Hansard, 1992-07-31

Under the provisions of clause 2(d) of Article 46 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, the following Members have been granted permission to be or to remain absent from sittings of Parliament (or any Committee of Parliament to which they have been appointed) for the periods stated:- Mr Ho Peng Kee - from 3rd to 6th June and from 22nd to 27th June, 1992. Dr Wang Kai Yuen - from 6th to 21st June, 1992. Mr Choo Wee Khiang - from 6th to 14th June and from 1st to 5th July, 1992. Dr Ahmad Mattar - from 7th to 19th June, 1992. Mr Lim Chee Onn - from 8th to 11th June, from 23rd to 24th June, from 30th June to 3rd July, from 14th to 15th July, from 19th to 25th July and from 29th to 31st July, 1992. Mr Lim Boon Heng - from 9th to 15th June and from 20th to 24th July, 1992. Mr Charles Chong - from 9th to 18th June, from 22nd to 29th June, from 3rd to 6th July and from 3rd to 8th August, 1992. Dr Ong Chit Chung - on 10th June and from 12th to 13th June, 1992. Mr R Sinnakaruppan - on 11th June and on 7th July, 1992. Mr Heng Chiang Meng - from 12th to 18th June, from 23rd to 26th June, from 29th to 30th June and from 22nd to 30th July, 1992. Mr Peter Sung - from 12th to 30th June, from 17th to 21st July, from 22nd to 30th July, and from 4th to 7th August, 1992. Encik Sidek bin Saniff - from 13th to 22nd June, 1992. Mr Chng Hee Kok - from 14th to 19th June, 1992. Mr Abdullah Tarmugi - from 15th to 25th June, 1992. Dr Wong Kwei Cheong - from 15th to 17th June, from 29th June to 1st July and from 13th to 17th July, 1992. Mr Wong Kan Seng - from 16th to 23rd June, from 29th June to 1st July, from 6th to 8th July and from 21st to 26th July, 1992. Encik Ibrahim bin Othman - from 17th to 19th June, 1992. Mr Loh Meng See - from 18th June to 6th July and from 9th to 10th July, 1992. Mr Davinder Singh - from 19th to 30th June, on 9th July, on 31st July and from 16th to 19th August, 1992. Mr Lim Hng Kiang - from 20th to 22nd June, from 6th to 8th July and from 6th to 8th August, 1992. Encik Yatiman Yusof - from 22nd to 29th June, 1992. Mr Yeo Toon Chia - from 22nd to 29th June, 1992. Mr Goh Chee Wee - from 22nd to 27th June and from 6th to 18th July, 1992. Dr Koh Lip Lin - from 27th June to 3rd July, 1992. Dr Wan Soon Bee - from 28th June to 4th July and from 17th to 21st July, 1992. Mr Mah Bow Tan - from 29th to 30th June and from 17th to 20th July, 1992. Mr Ch'ng Jit Koon - on 30th June, 1992. Dr Ker Sin Tze - from 1st to 8th July, 1992. Mr S Chandra Das - from 7th to 9th July and from 27th July to 1st August, 1992. Mr Bernard Chen - from 13th to 15th July and from 30th July to 2nd August, 1992. Dr Yeo Ning Hong - from 14th to 16th July, 1992. Mr Ong Teng Cheong - from 17th to 20th July, 1992. Mr Lew Syn Pau - from 17th to 20th July and from 23rd to 26th July, 1992. Encik Othman bin Haron Eusofe - from 17th to 23rd July, 1992. Dr John Chen Seow Phun - from 24th to 26th July, 1992. Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon - from 27th July to 10th August, 1992. Mr Teo Chong Tee - from 30th July to 1st August, 1992. Encik Mohamad Maidin B P M - on 31st July, 1992. Mr Lee Yock Suan - from 1st to 8th August, 1992. Mr Koo Tsai Kee - from 5th to 26th September, 1992. Mr Lee Kuan Yew - on 31st July, 1992. 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: 8th June, 1992 (i) Limitation (Amendment) Bill 1992; (ii) Trustees (Amendment) Bill 1992; and (iii) Wills (Amendment) Bill 1992. TAN SOO KHOON Speaker Parliament of Singapore

asked the Minister for National Development whether his Ministry has any intention of building golf courses in our forest reserves.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the hon. Member is probably referring to the Public Utilities Board's (PUB) proposal to develop a golf course at the Lower Peirce Reservoir. This is still at a very preliminary stage as PUB has not submitted it to the Chief Planner for planning approval. The PUB has commissioned an "environmental impact study" to determine the impact of the project on the ecology of the area. If the study shows that the golf course will cause extensive damage to the nature reserves, it is unlikely that the Chief Planner will approve it. I would like to assure the House that my Ministry is as aware as anybody else of the need to protect our nature reserves. Despite our limited land resource, we have set aside some 2,000 hectares of land in the Central Catchment and Bukit Timah areas as gazetted Nature Reserves. Currently, the National Parks Board is conducting a physical and biological survey of the nature reserves. This survey will provide National Parks Board with a comprehensive data base on the reserves' physical features and animal and plant life. The survey findings will be used to identify and preserve core areas with the richest concentration of animal and plant life. Through proper planning, National Parks Board can tap the full potential of our nature reserves for educational and recreational use with minimal impact on areas of greatest ecological value.

Mr Speaker, Sir, which organisation has been commissioned to undertake the "environmental impact study" and what are their credentials?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I cannot recollect the name of the person who has been engaged by the PUB. There are two studies going on. One is the PUB study on the impact of the proposed golf course and, I mentioned the other study that is being done by the National Parks Board. I cannot tell the Member the name but obviously before they were selected we went through their qualifications. If the Member wants, I can supply him the name later.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if this project is still in the proposal stage, why is it that an announcement has been made and this has created so much anxiety among certain Singaporeans?

Mr Speaker, Sir, perhaps the word "proposal" that I used is not quite the right word. It is an idea that the PUB is looking into. I do not know who made the announcement and how it came out in the press. Certainly no announcement was made by my Ministry or by the Planning Department. But somehow the subject emerged in the media and, of course, nature lovers jumped on it and blew it up into a big matter. But as I mentioned just now, no planning application has been made yet and when it is made, it will be considered in the usual way.

asked the Minister for National Development whether the demand for bigger Housing and Development Board purchased flats increased significantly in 1990 and 1991 and what further steps are being taken to reduce the waiting period for such flats under the new booking system.

Mr Speaker, Sir, demand for all categories of HDB flats has increased in recent years. In 1989, HDB received a total of 32,800 new applications for 4-room and larger flats. The number of applications increased to 35,100 in 1990 and 48,200 in 1991, an increase of 47% over the three-year period. This increase is due to the increasing number of applicants who are upgrading to bigger flats. Demand for 5-room flats was especially buoyant, with the number of applications for 5-room flats nearly doubling over the last three years, from 10,100 in 1989, to 11,300 in 1990, and 19,200 in 1991. Over the same period, demand for Executive flats also rose but at a lower rate of about 26%. There were 7,400 applications in 1989 for Executive flats, 8,200 in 1990, and 9,300 in 1991. HDB has therefore stepped up its Construction Programme for new flats over the past three years. But such increase in construction is constrained by the capacity of the construction industry as a whole. It has to be done gradually so as to maintain quality and not overheat the construction industry and push up building costs. To reduce the waiting period for certain groups of flat applicants, the balloting system for allocation of flats was modified at the beginning of this year to give priority in the allocation of flats to: (i) new households, in preference to upgraders; and (ii) repeatedly unsuccessful applicants, in preference to first-time applicants. Following this change, new households who apply for 5-room and Executive flats in new towns under development such as Woodlands, Chua Chu Kang and Jurong West, are generally able to book a flat after two to three ballots, ie, about six to nine months from first application. As demand for flats in Tampines New Town is relatively high, those who apply for 5-room and Executive flats in Tampines may have to wait a little longer. Generally, they should be able to book a flat after three to four ballots. As the Revised Balloting Scheme was implemented only recently and is working satisfactorily, it would be premature to modify it further. HDB will continue to monitor demand for HDB flats and will step up its Construction Programme for new flats as much as possible, to further reduce the waiting period for applicants.

Sir, may I ask the Minister two supplementary questions? Is the current new booking system working better than the old system? Are there plans to address the concern about increasing prices of HDB flats?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not want to go into all the advantages of the new booking system over the old waiting list system. The system is working well and people know at the time of application whether they are going to get a flat within a very specific period. Under the old system, they just put their names there and they did not know when they were going to be offered, where they were going to be offered, and what price they were going to be offered. All these uncertainties are removed in the new booking system. My view is that it is a better system, both from the point of view of the buyer as well as from the point of view of HDB which has to build these flats. It has got a better idea as to what to build and where to build these flats. Increasing prices of HDB flats, yes, some concern has been expressed. But I think it is very important for Members to inform their constituents and the general public that when we talk of changes in the prices of HDB flats over a period of time, and when people talk of a 4-room flat going up by 20-30% in price, we are not talking about the same product or the same type of flat. HDB is not like McDonald's. You can go to any McDonald in Singapore, it is the same Big Mac that you are going to get, the price is the same and I assume that what you buy today will be the same as what you buy a month or a year from now. Each HDB development is different It is in a different location, it has got a different orientation and it has got a different design. So you cannot compare, say, a 4-room flat built one year ago in Chua Chu Kang with a 4-room flat offered now in Tampines. They are not the same thing. Just as people would not compare developments in the private sector over different periods and in different places, I think people must get used to the idea that HDB is now building flats which are different. Every contract is virtually different because it takes into account location and builds in improvements that the HDB has tried out. In spite of the increased prices, it is very clear from the applications that people do value location and design and are prepared to pay for it. When we compare the general increase in prices, we tend to lump together all the flats offered in a quarter. Many of the flats offered may be in the city area and the prices here are high. They can be as much as one-third more than similar size flats in the outlying new towns. In spite of that, applications are also high. In the mature estates, for example, in Queenstown and Geylang, for every flat there are almost seven applicants. In other words, the total number of applications was seven times the number of flats that we offered in spite of the fact that the prices were about one-third more than elsewhere. As regards design, Members are aware that in the last quarter, we offered, for the first time, flats designed by private architects and built by contractors for the HDB. These prices were about 15% higher than the HDB-designed flats. Yet the applications were 18 1/2 times more than the number of flats offered. So people are prepared to pay for design. But if we get the feedback that people do not want better design or good locations, then of course HDB can go back to smaller flats, cheaper designs and poorer finishes. If people want that and that is the kind of feedback we get from the demand pattern, then we will go down to building such flats.

Mr Speaker, Sir, does the Minister agree that the price of public housing should be kept at a level which is affordable to Singaporeans?

Mr Speaker, Sir, that is obviously one of the main considerations - whatever we build, whatever improvements and designs we provide in HDB flats should be within the affordability of Singaporeans. We constantly keep track of this and if the Member had looked at an article in the Business Times of 16th July, which is based on some facts given by the HDB, he would have noted that in spite of the increased price, the monthly income required to afford these flats - calculated on the basis of their CPF contributions - is, in fact, still much less than the average monthly household income. So affordability is an important criterion. We try to make sure that flats are built and priced in such a way that they continue to be affordable to Singaporeans. But what we cannot do is to build flats and price them in such a way that everybody can afford an Executive flat. That is not possible. There are 3-room, 4-room, 5-room and Executive flats. We provide the whole range. People must choose the flat that they can afford. We cannot promise to build the biggest flats in the best area and make them affordable to all Singaporeans.

asked the Minister for the Environment whether the Government has any plans to sell the stalls in some selected wet markets to the existing stallholders.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Government's policy is to divest itself from the management of markets and food centres over time. My Ministry is now studying the option for divestment. One option is to allow existing stallholders to buy over the stalls on a term lease in markets and food centres not affected by redevelopment and details are now being looked into.

Sir, does the Government have any plan for the empty stalls in the wet market at Cuppage Centre and Cambridge Road market?

Mr Speaker, Sir, Cuppage Road Market is situated in Cuppage Centre which is owned by Pidemco Land. As far as I know, Pidemco Land has plans to redevelop the site. I am sorry I do not know the details of the redevelopment plan. As regards Cambridge Road Market, it belongs to HDB and, as far as we know, the market will not be affected by any future redevelopment. As such, it will come under this scheme.

Sir, may I ask the Minister when the existing stallholders would be offered the option to buy over the stalls, as the Ministry has taken a long time over this matter.

Yes, Sir, we have taken a long time because we do not want to rush into it, without considering all the issues concerned. Mr Speaker, Sir, in any policy or proposal affecting stallholders, careful consideration will have to be given to minimise the displacement of hawkers and, where possible, every opportunity will be given for them to continue their trade. That is the reason why, admittedly, we have taken a long time on this matter.

asked the Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs how many permanent Muslim Religious Teachers-cum-Counsellors are attached to drug rehabilitation centres and prisons, and when the required number of such Teachers-cum-Counsellors will be reached.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there are three posts of Muslim Religious Teachers-cum-Counsellors in Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura (MUIS). Two of the posts have been filled. One Religious Teacher-cum-Counsellor is attached full-time at Selarang Park Centre and the other at Sembawang Centre. MUIS has invited applications to fill the third vacant post but so far has not been able to recruit any suitable candidate. MUIS will shortly invite applications again to fill the vacancy.

asked the Minister for Education whether he allows organisations to set up educational facilities, such as kindergartens, whose objectives are not purely educational but are also politically motivated.

Mr Speaker, Sir, under the Education Act, my Ministry will allow an organisation to register and set up a school provided it satisfies certain conditions. Generally, the requirements relate to the reliability and capability of the organisation and its management, the provision of safe and adequate premises for the school, the qualifications of the staff, and the school curriculum. The school has also to ensure that its activities are not detrimental to the public or the pupils.

I am certain that the Minister did hear the announcement of the Prime Minister at the last General Election that if the constituency did not support the PAP the kindergarten will be closed. Does the Minister, in fact, view that as using the kindergarten set up by the PAP Foundation as a political tool of the Party?

Sir, I believe that the kindergartens referred to are those run by the PAP Community Foundation, not by the PAP. The PAP Community Foundation (PCF) is a charitable organisation to promote the welfare and interest of Singaporeans. One of its objectives is to foster, develop and improve education of all kinds, including the organising and running of kindergarten classes. As to whether the PCF will cut back on the numbers of students in certain sectors, it is up to the PCF to decide, based on their own resource constraints and their planning. It has nothing to do with the Government.

I am afraid the Minister has not answered my question. It is a clear-cut case and it is known to the public. He can look up the Straits Times of 31st August 1991, and it was stated that if the constituents did not vote PAP, the kindergartens will be cut back. That is a clear-cut case of using educational facilities for a political purpose. Does the Minister agree with me on that point first?

To my knowledge, there was a recent announcement that the PCF has to cut back the kindergartens to some extent in certain wards. This was because of resource constraints. Anyway, the question should be properly directed to the PCF because it is a matter for PCF to decide.

No, I am asking the Minister, from what the public knows, from what the public has seen in the papers, are the facilities of the PCF being used for a political purpose? I am asking him that now, yes or no?

Sir, I believe Mr Goh Chok Tong was speaking in his capacity as the Leader of the PAP. Of course, the PAP is the one that set up the PCF. But the PCF will have to decide what are its plans, in view of its resource constraints.

I will ask the Minister now, from what he knows, from what he reads in the papers of 31st August 1991, does he view that announcement of cutting back on the kindergarten facilities in Opposition wards if they should vote Opposition members as a political announcement? Does he not agree on that?

I think whether it is a political issue or not is a matter of opinion.

Do not evade the question.

Order. Mr Chiam, would you allow the Minister to complete his answer?

It is a point of order, Sir. The Minister refuses to answer the question. It is very simple. He can give a "Yes" or a "No". But he is skirting around and refusing to answer the question.

Mr Chiam, what is your supplementary question?

It is very simple. I am asking him whether or not the announcement by the Prime Minister on 31st August 1991 that constituencies that vote Opposition MPs will have their kindergarten facilities cut back - and everybody knows about that - is a political one. I am asking the Minister whether or not the educational facilities of the PCF have been used for a political purpose. Yes or no? Do not skirt the question.

It is still a matter of opinion. I think this was done during an election campaign. The PAP had the right to tell the public at that time that if they elect an Opposition Member, then obviously they cannot expect the PAP MP to serve them in the same way. If the PCF is set up by the PAP, obviously it must look after the interests of its founders first.

Just now the Minister mentioned that the PAP Community Foundation is different from the PAP.

Mr Low, are you asking a question?

Point of order, Mr Speaker. I think Mr Chiam is asking a question about the PCF. The Minister for Education is not in charge of the PCF. He should direct his question to the PCF.

Sir, may I answer the Minister on that point?

No, you are supposed to ask supplementary questions only.

Is the Minister above Standing Orders?

Order. Mr Chiam, this is not a debate. This is Question Time.

Sir, is the Minister above Standing Orders? He stood up to clarify a point and I think the Opposition has the right to answer that point. Otherwise, it will be seen as if he is right and we are wrong.

During Question Time, the Member has the right to ask questions.

But he did not ask question. He clarified the point.

He rose on a point of order. Could both of you resume your seats?

All right, I will ask a supplementary question.

Yes, ask your supplementary question.

I will ask the Minister for Education whether or not the kindergartens set up by the PCF is under his jurisdiction.

The answer is a clear no. The Ministry is responsible for approving and registering schools and education centres. But the kindergartens of the PCF are run by the PCF. So his question should really be directed to the PCF.

Are the kindergartens of the PCF set up under the Education Act?

Yes, the kindergartens of the PCF are approved by my Ministry under the Education Act.

If the kindergartens of the PCF are set up under the Education Act, are not these educational facilities then under your jurisdiction? Because you do supervise all educational facilities set up under the Education Act.

Sir, may I raise a point of order because there are so many other Questions and, in the interest of the despatch of parliamentary business, we should conduct our proceedings orderly. The question really is whether the supplementary questions by Mr Chiam are properly put. Standing Orders No. 18 says: '(1) Questions may be put to Ministers relating to -

Mr Chiam, I have to make a ruling on the point of order first. I will accept the point of order that has been raised. Do you have any more supplementary questions pertaining to this topic?

Can I rise on a point of order?

What is your point of order?

As regards the example given by the Minister for Home Affairs, if it is set up by the YMCA, fair enough, the Minister may not ---

That is not a point of order, Mr Chiam.

It is a point of order to answer his query.

Mr Chiam, I have already made a ruling on the point of order and it is not a subject of debate.

The point of order is that these educational organisations, ie, the kindergartens set up by the PCF, are set up under the Education Act.

Order. Mr Chiam, I think you do not know what is a point of order. A point of order has been made. I have made a ruling. There is no more debate on this. Do you have any more supplementary questions to the question that you have asked?

I will ask a supplementary question. Does the Minister know that in the exercise for enrolment of K1 and K2 at Potong Pasir, the organisers of these kindergartens asked whether or not their parents are affiliated to any political body? Does the Minister know that the people in charge at that kindergarten asked this particular question? Does the Minister know that?

Order. Mr Chiam, your question is not relevant. Do you have any more supplementary questions?

All right. I will tell the Minister ---

Mr Chiam, if you have no more questions, I will ask you to resume your seat.

I have supplementary questions. I will tell the Minister now ---

Mr Chiam, there are a lot of Questions on the Order Paper today. You had a long time on the floor already. I shall now allow you one more supplementary question. Now, ask your supplementary question.

All right, one last question. It is a pity, Sir, because I think we do owe a duty to the people of Singapore to let them know what is exactly happening.

Mr Chiam, are you asking a question or do you want to engage in a debate?

I will ask a supplementary question. Does the Minister allow an educational organisation, like the PCF kindergarten, when enroling its pupils, to allow the organisers of that educational organisation to ask parents whether they are members of a political party, and the enrolment of the child to that kindergarten is based on the answers given? Does he allow that?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have already stated that my Ministry approves and registers schools. To do so is to make sure that the schools are properly run and they have proper facilities and so on. But the Ministry is not responsible for running the school. The Ministry does not decide whether the pupils should be from a particular denomination.

Just answer the question.

For example, a church may require that its students come from church members. The Ministry does not, for example, control private schools. [Interruptions.]

Order. Mr Chiam, I must warn you that you are disrupting the proceedings of the House by constantly interrupting the answers given by the Minister. I suggest that you listen to the answer before saying anything else. You may continue, Mr Lee.

I was trying to explain to Mr Chiam and to Members that although the Ministry registers the schools, it does not run the schools. For example, it does not run the private schools and there are many private schools. In the same way, the PCF kindergarten is a private school. So it is not for the Ministry to say whether they have certain conditions for their enrolment or whether they should expand the capacity in certain places. These are entirely matters for the management of the kindergartens. In the same way, for example, the Ministry of Finance registers companies, but it does not interfere in the management of the companies.

asked the Minister for Education if he will explain the rationale for the long-term target of 25% cost sharing by university students and justify the recent National University of Singapore fees hike (1992/93) by making public the details of "wage and other cost increases".

Mr Speaker, Sir, even with the recent fee revisions, university education in Singapore continues to be highly subsidised. The Government pays the entire capital cost and about 80% of the running cost of the two universities. Students in the universities make up about 5% of our student population but consume a disproportionate 20% of the total education budget. As university graduates will earn more than most Singaporeans, it is fair that they should eventually bear about 25% of the universities' operating budget. Otherwise the universities' share of the education budget will further increase, leaving less for those students who do not make it to the universities. The universities' operating budget for financial year 1992/93 is $517 million. This is an increase of 11% over their budget for financial year 1991. Manpower cost constitutes nearly 70% of their total operating budget and has increased by 14% in financial year 1992 over financial year 1991.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in my question I asked for details of "wages and other cost increases", not only percentage increase.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I was giving the general picture. I do not have the details here. But if he wants them, I can supply them. There is no problem there.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like the Minister to make public my question. I am asking details of "wage and other cost increases" in 1991 for NUS.

I think the important figure is the 14% I mentioned. He can also find out the details from the budget book, for example, or from the University's annual report. It is no secret.

Sir, why is the Ministry still increasing the University fees in the light of the Government's conclusion that wages have exceeded productivity and there should be lesser or no wage increase? Does the Minister think that parents can afford the increase?

In terms of affordability, I think there is no difficulty. There are a number of schemes. For example, there is a Tuition Loan Scheme whereby students can borrow from the fund set up by the universities and they can repay over a period of up to 20 years, beginning two years after they graduate. In fact, the figure shows that only about 25% of the students are borrowing from that source. Some other students are borrowing from their parents' CPF. The increase this year has in fact been very marginal. It is only 5% to 7% as compared to the manpower cost increase of about 14%. So in that sense, the Government is in fact under-recovering the cost increase. It does not mean that the Government is spending less. The Government is also spending more. But it is a matter of policy that the share of the students should be maintained at about 20%, eventually increasing to 25%. The reason, as I have explained, is that it is fair to do this. Otherwise, they will be eating into the education budget and leaving less for the others.

Sir, the Minister mentioned just now about loan schemes. Does the Minister think that it is healthy for the future of Singapore if our graduates are indebted as a result of study loans, even before they enter the job market?

I think this is no different than, for example, when the students graduate and they borrow money to buy a house. So it is the same thing. The important point is that they are enjoying the most subsidy from the Government. Of course, the students will prefer that there is no fee increase. I think they should look at it positively that henceforth, the fee increases will be very moderate, keeping up with the cost increases and slowly creeping up to a 25% share. The students can be assured that over the next few years there will be no big sudden increase, unlike in the past few years. That is the essential point.

Mr Loh.

Supplementary question, Sir.

Mr Loh has the floor.

Question No. 7, Sir.

asked the Minister for Health what are his Ministry's plans to reverse the trend in the increasing number of smokers among our youths.

Mr Speaker, Sir, my Ministry's Smoking Control Programme has a two-pronged strategy - education and legislation. As education is the key to the prevention of smoking, my Ministry plans to step up the education of youths against smoking. Smoking education is included in the health education curriculum of primary schools, and the science curriculum and the new physical education syllabus of secondary schools. My Ministry will also conduct more exhibitions and talks and expand the smoking education component in the healthy lifestyle programmes in schools, Institutes of Technical Education (ITE) and other educational institutions. We will also work with youth organisations to reach out to youths in the community. In addition, my Ministry will work with the Singapore Cancer Society and the Youngberg Hospital to increase the reach of their smoking cessation programmes for young people in schools and workplaces. My Ministry will continue to provide smoking education in the workplaces. We will assist companies interested in becoming smoke-free and help them conduct smoking cessation programmes. We will also continue to use the mass media to educate the public and youths on the harmful effects of tobacco and to deglamourise smoking. As part of the plan to prevent the young from taking up smoking, my Ministry will be introducing legislation to prohibit the sale, giving or furnishing of any tobacco product to any person below the age of 18 years. We are also studying legislation enacted by other countries and their effectiveness in controlling smoking amongst youths.

Sir, I did not hear from the Minister that there will be a possible ban on smoking in public places for these under-18 youths. Can he confirm that?

Sir, that option is also under consideration. We are now looking at the legislation enacted by Canada earlier this year which includes the ban on smoking in public places by youths. We are following up to see how they have coped with the issues posed by such a ban and we would, if feasible, introduce that in Singapore as well.

Sir, when the Ministry considers the enforcement of a ban on smoking in public places for the under-18 youths, will it be such that there will not be the social stigma of treating them as criminals, and could some lenient measures be considered in the legislation?

Sir, we will bear in mind the points raised by Mr Loh when we consider the legislation.

asked the Minister for Labour if he will give his assurance that the withdrawal age for the Central Provident Fund will not be altered as a result of the proposed raising of the retirement age.

Mr Speaker, Sir, my Ministry has no intention to change the present CPF withdrawal age in conjunction with the raising of the retirement age.

asked the Minister for Labour whether he will relax on the use of the Central Provident Fund so that members with large savings in their CPF accounts will be allowed to withdraw a certain amount of money, within a specified scope, to help their relatives in the payment of housing loans, conservancy charges and even living and medical expenses during unusually hard times.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the CPF contribution rate of 40% is based on a member's old-age, housing and health requirements. Most CPF members have used part of their savings to purchase HDB flats or private residential properties. They also use the monthly CPF contributions to meet their mortgage repayments. The result is that more than half of the CPF members have net balances of less than $22,000. It is therefore not feasible to allow CPF members to withdraw their savings to finance repayment of housing loans taken by their relatives, or to pay conservancy charges and living expenses incurred by their relatives. Sir, on medical expenses, the current Medisave Scheme allows the CPF member to use his Medisave to pay for the hospitalisation expenses of his dependants which include his spouse, children, parents and grandparents, provided their grandparents are either Singapore citizens or permanent residents. Extending this to include other relatives will only make it more difficult for the member to save for hospitalisation needs in his old age. Essentially, the CPF concept is based on family self-reliance. Each employee should save to meet his future requirements. Sir, the House will today consider extending this concept to the self-employed by requiring them to contribute to Medisave. This is far better than to encourage a system where personal old-age savings are being used prematurely to pay for relatives' living expenses.

asked the Minister for Communications (a) what are the preventive measures taken by the Singapore Bus Service (1978) Ltd to protect persons from being knocked down by SBS buses at bus stops and interchanges and (b) how many persons were knocked down by SBS buses at bus stops or interchanges since 1990.

Mr Speaker, Sir, SBS has a Traffic Safety Unit (TSU) to administer a traffic safety programme which covers all aspects of its bus operations. This incudes requiring all its drivers to undergo a safe driving and road safety training course before they are allowed to drive buses on the road; monitoring the safety records of SBS drivers closely; and deploying traffic safety inspectors at bus interchanges as well as on the roads to check on its drivers to ensure that they drive safely and do not speed. SBS also has a programme to put up reinforced concrete bollards at end-on berths in interchanges as a safety measure. It conducts regular views of such safety measures together with the relevant authorities such as the Registry of Vehicles, Traffic Police and the Public Works Department. The Member has also asked the number of accidents since 1990. There were a total of seven accidents involving SBS buses at bus stops, bus terminals and bus interchanges, of which three were fatal. No one was injured in the other four cases.

asked the Minister for Communications what is the schedule for the recycling of the 30,000 plus vehicles scrapped recently at the end of the grace period for automobiles older than 10 years and how does this schedule tie in with the overall concept of the vehicle quota system.

asked the Minister for Communications whether he will consider allowing partial payment of vehicle quota premium based on the remaining expected life span for vehicles older than 10 years and whether he will allow taxi quota premium to be computed on the legal life span of 7 years for taxis.

Sir, may I have your permission to take Questions Nos. 11 and 12 together, as they are related.

It is all right, as they are related.

Sir, in the first four months of this year, a total of 26,468 vehicles were deregistered. This was higher than normal. According to current practice, the replacement Certificates of Entitlement (COEs) from the deregistered vehicles will be added to the quota 12 months later, in other words, with effect from May 1993. The high number of deregistrations is likely to result in increased demand for COEs in the next few months as some owners seek to replace their vehicles. My Ministry is now studying how best to recycle some of these COEs earlier. The study is being done together with the current review on the Vehicle Quota System, which we have operated for two years already. We also need to resolve the issue of transferability as the non-transferable COE trial will be coming to an end soon. We are now considering various views and suggestions from many different interested parties, particularly from the Feed- back Unit and also from associations, such as the Automobile Association of Singapore and the Motor Traders Association. Sir, the Member's suggestion to prorate the vehicle quota premium to shorter periods in the case of COE renewal and for taxi COEs will be among the issues considered in this review, together with other suggestions that we have received.

Sir, in view of the fact that about 37,000 cars were scrapped recently, is the Minister willing to abate the COE system to six months instead of a year?

First of all, Sir, the number is actually about 26,000. But this is the overall number. As I have said, the normal deregistrations for that period are around 2,000 to 3,000 a month. So if you take the extraordinary number of vehicles, above and beyond this number, it is something like 16,000 or 17,000. So we really do not have the "37,000" figure that was mentioned by Mr Chiam. But having said that, as I explained in my answer just now, we are currently reviewing this policy of putting back the deregistered COEs 12 months later and try to bring them forward, with the intention of increasing the supply to keep up with the increased demand for COEs.

asked the Minister for Communications whether he will consider graduating the Preferential Additional Registration Fee benefit to provide an incentive to a car owner to deregister his car at an earlier age than ten years in order to enjoy a higher PARF value for his car.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I find the Member's suggestion on the graduated PARF Scheme an interesting one. My Ministry will look into this. We could take it up together with the ongoing review of the Vehicle Quota System.

asked the Minister for Community Development (a) how much was spent by his Ministry on public assistance in 1991 and (b) what is the breakdown of the number of recipients in 1991 according to the following categories: (i) aged destitute persons; (ii) the disabled, the mentally ill and the chronically sick who were unfit to work; (iii) widows or deserted wives with children under 12 years of age; and (iv) orphans.

Sir, in 1991, my Ministry disbursed $4.55 million as public assistance allowance. In addition, my Ministry also gave out $730,000 from six charitable funds administered by my Ministry to needy families, including those on public assistance allowance. There were 2,332 households on public assistance allowance as at 31st December 1991. Of these households, 2,030 had aged destitute persons; 184 had either disabled persons or others who were mentally ill or chronically ill which rendered them unfit for work; 113 had heads of households who were widows, deserted or distressed wives with young or schooling children; and 5 had children who were orphans and were living with relatives.

asked the Minister for National Development whether he will consider introducing legislation to amend the Town Councils Act to give Town Councils a completely free hand to manage, control and improve the common property of Housing and Development Board estates.

I am answering on behalf of the Minister for National Development. The Town Councils Act already provides the Town Councils with the necessary powers to carry out their functions. The Town Councils Act allows Town Councils to control, manage, maintain and improve the common property of the public housing estates under their management. Town Councils can decide how best they wish to run the housing estates. For example, they can determine the level of services they wish to provide, and the amount of service and conservancy charges they want to levy. They have the authority to make by-laws to regulate and control the use and enjoyment of the common property. They can also carry out improvements to the common property, such as installing playgrounds, covered walkways, barbecue pits, and so on, which meet the requirements of the relevant authorities and which have the landowner's consent. My Ministry, therefore, does not see any need to amend the Town Councils Act at the moment.

Sir, the experience of the Potong Pasir Town Council is not in consonance with the answer given by the Minister. We have letters from the HDB telling us specifically ---

Order. Mr Chiam, ask your question.

I have to put these preliminary facts before I can ask the question.

You are not allowed to make a speech. Could you go direct to your question?

If what the Minister said is true in regard to common property, why is it that the HDB insists that we write to them for any improvement which we intend to make in Potong Pasir?

Mr Speaker, Sir, there are several reasons why any improvement needs the HDB's consent. First, HDB flats are owned by the lessees. HDB continues to own the common areas. The Town Council only manages the common areas on behalf of the owner, ie, the HDB. So if the Town Council wants to make any improvement to the common areas, the Town Council has to apply to the HDB for the landowner's consent. The second reason why the Town Councils have to apply to HDB is that the Town Councils have to meet certain planning requirements and planning standards. HDB has been delegated certain powers by the Planning Department to oversee the planning provisions in the HDB estates. The third reason is, as the engineering authority delegated by the Building Control Division, HDB must also satisfy that any improvement that the Town Council wants to do will not affect the structural safety of the HDB blocks.

Sir, despite municipal approvals, why is it that the Potong Pasir Town Council still needs to get clearance from the HDB in regard to planning and other factors? Why do we still need to get the consent of the HDB to make improvements to the common property?

I think the Member for Potong Pasir did not understand my answer. Basically, the Town Councils are managing the estates on behalf of the owner. The Town Councils do not own the common property. So when you want to do something, obviously you have to seek the consent of the owner. That is the first reason. You are only managing the common property, you are not the landowner of the common property. The second reason is, as I have explained, you have to meet certain planning requirements and HDB will also evaluate the planning requirements and planning standards. HDB also evaluates the structural safety. If the Member has problem with any particular facility that he wants to implement in Potong Pasir and has not got approval from HDB, he can write to the Ministry of National Development and we will consider his request. Members may like to know that most of the requests which he has put up have been approved - barbecue pits, sheltered pedestrian walkways, town signboards, residents' corner, multi-purpose court, and even a swimming pool, which he asked for, have been approved by the HDB, as the landlord. But if these are not implemented on the ground, do not blame the HDB.

Sir, I have already mentioned that we have difficulty in getting approval. We do not agree with what the Minister has said. Recently, the Prime Minister has announced that Town Councils should play a bigger role. Now, if the HDB ---

Order. Mr Chiam, please learn to frame your remarks in the form of a question. Could you go direct to your supplementary question?

Is the Minister willing to allow Town Councils to play a bigger role without, every now and then, having to get consent from the HDB in running the Town Councils? If so, is he willing to give the Town Councils a completely free hand to do so?

I have answered the question. HDB and the Ministry of National Development are not prepared to give the Town Councils a completely free hand where it interferes with the rights of the landowner. The Town Council has got a completely free hand to raise the SC and CC charges.

Sir, will the Minister of State confirm that several Town Councils have implemented improvement projects in their towns and that Mr Chiam is only using this as an excuse for not taking these projects off the ground?

I not only confirm that but I am prepared to give a long list of the things which the Potong Pasir Town Council has requested for and they have been approved. As I rattled off just now, there were barbecue pits, sheltered pedestrian walkways, signboards, residents' corner, multi-purpose court, swimming pool, widening of footbridge, security grilles. I can go on, but I would not want to embarrass him by stating the status of the implementation. So there is no problem in getting approval from HDB, as the landlord. All the other Town Councils go through the same procedures. They have got the permission very promptly and they executed their improvements.

If the Minister is right, does he not realise that the permission given to build a creche at Block 139 of Potong Pasir Estate has been revoked by the HDB?

If the Member is referring to the child care centre that the Potong Pasir Town Council has put up, child care centres are provided by the private sector and HDB, as the landowner, generally disallows child care centres to be put up in the void decks. The particular case in Block 139 has been given approval by HDB. It has not been revoked. HDB has informed the Potong Pasir Town Council that another urgent requirement has come up and that the child care centre will be put up in a year's time.

Since the Minister is in front of me, I would like to ask him which alternative site has the HDB given to the Potong Pasir Town Council to build a creche that has been refused permission?

HDB has not given the Member an alternative site because the site that has been allocated to him will be built. It will be built side by side with the other facilities that are coming up. But to stage the implementation of the various facilities in Potong Pasir, HDB has told him that the construction of the child care centre will be delayed by one year.

We have letters from the HDB saying that the HDB is building an alternative child care centre next to this mental home that has been taken over from the original site. That is what the HDB said. I am afraid the Minister's answer is wrong. I am asking now whether or not he would like to clarify his answer.

The answers which I have given are the facts. You have been allocated a site to build a child care centre. That site has been taken over by a more urgent requirement for a facility for the aged. The child care centre will be built adjacent to the facility for the aged.

Sir, my understanding is that the site at Block 139 is being given to the SAMH, and not for a facility for the aged.

Mr Chiam, what is your question?

My question is: does he confirm that the site given to the Potong Pasir Town Council for a creche has now been taken over by a home for the aged? Does he confirm that?

I have already said this several times. Obviously, I am not communicating with him. The site, originally designated for the child care centre, has been taken over by the SAMH facility. HDB, therefore, tells him that it will build the child care centre at the adjacent site next to the facility for the SAMH.

What does SAMH stand for, please?

I do not think that is a question you need to answer.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there is less than half a minute left and ---

You want to ask Question No. 16?

I would like to ask if this House is prepared to extend the Question Time.

Are you asking your question?

If not, I would like to postpone my questions to the next available sitting of Parliament.

You are not asking your question.

No.

Question No. 18, Sir. 1.30 pm

I am sorry, end of Question time. Under the Standing Orders, the Clerk will circulate answers to the questions which have not been asked. [Pursuant to Standing Order No. 21(3), Questions Nos. 16 and 17 have been postponed to the next available sitting of Parliament. Written answers to Questions Nos. 18 to 27 on the Order Paper are reproduced in the section, 'Oral Answers to Questions Not Reached' (Cols. 157 - 162).]

"to amend the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act (Chapter 92A of the 1990 Revised Edition)", presented by the Minister for National Development (Mr S. Dhanabalan); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

"to amend the Environmental Public Health Act (Chapter 95 of the 1988 Revised Edition)", presented by the Minister for the Environment (Dr Ahmad Mattar); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

"to amend the Small Claims Tribunals Act (Chapter 308 of the 1985 Revised Edition)", presented by the Minister for Law (Prof. S. Jayakumar); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

"to amend the Income Tax Act (Chapter 134 of the 1992 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 Companies Act (Chapter 50 of the 1990 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 an education endowment scheme and for matters connected therewith", presented by the Minister for Education (Mr Lee Yock Suan); 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. 1.34 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Bill before this House seeks to establish a statutory board to be known as the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore. The new Authority will take over the existing functions of the Inland Revenue Department (IRD) and act as agent of the Government in administering, assessing, collecting and enforcing payment of income tax, property tax, stamp duties, estate duties and other taxes. IRD implements the Government's taxation policies. It plays a key role in collecting revenue to finance the operations of the Government. In 1991, IRD collected $7.85 billion or 56.4% of total Government operating revenue. From the Government's viewpoint, it is therefore very critical that IRD be prompt in its assessment and collection of taxes. IRD must be well managed and efficiently run. To enable IRD to respond to the changing operating environment, its line managers must be given sufficient manpower resources and expertise and the flexibility to manage them. There must also be adequate resources if IRD is to safeguard the integrity of the tax system. In its operations, the IRD has to deal with some 1.2 million income taxpayers and some 700,000 property taxpayers. This tax base is growing every year. As the tax payer population covers a wide spectrum of the public, ranging from individual taxpayers to big corporations, IRD must be able to provide a high standard of public service and be responsive to their needs. As a statutory board, IRD will be able to perform its functions more effectively. With the flexibility to formulate its own personnel policies and offer more competitive wages, it will be in a better position than as a Government department to compete with the private sector for its fair share of available talent in the market. It will be better able to attract and retain the right people to enhance its management and professional competence. These changes and improvements will result in tax revenue for the Government being collected more promptly. They will also benefit the public. Taxpayers can expect more responsive and better quality service. The conversion will, however, not affect the amount of taxes the public has to pay. The amount of taxes depends on tax policies and tax rates as decided by the Ministry and approved by Parliament. Sir, I would now like to draw the attention of the House to the main clauses of the Bill. Clause 3 establishes the Authority as a body corporate. Clause 5 provides that the Minister for Finance will be the ex-officio Chairman of the Authority. This is a necessary safeguard given the sensitivity of tax administration and collection. In addition to the Chairman, there will be four to six other members of the Authority, to be appointed by the Minister from among persons who have had experience in public administration, financial, tax or commercial matters. Among these members will be the Deputy Chairman and the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Authority. Clauses 6 and 7 set out the functions and powers of the Authority. The Authority will perform the present functions of IRD in administering, assessing, collecting and enforcing payment of taxes. As a statutory body, the Authority will act as agent of the Government in these matters. It will also take over the other non-revenue functions currently undertaken by IRD such as representing Singapore in negotiations with other countries on the avoidance of double taxation, providing advice on property valuation, and the registration and supervision of charities. Under clause 9, the CEO of the Authority, to be known as Commissioner of Inland Revenue, will be responsible to the Chairman for the proper administration of the Authority's functions. The Authority will also consult the Public Service Commission before appointing the Chief Executive Officer. It is my intention that the CEO of the Authority will also be appointed as the Comptroller of Income Tax, the Comptroller of Property Tax, the Commissioner of Stamp Duties, the Commissioner of Estate Duties and the Commissioner of Charities. The CEO of the Authority will discharge the duties of these various statutory offices. This is in line with the current practice whereby the person holding the departmental title of Commissioner of Inland Revenue also holds these various statutory offices. With this arrangement, the powers to assess, collect and enforce payment of income tax will remain with the Comptroller of Income Tax. Similarly, such powers in relation to property tax will remain with the Comptroller of Property Tax. Therefore, tax returns and notices will continue to be in the name of the Comptroller, and not the Authority. There will be no change in the legal relationship between the taxpayer and the Comptroller after the Authority is established. Clauses 12 to 17 set out the financial provisions governing the Authority. The Authority, in return for the services it renders to the Government, will be paid an agency fee to finance its operations. The tax moneys collected by the Authority will be paid into the Consolidated Fund. The accounts for the Government's tax revenue and the Authority's internal funds will be kept separate. Financial statements relating to both accounts will be presented to Parliament each year. The financial statements of the Authority will be audited by the Auditor-General. Further details on financial provisions are set out in the Second Schedule, which follows the model provisions stipulated by the Auditor-General. I now turn to discuss clauses 18 to 24 which provide for the transfer of assets, liabilities and employees of IRD to the Authority. Under clause 18, the rights and obligations relating to IRD in connection with taxes or licence fees will remain with the Government and will not be transferred to the Authority. Under clause 19, such categories of staff in IRD as the Minister may determine will be transferred to the Authority on terms not less favourable than what they were enjoying before the transfer. Pension rights of these transferred officers will also be preserved. These are standard provisions which are also found in other Acts where Government departments were converted into statutory boards. The final part of the Bill from clauses 25 to 31 relate to general provisions. As the Authority is acting as an agent of the Government in tax matters, legal proceedings in such matters will continue to be brought by or against the Government, and not the Authority. However, since the Authority will be administering the Acts specified in the Third Schedule, its officers will continue to represent the Government in criminal proceedings for offences under these Acts. These officers will, however, have to be authorised by the Commissioner of Inland Revenue with the consent of the Attorney-General. Clause 26 also provides for the Authority's legal officers to represent the Government in any civil proceedings involving tax matters. This preserves the current position where legal officers of the IRD appear in tax cases before the Courts. In conclusion, I would like to say that this Bill will put our tax administration in a better position to cope with its heavy workload, and to meet future challenges it will face in the task of tax collection and administration. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to express my support for the Bill which provides for the conversion of the Inland Revenue Department into a statutory board to be called the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS). At present, one of the major difficulties of the Inland Revenue Department is the lack of manpower to process tax returns. As a statutory board, the IRAS will be better placed to attract and retain good officers by offering them competitive wages and more flexible perks and benefits which are closer to the market. I agree with the Minister that a tax administration which has motivated and well-trained staff will mean greater efficiency and better service to the taxpayers. While I am, in principle, supportive of the Bill, I would like to seek a few points of clarification with the Minister with regard to how he envisage the new Authority would operate and how it could function in an efficient and cost effective manner. As the IRAS is acting essentially as the managing agent of the Government to provide a service in administering, assessing and collecting taxes, I wonder how the IRAS' efficiency and effectiveness can be measured and sustained. The point I would like to make is that unlike other statutory boards where some performance reference can be made to similar private sector practices or entities, or to similar activities in other countries, the proposed IRAS is not subject to market competition. Therefore, it does not need to be cost or manpower conscious as there is no bottom line or profit and loss for the IRAS to be conscious of. Along the same line of argument, I wonder what kind of checks and controls the Minister would apply to ensure the financial and manpower usage discipline of the IRAS. It may well be possible that the IRAS could just simply seek to employ more and more people to process the backlog of tax assessments rather than to be more cost conscious and to seek out more innovative and efficient methods, such as to intensify its computerisation programme. Sir, a final query that I have is that in the formation of the IRAS, would the Government be thinking that with its plan to eventually introduce consumption tax, there will be more manpower and administrative cost involved? Therefore, forming a statutory board now could be a conduit for more flexibility in manpower recruitment and future cost increases. My primary concern, Sir, is: Would the taxpayers be paying more to process their own tax assessments than before?

Sir, given the record of the Government for its efficiency in collecting vast amounts of money from the people, the Opposition is naturally apprehensive about the handing over of the job of collecting the nation's revenue to an independent body. According to last year's annual report of the Inland Revenue Department, the total revenue collected by the Government was $27.412 billion, 40% of which, at $7.842 billion, were collected by the Inland Revenue Department from the various types of taxes. The amounts collected year after year by the Government are far in excess of the Government's total annual expenses. No wonder, the Minister for Finance almost in a reflex action can announce massive budget surpluses yearly. I did express the fear in last year's Budget debate that the incumbent Government may be forced to increase its own savings as a result of the amendments to the Constitution giving powers to the Elected President to stop a Government from using the national reserves which it did not earn. Is the transfer of duties of collecting Government revenue from the Government department to an independent statutory body an attempt to increase the already high Government revenue to an over-flowing level so as to accumulate more reserves for the present Government? If that is so, then the cost of living and the cost of doing business in Singapore naturally will further increase. In that event, there shall be further hardship on the working people and local businessmen shall suffer even more. The Government has already got a very sharp knife in respect of the Inland Revenue Department in collecting taxes. Why does it need a still sharper knife? Many people at the ground speculate that the conversion of the Inland Revenue Department to a statutory body is a natural progression of the Government's privatisation policy. A statutory board like the Singapore Telecom has been privatised. Very soon, the PUB shall also be privatised. These privatised bodies may soon be listed in the Singapore Stock Exchange. The Government, in taking these steps, intends to make massive amounts of profits. With profit motive in mind, will the Inland Revenue Department also take the path of the Singapore Telecom and the PUB? I would like the Minister to let the public know whether or not the Inland Revenue Department will also be eventually privatised and be listed in the Singapore Stock Exchange, since the Government is so bent in making huge profits.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the Bill. First, a few clarifications on Mr Chiam's points. I believe that the IRAS is not going to be a private company to be listed in the Stock Exchange. Perhaps that is his hope. But, as I understand it, the IRAS is going to be a statutory board. So I think he is extending his imagination too far. Besides, Singapore Telecom is not a private company yet. He continues to talk about how Singaporeans are paying onerous and burdensome tax. The fact is that while the tax paid in Singapore is wide, not many people pay a lot of taxes. Most people in Singapore pay less than $500 in taxes or thereabouts. If you factor in the benefits, I think most Singaporeans will agree that what they pay is value for money. So I think his arguments are totally groundless, totally irrelevant. I think he has a high sense of drama and he exaggerates minor things, and he has a flair for hyperbole. The functions of the proposed Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS) are now being competently performed by the Inland Revenue Department (IRD). This includes administering, assessing, collecting and enforcing payment of taxes on behalf of the Government. It also carries out non-revenue functions like negotiating with other countries for the avoidance of double taxation, registering and supervising charities and providing advice on property valuations. While these functions are being competently performed by the IRD, I believe that by allowing the IRD to become a statutory board, it can do its job better. How? I think some of the reasons have been elucidated by the Minister and Mr Leong. Basically, by becoming a statutory board, the IRAS will have the flexibility to formulate its own personnel and financial policies. In short, it can hire and fire, and be more accountable to the public in terms of cost and efficiency. This ties in very nicely with the President's Address of January 1992. In that Address, the President advised that Government departments should, whenever possible, be subject to the market discipline as private companies do, but not amounting to what Mr Chiam has understood to be listed in the Stock Exchange. Presently, the efficiency of taxation is not transparent because it does not undertake its own staff recruitment, it does not pay for its services rendered by other agencies, neither does it pay for rental for office space. The proposed IRAS Act will force the full cost of tax collection to be totally transparent. But, first to increase efficiency, I believe the IRAS must recruit competent and motivated staff. I understand that the turnover of staff in the IRD is presently very high, higher than most civil service departments. This is not surprising because the nature of the job makes them very marketable and valuable. Yet at the same time, the administering of tax collection and the enforcing of tax payments are an arduous task not designed for the feeble-minded. IRD officers are often at the sharp end of public fury. Why? Because few people like to pay taxes, and those who pay taxes, most of them think that they have been over-assessed. So they scream over the telephone, they bang tables at the counter at the IRD. I support the proposal to pay the IRAS officers competitive market salaries because what we pay them will be more than returned to us when tax efficiency rises. The more efficiently our IRD officers collect taxes, the less all of us need to pay taxes. Because for everyone who is not paying taxes, the tax burden shifts to somebody else, or else total Government expenditure must drop, because inputs drop, meaning a drop in the quality of service, and by extension, a drop in the quality of life. If everybody pays taxes, then the tax burden will be spread over a wider base, and it will never become too heavy for any one individual. I think we must work on the principle that everybody who receives services from the Government should pay taxes, and those who have not been paying taxes, should be dragged into the tax net. My principal concern in supporting this IRAS Bill is the welfare of the existing civil servants in the IRD. I have, however, been assured that their welfare has been carefully considered. I am told, and in fact the Minister has just reinforced that, that everybody will be given a choice to either stay in the civil service or be transferred or seconded to the new statutory board. And the salary of those transferred will be no less favourable than those enjoyed by the same officers in the civil service. My advice to the existing civil servants in the IRD is to quickly join the IRAS before they close the door. Mr Speaker, Sir, I really cannot think of any rational being who might wish to oppose this Bill. But then perhaps I could be wrong. Clearly, it is not in the interest of those who have cheated on the IRD or who wish to cheat the IRD, to want the IRAS to be more efficient than the IRD. These people might oppose the Bill. But since none of these people is represented in this House, I should think that the Minister will get unanimous support from the hon. Members in this Chamber. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support this Bill.

Sir, point of order.

What is your point of order?

Sir, I object to the Member trying to imply that anybody who does not support the Bill intends to cheat the Inland Revenue Department. I think that this statement that he has made should be withdrawn.

No, Mr Chiam, that is not a point of order. Mr Koo, you can continue with your speech.

I have already concluded my speech, Sir.

Sir, I would like to thank Mr Leong and Mr Koo for supporting the Bill. I will try to alleviate Mr Chiam's concerns about the reasons for the change. Mr Leong was concerned about how the effectiveness of the IRD would be affected by the change from a Government department to a statutory board. Basically, the same criteria in evaluating and monitoring the performance of the IRD would be applied in the case of the Board. Do not forget, the Chairman of the Board will be the Minister for Finance and the Deputy Chairman is intended to be the Permanent Secretary (Revenue). So these are precisely the same people who are now concerned with overseeing the activities of the Department. In assessing the performance of the IRD, three basic criteria are used. The first is to assess the cost of collecting each dollar of revenue. In other words, we monitor the amount of money which the IRD, or the IRAS as a statutory board, consumes in collecting every dollar of revenue. So far, the performance has been good although it could be improved because a lot of taxes remain uncollected. Currently, the most recent figure is that for every dollar of revenue collected the cost is about three-quarters of one cent, which I think is very good by international standards. Secondly, another way of monitoring IRD's performance is in ascertaining the efficiency with which its assessments are processed and taxes collected. Here, as I have stated, the performance is not adequate at all because of a shortage of staff. Hence, the proposal to convert the department to a statutory board to allow it more flexibility to employ staff and pay them sufficient wages to retain them. A final criterion used to measure the performance of the tax collection department is the public satisfaction of taxpayers. Here we conduct surveys of taxpayers to assess whether they are satisfied with the service that they are receiving from the Department from time to time. So there should be no change in the use of these criteria in evaluating the performance of the statutory board as opposed to the Department. Mr Leong also wanted to know whether the conversion will cost the Government additional money. Effectively, there will be no change whatsoever in the cost of collection other than the need perhaps to recruit additional staff in the future to make up for positions which have never been filled. But as far as the Government is concerned, we will try to ensure that the cost of collection does not increase the tax burden of the taxpayer. I now turn to the concerns raised by Mr Chiam. He was also worried that the transfer of the Department to a statutory board would mean an increase in both the tax collected from the public and wanted to know why it is necessary to sharpen the knife to collect more taxes since the Government is already collecting vast sums. I would like to assure him that the tax levying function is still retained by the Ministry of Finance, subject to the approval of Parliament. In other words, only the Ministry of Finance and the Government can propose tax changes which affect the tax payable by our citizens, and that is subject to final approval by Parliament. The IRAS has no power whatsoever to change tax rates. It merely collects what is due to the Government. Therefore, there is no question of a sharper knife needed, except to collect taxes which taxpayers already owed the Government, which they by law should pay but have remained uncollected because the staff of the Department are unable to process large numbers of cases. I have quoted in the Budget debate the level of uncollected taxes, and the current figure is still around $1.14 billion of uncollected taxes a year. Mr Chiam also wanted to know why we need to collect more of the uncollected taxes because revenue collections are rising very healthily, and we have large balances and surpluses. Tax rates, as I said, are determined by Government, and Government's record in tax changes, I think, has been very satisfactory, in fact very generous, because over the past few years both corporate and personal taxes have been cut regularly. We have in fact not increased taxes other than those levied for specific social needs, such as petroleum taxes, liquor taxes, tobacco taxes and water conservation taxes. The fact that we are able, notwithstanding falls in taxes and cuts in taxes, to increase our revenue collections is because the economy has been growing very strongly, and Government has exercised very careful controls over expenditure; hence the surpluses. Finally, I would like to address the question raised by Mr Koo about concerns over protection of the staff of IRD who are being transferred to the statutory board. I have said earlier that all their rights will be preserved. There are two categories of staff in the Inland Revenue Department. Those who are considered to be Inland Revenue Officers - and these are people concerned with tax evaluation, property evaluation, and legal officers - this class of employees would be compulsorily transferred to the new Inland Revenue statutory board, because their services are essential to the functioning of the IRAS. The balance of the staff which accounts for some 45% of the total staff of the Department, are support staff like clerks, record keepers, typists, and so forth, they are offered the option of either remaining with Government or transferring to the statutory board. But whether they choose to remain with Government or be transferred to the new statutory board, their rights and employment terms are protected fully.

Can I have a clarification from the Minister? The Inland Revenue Department has in fact improved on its performance. Last year, as the Minister pointed out, 0.75 cents was used to collect $1 of tax. There was an improvement from 0.79 cents of the previous year. In other words, its efficiency has been going up. Also, I want to ask what a statutory body can do which the Inland Revenue Department cannot do in collecting this $1.14 billion of uncollected taxes. There are two factors - the performance of the Inland Revenue has been improving, and what the statutory board can do which the Inland Revenue at the moment cannot do. So there is really no reason to change.

The performance indicator of cost per revenue dollar collected applies only to revenue collected. If you have not collected it, that portion is missing. And that is why I said earlier, there are three criteria used - the number of assessments you can process, and hence the number of cases where you have successfully collected, and that cost is progressively decreasing. So it is efficient. But where the inefficiency arises is the inability to process about half the number of cases. So the need to process these half the number of cases, which account for the $1.14 billion worth of uncollected taxes, is the main reason why we want to convert from a Government department to a statutory board. And as I have said earlier in the Second Reading speech, the main reason is, as Mr Koo has noted, the Inland Revenue Department has been unable to recruit staff to fill the positions of substantial numbers of its key tax assessment and valuation people who have left for the private sector for much better salaries. A Government department cannot pay the sort of competitive wages to retain its staff because the question of relativity over the large civil service structure makes it impossible. Hence the need to convert to a statutory board which has much more autonomy in the selection of staff, in recruitment, not subject to Public Service Commission's criteria, and it can pay competitive wages outside the civil service structure.

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

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Bill seeks to dissolve the Redundancy Payments Fund (RPF). This Fund was established in March 1968 under the Redundancy Payments Fund Act to administer the retrenchment benefits paid to employees affected by the withdrawal of the British forces from Singapore. Under the Act, all such benefits must be paid into an account in the RPF. If the retrenched employee is a citizen, he can withdraw monthly amounts from this account until it is exhausted. However, if he is a non-citizen, his monthly payments stop when two-thirds of the original balance are exhausted. The remaining one-third is paid to him only when he leaves Singapore permanently or when he acquires Singapore citizenship. There were originally a total of about 25,000 members in the Fund. As at the end of last year, only 556 members were left. Eighty-nine of these are citizens, of whom three are still receiving monthly payments from the Fund. The remaining 467 are non-citizens who will receive their one-third residual balances when they leave Singapore permanently or when they acquire Singapore citizenship. Sir, with only three citizen members still receiving their monthly payments, the RPF is now practically dormant. The Government has decided to dissolve the Fund as it has outlived its purpose. As at the end of last year, the Fund has a balance of $4.4 million, of which $1.1 million belongs to the existing 556 members, while the remaining amount is surplus. The surplus came about because investments of the Fund between 1968 and 1986 were earning higher returns than the interest rate of 5.25% per annum paid to members in accordance with the Act. Government has decided that the citizen members be paid their balances in full before dissolution of the Fund. This is provided for in clause 4 of the Bill. As for the non-citizen members, they are provided for in clause 5 of the Bill. Non-citizen members who are already residing abroad, or about to leave Singapore permanently, will be given a final opportunity to withdraw the balance due to them. If they fail to do so, the balance will be transferred to their Medisave accounts. The clause also provides for the balances of non-citizen members, who reside in Singapore, to be transferred to their Medisave accounts. Sir, clause 9 of the Bill provides for the transfer of the remaining balances in the RPF, including accumulated surplus, to the Workers' Fund established under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Amongst other uses, the Workers' Fund provides financial assistance to injured workers who have failed to secure workmen's compensation. Finally, Sir, clause 11 of the Bill seeks to repeal the RPF Act. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I want to seek a clarification from the Minister regarding the moneys in the Redundancy Fund. As I see it, the moneys in the Fund belong to the members. And if this is correct, should not the surpluses in the Fund be distributed to the members or credited to their Medisave accounts, instead of being transferred to the Workers' Fund, as provided for in clause 9 of the Bill? Could the Minister explain, please?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the question is whether the surpluses in the RPF should be distributed to the existing members. Sir, as I said earlier on, the surplus came about because over the years the rate of return earned from investment of the Fund was consistently higher than the interest rate of 5.25% provided for under the Redundancy Payments Fund Act. Most of the investments were in the form of government bonds. In 1968 when Government fixed the interest rate of 5.25%, the prevailing interest rate ranged from 5.5% to 6%. All the payments from the RPF were also exempted from income tax. Therefore, the 5.25% guaranteed under the Redundancy Payments Fund was significantly better than the prevailing interest rate in 1968. Furthermore, the Government also undertook to pay this amount of interest even if the revenue from the principal in the Fund amounted to less than 5.25%. So the 5.25% is a guaranteed return on the money held in trust for the members of the Fund. Hence, all members have been adequately compensated and transfer of the surplus to the Workers' Fund is fair and equitable. Furthermore, the Workers' Fund will be available to help the workers who have been unsuccessful, for a variety of reasons, in their claims for workmen's compensation.

I believe Members would like to know the amount in the Fund, the number of members and, in the case where a member cannot be traced,because this Fund first came into being 24 years ago, what happens to the unclaimed funds?

Mr Speaker, I did say earlier on that, at the end of last year, there were only 556 members left in the Fund, and for any unclaimed funds, the administrator of the Redundancy Payments Fund will mount a special exercise to locate and to pay all the members the amount that is due to them. If the member has passed away in the meantime, then the money will be paid to the nominees. However, if the member has no nominees, or he is not traceable, the money that is standing in his account will be transferred to the Public Trustees to be disposed of in accordance with the law.

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

Order for Second Reading read. 2.18 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, the Bill proposes additional provisions for the collection of compulsory Medisave contributions from self-employed persons and the use of CPF savings by CPF members to pay for their share of the cost under the HDB upgrading programme. The Bill also seeks to provide for the appointment of a Deputy Chairman for the CPF Board who, in the absence of the Chairman, will carry out his duties. Mr Speaker, Sir, as announced by the Minister for Health during the 1992 Budget Debate, self-employed persons will be required to contribute to Medisave. This will enable self-employed to provide for their hospitalisation needs. It is in the interests of the self-employed to save in anticipation of their future needs. Sir, from 1st July 1992, all self-employed earning more than $200 per month (or $2,400 per year) were required, under section 77(1)(e) of the existing CPF Act, to contribute 3% of their earned income into their Medisave accounts. The rate of contribution will increase to 4% in January 1994 and thereafter by 1% per year until it reaches the same rate of Medisave contribution as for employees. Sir, the new provisions to be included in the CPF Act for the collection of Medisave from the self-employed are in clauses 4, 5, 8, 9 and 11. I shall elaborate on these clauses. Clause 4 amends section 5 of the Act to extend the investigation powers of the CPF Board's inspectors to cover the self-employed. Clause 5 of the Bill provides for the charging of interest on late payment of CPF contribution by the self-employed. The interest charged will be credited into the Medisave account of the self-employed to make up for the loss in interest that would have accrued had he contributed his Medisave payment on time. Clause 8(b) provides for the crediting of contributions made by the self-employed to the Medisave, Ordinary or Special Account as the Minister may direct. Sir, such contributions will initially be channelled entirely to the Medisave account. However, should the amount accumulated in the Medisave account exceed the prescribed limit (which is $15,000 currently), the excess will be channelled to the Ordinary Account, as is the practice for employees. Sir, clause 8(c) is a new provision. At present, there is a prescribed upper limit of $15,000 for each CPF member's Medisave, and I have mentioned this earlier. Upon reaching this limit, monthly contributions are credited to his Ordinary Account. Clause 8(c) will enable such overflows into the Ordinary Account to be transferred back to the Medisave account. However, applications for such transfer are subject to approval by the Minister. This provision is intended to help those CPF members who have exhausted their Medisave savings after reaching the prescribed limit, but continue to have large balances in their Ordinary Accounts. Sir, many of the self-employed require licensing by the various authorities to carry out their trade or business or to practise their profession or vocation. To ensure that such self-employed persons do contribute to Medisave, clause 9 of the Bill gives the licensing authorities the power to impose contribution to Medisave by the self-employed as a condition for the granting or renewal of any licence, certificate or permit. In practice, the licensing authorities will require the self-employed to show proof of their Medisave contributions before licences are issued or renewed. Clause 11(a) of the Bill empowers the Minister to make regulations to provide for the appointment of agents for the assessment, collection and recovery of CPF contributions. For instance, the Inland Revenue Department could be appointed under this provision to assess and, if necessary, collect CPF contributions for the self-employed as an agent of the CPF Board. Sir, the Government is now embarking on an upgrading programme for older HDB flats. Upgrading will enhance the value of older HDB flats. It is, therefore, in the long-term interest of owners of such HDB flats to be allowed to use their CPF savings to pay for their share of the upgrading cost. Clause 11(c) of the Bill empowers the Minister to make regulations to allow CPF members to withdraw CPF savings for this purpose. Finally, Sir, the Ministry is also taking the opportunity to amend section 11 of the Act to strengthen the existing financial and auditing provisions as requested by the Auditor-General. These new provisions, as well as the existing ones, are in the new Second Schedule created under clause 7 of the Bill. Sir, HDB, URA and TAS have similar provisions in their Acts. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill. It is well-intentioned. It provides for the self-employed persons to open and to contribute to their Medisave accounts. It also allows the use of CPF for the upgrading of HDB flats. I have spoken to a number of self-employed persons - the hawkers, taxi drivers and shopkeepers. Their response to the Medisave scheme for the self-employed has been positive. Generally, they appreciate the need to put aside some money while they are still fit and healthy, and the need to save to pay for the medical bills and to meet the unforeseen emergencies is all the more pressing with rising medical cost. As regards the scheme to allow HDB owners to use their CPF for upgrading work, this is welcomed by the flat owners. But I have a question to ask the Minister. The HDB flats which are to be upgraded are generally the older ones. Invariably, the residents who live in those flats tend to be our older citizens. Some may still have their children staying with them but there are those whose children have already been married and moved out. So some of these older residents may have difficulty paying for the upgrading work. They may not have CPF accounts, or may not have sufficient balance in their accounts. I would like to know if the Government would allow such flat owners to use the CPF savings of their children to help pay for the upgrading work, if their children are willing to help. After all, there is already a CPF Topping-Up Scheme in place, which allows the children of the CPF account holders to top up their parents' CPF retirement accounts. Sir, I would appreciate the Minister's response to this suggestion.

Sir, the original purpose of the CPF scheme is for the workers to accumulate a sum of money as security for their old age. Later on, the Government imposed such high rates that each worker has accumulated fairly large savings which are more than enough as a nest-egg for their old age. So the Government amended the CPF Act and the workers are allowed to use their CPF for various purposes other than the original intention of the CPF, such as buying of HDB flats, private houses and commercial properties, and also to invest in shares and gold. Today, we have before the House this amendment which will stray from the original purpose in which the CPF was set up. A person is now asked to contribute not for his old age but as a form of medical insurance. Is the Government not straying from its original purpose? Having set a precedent today, then what is there to stop the Government from using the CPF for purposes other than as a security for old age?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to thank Mr Goh Chee Wee, Chairman of the GPC for Labour, for his support on the extension of the Medisave scheme to the self-employed. He asked whether a CPF member would be allowed to use his CPF saving to pay for the owner's share of the upgrading cost for his parent's flat. Mr Goh mentioned that there is already a Topping-Up Scheme for the children to top up their parents' CPF accounts. I would like to point out that the Topping-Up Scheme is only for the purpose of establishing the minimum sum for their parents' accounts. In other words, at the point of retirement, if their parents do not have sufficient balances in their CPF accounts to maintain a minimum sum, the children can use their CPF savings or cash to top up their parents' CPF accounts to the minimum sum level. In most cases, the parents are already owners of HDB flats and therefore they would be able to meet the Minimum Sum Scheme by pledging their HDB flats. Therefore, the Topping-Up Scheme is not applicable in this case. As to whether we could allow members to use their CPF to top up their parents' CPF accounts to pay for their share of the upgrading cost, my feeling is that this is not necessary because the Minister for National Development, when announcing the HDB upgrading programme, also offered to assist the older home owners who lack CPF or cash savings to pay for their share of the upgrading cost. The Minister then said that the HDB will proceed with the upgrading for such people who may not have the cash or adequate CPF to pay for their share. But HDB will impose a condition that the owner must reimburse HDB when the flat is subsequently sold. In effect, HDB is saying that it is prepared to advance a second loan to the home owner to enable the owner to take part in the upgrading exercise, and that the payment of the loan would be deferred until the flat is sold. HDB will, of course, have to charge an appropriate interest on such loan. With this offer by HDB, there is no need for CPF members to use their savings to top up their parent's CPF account in order to enable them to meet their share of the upgrading cost. Sir, Mr Chiam has said that the Government is straying from the original purpose of CPF by requiring the self-employed to contribute to Medisave. Medisave is not a new scheme. Medisave has been in existence since 1984. It is very much part and parcel of the original concept of the CPF Act to enable all wage earners, all workers, to put aside some of their income in anticipation of their future requirements, whether it is just retirement expenses, living expenses, but also to meet their future medical expenses. Therefore, extending the Medisave scheme to include the self-employed is very much in line with the objectives of the CPF scheme. The extension of the CPF scheme for home ownership and to allow members to use their balance to invest in stocks, shares or gold is again part of the concept of allowing Singaporeans to increase their asset value. They are allowed to use their CPF savings to build up their assets, so that in future when they retire and when they are not working, they will have sufficient savings to provide them with income to meet their living expenses. I do not think there is a need for me to answer the point about Government extending the use of CPF, because it is highly speculative. The Government has no other intention of allowing CPF to be used for purposes other than what has already been stated, which is for retirement, for housing and for medical expenses.

Sir, I just want a clarification from the Minister. In this particular amendment, self-employed persons will contribute to the CPF specifically for their hospitalisation and medical needs, and not for their old age. That is my point. Whereas other CPF members contribute, in the first place, for their old age needs, and then for other investments.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank Mr Chiam for raising this point. In fact, he is correct. We are only extending this contribution to the CPF by the self-employed for Medisave at this present moment. In fact, we would like to encourage all self-employed persons to contribute to the other accounts in the CPF, ie, Ordinary Account and the Special Account. I am very pleased that Mr Chiam supports this move. In due course, perhaps we can take up his suggestion and move in the direction to extend the entire CPF scheme to all self-employed persons. Anyway, at the present moment, CPF does encourage all self-employed persons to contribute to the CPF as any other employee. It is voluntary. And in order to encourage them, CPF actually provides all self-employed persons who make contribution to their CPF account tax exemption on CPF contributions up to a limit of, I believe, about $12,800 a year. So this is a gesture to ensure that the self-employed are not left out of the CPF scheme and they are also able to save from their current income to put aside money which they will need for their old age.

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

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move the Motion* standing in my name as it appears on the Order Paper. *The Motion reads as follows: That this Parliament, in accordance with Section 4 of the Foreshore Act (Chapter 113), approves the reclamation by Government of the foreshore and seabed at Tuas containing an area of about 20 hectares as shown coloured pink on the plan marked "LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLAN NO 3/92", which is deposited at the Land Office, Singapore. The Government has agreed with the Malaysian Government to jointly develop a new bridge across the Johor Straits, linking Tanjung Kupang, on the Johor side, to the end of Jalan Ahmad Ibrahim at Tuas, on the Singapore side. This proposed second crossing of the Johor Straits will provide an alternative route for travel between Singapore and Peninsular Malaysia. It will relieve the traffic congestion at the present Causeway at Woodlands. This project will require reclamation of approximately 20 hectares of the foreshore and seabed at Tuas as shown coloured pink on the plan marked "LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLAN NO 3/92', a copy of which is displayed in the Library of the House for the information of hon. Members. The proposed reclamation is necessary to accommodate the Customs, Immigration and Quarantine facilities for the proposed second crossing. The vacant land near the site of the proposed second crossing at Tuas has been earmarked for future development. The Housing and Development Board, as agent to the Government, will undertake the reclamation works which are expected to commence in the middle of next year and completed in a period of two years at an estimated cost of $169 million. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Sir, I am heartened to hear from the Minister that the Government has successfully agreed with the Malaysian Government to build a second causeway, linking Singapore to the mainland. This will come only as a good in all aspects of it. I have travelled to Johor by car and have to wait something like two hours in the congestion. I am happy to hear that we will have a second link. It will definitely relieve the congestion and it will be a more pleasant journey to the mainland. Also, with the second link, I believe people will travel more, more connections, more understanding and I am sure the relationship between the two countries will improve. There are many other benefits, trade, culture and all the rest of it. Therefore, I am really happy to hear of this second causeway linking Singapore to Johor.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Parliament, in accordance with Section 4 of the Foreshore Act (Chapter 113), approves the reclamation by Government of the foreshore and seabed at Tuas containing an area of about 20 hectares as shown coloured pink on the plan marked "LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLAN NO 3/92", which is deposited at the Land Office, Singapore.

Before I move the adjournment, Sir, may I advise all Members present here to read up the Standing Orders before they rise on a point of order. Please be clear on what point of order to refer to, and not just say "point of order" and make a speech. In particular, I refer to Mr Chiam who has risen a couple of times on a point of order without really knowing what point of order he was talking about. Sir, I beg to move, That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed." - [Mr Wong Kan Seng]. Adjourned accordingly at Twenty Minutes to Three o'clock pm to a date to be fixed. Appendix I

asked the Minister for Health what was the total amount of hospital fees and charges collected by the Government and restructured hospitals in 1990, 1991 and 1992 (up to June).

The total annual hospital fees and charges collected by Government and restructured hospitals were $224m in 1990, $266m in 1991 and $132m for the first half of 1992.

asked the Minister for Labour what was the total amount of levy collected from the employers in respect of foreign workers and maids for the year 1991 and what is the estimated amount for 1992.

The foreign worker levy collected in the calender year 1991 was $880 million. The amount collected for the first 4 months of 1992 was $325 million. On this basis, I estimate the amount to be collected for the whole of 1992 would be about $975 million.

asked the Minister for Law what was (i) the total amount of fines collected by the Courts and (ii) the amount collected by the Government departments and statutory boards under his Ministry by way of composition offered, for the years 1990, 1991 and 1992 (up to June).

The amounts collected by the Courts for the years 1990, 1991 and 1992 (up to June) are $32,585,010.49, $32,541,050.51 and $15,422,780.86 respectively. (ii) The total amount collected by departments under my Ministry by way of composition offered for the years 1990, 1991 and 1992 (up to June) are $10,000, $90,525 and $4,350 respectively.

asked the Minister for Communications how much has been collected from Certificates of Entitlement since its inception and to what purpose has this collection been put.

Total revenue collection from vehicle quota premium for the period May 1990 to March 1992 is $693.5 million. Like other Government revenues, it is credited to the Consolidated Fund from which Government expenditures are financed.

asked the Minister for National Development what development plans his Ministry has for the piece of vacant land fronting Jurong East Street 31 and when the land will be developed.

Based on the Master Plan, the vacant land fronting Jurong East Street 31 is earmarked for two uses. It will be used partly for an educational institution and partly for residential development. The timing for the development of the sites will depend on demand.

asked the Minister for National Development whether the construction of additional commercial shophouses and a wet market next to the Simei MRT Station will be expedited.

The land next to the Simei MRT Station is intended for the development of shophouses and a wet market. HDB will tender the site for sale to private developers next month. The successful tenderer will be given up to four years to complete the development.

asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether his Ministry intends to set up a Neighbourhood Police Post in Bishan North Estate and, if so, when it will be completed.

There are no plans now to set up a Neighbourhood Police Post in Bishan North Estate. Police's assessment is that there is adequate Police coverage by two NPPs which are within reasonably close proximity, namely Bishan NPP and Thomson NPP.

asked the Minister for Education whether there is any plan to build a secondary school in Changi and, if so, when the school will be completed.

At present, there are 2 secondary schools viz Anglican High School and Changkat Changi Secondary School in Changi Constituency. In addition, there are 11 other secondary schools in the neighbouring GRCs. As there are sufficient secondary school places to serve Changi and the eastern sector of the island, the Ministry of Education has no plan to build a secondary school in Changi.

asked the Minister for Communications whether he will allow a Scheme B bus operator to operate in the Potong Pasir Estate with the taking off of SBS Service No. 147 from the estate.

The Public Transport Council (PTC) approved the changes to SBS Service 147 as part of a package of changes put up by the bus operators to reduce duplication in their services, to keep their operating costs down, and as a result to keep their fares unchanged for as long as possible. The Member has asked if a Scheme B operator can be allowed to operate in Potong Pasir Estate. The PTC allows Scheme B operators to run supplementary bus services on certain conditions. One condition is that their services do not extensively duplicate existing services provided by the main operators. Other criteria include safety standards, and frequency and reliability of service. If the Member has any specific proposal for a bus route, he may wish to refer it to the Council for its consideration.

asked the Minister for Communications whether a post office will be provided in Simei Estate.

Currently, residents in Simei Estate are served by a postal agency at Block 248, Simei Street 3. In addition, Singapore Post has appointed 3 stamp vendors in the Estate. By the end of this year, the Simei Postal Agency will be upgraded to a sub-post-office, which will provide all the services of a full post-office except for sale of money orders and agency services, like payment of Telecom bills, acceptance of CPF contributions, and renewal of licences, etc. For these other services, residents can make use of the nearby Tampines South Post Office at Block 138, Tampines Street 11.

asked the Minister for National Development (a) what are the areas and monthly rentals of the PAP education centres at the void decks of Block 328 Hougang Avenue 5 and Block 1 Hougang Ave 3 and (b) whether the rentals are at commercial rates and, if not, what will be the commercial rates.

The floor areas and rentals of the Education Centres at Block 328, Hougang Avenue 5 and Block 1, Hougang Avenue 3 are as follows:- Rental Education Centres Floor Area Per Month i) Block 328 577.1 sq m $717.25 Hougang Ave 5 ii) Block 1 246.0 sq m $304.00 Hougang Ave 3 The Education Centres are run by an approved non-profit Foundation, and thus are charged rent at a concessionary rate . (b) The estimated market rents are as follows:- Rental Education Centres Per Month Block 328 $7,416 Hougang Ave 5 Block 1 $2,681 Hougang Ave 3

asked the Minister for National Development what was the total amount of fines and composition fines collected by the Housing and Development Board for the years 1990, 1991 and 1992 (up to June).

The amount of fines and composition fines collected by HDB for the Financial Years 1990/1991, 1991/1992 and 1992/1993 (up to June) are as follows: FY 90/91 $23,031,678 FY 91/92 $31,010,901 FY 92/93 $ 8,219,891 (up to June 92)

asked the Minister for the Environment what was the total amount of fines and composition fines collected by his Ministry for the years 1990, 1991 and 1992 (up to June).

The total amount of fines and composition fines collected by the Ministry of the Environment was:- Year Amount 1990 $4,888,040 1991 $3,754,610 1992 (up to June) $1,802,400

asked the Minister for Home Affairs what was the total amount of fines and composition fines collected by the Traffic Police in 1990, 1991 and 1992 (up to June).

The total composition fines collected by Traffic Police during the periods were: Year Total Amount 1990 $30,430,233.61 1991 $36,146,220.36 1992 (up to June) $14,291,087.60

asked the Minister for Finance what was the total amount of fines and composition fines collected by the Inland Revenue Department and the Registry of Companies and Businesses for the years 1990, 1991 and 1992 (up to June).

The information requested for is as follows: Composition Fines collected by the Inland Revenue Department (IRD) and the Registry of Companies and Businesses (RCB) Department FY90 FY91p Apr-Jun 92p IRD $3,132,236.88 $3,357,576.64 $647,898.09 RCB $1,592,415.00 $1,753,935.00 $385,460.00 _________________________ p: Preliminary