Hansard, 1991-05-07

Under the provisions of clause 2(d) of Article 46 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, the following Members have been granted permission to be or to remain absent from sittings of Parliament (or any Committee of Parliament to which they have been appointed) for the periods stated:- Dr Ong Chit Chung - from 29th to 30th March, 1991. Mr Ng Kah Ting - from 30th March to 4th April, 1991. Encik Yatiman Yusof - from 31st March to 6th April, 1991. Mr Philip Tan Tee Yong - from 3rd to 6th April and from 8th to 12th May, 1991. Dr Wong Kwei Cheong - from 4th to 9th April, from 29th April to 4th May and from 10th to 14th May, 1991. Dr Hong Hai - from 5th to 15th April and from 3rd to 10th May, 1991. Dr Hu Tsu Tau, Richard - from 6th to 8th April and from 18th to 20th April, 1991. Dr Augustine H. H. Tan - from 7th to 9th April, from 23rd May to 7th June and from 24th to 25th June, 1991. Mr Mah Bow Tan - from 9th to 13th April, 1991. Mr Bernard Chen - from 9th to 18th April, 1991. Mr Wong Kan Seng - from 11th to 12th April and from 30th April to 1st May, 1991. Dr Lee Boon Yang - from 11th to 12th April and from 30th April to 1st May, 1991. Mr Peter Sung - from 11th to 12th April and from 2nd to 17th May, 1991. Mr Lim Chee Onn - from 12th to 13th April and from 26th to 30th April, 1991. Mr Eugene Yap Giau Cheng - from 13th to 20th April, 1991. Dr Tay Eng Soon - from 13th to 29th April, 1991. Dr Low Seow Chay - from 14th to 20th April and from 1st September, 1991 to 29th February, 1992. Mr Ng Pock Too - from 14th to 16th April, from 18th to 20th April, from 25th to 29th April and from 4th to 11th May, 1991. Mr Lee Yock Suan - from 17th to 27th April, 1991. Mr Tan Soo Khoon - from 17th April to 4th May, 1991. Mr S. Chandra Das - from 18th to 21st April, on 29th April and from 7th to 12th May, 1991. Dr Yeo Ning Hong - from 19th to 20th April and from 28th to 29th April, 1991. Dr Ahmad Mattar - from 21st April to 3rd May, 1991. Mr Chay Wai Chuen - from 22nd to 25th April, 1991. Dr Koh Lip Lin - from 25th April to 21st May, 1991. BG George Yong-Boon Yeo - from 25th to 26th April, 1991. Mr Choo Wee Khiang - from 29th April to 3rd May, 1991. Mr Ch'ng Jit Koon - from 30th April to 4th May, 1991. Encik Zulkifli bin Mohammed - from 30th April to 1st May, 1991. Mr Ho Kah Leong - from 30th April to 4th May, 1991. Mr Charles Chong - from 30th April to 1st May, 1991. Mr Chiam See Tong - from 1st to 31st May, 1991. Mr Heng Chiang Meng - from 2nd to 17th May, 1991. Mr Leong Chee Whye - from 2nd to 8th May, 1991. Mr Yeo Toon Chia - from 2nd to 6th May, 1991. BG Lee Hsien Loong - from 2nd to 17th May, 1991. Mr Davinder Singh - from 2nd to 14th May, 1991. Mr Peh Chin Hua - from 2nd to 17th May, 1991. Dr Aline K. Wong - from 4th to 16th May, 1991. Dr Tan Cheng Bock - from 8th to 25th May, 1991. Mr Ong Teng Cheong - from 11th to 31st May, 1991. Mr Chua Sian Chin - from 17th May to 9th June, 1991. Mr Sia Khoon Seong - from 27th to 31st May and from 10th June to 8th July, 1991. Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon - from 15th June to 6th July, 1991. 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: 23 March 1991 (i) Supply Bill 1991; (ii) Supplementary Supply Bill 1991; and (iii) Customs (Amendment No. 2) Bill 1991. 28 March 1991 (i) Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill 1991; and (ii) Nanyang Technological University Bill 1991. TAN SOO KHOON Speaker Parliament of Singapore

asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Defence whether he will consider extending the validity period of the passports of reservists from two years to ten years, the same as for non-reservists.

Question No. 1. Sir, I would like to declare my interest as a reservist.

Mr Speaker, Sir, for operational reasons, it is essential for MINDEF to know where our reservists are so that we can recall them at short notice. This is a major consideration when deciding on the validity period of reservists' passports. We must be certain that reservists can be reached when they are needed. Hence, reservists must inform their units when they go overseas. At present, they can leave Singapore for up to six months at a time without applying for an Exit Permit. The computerised immigration system set up last year by the Immigration Department will help in keeping track of reservists who do not come back within six months of being away. MINDEF recognises that our operational requirement will inconvenience the small number of reservists who travel regularly. Therefore, in June last year, MINDEF extended the validity of passports of reservists from one to two years. We have also set up a counter at SAFRA where reservists can extend their passports in addition to applying for Exit Permits, ie, if they are going away for more than six months. The counter is open beyond office hours, in the evening on weekdays and the afternoons on Saturdays, to make it convenient for reservists.

Sir, is the Senior Minister of State aware that reservists are already required to inform their units when they travel overseas? If they travel for more than six months, they have to apply for an Exit Permit. Is this not enough to help MINDEF to maintain their operational readiness without having to put a limit of two years on the validity of the passport?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am aware that if they travel out of Singapore for less than six months they do not need an Exit Permit but they have to inform their units. Nonetheless, MINDEF still feels that at this point of time the two-year validity is required in order to maintain the operational readiness.

Another supplementary question, Sir. From personal experience, if you have a passport which is only valid for, say, one year and you travel abroad, the foreign immigration officials do not know what the abbreviation "NSR" in the passport means. Sometimes, they view you with a lot of suspicion and may think that you are some undesirable character whose passport has been limited to just one or two years. Could MINDEF think of some way of making the abbreviation clearer or stating it clearly in the passport the status of the reservist?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the present validity of reservists' passports is two years. But I thank the Member for bringing up this point about the inconvenience faced by some reservists at foreign immigration check- points. I will ask MINDEF to consult the Immigration Department on the possibility of inserting a clear explanation in the passports of reservists. For instance, we could insert a statement to say that the holder of the passport is a national service reservist and the passport of the reservist is limited to two years' validity only. This should allay his fear that reservists travelling abroad will be viewed with suspicion by foreign immigration official.

The following Question stood in the name of Mr Chiam See Tong - 2. To ask the Minister for National Development (a) how many PAP education centres are there in Housing and Development Board estates; (b) what is the total area of floor space occupied by them; (c) what is the total number of children attending the kindergarten classes in these centres; and (d) what are these education centres allowed to be used for other than holding kindergarten classes.

Question No. 2, Sir.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as at 1st March 1991, there were 220 void deck premises that were let out to Education Centres operated by the PAP Community Foundation. The total floor area occupied by the 220 Education Centres is approximately 58,400 square metres. HDB does not request or keep records on the number of children attending the kindergarten classes operated by the tenant. The terms of the lease to PAP Community Foundation provide for the Foundation to allow other organisations to use the Centres up to a maximum of 20% of the total operational hours for non-profit making and non-religious purposes.

asked the Minister for National Development whether Eu Court along Stamford Road is to be conserved and, if not, why was one million dollars spent to repair and paint a building when it is to be demolished after one year's use.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Eu Court will be demolished to make way for the new two-way Part VIII and Part VII lane carriageway road system starting from Neil Road to Kallang River. This system involves the widening of New Bridge Road, Hill Street, Victoria Street and Kallang Road. The scheme has already been completed from Neil Road to Coleman Street and from Lavender Street to Kallang River. Other sections are presently under construction. In the construction programme, the widening of the Hill Street section is expected to be finished some time in 1992. The decision to renovate Eu Court was taken in March 1988 when it was known that the widening of Hill Street section would be delayed by 4-5 years because of certain land acquisition problems. Minor renovations costing about $920,000 were carried out to prevent the building from deteriorating further and becoming a fire hazard. The intention was to rent out the building in the interim period before the building was required to be demolished for road widening. It was estimated, at the time that the decision was taken to renovate the building, that the building could be rented for about 2-3 years which was more than enough to recover the cost of renovation. Under the plan to renovate Eu Court, the building was expected to be renovated and leased out by June 1989, thus giving two and a half years of rental income before demolition of the building at the end of 1991. Renovation started according to schedule but was held up because there were still some old tenants in Eu Court who could not be resettled according to the programme. Renovation was only completed in July 1990 and the building was rented out in December 1990. Although the present plans on the road widening will require the building to be demolished in early 1992, there is a great likelihood that the building could be rented out until mid-1992 before it is cleared for demolition. The present net rental of the building is $500,000 a year. At this rental, we should be able to recover about 80% of the cost of renovation before the building is demolished. It is regrettable that not all the costs of renovation can be recovered. On hindsight, URA's schedule for renovation and lease did not provide a sufficient margin for slippage in the execution of the programme. If there is any similar interim-use project in the future, more care will be taken to ensure that all contingencies are taken into account. In summary, when the decision to renovate was taken in 1988, the study on economic viability clearly showed that the cost of renovation would be recovered well before the building was required to be demolished. But problems in implementation shortened the period that the building could be rented out.

Sir, do I take it from the Minister that between February 1984 when Eu Court was acquired and September 1990 when it was upgraded at a cost of $1 million, ie, a period of six years, the Ministry of National Development did not consider conserving Eu Court, like the way they have conserved Stamford House? Can I take it that the Ministry was looking at the issue purely from the transport angle and that conservation came into the picture as an after-thought? Is it really necessary to widen Hill Street and were other options explored? If Hill Street was to be widened, why not demolish Stamford House rather than Eu Court? How will demolishing Eu Court improve the traffic congestion in that area? We have already taken measures to contain traffic into the city ---

Dr Tan, are you making a speech?

No, I am not. I am going to ask more questions.

Ask your question.

I will ask the other questions later.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Eu Court was acquired as part of a road widening programme. It is correct that when it was acquired conservation was not the objective. It was meant to be cleared to widen the road system that I mentioned. This does not mean that conservation was not considered at all. It was considered and we had to rule it out for reasons that I will explain. Sir, the question of Eu Court and whether it should be cleared raises wider questions and, as the Member has asked, is it really necessary to widen Hill Street? I think the implication is whether it is really necessary to continue with road widening projects like the Hill Street widening project. Members will recall that I have made many statements in this House before that the solution to our traffic problem does not lie in road widening and construction. I have also stated that we cannot keep on widening roads by taking away people's homes, gardens and knocking down old buildings. Roads already occupy 11% of land in Singapore as a whole and 21% of the land within the central area. So roads occupy a very substantial part of the land. Compare this with the 11% of the land that is taken up by housing in Singapore as a whole and 40% of the land within the central area that is taken up by buildings, we can see quite clearly that there are very severe limits to increasing traffic capacity by widening or building new roads. We just cannot keep on widening or building new roads. Our traffic problem has to be addressed with two sets of measures and Members are familiar with at least one set, ie, controlling the growth of the car population. The second set of measures relates to making better use of existing roads and minimising the need to widen roads or even constructing new roads within the city area. Of course, outside the city, we will still be building new roads to connect new population centres. Members are familiar with the various measures that have been introduced and that will be introduced to control the growth of the car population. I need not elaborate on this further except to say that many of the people who deplore the proposal to demolish Eu Court on the grounds that priority should be given to people rather than cars, are less vocal when it comes to measures to control the car population. Controlling the car population does not mean zero growth, at least for the moment. We have to plan for some growth, though a moderate growth. Planning for growth means that we cannot entirely avoid building new roads and widening old roads. But in planning for roads within the central area, PWD has been given clear instructions that its energies and resources should be focused on putting in systems that will increase the capacity of the existing roads rather than widening or building new roads. These will include measures like computer-controlled traffic lights and depressed junctions to increase flow of traffic, remote-controlled cameras to stringently enforce "No Waiting" and "No Parking" zones and other such measures. Electronic Road Pricing is an evolving technology that we shall introduce, when appropriate. The Public Works Department (PWD) is also embarking on a technical and economic feasibility study to build tunnel-roads, which will have a less-damaging impact on the environment and help to take traffic through sections of the city without clogging up the surface roads. But this is an expensive solution. One kilometre of a tunnel-road (3 lanes) costs $50 million compared to $2.5 million for a surface road. This, of course, excludes land costs. Tunnel-roads become much more attractive when we impute the land costs for surface roads. There will be no more substantial widening of roads within the city. Though traffic demand within the city area will increase, we cannot meet this by widening or building new roads. We have to adopt the other measures I have mentioned, ration the use of the roads, and even subject those who insist on using the city roads to suffer more congestion. Since we have decided not to widen roads within the city area, PWD has abandoned a proposal to widen North Bridge Road and South Bridge Road to a dual carriageway 6-lane highway. From a purely transportation planner's view, it would be ideal to have another east-west arterial road parallel to the widened New Bridge Road, Hill Street, Victoria Street system. But this would mean knocking down many buildings within the city. By giving up this proposal, the old shophouses in Chinatown, Boat Quay and Kampong Glam can be conserved. Let me now take up the subject of the widening of Hill Street and Victoria Street. Hill Street, together with New Bridge Road, Victoria Street and Kallang Road, forms a very important traffic corridor linking the city and the eastern part of Singapore. There is now no serious traffic problem along this corridor, and therefore people are not able to see the need for widening this corridor. One of the difficulties that is inherent in trying to nip anticipated problems is that people generally do not see the need for preventive measures. They are better able to see the need when the problem becomes acute, but this has never been the approach to public policy in Singapore. We try to anticipate and plan well ahead, even though this sometimes causes problem for the Government in that we have to do much more explanation and persuasion to make a policy understood and acceptable. PWD's transportation studies show that it is essential to widen and improve this traffic corridor, that is New Bridge Road, Hill Street, Victoria Street and Kallang Road, in order to cater for the increasing traffic demand that is expected. But as I have stated, a parallel proposal to widen North Bridge Road and South Bridge Road has been abandoned in order to keep such works within the city area to the minimum. We have already widened the stretch from Neil Road to Coleman Street in the western end and we have also widened the stretch from Lavender Street to Kallang River in the eastern end of this corridor. Land has also been cleared for the construction of the stretch from Bras Basah Road to Lavender Street. $37 million has been spent to widen the road on the eastern and western parts of this system. We cannot allow this investment to be wasted by retaining the bottleneck from Coleman Street to Bras Basah Road. It will be a waste of public funds, and traffic flow will also be seriously affected if this bottleneck is not removed and the dual carriageway system from Neil Road to Kallang not completed. The question is: Is there an alternative for connection from Coleman Street to Bras Basah Road? An alternative was explored to divert part of the traffic to Armenian Street and Queen Street before rejoining Victoria Street via Middle Road. This alternative is inferior both from the traffic and environmental points of view. It will require the demolition of, for example, the Tao Nan School which we hope to conserve and also the Substation which is now an active centre for cultural use by the Practice Performing Arts Centre Limited. Such an alternative will also have very adverse effects on the use of the conserved St Joseph's Institution as an art gallery. It will cause degradation of the environment along Armenian and Queen Streets, will require the widening of Middle Road to seven lanes to handle the heavy traffic flows and will require the diversion of established bus routes. For all these reasons, it is not an alternative that should be considered seriously. The next question is, as the Member has raised, if the stretch from Coleman Street to Bras Basah Road has to be widened, which building at the Stamford Road junction should be demolished? Should it be Eu Court or Stamford House? We have examined both buildings very carefully. I have personally gone down, together with architects and engineers, to see the potentials of these two buildings. We decided to retain Stamford House and demolish Eu Court because, firstly, Stamford House has a more outstanding architectural style and most architects I have spoken to agree with this; and secondly, Stamford House has a greater potential to become an active and successful commercial centre. Perhaps I should explain a little bit about Stamford House and why it is considered superior to Eu Court for conservation. The 3-storey Stamford House was built in 1904 by one Mr Seth Paul. It was designed by R.A.J. Bidwell of Swan & Maclaren, the same person who designed the Raffles Hotel, the Goodwood Park Hotel and other architecturally outstanding buildings. Stamford House is an appealing, romantic architectural composition with its curved central pediment and two triangular ones at either end. Stamford House, with its elaborate ornamental mouldings and carvings, is typical of the High Victorian phase of architecture. It requires, of course, some imagination and knowledge of restoration to be able to see the potential in Stamford House. It is now much encrusted with all kinds of ad hoc improvements and looks drab and unattractive. But I have no doubt that when restored, Stamford House will be more outstanding than Eu Court. Another reason for selecting Stamford House is that it was designed and built for commercial purposes. Its layout and interior design are such that it can be easily upgraded into an impressive commercial centre with a second storey atrium. It has a void in the second storey which is very attractive. Stamford House is also closer to the MRT Station than Eu Court and we want to take full advantage of its prime location. Eu Court is also an attractive building but not as attractive as Stamford House. It is a 4-storey retail and residential building built in the 1930s by the wealthy businessman, Mr Eu Tong Sen. Its five-footway, narrow frontage of the individual units and the way the building turns the corner are characteristics of earlier shophouse design. It exhibits simple geometric details typical of the buildings of the Art Deco Period which spanned between World War I and World War II. Eu Court was designed with shops on the ground floor and residential flats on the upper floors. This residential design, in addition to Eu Court's "L" shaped layout, makes it very difficult to convert the building into as good a commercial centre as Stamford House. Hence, by conserving Stamford House rather than Eu Court, instead of the other way round, the land use in the area is optimised. The decision to demolish Eu Court was, therefore, not taken lightly. It would, of course, be ideal and perfect if we can conserve both Eu Court and Stamford House. But in life, we have to make hard choices and in planning the road system in Singapore, we have to make some very hard choices. Even within my own Ministry, there are different points of view and these differences have been debated long, seriously and even furiously. URA would like to keep Eu Court. There is no greater advocate than URA when it comes to conservation. In fact, URA has been far ahead in its conservation policy than the many who have now started to espouse this cause. But having weighed all the arguments, we had to regretfully conclude that Eu Court has to go. The east-west arterial system comprising New Bridge Road, Hill Street, Victoria Street and Kallang Road has to be completed even though it involves the demolition of Eu Court and the adjacent buildings. PWD, of course, has not been oblivious to the need to conserve old and attractive buildings that are part of our history and heritage. In determining the design and alignment of this road system from Neil Road to Kallang, every measure possible has been taken to conserve outstanding buildings along the route. The alignment has been designed to keep intact the Hill Street Police Barracks, which is an attractive building, the Central Fire Station, the Armenian Church, the Chinese Chamber of Commerce Building, the Convent of the Holy Infant Jesus and the Cathedral of the Good Shepherd. That such care has been taken to leave intact all these buildings is a reflection of the new consciousness to conserve old buildings. Fifteen or even 10 years ago, the approach would have been quite different and ruthless. These buildings would have just gone. But when all is said and done, we cannot have all that we want. I am satisfied that, under the circumstances, we have, in the solution that we have adopted, struck the best balance between road widening and conservation.

Order. I think it is appropriate for me to remind the House that Question Time should not be used to make long Ministerial statements. Neither is it appropriate for answers to be given to questions which have not even been asked.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would just like to ask the Minister that in this road widening scheme of Hill Street - I am looking at the road directory and I notice that there are so many buildings along this stretch of road - can I take it from the Minister that some of these buildings, like the St Joseph's Church, Ramada Hotel, St Anthony's Convent, US Embassy, Masonic Hall, and so on, would also have to go?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I must explain that I was not answering questions that were not asked. But there were implications in the questions which I had to answer, lest I had more supplementary questions. I was only trying to anticipate. To answer his question, no, all the buildings that have to go have already been removed. St Joseph's Church, St Anthony's Convent, a hotel that he mentioned, will all be kept. All the buildings along Victoria Street will be kept and the alignment of the road has been designed to keep all these buildings. Masonic Hall is in Armenian Street.

Mr Speaker, Sir, can I ask the Minister to clarify a point which he made in his long speech? If indeed the purpose is to subject motorists to some inconvenience by not expanding or building more roads in the city area, then why was there an announcement in the press recently to expand the PIE?

PIE does not run within the city area. What I said was that within the city area, we will minimise road widening and new road construc- tion. I did also say that new road construction may be necessary to join new population centres. The PIE is the Pan Island Expressway and most of it is built into new dual four-lane carriageway, but part of it is still based on old standard and we have to widen it. But it is not part of the city road network system.

Would the Minister agree that despite all the discussions and arguments in the Ministry, the Government could make mistakes and, in view of such possible mistakes and in the hope of lessening such mistakes, would the Government be prepared to hold an inquiry into the matter so that objections could be made and the Government's answers given in public so that we know how the decisions have been made?

I assume, Sir, that this answer that I am giving now is in public. The press is here. This is meant for Singaporeans to hear and it will also be on TV. On whether we make mistakes, we never claim to be infallible. Of course, we make mistakes. But if Dr Lee has got a specific mistake in mind, we can discuss it. On this particular subject, I have already explained clearly why Eu Court was acquired and why the road widening is necessary. That is not a mistake.

asked the Minister for National Development why is the Housing and Development Board duplicating the work of the Urban Redevelopment Authority in conducting land sales.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we have started to sell State land in HDB estates for private housing and commercial developments to enable the private sector to play a bigger role in the development of HDB new towns. Previously, HDB used to do everything. Now, we want the private sector to involve themselves in HDB new towns. Since the HDB plans all HDB estates, it is well placed to recommend to the Government suitable sites for sale according to the staging of developments for these estates. It is with this in mind that we decided to appoint the HDB as a land sales agent for the Government. The URA, on the other hand, has traditionally concentrated on the redevelopment of the Central Area. Sales of sites here are part of the urban redevelopment process. They are proposed by the URA to meet the planning intentions for the Central Area. Furthermore, more State land is being released now than in the past. There is a need to have at least two sales agents. We see this as a division of labour and not a duplication of work.

Sir, will the Minister not say that from the point of view of planning, implementation and control, one agency that specialises in land sales will still be more efficient and better for the people instead of duplicating this process?

Sir, the Member insists on using the word "duplication" rather than "division". Of course, planning for Singapore as a whole is still the responsibility of the URA. HDB submits its plans for new towns and estates to the URA and URA has the final say. But the actual phasing of development and the judgment as to when is the right time to sell, I think in the case of HDB new towns, it will be best known to HDB. As I said, since we are selling so many new sites and a lot of work is involved in selling new sites, we think it is best to have two agents. Maybe a time may well come when we need three agents. If we start selling industrial land, for example, JTC may have to be the agent. So it is not a duplication of work. It is a division of labour.

asked the Minister for the Environment when will the Government tender out wet market stalls which have been left vacant for many months.

Mr Speaker, Sir, stalls are being kept vacant for offer to stallholders in existing markets and food centres that are affected by redevelopment projects. We will consider tendering out some of these vacant stalls when we are more certain of demand for such resettlement purposes.

Sir, can the Minister tell this House how many markets and food centres are affected by redevelopment projects?

Mr Speaker, Sir, between now and 1996, some 20 markets and food centres will be phased out to make way for various redevelopment projects.

The following Question stood in the name of Mr Chiam See Tong - 6. To ask the Minister for Communications what was the total amount of money collected from 1st May 1990 to 28th February 1991 in respect of Certificates of Entitlement issued to (i) new motor vehicles and (ii) used motor vehicles.

Question No. 6, Sir.

Mr Speaker, Sir, from 1st May 1990 to 28th February 1991, the Registry of Vehicles (ROV) collected a total of $180 million for Certificates of Entitlement, made up of $116 million from the registration of new vehicles and $64 million from the revalidation of existing vehicles. During the same period, ROV collected $449 million in additional registration fees (ARF). This is $224 million less than the ARF collection of $673 million in the corresponding period of last year. The reduced ARF collection is due to two factors. First, the reduction in ARF for cars, from 175% to 160% of the Open Market Value with effect from 1st November 1990, and the further reduction to 150% of Open Market Value from 1st February this year. The second reason is a reduction in the number of vehicles registered under the Quota System.

Sir, does the department make money out of the whole exercise?

On the contrary, Sir, there was a reduction in the total collection as a result of this particular exercise.

asked the Minister for Communications if he will direct the Mass Rapid Transit Corporation to review the necessity of making it an offence to sit on parapet walls in MRT stations.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there are two reasons why the Mass Rapid Transit Corporation (MRTC) decided to prohibit sitting on the parapet walls; firstly, the safety of members of the public and, secondly, the need to ensure a free passage for passengers. The parapet walls at MRT stations serve to prevent people from falling down the stairs, the escalators or the gaps in between such facilities. They are not a safe place to sit on. If someone should fall off the parapets, he would not only hurt himself but could seriously injure other commuters travelling on the escalators. Furthermore, MRT stations are designed to serve high volumes of passenger traffic. Therefore, passage ways should be kept free-flowing at all times. Any unnecessary gathering of people or sitting on the parapets at the station will obstruct and slow down the flow of passenger traffic and cause inconvenience to commuters.

Sir, rather than making it an offence to sit on parapet walls, why does the MRTC not design the walls in such a way that one cannot sit on them?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the MRTC is now looking into suggestions similar to what the Member has put across just now.

Sir, the Prime Minister has been quoted as saying that he will cause a review of Government policies which the people consider stifling. Since the general agreement among the public is that this rule is stifling, will the Minister of State cause a review of this particular rule?

The responsibility of the MRTC is, first and foremost, public safety. In this regard, I think it has taken all things into consideration and, as I said just now, it is looking into other measures. But this particular move that it has made has been made in the interest of public safety. I think in this case it has decided to err on the side of public safety and the Ministry supports its stand.

Will the Minister of State confirm that this policy was not made because a gathering of teenagers at a MRT station is considered an eyesore?

Sir, I can confirm that that is not the reason for this particular policy of the MRTC. As I indicated, the paramount consideration is public safety and if the Member were to go down to the station and have a look, I think he will appreciate what I mean.

asked the Minister for Law whether the Government is reviewing the rentals for golf course land as well as the method of alienating such land and, if so, on what basis such review will be conducted.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government provides land for golf courses in Singapore as a social amenity. It is part of our effort to upgrade our quality of life. Golf courses are both for Singaporeans to enjoy, and also help to attract talent and investors. They function as open spaces and green lungs in our urban environment. We have therefore allowed golf clubs to operate on land which is not needed for other uses. Up to now, most golf courses have occupied land on Temporary Occupation Licence (TOL) with some exceptions, such as Raffles Country Club, Jurong Country Club and Seletar Country Club, which have fixed leases. Many golf clubs now offer transferable memberships. As golf has become increasingly popular, the value of these memberships has gone up. However, on TOL, golf club members have no security of tenure, and cannot be assured of the value of their memberships. The Government, therefore, proposes to place existing golf clubs which are on TOL onto fixed term leases, with effect from 1st January 1992, and they are Warren, Changi, Tanah Merah, Keppel, Sentosa and the Singapore Island Country Clubs. The leases will generally be for a period of 30 years. Wherever possible, provided the land is not required for other purposes, the Government will consider applications from the clubs to extend their leases, on terms to be negotiated, as the expiry dates approach. As for rental revision, golf courses on TOL pay low nominal rentals, often set many years ago. Now that golf clubs earn substantial amounts from selling transferable memberships and collecting transfer fees, these rentals are no longer realistic. Since the Government supplies golf course land as a social amenity, it will not recover the full opportunity cost of the land, ie, what the land could earn if put to other economic use such as housing. However, like any other scarce resources, the land should be priced to reflect what it is worth as golf course land. One indication of the value of golf course land is given by Raffles Country Club, which was developed by JTC. JTC paid $8.3 million for 145 ha of land. In addition, it has so far collected a net surplus of $57 million from the membership and transfer fees. This is after paying the full development cost of a 36-hole golf course. This suggests that the value of the Raffles Country Club land is about $65 million, or $45 per square metre. A second indication is given by the recent tender for a piece of land at Xilin for recreational purposes. The winning tenderer, who intends to build a 36-hole golf course, paid $130 million, or $104 per square metre. However, the Government's view is that the Xilin price must be discounted before it can be applied to other clubs. This is because under the terms of the tender, the Xilin club is allowed to take in up to 49% of foreign members who, of course, are better able to afford high membership fees. In comparison, most of the other existing clubs have fewer than 20% of foreign members. It would therefore be undesirable to force existing clubs to increase their foreign membership at the expense of Singaporeans in order to generate revenues to pay high rentals. The Government will therefore require golf clubs (other than Xilin) to reserve at least 70% of their memberships for Singaporeans and permanent residents. But as this is more restrictive than the terms for the Xilin land, golf clubs will be charged rental and property tax based only on 50% of the Xilin price. This will be further adjusted for factors like the location and quality of the course. The resulting rents are equivalent to a freehold value for golf course land of between $25 and $75 per square metre. In comparison, freehold residential land is worth $1,000 per square metre or more. The clubs will also have to pay property tax on their land and improvements, like other land owners. To help the clubs adjust to these revisions, the new rentals will be phased in gradually over a period of 10 years. Initially, the clubs will have to pay only 10% of the economic rent, increasing to the full rent by the 10th year. Thereafter, the rentals will be subject to limited annual revisions, to reflect changes in the market value of golf course land. Three clubs will be charged special concessionary rates: SAFRA's proposed country club, Sembawang Golf Club and the NTUC's proposed Orchid Country Club. They will pay 10% of the rental applicable to the other clubs. This is in recognition of the contributions of reservists and SAF personnel to Total Defence, and of the Labour Movement to the economy. The clubs have been informed of the details of the lease terms.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have three supplementary questions for the Minister. Firstly, I would like to ask the Minister whether the Government has any plans to assist smaller golf clubs if they are unable to pay the market rate of rental for the new leases. Secondly, would the Government allow clubs, like the Singapore Island Country Club (SICC), to make their memberships transferable? As of now, SICC cannot make the membership transferable. Thirdly, Sir, with the introduction of a market rental, membership to golf clubs would be more expensive. I would like to ask the Minister whether the Government has any plans to build public golf courses where Singaporeans who want to play golf can do so without paying fanciful entrance fees.

Sir, the first supplementary question was about small clubs which may have difficulties in affording the lease. The way that we have approached this, as I have mentioned, a 50% discount in effect of the revised valuation, and a 10-year phase-in period where they start off in the first year with 10%, in our view, would enable most clubs an ample period to adjust and to meet the new rentals. I believe the clubs will be able, under this approach, to have enough time to adjust. Some may have to make some internal operational adjustments in order to raise revenue. There are many ways in which a club can do that, of course, either by increasing the membership, adjusting the subscription fees, reducing operating costs, or being more careful and stringent on capital expenditure. But, in any case, let me assure the Member that a committee has been set up and it is chaired by the Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Law, with representatives from other departments like Land Office, Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Trade and Industry and statutory boards. The purpose of this committee is to coordinate and oversee the implementation of this revised policy. Those clubs which, despite the discount and the phase-in 10-year period, would still have difficulties could discuss their difficulties with this committee. I believe the second question was about membership transferability of the SICC. The SICC courses are on PUB land. Unlike other clubs, as the Member has pointed out, it has not had transferable memberships. With this move towards economic rentals and fixed term leases, the SICC officials have told us that they would wish to introduce transferable memberships. To this, the Government agrees. But some safeguards will be necessary because, with the change of policy, it will generate large sums of money into the club which must be properly husbanded and wisely managed. Therefore, PUB will allow SICC to offer transferable memberships on condition that PUB would be responsible for changes to the club's constitution and will appoint the key officers of the club. The club will, of course, retain all its profits and surpluses which, in the case of dissolution, will revert to charity. This is the same arrangement which PSA has with Keppel Club. We have put this proposal to the SICC and the initial response has been supportive. The third question was about facilities for those who may not be able to afford the membership of existing clubs. Here I would like to make three points. First, the Ministry of National Development will be identifying a suitable site which it can then alienate to the Singapore Sports Council (SSC) to develop a 18-hole public golf course. To keep costs affordable, there will be no memberships and the facilities will be basic. As it would be for the use of the general public, this new SSC golf course will be treated on par with the Tanglin Golf Course, in other words, on nominal rental terms. The second point I want to make is that the PUB also has plans to construct sometime next year a 9-hole public golf course in one of the water catchment areas. Thirdly, I should also refer to the existing 9-hole course of the Seletar Country Club. The Seletar Country Club is actually building a new 18-hole course and it has to surrender the existing 9-hole course to the Government for the development of a business park. However, if by the time it has completed its new 18-hole course, the business park development plans are not finalized, then the Government will allow the interim use of this 9-hole course as a public course at a nominal rental. Therefore, in view of these plans, those Singaporeans who cannot join existing golf courses would still be able to afford to play the game.

Sir, in view of the unrealistic and low rentals, has the Minister ever estimated the amount lost in renting out land to the golf clubs in Singapore?

We could probably ask the Chief Valuer to make some theoretical calculations, but I would also like to point out that most of these areas are located on land which cannot be put to other use and, in fact, we must bear in mind that the managements of the golf courses have, in fact, tended to, and looked after, the land for Government.

The following question stood in the name of Mr Chiam See Tong - 9. To ask the Minister for Home Affairs whether he will provide the services of Commissioners for Oaths to the public at the Immigration Department and other departments of his Ministry where such services are required.

Question No. 9, Sir.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there are Commissioners for Oaths at the Ministry of Home Affairs' departments, particularly the National Registration Department, where this will be of assistance to members of the public making various applications, particularly applications for citizenship. We periodically review the requirement for counter services, including the requirement for oaths administrations. As a result of such a review, additional Commissioners for Oaths will also be available at the Immigration Department. Therefore, there will be enough Commissioners for Oaths serving the public in our departments but, if need be, more will be appointed.

asked the Acting Minister for Information and the Arts whether he will consider the setting up of a Media Council to which complaints regarding the function of the press, radio and television can be directed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Press Councils in countries like Britain and the Philippines are typically independent, non-profit, voluntary organisations set up by the media industry to which complaints against a newspaper or a broadcaster can be made. It is not for the Government to set up such a Council. Rather, it is for the media to consider setting up such a Council if they feel that there is such a need. Complaints against inaccuracy can be made directly to the newspaper, TV or radio station involved. Libel action can be taken in court. Or like the NTUC's dispute with the Straits Times, complaints can be made at public forums, or even in this House, as Dr Lee has done from time to time.

Does the Government encourage the right of reply, and is he aware that the Straits Times does not publish many letters written in reply to controversial points made by the Minister?

I am not sure how the Straits Times decides on letters to be printed, but if the Member has specific queries to make, like maybe letters which he himself has written to the Straits Times, then perhaps he can bring them to the attention of this House. But I am quite sure that all the letters which Dr Lee may care to write to the Straits Times would be printed in the Straits Times.

May I tell the Minister that on past occasions, the Straits Times had not printed some of our answers to queries made in the press.

In which case, please convey to the Straits Times and make it public.

asked the Minister for National Development whether the Housing and Development Board will review the maximum amount of housing loan available to buyers of new HDB flats.

Mr Speaker, Sir, a buyer of a new flat is eligible for a loan from HDB of up to 80% of the sale price of the flat. The buyer is required to pay a 20% downpayment at the time he or she signs the Sales Agreement for the flat. If the buyer subsequently decides not to proceed with the purchase, the downpayment is forfeited. The 20% downpayment is necessary to ensure that the buyer is serious in his commitment to purchase the flat. It is not an onerous requirement as the buyer can use his CPF savings to make the downpayment. However, HDB does provide loans of more than 80% of the sale price for three categories of persons who may have difficulties in making the downpayment. First, low income families purchasing 3-room and 4-room (Simplified) flats are eligible for a maximum loan of up to 95% of the sale price of the flat. Second, those affected by HDB's Relocation Programme are provided loans of up to 100% of the sale price, if they purchase 3-room and 4-room (Simplified) flats; and they can get up to 90%, if they purchase larger flats. Third, those affected by Government's Resettlement Programme are given loans of up to 90% of the sale price to purchase HDB flats. The present policy on loans is a reasonable one, and I do not see any need to increase or change it.

asked the Minister for National Development whether the Housing and Development Board will review the posted prices of HDB resale flats, as the 140% ceiling on loans imposes financial constraints on potential buyers.

Mr Speaker, Sir, at present, the sum of CPF funds used and the amount of loan taken from HDB by a buyer of a resale flat cannot exceed 140% of the posted price of the flat. This ceiling, of 140% of posted price, is imposed by the CPF Board. The posted price of a particular flat type varies according to the location, and is used as the base price in setting the sale prices of new flats. HDB is currently reviewing its schedule of posted prices for resale flats. The review will take into account trends in the primary market for new flats as well as the secondary market for resale flats.

asked the Minister for National Development what are the development plans for the vacant lands in the vicinity of Kampong Java estate.

Sir, there are three parcels of vacant land in the immediate vicinity of Kampong Java Estate. The parcel next to Cambridge Primary School is tentatively earmarked for school use. The parcel next to Block 51 at Owen Road is earmarked for housing development. The parcel at the junction of Kent Road and Rangoon Road is approved for a PUB electrical substation.

asked the Minister for National Development whether the Housing and Development Board will arrange with the developer of a HDB privatised site (located opposite Bedok South Avenue 3/New Upper Changi Road) to construct a lighted footpath that will provide a shorter and more convenient route from the Jalan Tanjong/Tanah Merah Kechil Road area to the Tanah Merah MRT station as the original footpath used for gaining access to the station has been demolished and an alternative footpath provided is located too far away.

Sir, the conditions of sale for the site opposite Bedok South Avenue 3 require the developer to provide a road linking New Upper Changi Road to his development. To create a more direct route to the Tanah Merah MRT station --- 1.30 pm

Order. End of Question Time. Ministerial Statement, Dr Tan. Pursuant to Standing Order No. 21(2), Written Answers to Questions Nos. 14 and 15 remaining on the Order Paper are reproduced at the section, 'Oral Answers to Questions Not Reached' (Cols. 81 - 82).

Mr Speaker, Sir, the increase in university fees, announced by the National University of Singapore (NUS) and the Nanyang Technological Institute (NTI) last month, has predictably drawn a number of comments from members of the public, Members of Parliament and University students. This is to be expected. Increases in fees or charges are never popular and the public, parents, students, MPs are naturally concerned about any increase in fees or charges, what effect this will have on students' budgets and whether the increase in university fees will have the effect of limiting access to university education for poor but deserving students. Sir, to allay Members' fears, let me repeat again Government's policy regarding university fees. I will quote from the speech which I made in Parliament on 17th March 1989 [Hansard Vol. 53, No. 6, col. 455]: "In a nutshell, Sir, the policy of the Government is and will continue to be to make sure that no bright student who has been accepted by NUS or NTI will be prevented from acquiring a university education simply because his or her parents cannot afford to pay the fees and we will do what is needed to maintain this policy including, if necessary, reviewing our loan schemes or providing other forms of financial assistance, such as awarding more scholarships or bursaries if this is shown to be necessary." Sir, I think that no one should have any doubt of Government's determination in this respect. As I said at the inauguration of the JCCI Singapore Foundation function at the end of last month: "For a small country like Singapore, education and training are vital. Our only resource is our people. It is for this reason that the Singapore Government has placed top priority on raising standards of education and providing quality education for our children." We want as many of our students as possible to go as far as they can up the educational ladder so that they can improve their prospects in life and thereby make a contribution to Singapore. Why then do we raise university fees? Sir, the answer lies in the schedule which I had circulated in 1987 and 1989 and which I have updated. I shall ask the Clerk of Parliament to circulate Annex A (Cols. 83 - 84). [Copies of Annex circulated to hon. Members]. Annex A - 1990 RECURRENT EXPENDITURE AND ENROLMENT (Cols. 83 - 84) Sir, this schedule is a very simple one. It shows how money is spent by the Ministry of Education. And if Members will note from the schedule, they will see that the greater part of the educational expenditure, some 65%, is spent on primary and secondary school education and vocational training. This is as it should be because the majority of our students, 440,000 students or 85% of our total student population, are in primary and secondary schools or in the VITB. It is therefore right that the largest amount of education expenditure should go towards this group. For post-secondary education (junior colleges, centralised institutes and polytechnics), the figures are as follows: 51,000 students, representing 10% of our total student population, and accounting for 15% of total education expenditure. Finally, university students, NUS and NTI, 24,000 students (5% of the total student population), and 20% of our total education expenditure. Sir, in other words, 20% of total recurrent expenditure on education in Singapore was spent on NUS and NTI and the number of students in NUS and NTI represents 5% of our student population in Singapore. Put it another way, the Government was spending in 1990/1991 some $14,000 to educate each student at NUS and NTI as against $5,000 for each student at the post-secondary level or $2,500 per pupil in primary or secondary schools. Sir, we have to be fair. Students who make it to university have good prospects in life. Most of them will earn good salaries after they graduate. Some will earn very large incomes. It is surely only right that, after the students have graduated from university, they should pay back part of the Government's subsidy in order to lessen the burden of financing university education from taxpayers' money. And this is the reason, Sir, why it is Government's policy to ask the universities to reduce their dependence on direct Government financing and to earn more of their income through charging appropriate fees and the raising of donations and endowment income. Even with this policy, Sir, I would point out that the actual grant by Government for NUS and NTI has increased significantly. For the financial year 1989, the Government grant to these two institutions was $271 million. For this financial year 1991, the grant will be $342 million, an increase of $71 million or 26% in two years. I think, faced with these figures, it is quite clear that Government has been generous in financing university education and no one should quarrel with the allocation. Sir, I now come to Members' worry as to whether the increase in fees will limit students' access to university education. As I said in 1989: "We must ensure that fee increases do not have the effect of limiting access to NUS and NTI particularly for students who are bright but who come from poor homes. These students have as much right to university education as children whose parents are in more comfortable circumstances." Sir, there are many avenues for students to get access to money. The Government has liberalised the use of CPF funds for education. In addition, the Government proposes to raise the maximum percentage of the tuition fee loans from 50% to 60%. As of last year, the number of students who took advantage of our tuition fee loans was 20% of the student population in NUS and 26% in NTI. Those who have required additional finance from the university's own loan funds represented half percent of the student population in NUS and 2% in NTI. Sir, I met with the student leaders of the NUS and NTI last Monday and discussed with them concerning the increase in university fees and the impact on students. To lessen any hardship that students may face, the student leaders requested, among other things, that the Tuition Fee Loan Scheme be revised by further increasing the loan amount so as to reduce the amount in cash that the students have to pay as well as extending the repayment period and the period before commencing repayment of the loan. Sir, I am happy to inform Members that we have considered the requests of the student leaders and will revise the Tuition Fee Loan Scheme as follows: (1) The amount of the tuition fee loan will be raised to 65% of the tuition fee. Sir, as shown in Annex B (Cols. 85 - 86), which I shall ask the Clerk of Parliament to circulate [copies of Annex circulated to hon. Members], this would mean that, other than Medical and Dental students, students will not have to pay any additional amount in cash as compared with last year. Medical and Dental students will have to pay an additional $180 per year; Annex B - TUITION FEE LOAN SCHEME (Cols. 85 - 86) (2) We will extend the repayment period of the loan from the current 15 years to 20 years; and (3) The period before commencing repayment of the loans will be extended from one year to two years after graduation. These revisions will make it substantially easier for students to repay the loans and I hope that students who have financial difficulties will be wise enough to take the loans. Sir, now that the Government grant to NUS and NTI has been reduced to 75% of their operating expenditure, with 21% being funded by student fees and 4% by miscellaneous income, it is my view that we should now shift the focus from increasing student fees to building up of large endowment income for NUS and NTI. University fees will continue to increase in future years to take account of rising costs, particularly wage costs, and to increase the percentage of operating expenditure funded by fees from 21% to eventually 25%. However, this can be done over a period of years so that the fee increases in future years can be smaller and not as large as in the last four years. Sir, NUS and NTI are of the view that the percentage of operating expenditure to be funded by miscellaneous income can increase from 4% to 5%. If NUS and NTI can build up endowment funds large enough to generate income amounting to 10% of their operating expenditure, this will enable us to bring down the Government grant to NUS and NTI to 60%, that is, 25% funded by student fees, 5% by miscellaneous income, 10% from endowment fund income and 60% from the Government grant. Sir, the budget of NUS and NTI for the financial year 1991/1992 is $459 million. If 10% of this expenditure is to be funded from endowment income, this would mean that NUS and NTI would need endowment income of $46 million for the financial year 1991. At an interest rate of 5%, this would mean an endowment fund of some $1,000 million. Sir, can NUS and NTI build such large endowment funds? I think that it will require a lot of work but I am confident that with the support and generosity of Singaporeans, this can be achieved. Last month, I had the opportunity to visit Princeton University, together with the Vice-Chancellor of the NUS and the President of NTI. We were told, Sir, by Princeton University officials that Princeton raised some US$80 million each year, of which US$50 million came from individuals, principally alumni of Princeton University. And Princeton is not unique. Cornell University, which we also visited, raises US$160 million annually, with US$100 million (or two-thirds) coming from individuals, again principally alumni of the University. And Harvard, Sir, is launching a drive to raise some US$2.5 billion to add to its endowment fund which is already very large. Sir, when we asked the officials at Princeton University why their alumni were so generous in contributing, their reply was instructive. The officials said that even though the alumni had already graduated from the University, they retained a stake in Princeton to ensure that the quality of the University continued to improve. This is because the alumni knew that the value of their degrees was dependent on the continued high quality and standing of Princeton University. In other words, Sir, if the University deteriorates, then the value of their degrees goes down. If the university continues to improve, then the value of their degrees goes up. So the alumni had an incentive to contribute to make sure that the education which Princeton offered continued to be of high quality and recognised to be so by the community in America. I think that this is a very sensible attitude of mind. NUS and NTI will, in the coming months, make public their plans to raise the endowment fund income. And my Ministry is now discussing with NUS and NTI as to how the Government can help to get their endowment funds off to a good start but alumni should respond positively and indeed generously. I hope that Members here, particularly those who are graduates of NUS and NTI, will rally round the two institutions and encourage their fellow graduates to contribute generously to the endowment funds of their alma mater.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I understand that some Members would like to debate on my statement and following practice, I propose to move an adjournment of the House to enable them to do so. Before I move the adjournment, may I first seek your consent and the general assent of Members present to move that the debate on my Ministerial Statement be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order 1(8)(b)?

I give my consent. Is it the pleasure of Hon. Members present that the motion be moved? Hon. Members indicated assent.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That the debate on the motion for adjournment to be moved for the purpose of debating the Ministerial Statement made by the Minister for Education be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order 1(8)(b) at this day's sitting. - [Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam].

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

Mr Speaker, Sir, first of all, I would like to inform the House that many people who gave their views to the Feedback Unit do not dispute the need for the Government to reduce subsidies for universities in the long term. As rightly pointed out by the Minister, out of the total expenditure on education, 20% was spent on university education, which accounts for only 5% of the total student population. There is, therefore, a need for the Government to reduce subsidies for university education to a reasonable ratio. This will enable the Government to allocate more funds for primary, secondary and the VITB. However, Sir, some felt that the quantum of the increase is too high and too drastic. They felt that the quantum should be smaller and more gradual. This round of increases of 35% to 50%, some felt, could have been done over a couple of years. Many also felt that the reduction of subsidies should be over a longer period of time. In fact, why such a great hurry? Sir, it is also a relief that the ceiling for tuition loans has now, as the Minister has announced, been raised to 65% to cushion the impact of the fee increases. Some, however, fear that many poor students may still not want to take advantage of these loans. As earlier pointed out by the Minister, only 20% and 26% of NUS and NTI students respectively applied for tuition loans last year. They felt that the two universities should seriously look into the reasons why poor students are not applying for these loans and when they know the reasons, they should come out with appropriate measures to encourage more students to take up these loans which are designed to help the students. The Government's decision to make it easier for the students to repay their loans is welcomed. However, I would urge the Minister to get his officials to explore ways to help poor students cope with the fee increases. First and foremost, the loan schemes must be easily available and with minimum administrative inconvenience to all applicants. Mr Speaker, Sir, while welcoming the Government's decision to raise the loan ceiling, some felt that the ceiling for tuition loans should be raised even further. In particular, medical and dental students, whose tuition fees are much higher than those of other students, should be given a higher loan ceiling. Some even suggested that the ceiling for tuition loans should be raised to 100% so that the financing of their education would not be a source of worry to our university students and their families. Mr Speaker, Sir, the two universities, some felt, should also look into ways to cut costs. We are only looking at one side of the expenditure. Maybe the universities should look at ways to cut costs. They should, in the opinion of some, be frugal in their spending and should endeavour to trim their expenditure. In this respect, they could perhaps get examples from foreign universities which are able, I am told, to operate at a lower cost. In addition, they should provide more information to the public on their expenditure. The public must be assured that the increases in operating costs are not due to the inefficient management of the universities. To further ensure that their resources are well spent and properly controlled, the two universities should seriously set up audit committees. Public-listed companies are now required to set up audit committees. Maybe the universities should also set up audit committees and review their expenditure policies. Mr Speaker, Sir, some have noticed that foreign students in our universities are not paying as much for tuition fees as Singapore students in foreign universities. They propose that foreign students studying in Singapore universities be required to pay more for their tuition fees. This, to some extent, will reduce the burden on our own students, as this is the practice in many countries. Sir, all those who gave their views to the Unit felt that there is a need for the two universities to look into ways of generating revenues themselves, as the Minister mentioned in the statement. They share the Minister's confidence that our universities should be able to set up their own endowment funds, just like Princeton, Cornell and Harvard Universities. In this respect, I share the Minister's view that the university alumni will respond favourably to the universities' call for support and, as the Minister has called on Members in this House who are, like myself, former students of the universities, we would definitely support such a call. As beneficiaries of the educational system, I am sure my other colleagues will feel that we have a stake that the universities succeed. Sir, the universities also need to boost their image to facilitate their efforts in seeking financial support from the public. To do this, the universities should carry out more public relations activities to promote public awareness of their schemes. This will definitely help them in soliciting for financial support. The Government could consider some incentives for corporations and individuals to donate generously to the universities. Sir, there were many other suggestions on how the universities could generate additional revenue to meet the increasing costs. The universities could expand on their research and development projects with the private sector. They could also provide consultancy services to the private sector. These are carried out by many reputable overseas universities. Finally, I would like to state that there is no strong objection to the Government's move to reduce subsidies for universities. Many appreciate the Government's commitment to education and agree with the need for reducing subsidies for universities so that funds can be used for other areas. But, however, quite a few believe that this objective could still be achieved in a less painful manner. More information should be given to the public and relevant bodies, like the students' union, and the students' union should have been consulted, and I hope that the Minister will consult them before further fee increases are announced in the future.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to thank the Minister for his reassuring statement and for this opportunity to speak on the issue. Sir, no one in his right mind would quarrel with the necessity for a fee increase. With rising costs and inflation, you cannot just freeze the fees. Neither would one dispute the need to reduce the universities' dependence on the Government for grants. No self-respecting universities should be completely tied to the apron strings of the government. They must flourish on their own. But the fee hike is simply too steep and too drastic. We have three big hikes in the last four years. If you use the 1986-1987 fees as the base-line, the fees have risen by 192% for non-laboratory based faculties, 263% for laboratory-based faculties, and 731% for Medical and Dental Faculties. This is too much; too soon. University education may become less and less affordable. Sir, one must also bear in mind that university undergraduates need to pay for personal expenses, like transport, photocopying in the university, meals at the campus, not to mention hostel fees for those who have to stay, for example, at NTU. We must also consider that they need to have some allowances for dating, or pak tor, to lighten the burden on the Social Development Unit (SDU). We want them to socialise, so I am sure they need expenses. It is true that many students work as private tutors to pay for these fees. But there is a limit to what they can do, lest they become full-time tutors and part-time students and, in the end, end up at being good at neither of them. My plea to the Minister is to spread out the fee increase, do it more gradually over a period of years. Slow, or gradual, and steady win the race. The GPC on Education, therefore, welcomes the Minister's pledge that fee increases in the future years will be smaller, and not as large as in the last four years. This is quite reassuring to all of us. We also welcome the Minister's concessions in raising the student loans to 65% of the tuition fees, in extending the repayment period from 15 to 20 years, and delaying the commencement of repayment from one to two years after graduation. All this, I am sure, will help the students. Most encouraging of all is the launching of the universities' endowment fund. This is a positive step in diversifying the sources of funding for the two universities, a step which I hope would make it less necessary to raise fees sharply ever again. I would, therefore, urge foundations, companies and graduates to come forward, to support the endowment fund and rally behind these two universities. Big corporations and, particularly, Government-owned companies should take the lead. The Turf Club could kick off the donation drive with a lump-sum donation of, say, $50 million to $100 million. Graduates, who have benefitted from university education, like ourselves here in this House, should give generously to their own universities. I have a suggestion that NTU, with the consent of NUS, should transfer the names of the Nanyang University graduates to its own alumni rolls and tap on the tremendous goodwill that I think still exists for the former Nanyang University and build upon this goodwill. I will say this: donations to this endowment fund will be money well spent. It will be an investment in Singapore's future and in the well-being of the next generation of Singaporeans. I personally would pledge support for this endowment fund. 2.00 pm

( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, first of all, I would like to declare my personal interest. I am a lecturer in the Nanyang Technological Institute. The views I am presenting today do not represent the interest of the University. The fees announced for next year's university courses are increased by some 30-50% as compared to the previous year's fees. From the angle of the students and their parents, such a large increase is somewhat over-done. I feel that this may be difficult for our students and their parents to accept. I sympathize with these students, particularly the Singaporean students, and the parents who are affected by this increase in fees. According to a report in Lianhe Zaobao on 30th April, Mr Er Kwong Wah said that Dr Tony Tan had indicated that he would consider making future increase in university fees more gradual rather than a one-time large increase. This report implies that the Minister for Education has, in principle, agreed that the increase should be done gradually in reaching its target. I feel that if the Minister for Education is serious about what he was saying, it is still not too late. If we can reduce the margin of increase by half, and spread it over two years to attain its target, then I believe the students and their parents would support and accept it. When announcing the increase in fees, the Minister for Education as well as the Vice Chancellor of NUS and the President of the Nanyang Technological Institute gave the assurance that no student would be deprived of a place in the university because of his parents' inability to afford the university fees. This same assurance was given when the concept of independent schools was introduced. The Ministry of Education was very quick in announcing that 50% to 100% subsidies in school fees would be given to students who came from poor families, depending on their income. I would like to ask the Minister: If the students, despite the loans either from the university or from CPF, are unable to pay for the remaining portion of their fees, then will they be subsidized in the way that it was done in the independent schools? In announcing the increase in fees, Professor Lim Pin also mentioned that there are some 10-14% of our university students who come from ASEAN countries. Based on my estimation, about 2,000-3,000 of them are occupying places in our university. This figure is much more than what I had imagined it to be. Under the present circumstances, there are many of our local students who qualify for admission to the university, but cannot find a place there. Those who can afford will go to other countries to further their studies. I feel that the Ministry of Education should consider reducing the number of places given to foreign students so that our local students, particularly those who cannot afford to go overseas, can have a chance to complete their university studies in Singapore. At a time when our Singaporeans are unhappy with the increase in university fees, we find that thousands of these ASEAN students are almost unaffected by this present fee increase. By this, I mean those who are doing courses other than medicine and dentistry. This is quite contrary to what an ordinary citizen thinks it should be, because it is one of the State's duties to provide subsidy to a certain extent for its citizens to pursue their education. Is the State obliged to give these foreign students such heavy subsidies? This is one question which deserves our careful study. In the present circumstances, our local students are gravely affected by this large increase in fees, but the ASEAN students are not affected. Under such circumstances, it is no wonder that many local students and their parents have misunderstood the Government's policy, and feel that this round of fee increase seems to favour these foreign students. In fact, a friend of mine told me very bluntly that it seems to be better to be a foreigner than to be a Singaporean. In the letter written by the students to our Members of Parliament, they have introduced some 10 recommendations and I am very glad to hear from the Minister that some of the recommendations have been accepted. I am very grateful to him for this. I believe some students will be happy to benefit from the increase in the quantum of the loan available to them, thus alleviating some of the effects of the present fee increase. Among the recommendations, there is one which I feel warrants our support, ie, if the students' parents do not have sufficient CPF savings to pay for the fees, whether the CPF savings of the brothers and sisters could be used for this purpose. I feel this recommendation will be of great help to those students who come from poorer families. In fact, there is already precedence in this arrangement in our Medisave scheme. More importantly, when the student graduates from the university, he would still have to repay the amount borrowed back to the CPF account. I feel that this recommendation can be acceptable to the Minister for Labour and I hope that he would seriously consider the suggestion.

( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the recent announcement by the Minister for Education to increase the university fees has caused unhappiness to many people and everybody seems to be talking about it because the margin of increase is very high. However, everyone seems to be concentrating on the margin of increase and has neglected the actual reason for such an increase. In principle, I support the Government's policy to gradually reduce its subsidy on university education so that the fees may be able to more accurately reflect the cost of providing university education. However, there should be a very important condition attached to the said policy, ie, the Government should ensure that our Singaporean students should not be deprived of the opportunity to complete their university education simply because they could not afford the fees. Just now, a number of my Parliamentary colleagues mentioned that the increase in fees should be made more gradually, perhaps spread over a period of two or three years. To me, I would rather suffer a sharp pain than a protracted suffering. Why prolong the agony? Our undergraduates and candidates for university enrolment should realize that education does not come cheap. It is an extremely expensive long-term project. Particularly for Singapore, if we want to be competitive in the international market, to have more professionals and management experts, and to attract more well-known scholars to come over to Singapore so that our students would have better opportunity to learn the most advanced technology in the world, then our local students and Singaporeans should realize that they should take up their own responsibility in certain areas. On this occasion, it is true that the margin of increase in university fees is rather high. Many people said that they were not expecting such a huge increase. I hope that the present and future university students in Singapore should think carefully and calmly about their responsibility to society. The responsibility that they should take is to pick up the burden of paying their fees for the education that they are provided with. Now, the Government is not asking them to pick up the full cost of their university education immediately. Government loans will be available to them. However, surprisingly, there are not many students applying for such study loans, according to Mr Cham Tao Soon. As such, the Government should conduct a survey to find out why the students did not apply for these loans. The Minister for Education announced just now that loans could be applied for up to 65% of the fees. To a certain extent, this may not be adequate. The Government and the Ministry of Education should know that some families which are not so well-to-do may require more loan. I hope that the Minister for Education would give his sympathetic consideration in this matter. If we want to increase the university fees and, at the same time, do not want to increase the burden of our taxpayers, then what should we do? I think the most practical and equitable measure is to make the university graduates who were given the benefit of receiving university education to bear this responsibility of repaying the loan they took from the Government, after they have graduated and have started working. I believe this will be of help in the provision of university education to the next generation of Singaporeans, because I do not believe in the Government having to continue perpetually and unlimitedly providing large subsidies to our university education. It cannot be denied that our university students are getting great benefits after their graduation from the university. Of course, if you take today's standard you may say that the university fees are expensive. But if they think of the returns that they are going to get in future, the price they are paying is indeed negligible. So, in my view, this increase in university fees is beneficial to the future development of Singapore. What I want to emphasise is that there should be adequate loans available to the students who need them. At the same time, I would suggest that the repayment of loans should be minimal initially and it could be increased annually according to the increase in their income. With regard to the setting up of an endowment fund, as mentioned by the Minister for Education just now, Dr Ong suggested that the large enterprises in the private sector in Singapore should come forward to support this endowment fund. I feel that the Government should be the first to help. I hope that the Government will quickly come forward to take the lead in setting up this fund.

( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, in any vibrant society, there must be a group of people forming the backbone of the Government departments and the private sector to take the lead so that they could show the way forward. In the cultivation of talent, the university plays an indispensable role. In Asian societies, parents attach great importance to education and most of them hope that their children would be able to complete university education. Many sociologists hold the view that one of the main reasons for the "Four Little Dragons" in East Asia to have such remarkable achievements and economic prosperity is that our parents are very concerned with their children's education. We can see that in the United States, the children of many Asian immigrants achieve outstanding results in their studies. This is attributable to the parents' emphasis on good education. We have heard the Minister for Education describe the high cost of providing university education. For the undergraduates who made up only 5% of the total student population, 20% of the total recurrent educational expenses is incurred. On the question of increasing university fees, different views prevail. Those who agree with the increase have the following reasons to think so: First, because of technological progress, more sophisticated and advanced equipment is being produced each year. In order to keep up with current developments, we have to keep on buying new equipment. The students should bear some of the costs of maintenance. Secondly, I believe the principle of "user-pays" is acceptable to most. Thirdly, we can look at the experience of other countries. For example, in some universities in the European countries, almost all the fees are subsidized by the government. In Holland, the students have six years to complete their university education. They have a good time doing little work and thus waste their country's precious resources. With the fee increase in Singapore, our students will realise how valuable university education is. Those who object to the increase in fees feel that our university graduates are the cream of our society and education is a long-term investment. We should therefore give them full support so that every one of those students who are capable of completing their university studies could do so, and not just those who do exceptionally well or are brilliant enough to qualify for scholarship. We must ensure that no student who is capable of completing his university studies will be deprived of the opportunity because of financial reason. The second reason is that if the fees are too expensive then some students from the poor family may give up the idea of going to the university. Thirdly, the increase in fees may result in increasing the psychological pressure and burden of the parents. Another point is that we keep hearing from the people that fee increases are too frequent and too steep. I feel that the idea of having the students bear part of the university's operational cost is accepted, but the question is how much? Should the Government's subsidy in the long term be targeted at 60%, 70%, or 80%? We should have a more thorough study. Let the people have more opportunities to air their views so that we could pre-empt some misunderstanding and doubts. If the subsidy is too high, like the Dutch Universities, the students will take their education for granted and they will enjoy life and waste time. If the subsidy is too low, then the burdens of the parents will be too heavy. Although there is a tution fee loan scheme, some students and parents are reluctant to borrow money from the authorities because they adopt the prudent attitude of "not borrowing money before earning it". There are three types of fees. The first is non-laboratory based. For example, the arts or social studies. The second category is laboratory-based, for example, science or engineering. The third category consists of medical and dental courses. I would like to know whether the universities have carefully analyzed the allocation of recurrent expenses. For example, arts students who are studying history and geography may not have frequent use of the computer services. On the other hand, those who are studying economics and statistics may have to use the computer very frequently. Are they charged any additional fees for the use of these computer services? The research work in the university may involve the use of expensive equipment. Will these expenses be charged separately? If we are going to strictly adopt the policy of "user-pays", then the expenses of each department or faculty should be carefully categorised in detail in order to decide whether they should be subsidized by the Government, or charged in part to the students. For example, are the depreciation and maintenance cost of the expensive equipment included in the cost? As for the NUH, how much of the expenses is incurred for research and how much is used for teaching? Singapore is a society which provides equal opportunity for education. As long as the children have the ability to study, they should not be deprived of the opportunity because of financial hardship. The increase in university fees does not mean the end of the road for the aspiring students. We should continue to find all the ways and means to support every student so that he or she will have a complete education.

Mr Speaker, Sir, while I understand the rationale and support the principle behind the university fee hike, I would like the Minister to look into three areas to help lessen the impact of the present as well as future fee hikes on university students and their families. First, in addition to the improved terms and conditions of tuition fee loans mentioned by the Minister, the Ministry should make it easier for students from the less well-off families to qualify for bursaries and the interest-free university study loans. This will go a long way in helping these families now that they have to pay an average monthly sum ranging from about $300 to $900. Second, the Government should actively help the universities speed up the establishment of their endowment funds and help secure wider sources of income. One way is perhaps to match dollar for dollar any donations to the universities. Third, since the subsidy for the universities is going to be reduced further to 60% of the operating costs in the long term, and operating costs can only go up, the Government should take another look at what expenditures constitute the operating cost. In this respect, I agree with Mr Lau Ping Sum. For example, is university R&D expenditure part of the operating cost? I think it should not be, because undergraduates should not be made to pay for R&D expenditure. In overseas universities, research is funded by national science councils or private companies or both. Research equipment and research staff expenditure are therefore paid for from the research fund secured by the academics. Even mainframe computer time for research work is charged to the research fund. This means that costs for computer resources, for example, should not be completely included in the operating costs for university teaching. And this is important because research work is a heavy user of computer resources. Universities should therefore work out an accounting system to reflect the true operating costs for teaching. Sir, I hope the Minister will consider the issues which I have just raised.

( In Malay): I welcome the statement by the Minister for Education on the increase in university fees. There are several reasons why I find the statement heartening: 1. Nothing in the statement indicates any intention on the part of the Government to abdicate its responsibility in raising the quality and standards of our children's education. 2. The statement also affirms the Government's commitment and that of corporate bodies, the private sector, and individuals, to continue to contribute towards educational excellence, which is a fundamental investment in nation building. 3. The fee increase does not involve higher cash payments, except in medicine and dentistry. 4. A higher ceiling will now be allowed for tuition fee loans and easier loan repayment terms will be provided. 5. The statement also shows the Government's desire to find a balance in granting subsidies for our students. 6. The establishment of an endowment fund will allow the universities to be self-supporting and reduce their dependence on taxpayers' money. 7. And most importantly, the statement stressed that the increase in fees will not prevent the admission of qualified students who cannot afford the fees, because the Government has given assurance that study loans would be increased. Nevertheless, I would like to make the following proposals: Firstly, on the increase in the maximum tuition fee loan, from 50% to 65%. I think this ceiling should be raised to 80%. We already have a parallel of this in a similar rule under our home-ownership policy, which allows loans of up to 80%. The higher ceiling would also reduce the burden of the cost of education to be borne by parents, especially those with up to four children, as advocated by our current population policy. The use of CPF funds for education can of course reduce this burden but with the recent changes in the system, with our children's education now stretching from pre-school to university, the cost of education to be borne by parents will go up, a problem that can also affect their ability to respond to the Government's call to own more comfortable homes. I agree with the suggestion by student leaders to extend the repayment period of loans from 15 to 20 years and to delay the start of repayment from one to two years after graduation. In this regard, I would like to suggest that the Government allows our graduates to make repayments from their own CPF accounts. This is to encourage a spirit of self-reliance and allow better use of CPF for education. I would also like to appeal to the Government to determine a certain percentage of tax income or corporate levy meant for training, research and development to be channelled to the NUS/NTI endowment fund, besides depending on individuals and the alumni associations of each university for contributions. The universities should also strive to cut down administrative expenditure. Wider usage of computers, solar power systems, more sophisticated IT systems, etc, are examples of long-term cost-saving measures that can be exploited.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir, for allowing me to join in the debate. Sir, I am pleased that the Minister has announced some measures to reduce the financial burdens of families whose children are taking tertiary education. Despite that, many parents are still concerned about the increasing financial burden for tertiary education. Sir, I have several questions in mind. First, will university education continue to be accessible? Will more loans and bursaries be made available in future? Will the criteria for loans and bursaries be less stringent? Will future fees be increased at a reasonable rate? I know that the Minister has answered some of these questions that have been bugging the minds of many parents. Sir, I know that the Minister has been supportive and being a caring person he will probably ensure that university education will be made as accessible as possible to all deserving students and those who can be admitted into the university. Sir, on the students' aspect, I must say that students must appreciate that with the community support, they have had this opportunity for tertiary education. They must, after graduation, contribute to our community which has given them that opportunity for tertiary education. I hope that most of the graduates will support the endowment fund which has been proposed to be established. Sir, I must say that parents are not against the fee increase, but what they are looking forward is a reasonable fee increase which they can cope with. Sir, I hope that in future the fee increases will be reasonable. I would like to ask the Minister two questions. First, I would like to find out whether the percentage of the loan could be further increased from 65% to 75%. Second, whether more bursaries will be made available, and the criteria for granting of bursaries be reviewed so that the students who are more deserving and those from the lower income families could in fact apply and make use of such opportunities available in the university.

Order. I suspend the sitting and will take the Chair again at 3.00 pm. Sitting accordingly suspended at 2.31 pm until 3.00 pm. Sitting resumed at 3.00 pm

Debate resumed.

( In Malay): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing me to join in the debate. I have three points to raise. Firstly, concerning Malay students who are studying or will be studying at the University. This year, for the first time, Malay students will no longer automatically enjoy free tuition fees. So, I hope all the consultations or arrangements between the University and MENDAKI could be finalised as soon as possible, so that if any part of the fees need to be paid by any Malay student, the matter could be resolved before the start of the academic year. This will relieve the students and their parents of anxiety as to their position in this regard, and they could then face the new semester with peace of mind. And I hope Malay students affected by these changes will take full advantage of the facilities offered by MENDAKI to overcome whatever financial problems they might encounter in paying the fees. Secondly, I am pleased to hear the Minister's announcement of plans to establish a university endowment fund. I am confident that this fund will be as successful as other funds that have been set up previously by various parties, in view of the strong and sincere spirit of giving that our people have demonstrated, not to mention the support that I am sure will be forthcoming from Members of Parliament who are former students of the University. In this connection, I hope the Minister could state whether, should there be any move to raise the fees again in future, the increase could be postponed until such time as this endowment fund is large enough to cover part of the increase required. In other words, whether with this fund we could minimise any future fee increase. A third point of concern to me relates to the fees paid by foreign students. In the statistics that were just distributed, I note that foreign students in the non-laboratory category pay about $7,000 in fees. I think this is much lower than what Singapore students would have to pay to study overseas, in a Western university. The National University of Singapore is equal in status, stature and excellence to the leading universities of other countries, so why can the University not fix its fees for foreign students at an equivalent or higher level? The National University of Singapore degree is valued not only in Singapore but overseas too. The value of the knowledge acquired by these students here should be reflected in the fees they pay. I hope this point could be considered.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the recent announcement of the increase in university tuition fees cannot be said to be totally unexpected. It is the PAP's policy to pass the buck to the people, to make the people pay and pay, whenever and wherever possible. The Senior Minister has said it often enough - there is no free lunch, that is, for the people, not for the Ministers. Hence, Medisave and the so-called restructuring of hospitals and the present increases in hospital charges. Hence, the regular increase in the many fees, charges, taxes and fines. Hence, the proposed consumption tax which the PAP Government is preparing to introduce. In education, there are already independent schools with their high school fees. In the universities, we now have the latest increase in tuition fees, the third since 1987. Government says that it has reduced subsidy for the university from 77% to 74.5% of the university's annual recurrent expenditure by 2 1/2%. But it has also said that it intends to further reduce this subsidy to between 60% and 70%. So we may expect still more frequent and even higher increases in university tuition fees in the near future. University education then becomes, as many people have feared, education for the rich and the well-to-do. The middle and low-income groups may soon find that they cannot afford to send their children to university even if they pool family resources. Why the fee increases? Government has said that the increases in the number of staff and their salaries have increased the universities' costs all round. The Minister has also said that 20% of the total recurrent expenditure on education is already spent on 5% of students in the universities, and that it is only right for the university students to pay more fees so that more funds may be spent on students in polytechnics, junior colleges, technical institutes and schools. From Government's statements and what the Minister has said, it would appear that Government is very short of money and so must make do with the little that it has. But that is not the true position in Singapore. We have huge surpluses over the last few years and we have more than $42 billion (nearly $50 billion is the latest figure) in reserves. Therefore, we are not short of funds. Why then the increases in the fees? How much does Government really save from these increases? If the costs of education have gone up, all we need do, Sir, is to apportion more funds for education for our children. In the 1991-92 budget, funds for education amounted to only 3.69% of our GDP. This is much less than what other countries allocate. Government has repeatedly stressed the need to invest in our human resources. If that be the policy, then we should spend much more on education at all levels, in order to provide truly a fully-rounded education for all our children, and to develop our people to their fullest potential. Some Western countries, like Germany and Australia, provide free or almost free education right up to tertiary level for all their citizens. How many other countries also do that? The Minister could tell us. And how much do the students in these countries really pay? I understand that the students pay very little. We may not be able to emulate these countries in toto, Sir, but we should at least be able to provide university education for all who may benefit from it, even without the need for loans and other strings. Anyway, fees should be as low as possible. Government's statements in the press say that American students in certain universities in the US pay higher fees than Singapore students in the NUS and NTI. But Government does not mention the fact that people in America have much higher wages, and that American universities grant scholarships and bursaries quite liberally. Government has tried to soften the blow of tuition fee increases by raising the ceiling of university loans from 50% to 65%. It says that the students may also have loans from the university's own loan funds, and that loans may also be repaid over a longer period, from 15 to 20 years. But all this has not lightened the burden placed on the students. The Prime Minister has said that Edusave will give every student an even start. If students have to repay loans over a number of years, how could those from middle and low-income families have an even start with students from the rich and the well-to-do families? Therefore, university fees, already high enough, should not be further increased. Perhaps parents may be allowed to use their CPF savings to pay for their children's tuition fee increases, as the Minister has said, but even that may not be of great help as most people do not have big CPF savings. And though an increase in the number of scholarships and bursaries might help, only a small number of students ultimately may benefit. The solution, Sir, to the problem of increasing costs for higher education is not to increase fees every time, but to allocate more funds for education either from endowment funds or from Government subsidies. Let me conclude by saying that it is all a matter of Government priorities. If Government truly believes that education is of prime importance for our children and leaders of the future, then it should allocate appropriate funds accordingly.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the education of the individual benefits not just the individual but the state he lives and works in. This fact is even more pertinent to states heavily dependent on human resources. For this reason, we, in Singapore, can always justify educational subsidies. The students in the National University of Singapore have communicated with me and I feel that I can air some of their more useful points. At issue is the level of subsidy. It may be argued, as the Minister has just done, that education which confers higher earning power should be subsidised less. Equally, it may be argued that education which confers higher earning power may benefit the State more in commercial as well as non-commercial terms and, therefore, deserves greater support. For university education, we must have a firm idea of what the desirable level of subsidy should be in the medium term. This can be fine-tuned, of course, to differentiate between different fields of study. But once the projected levels of subsidy are known, the schedule of projected increases, say, over three to eight years, should be made known. This will enable parents and students to plan their finances well ahead of time, thereby increasing the sense of control they have over their choices and future. Financial institutions also have a stake in higher education as a better-educated populace translates into better business for them. Students today may be reluctant to use commercial loans in greater numbers than they are doing currently because the terms are unattractive and onerous. These institutions should be encouraged to take a longer view and offer favourable interest and repayment terms to a group of clients who are characterised by low risk and high future value. As the fee hikes are substantial, greater flexibility of financial arrangements may be considered for the short term. Three suggestions are offered: (1) the CPF loan scheme, which can currently only be drawn from the accounts of students' parents, can be extended to the accounts of the siblings as well; (2) when the students begin to pay their loans after they start working, they may be allowed to use their own CPF contributions to help to do so in order that cash flow problems during their early adult working life are reduced. And this is the period when they have the lowest earning power and the highest requirement for cash for various things, like housing, marriage, and so on; (3) encourage and promote education insurance schemes along the lines of Medisave to prepare for the cost of tertiary education. In this regard, the Edusave Scheme which is primarily aimed at levelling educational opportunities should not be diverted for this purpose. Finally, Sir, education is, of course, known to us as a great social leveller. Access to it must not only be guaranteed but also be seen to be truly open and developed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me first extend my thanks to all Members, who have spoken this afternoon, concerning the Ministerial Statement on fee increases and for their many comments and suggestions. I am happy to note that this subject has been thoroughly aired this afternoon and Members can be assured that the points which they have made will be taken up seriously by my Ministry and by NUS and NTI. Now let me deal with some of the points in greater detail. First of all, the feedback which Mr Chandra Das has received that in order to encourage more students to take up the loans, we should look into the reasons why they are not taking up the loans . The reason is possibly that the students are not familiar with the loans and documents which should be produced so as to make the loans more user-friendly. I am happy to inform him that this is a matter which is being taken up by NUS and NTI. They will be producing brochures to tell the students about how the loans can be taken up, the terms of repayment and any other technical issues which the students will need to know before they decide whether or not to take up the loans. So this matter is well in hand. Sir, his next point is that there should be audit committees to make sure that the universities are spending their money wisely. I think, Sir, this is a very pertinent point. Universities are very expensive institutions. They consume large amounts of money. For this financial year, they will spend over $400 million and it is incumbent on the universities, on the Government, on Parliament, to ensure that this money is well spent and not frittered away. But I would like to inform him that, in fact, the expenditure of the universities is very closely monitored. It is not that the NUS and NTI are allowed simply to spend as much as they like and if they run short of money, then they just increase their fees and the Government automatically increases its loan funds and they have essentially a blank cheque to do as they like. Before the university is allowed to increase its fees, it must present a budget which has to be approved by the Ministry of Education as well as the Ministry of Finance because, after all, even with the fee increase, the major part of the university's revenue comes from the Government in the form of a Government grant, which accounts for 75% of the university's revenue and expenditure. We cannot simply give money away without making sure that the money will be well spent for the purposes for which the money is specified. Those of you who have dealings not only with my Ministry but also with the Ministry of Finance will know that it is not so easy to get money from the Ministry of Finance. So I would reassure Mr Chandra Das that this matter is well in hand. But again it is a good point and I am glad that he has made it and the universities, both NUS and NTI, should take note of this and make sure that the costs are kept as low as possible so that no unnecessary expenditure is incurred. Sir, the Member has made the point about foreign students which some members of the public have brought to him. Dr Low Seow Chay and Mr Wan Hussin also made the same point that we should increase the fees for foreign students so as to make it unnecessary for local students to pay more and make sure that local students have got enough opportunities to go to our two local universities. There should be no doubt that the purpose of having NUS and NTI in Singapore and funding them so generously is to educate our own people. This must be the first priority. Why should we go out of our way to educate the children of other countries? So our first priority must be to make available as many opportunities as possible for Singaporeans and permanent residents to go to universities and for their children to have the opportunity of university education. Why then, Sir, do we make it a point to try and attract foreign students to NUS and NTI? I have dealt with this point in other debates but it is worthwhile to repeat the same points again. The purpose is not so much for the benefit of foreign students. The purpose is to benefit ourselves, our students and Singapore. It is good for our students that in their university education, they should have the opportunity to mix with students whose backgrounds are different from theirs, so that they will be able to have a more rounded education, their horizons will be expanded and I think their education will then be more meaningful. At the same time, Sir, there are considerabe benefits to Singapore in having foreign students educated here. When they go back, there will be an automatic network of former students who will, in the course of time, occupy important positions, both in the private sector as well as in the public sector, particularly in the countries around us. That is why we have made special provision to try and encourage ASEAN students to study in Singapore. Indeed at one time, Singapore was the educational centre of Southeast Asia. Students came from all over Southeast Asia, primarily from the countries around us, to study in Singapore. And I think the benefits of having Singapore as the educational centre in Southeast Asia have been manifested over these many years. So we should, therefore, not try to put unnecessary obstacles in the way of foreign students to come and study in Singapore. What we should do, Sir, is to make sure that there are enough places for our own Singapore students so that no Singapore student who deserves to go to the university will be denied a place and that we have done by expanding NUS, by upgrading NTI into a full university in July and, if necessary, in the years to come, we will start a third university. So there will be ample places for Singaporeans to go to university, and I do not think the right way is to cut down the number of foreign students but to make sure that there are more than enough places for our own local students. Sir, the Chairman of the GPC on Education, Dr Ong Chit Chung, has made a point that we should try and spread out the fee increases so that parents and students will be able to manage their budget. As I have said, in future, I do not expect to see fee increases of the same magnitude as in the past few years and, therefore, the universities will be able to have fee increases which are more manageable and perhaps spread out over a few years. His suggestion for NTU to take over the alumni roll of Nanyang University to help in raising money for their endowment fund is an excellent suggestion which I will convey to NTU. There is a strong bond or sentiment among Nanyang University students. I hope that the university will be able to build on this bond in order to help raise funds for its endowment fund and that the graduates of Nanyang University would respond to this call. Dr Low Seow Chay and Mr Choo Wee Khiang made the point that if there are students who still need finance even after their parents have used their CPF or after they have borrowed from the Government, we should make sure that if they need money for other expenses like this it should be available. I would assure them that this would be available because the universities have got their own loan funds and bursary funds. And both the universities and the Government share the same objective, and that is, to make sure that no student who deserves to get a place in the university will be prevented from having a university education simply because his or her parents cannot afford to pay the fees. If the Government loan is not enough, then the university will make available finance from its own funds to enable the student to pay the fees so that no student will be deprived of a university education simply because of the fees. The point brought up by Mr Lau Ping Sum and Dr John Chen concerning the allocation of costs between the various faculties as well as between the undergraduate and the graduate courses and to make sure that these costs are properly apportioned; in other words, I believe, to make sure that undergraduates are not subsidising research students, this is a valid point. The universities try to keep these costs separate. I will just point out that universities, like all other educational institutions, are people intensive institutions. The major part of their costs is actually in salaries. And the major reason why the universities require so much money is that they have low staff/student ratios. We can always run universities in a much cheaper way by having more students to each staff member. But then the quality of teaching will deteriorate. The major part of the revenue increase will actually go to hire more teachers in order to keep the staff/student ratio at a reasonable level. Every year we have got NWC increases and wage costs go up, and the university costs must go up and therefore fees must go up, but in future years it will be at a much lower rate than in the last four years. The point brought up by Dr Low Seow Chay and Prof. Maurice Choo regarding the use of the CPF of siblings to help pay the fees, I believe this has already been announced by the Ministry of Labour in the papers this morning. I think they said that this is possible on a case by case basis. The other suggestion is that after the students have graduated they should be allowed to use their CPF to pay off the loans which they got from the Government. The Minister for Labour has informed me that the students' union has also written to him about this. He is replying to them and there is no doubt that he will be very happy to send his reply to the Members who have asked this particular question. If Members are not satisfied, they can always raise a Question for Oral Answer in Parliament. On the point brought up by Encik Wan Hussin regarding the particular problem of Malay students and whether consultations have been made with MENDAKI, I would assure him that this has already been the case and that no Malay student will face undue financial difficulties about this. MENDAKI is well aware of the fee increase and they have been in consultation with NUS and NTI. So that has been taken care of. Dr Vasoo asked whether the ceiling for loan can be increased to 70% or 75%. 65% seems to be quite adequate at the present time. In fact, the university students are quite happy with 65%, but we can always consider a loan increase, if necessary. But I believe that if we increase the ceiling of the loan to 65% plus the money which is available from NUS and NTI from their own loan funds, there is actually enough finance for the time being to meet the needs. But we will keep that point under consideration. There are two points brought up by Prof. Maurice Choo. One is whether the banks can offer lower rates of interest to students, because this is a preferred group of customers who later on would go out and earn a lot of money and be very good customers of the banks and the banks should therefore take this opportunity to cultivate their custom. I am sure that the banks will take this into consideration. And if the banks would like to do it, I have no objections. Similarly, whether we can have some educational insurance, I would like to inform him that there are quite a number of insurance companies in Singapore which already have got educational insurance schemes. The students' union also raised this with me. What I told them was to write to the various insurance companies and find out all the terms. I am sure the companies will be very pleased to provide the information. If they want, they can distribute and disseminate this to all the students and the students, if they like, can take it from any of the insurance companies. I think I have dealt with all the points here, except for one point raised by Dr Lee Siew-Choh as to why the Government does not essentially just provide a bigger subsidy to the university instead of raising fees and that we should spend more money on education. The Government, as I have repeated many times, not only I but all my colleagues including the Prime Minister, has said that education is our top priority. Our only resource is our people here. We are quite sensible people. We know that it is worth our while to spend money on education and I can say quite frankly that the Ministry of Finance has been most generous in financing education in Singapore and we should not quarrel with the money which they have given us. The amount of money which we now spend on education in Singapore constitutes some 4% of our GDP. We have put it as our objective that we will raise the amount spent on education to 5% of our GDP in the coming years as the various schemes for upgrading education in the primary schools, the secondary schools, the post-secondary education and universities come to fruition. 5% of our GDP means that essentially some 20% of total Government spending, $1 out of every $5, will be spent on education. I think this is a very generous amount. Although I am the Education Minister and, of course, every Minister likes to get as much money for his Ministry as possible, we have to be responsible. There are other vital Government Ministries such as Defence which have to be allocated their fair share of money. Education is vital, so are a lot of other Government Ministries. And the Ministry of Finance must make a fair allocation of money to all the various Ministries. I am of the view that 5% of our GDP or 20% of total Government spending on education is a generous allocation and should be enough to finance all the schemes which will be implemented by the Ministry of Education. Sir, I am worried about one particular comment which he has made, ie, why does the Government with all its huge surpluses need to raise fees and cause anxiety to parents and worry to students and some trouble for Members of Parliament? Why do we not give the universities more money and save us all this trouble? I think this is a very dangerous philosophy. All these huge surpluses have come about because we have had a very thrifty generation. We have had a lot of surpluses because we have worked hard and we have saved money. I do not think that we want to be the generation which has spent all the money which was accumulated by the first generation. We are in a sense new rich in Singapore. And looking at all our vast surpluses, it appears to us that there is no limit and that we can spend on anything we like. But believe you me, it only takes a few years to spend what your fathers and your forefathers have earned. And I believe that it is prudent for us to manage our finances properly, spend where it is necessary and, as I said, the Government has been most generous with regard to spending on education as well as with other social services like health, looking after the aged and so on. But if we have free education, if anybody can go to school or university and does not pay anything, will we have a better education system? I do not believe so. There is psychologically an advantage in making people pay for a service, even if the payment is only a nominal one. Of course, we have to make sure that any payment which people make will not cause distress and, particularly in the case of education, will not make it difficult or impossible for poorer children to go up the education ladder. That is why we must have a wide variety of safety nets, Government loan schemes, private loan schemes, university loan schemes, to help any child who needs financial assistance, whether this is in independent schools or at university level. By making them pay a little bit, I think it helps to concentrate the mind wonderfully, that you are there, you are paying for something, therefore, you should make the best use of your life, whether it is in school or university. Under those circumstances, I think they would turn into better students and eventually better citizens. Sir, before I conclude, one last point made by Mr Chandra Das about letting students know and consulting with them. I met with the student leaders of NUS and NTI last Monday, 29th April, to discuss about the increase in university fees and the impact on students in NUS and NTI. On the whole, it was a good meeting. The student leaders pressed their case with determination but also with a sense of responsibility and a sense of politeness. Some of their suggestions and requests, we have been able to accept, as I just announced in the Ministerial Statement. Other suggestions and requests, I explained to them that we could not consider at the present time because they were not in accordance with present Government policy. The student leaders took the point well, and a few days after the meeting they very kindly sent me a courteous letter to thank me for taking time to meet with them and listening to their suggestions and requests. Sir, I think we can take pride in the students who are now being educated in the National University of Singapore and the Nanyang Technological Institute. They are a credit to themselves, to their families, to their universities and to the fine young men and young women of Singapore. NUS and NTI deserve the support of all Singaporeans. And provided that Government sets the lead by way of substantial initial donation and possibly by way of dollar-for-dollar contribution until the target is reached, I am confident that with the traditional generosity of Singaporeans and the strong support of the alumni of NUS and NTI, we should be able to reach our target of $1 billion for the endowment funds for the two universities within a period of five years. Much obliged, Sir.

Dr Tan, would you like to withdraw your motion?

Mr Speaker, I beg leave to withdraw the motion. Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

3.12 pm

"to amend the Parliamentary Elections Act (Chapter 218 of the 1989 Revised Edition)", presented by the Minister for Law and Home Affairs (Prof. S. Jayakumar) (on behalf of the Prime Minister); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

"to amend the Public Utilities Act (Chapter 261 of the 1990 Revised Edition)", presented by the Minister of State for Trade and Industry (Mr Mah Bow Tan); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

"to amend the Income Tax Act (Chapter 134 of the 1985 Revised Edition)", recommendation of President signified; presented by the Minister for Finance (Dr Richard Hu Tsu Tau); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

"to amend the Financial Procedure Act (Chapter 109 of the 1985 Revised Edition)", presented by Dr Richard Hu Tsu Tau; read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

"to establish the National Arts Council and for matters connected therewith", presented by the Acting Minister for Information and the Arts (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. 3.45 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The main purpose of the National Productivity Board (Amendment) Bill is to enable the National Productivity Board (NPB): (a) to form companies, whether solely or in partnership, so as to enable it to play a wider role in promoting productivity and upgrading the skills of our workforce; and (b) to be appointed as the Administrators of the Skills Development Fund (SDF) with overall accountability for the Fund. Since the launch of the Productivity Movement in 1981, the NPB has adopted a collaborative approach, by tapping the expertise of companies in the private sector to accelerate productivity growth of local businesses. I would like to quote some examples here. First of all, the NPB-IBM Information Technology Training Centre, which was launched in April 1988 to provide hands-on computer training for clerical and secretarial workers. The NPB-Motorola Training Design Centre, which was launched in May 1989 to assist companies develop customised training programmes, for example, for training of mid-career workers. The NPB-SIA Service Quality Centre, which was set up in November 1990, conducts programmes for frontline staff, supervisors and managers to improve service quality. The NPB-Philips Industrial Engineering Training Institute, which was launched in January 1991 to train workers in the manufacturing sector in the application of IE techniques. Due to the widening scope of productivity-related issues, NPB will in future need to introduce many more new programmes. In some cases, it may not have the expertise nor the resources to implement them by itself. It may need to form joint ventures with other companies that have the required expertise. The present NPB Act is, however, silent on whether NPB can form companies or enter into joint ventures. It is therefore proposed that: (a) Section 8 of the NPB Act, relating to Powers of the Board, be amended to allow NPB to form companies or to enter into joint ventures, subject to Ministerial approval; and (b) Section 21(1) (Funds of the Board) be consequentially amended to allow NPB to receive dividends and other incomes generated by these companies that NPB may own, whether solely or in partnership. The need for the restructuring of the SDF will be dealt with in detail in the Second Reading on the Skills Development Levy (Amendment) Bill. Very briefly, I propose that NPB be made the Administrator of the SDF. The NPB has in practice been assisting the SDF in formulating new initiatives and programmes for worker training, and also administering the ongoing SDF programmes since 1986. The appointment of NPB as the administrator of the SDF will enable the present informal arrangement to be placed on a proper legislative footing, with NPB legally and financially accountable for the administration of the Fund. To allow NPB to administer the SDF, additional clauses have to be added to section 6 of the NPB Act (Objects of Board) to make it an object of the Board to:-

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 Mah Bow Tan]. Bill considered in Committee.

Clauses 1 to 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 4 -

Sir, I beg to move, In page 3, line 9, to leave out "control and". Sir, the intention of the amendment is to conserve and preserve the status of the SDF as a Government fund while appointing NPB to administer it. This means that control of the fund will be retained in Government's hands. NPB will administer it in accordance with the Financial Procedure Act and the associated financial regulations which govern all public monies. Amendment agreed to. Clause 4, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 5 to 14 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported with an amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The purpose of the Skills Development Levy (Amendment) Bill is to streamline the administration of the Skills Development Fund (SDF), to clarify the financial accountability for the Fund, and to appoint the National Productivity Board as the overall Administrator of the SDF. Sir, the SDF was set up in 1979 as a Government fund under the Ministry of Finance to support worker training and skills upgrading. Operationally, the CPF Board collected the levy, the Accountant-General managed the Fund, the Economic Development Board administered the SDF programmes and the Revenue Division of the Ministry of Finance disbursed the grants for these programmes. In 1986, the SDF and the NPB were both transferred to the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) to consolidate resources for workers' training and productivity. The Skills Development Levy Act was not amended. As a result, six Government agencies and statutory boards are presently involved in administering the Fund, namely MTI, the Accountant-General, the Comptroller of Income Tax, the CPF Board, NPB and the SDF Secretariat. Sir, although the Act still specifies that the Comptroller of Income Tax collects the Skills Development Levy, the Comptroller does not report to MTI. Furthermore, MTI is accountable for the Fund even though actual grant disbursements are administered by the staff in NPB and SDF. Sir, the involvement of such a large number of agencies obviously results in a diffusion of financial responsibility. There is therefore a need to rationalise and to streamline the system so that financial accountability is more clearly defined. In practice, the NPB has been assisting the SDF Secretariat in formulating new training initiatives since 1986. It is therefore logical for the NPB to be appointed the overall administrator of the Fund. To effect this, the Skills Development Levy Act has to be amended: (a) to appoint the NPB as the overall Administrator of the Fund and to delete references in the Act to the Comptroller of Income Tax and the payroll tax; (b) to give the NPB the flexibility to appoint agents for the administration so that the existing machinery of the CPF Board and the Accountant-General need not be duplicated; (c) to incorporate the relevant sections of the Payroll Tax Act and its associated Regulations in the Skills Development Levy Act so as to provide NPB with equivalent power to enforce levy collections; and (d) to dissolve the SDF Advisory Council, as its functions will be taken over by the National Productivity Board. The Ministry is aware of the dual role of the NPB as an administrator and user of SDF funds. In recognition of this, we have taken precautions to ensure that MTI will still hold the casting vote in the Fund. NPB will have to seek the approval of the Minister for any new direction or any new programme for SDF funding. The Fund's annual budget will still be vetted by MTI. Any major project requiring SDF financing will also have to be approved by MTI. I am also introducing further amendments to the Skills Development Levy Act so that the SDF will remain a Government fund protected by the Government even though NPB is appointed as the Administrator. These are: (a) to appoint employees of the NPB as "public officers" as defined in the Financial Procedure Act so that they will be held financially accountable to the Government for the Fund's monies; (b) to stipulate explicitly in the Skills Development Levy Act that the NPB will submit the accounts annually to the Auditor-General and the Minister will present the audited statements to Parliament as is the present practice. The continued presence of the Auditor-General in the SDF administration is an added insurance for the financial integrity of the Fund. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Skills Development Levy will remain a key factor in building up our training infrastructure for post-employment training. The appointment of NPB as the Administrator of the SDF will provide a closer coordination between trainer and financier and will strengthen our post-employment training structure. 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 Mah Bow Tan]. Bill considered in Committee.

Clauses 1 and 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 3 -

Sir, I beg to move, In page 2, line 13, to leave out "Board" and insert "Government". Sir, I have indicated in the debate on the NPB (Amendment) Bill that the intention is to preserve the status of the SDF as a Government fund. So any money outstanding in the Fund is therefore money owing to the Government. Amendment agreed to. Clause 3, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 5 -

Sir, I beg to move, In page 2, line 24, to leave out from "(3)" to the end of line 30. Sir, the reason is that the Fund will continue to vest in the Government as a Government fund. There is therefore no need to transfer the Fund vested in the NPB. Amendment agreed to. Clause 5, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 7 -

Sir, I beg to move, (1) In page 2, line 36, to leave out "control and". (2) In page 3, line 27, to leave out "appointments and delegations", and insert "appointment and delegation". (3) In page 3, to leave out lines 30 to 32 inclusive. Sir, the SDF will remain in the control of Government and not transferred to NPB. The second amendment is a grammatical correction and the third amendment is that since the Fund will be protected by Government, there is no need to define the limitation of the liability of the NPB. Amendments agreed to. Clause 7, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The two consequential amendments will be made: (1) In page 2, to leave out the marginal note to section 9, and insert - "Administration of Fund.". (2) In page 3, line 29, after "Gazette.", to insert close inverted commas and a fullstop. Clause 8 - Question proposed, "That clause 8 stand part of the Bill."

Sir, it is the intention that this clause be deleted. Sir, the unutilized accumulated fund of the SDF is currently placed as fixed deposits with banks. This practice will continue under NPB's administration. There is therefore no need to amend the clause on investment of SDF monies and the decision will continue to be made by the Minister.

Question put, and negatived. Clause 8 accordingly disagreed to.

Consequential amendments will be made to the numbering of clauses. Clauses 9 and 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 11 -

Sir, I beg to move, (1) In page 5, to leave out lines 34 to 36 inclusive and insert - "Application 16. The members, of Financial employees and agents Procedure Act. of the Board shall, in Cap. 109. relation to the administration of the Fund, be deemed to be public officers for the purposes of the Financial Procedure Act and section 20 of that Act shall apply to such persons notwithstanding that they are not or were not in the employment of the Government. Financial 17.-

Consequential amendments will be made to renumber sections 17 to 22 as sections 18 to 23, respectively. Clause 12 -

Sir, I beg to move, (1) In page 7, to leave out marginal note, and insert "Repeal and re-enactment of Schedule.". (2) In page 7, line 32, to leave out "Schedules", and insert "Schedule". (3) In page 7, to leave out line 33 to line 39 in page 9 and insert - " "THE SCHEDULE Section 23.". Sir, as I have explained, the First Schedule on Financial Provisions is not required. So the three amendments erase the Financial Provisions in the First Schedule and replace it with the contents of the Second Schedule on the "Matters in respect of which Minister may make Regulations." Amendments agreed to. Clause 12, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported with amendments; read a Third time and passed.

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

asked the Minister for National Development whether the Housing and Development Board will arrange with the developer of a HDB privatised site (located opposite Bedok South Avenue 3/New Upper Changi Road) to construct a lighted footpath that will provide a shorter and more convenient route from the Jalan Tanjong/Tanah Merah Kechil Road area to the Tanah Merah MRT station as the original footpath used for gaining access to the station has been demolished and an alternative footpath provided is too far away.

The conditions for sale for the site opposite Bedok South Avenue 3 require the developer to provide a road linking New Upper Changi Road to his development. To create a more direct route to the Tanah Merah MRT station for residents in the Jalan Tanjong area, the PWD will construct a lighted footpath to link Tanah Merah Kechil Road with this new road. To minimise the inconvenience to residents, we will ask the developer to build the road as early as possible to tie in with PWD's footpath construction. In the meantime, residents will have to use the alternative footpath provided next to the development site.

asked the Minister for National Development whether more shops will be constructed in Simei Housing Estate for the estate to be self-contained.

There are 24 commercial units in Simei Estate, comprising 1 mini-market, 1 eating house, 16 lock-up shops, and 6 market-produce shops. HDB is aware that the number of shops is currently not sufficient to serve the 6120 flats in the Estate. A tender will be called within the next few months for another 29 additional commercial units, which will be located next to the Simei MRT Station. With these additional units, the number and types of shops in the Estate will be comparable to those in other HDB neighbourhoods, and will be sufficient to meet most of the needs of residents. In addition, residents have convenient access to a wide variety of shops in Tampines New Town. Annex A - 1990 RECURRENT EXPENDITURE AND ENROLMENT (Cols. 83 - 84) Annex B - TUITION FEE LOAN SCHEME (Cols. 85 - 86)