen a total of 74.465 cases. Monthly patient attendance increased from 7,580 in December 1988 to 11,600 in June 1989. The present workload of NSC is about 92% of that in the old Middle Road Hospital (MRH). Subsidised patients, i.e. those referred by Government doctors, pay an average of $25 per attendance at the NSC, compared to $22 in MRH previously. This includes $15 for the consultation, and $10 for the laboratory investigation, treatment and an average of four weeks of medication. Those who cannot afford to pay have their fees waived. The number of subsidised attendances has remained fairly stable at about 6,500 per month. About 8% of them are treated free. Non-subsidised patients pay an average of $53 per attendance. Their numbers have increased steadily from 2,183 in December 1988 to 4,949 in June 1989. This shows that the charges are reasonable and the patients feel that they are getting value for money. table - Average Hospital Bill Size Per Patient Day, Comparative Average Bill Size (Cols. 481 - 482)