Hansard, 1993-01-18

Under the provisions of clause 2(d) of Article 46 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, the following Members have been granted permission to be or to remain absent from sittings of Parliament (or any Committee of Parliament to which they have been appointed) for the periods stated:- Dr Beng Kian Lam, Arthur - from 18th to 28th November and from 21st to 28th December, 1992. Mr Lim Boon Heng - on 23rd November, from 11th to 12th December, 1992 and on 28th January, 1993. Dr Wong Kwei Cheong - from 25th to 28th November, from 11th to 19th December, 1992, from 4th to 8th January and from 14th to 20th January, 1993. Mr Chia Shi Teck - from 25th to 30th November and from 1st to 6th December, 1992. Mr R. Sinnakaruppan - from 26th to 27th November and from 29th to 31st December, 1992. Mr S. Chandra Das - from 28th November to 4th December, from 13th to 22nd December and from 28th December, 1992 to 1st January, 1993. Mr Chua Teck Chew, Robert - from 28th November to 12th December 1992. Mr Wong Kan Seng - from 29th November to 12th December, from 28th to 31st December, 1992 and from 28th January to 1st February, 1993. Mr Lim Chee Onn - from 29th November to 4th December, 1992. Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam - from 30th November to 5th December, 1992. Dr John Chen Seow Phun - from 3rd to 6th December, from 9th to 23rd December, 1992 and from 13th to 16th January, 1993. Dr Ahmad Mattar - from 3rd to 7th December, from 12th to 18th December, 1992 and from 16th to 23rd January, 1993. Mr Bernard Chen - from 4th to 12th December, 1992 and from 12th to 16th January, 1993. Mr Lew Syn Pau - from 4th to 24th December, 1992 and from 12th to 18th January, 1993. Mr Lau Ping Sum - from 4th to 15th December, 1992. Dr Ho Tat Kin - from 5th to 16th December, 1992. Mr Goh Choon Kang - from 5th to 15th December, 1992. Mr Chng Hee Kok - from 5th to 13th December, 1992 and from 12th to 15th January, 1993. Mr Tan Soo Khoon - from 6th to 12th December, from 18th to 21st December and from 24th to 29th December, 1992. Mr Leong Horn Kee - from 7th to 12th December, 1992 and from 13th to 19th January, 1993. Dr Wan Soon Bee - from 7th to 10th December, 1992 and from 19th to 21st January, 1993. Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon - from 7th to 31st December, 1992. Mr K. Shanmugam - on 7th December, 1992. Encik Ibrahim bin Othman - from 11th to 15th December, 1992. Encik Sidek bin Saniff - from 13th December, 1992 to 6th January, 1993. Dr Hu Tsu Tau, Richard - from 13th to 28th December, 1992. Mr Kenneth Chen Koon Lap - from 14th to 15th December and from 18th to 31st December, 1992. Mr Teo Chong Tee - from 15th to 31st December, 1992 and from 6th to 8th January, 1993. Dr Toh Keng Kiat - from 18th December 1992 to 10th January, 1993. Mr Davinder Singh - from 18th to 19th December, 1992 and on 18th January, 1993. Mr Ho Peng Kee - from 19th to 26th December, 1992. Mr Chin Harn Tong - from 19th to 26th December, 1992. Mr Zulkifli bin Mohammed - from 21st to 30th December, 1992. Mr Koo Tsai Kee - from 21st to 31st December, 1992 and from 13th to 17th January, 1993. Mr Choo Wee Khiang - from 28th to 31st December, 1992 and from 13th to 15th January, 1993. Dr Tan Cheng Bock - from 30th December 1992 to 3rd January, 1993. Encik Yatiman Yusof - from 30th to 31st December, 1992. Mr Peter Sung - from 12th to 26th January, 1993. Mr Chew Heng Ching - from 12th to 14th January, 1993. Mr Heng Chiang Meng - from 13th to 15th January, 1993. Mr Peh Chin Hua - from 17th to 21st January, 1993. Mr Lee Yiok Seng - from 21st to 22nd January, 1993. Mr S. Dhanabalan - from 22nd to 25th January , 1993. TAN SOO KHOON Speaker Parliament of Singapore

The following Bill was assented to by the President of the Republic of Singapore on the date stated: 1st December, 1992 (i) Bills of Exchange (Amendment) Bill 1992. TAN SOO KHOON Speaker Parliament of Singapore

The hon. Members desirous of taking their seats will please come forward when their names are called. The following Members made Affirmation of Allegiance in the order below: Mr Goh Chok Tong (Member for Marine Parade). Cdre (Res) Teo Chee Hean (Member for Marine Parade). Mr Matthias Yao Chih (Member for Marine Parade). Encik Othman bin Haron Eusofe (Member for Marine Parade).

asked the Minister for National Development whether plans will be implemented to help low income families with low Central Provident Fund savings to become Housing and Development Board home owners.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Housing and Development Board currently has a number of financial assistance schemes to help low income families with little CPF savings own HDB flats. At present, all HDB rental flat tenants as well as households with monthly incomes of $1,000 or less are required to pay a downpayment of only 5%, as compared to the 20% required of other flat buyers, when they purchase 4-room Simplified or smaller flats from HDB. HDB will grant housing loans for the remaining 95% of the sale price. Similarly, HDB will also provide housing loans of up to 95% of the posted price if they purchase 4-room Simplified or smaller resale flats from the secondary market. By comparison, all other HDB flat buyers are eligible for a mortgage loan of only up to 80% of the posted price. In addition, low income families may also repay their mortgage loans under a Ballooning Repayment Scheme, which allows them to pay lower monthly instalments in the initial years, with higher payments in later years when their incomes increase. My Ministry is aware that there are some low income households in rental housing who, despite these financial assistance schemes, still face difficulty buying a flat of their own. The Ministry of National Development and HDB are currently exploring ways to help these households own their own flats.

Sir, would the HDB be reviewing its loan scheme for helping low income families to uplift themselves in the light that there is a wide discrepancy between the posted price and the actual market price and that many of them cannot furnish the 20% cash outlay?

Sir, as I explained in my answer just now, households with low income can ask for a mortgage loan of 95% of the posted price, and not just 80%. Nevertheless, my Ministry is aware that some of these households still face difficulty in purchasing flats from the secondary market. The Ministry is also currently reviewing the mortgage loan financing for the resale market, in particular, to bring the posted price closer to the market price.

asked the Minister for National Development whether the Housing and Development Board has digressed from its policy to build affordable housing for people.

Mr Speaker, Sir, HDB has, and will continue to, provide affordable housing for the majority of Singaporeans. The Government's approach to public housing is to ensure that the housing needs of every income group are catered for. To this end, HDB provides a range of flat types, in various new towns, covering a wide range of prices. In each booking exercise, buyers have a wide price range from which to choose from, even for the same flat type within the same new town. Buyers can thus choose flats within their means. As a general guideline, HDB flats are priced to ensure that 3-and 4-room flats are affordable to the average income household. Those with higher incomes can buy 5-room and Executive flats. Based on the current average price of $106,000 for a 4-room flat, a young couple, both of whom have worked for about six years, with a current monthly combined income of $1,200, would have sufficient CPF funds to make the 20% downpayment as well as to service the monthly mortgage payment for a new 4-room flat. To afford a 3-room flat which costs about $60,000, a young couple, also having worked for about six years, with a current monthly combined income of $700 would have sufficient CPF funds to make the 20% downpayment as well as to service the monthly mortgage payments. The 1990 Population Census shows that 92% of households in Singapore have monthly incomes of $700, ie, 92% would be able to afford the 3-room flat and about 80% of households have monthly incomes of $1,200, ie, 80% can afford at least a 4-room flat. HDB flats are thus affordable to the majority of Singaporeans. HDB has not deviated from its mission of providing affordable housing for Singaporeans.

Is the Minister of State aware of some public complaints that the prices of flats in the last five years have increased quite dramatically? They feel that these flats may not become affordable in future. How does he propose to advise potential buyers in addressing such a problem?

Our approach is to provide flats, particularly the 3-room and 4-room flats which are affordable, to most Singaporeans. More than 90% of Singaporeans can buy 3-room and 4-room flats. For those who want to buy 5-room and Executive flats, our approach is to provide a wide range of flat types covering all the price range and we leave it to the individual to determine what particular flat or which particular price range he wants to buy. My advice to young couples setting up home is not to go for the biggest Executive flat in Pasir Ris, which is the upper end of the price range, but to go for something which they can comfortably afford.

asked the Minister for National Development if he will enhance the penalty for unauthorised renovations of Housing and Development Board flats which endanger public safety.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the question by the hon. Member for Tampines GRC presumably arises from the recent incident at Block 212 Jurong East Street 21 where an unlicensed contractor damaged the structural column of the block in the process of carrying out renovation works. The contractor had been engaged by the new buyer of the flat, with the consent of the existing lessee. The renovation works were unauthorised as they were carried out without HDB's prior approval. My Ministry is investigating the matter. If appropriate, we will take action against the errant parties (lessee, buyer and contractor) under section 5 of the Building Control Act for carrying out unauthorised building works. The maximum penalty for the offence is one year's imprisonment and a fine of $50,000. Meanwhile, HDB has taken action against the contractor by reporting the case to the Police. The Police are considering charging him under section 288 of the Penal Code for knowingly or negligently pulling down a structural column of a building without sufficient safeguard against any probable danger to human life. Section 288 provides for a maximum penalty of 6 months' imprisonment and a $1,000 fine.

Sir, under the present legislation, is the owner or the contractor of such unauthorised renovations compelled to pay for consequential losses suffered by the HDB?

Under the present regulations, the lessee has to seek HDB's permission before carrying out renovation works. In this case, when the works are carried out without the approval of the HDB, HDB has two options against the owner. First, it will require the owner to make good the damages and all costs arising from the damages. The second action against the lessee will be to compulsorily acquire the flat if the lessee does not pay the damages. As for action against the contractor, in this case it is an unlicensed contractor, action will be taken against him both under the Penal Code as well as under the Building Control Act. If he were a licensed contractor carrying out unauthorised works, HDB has measures to debar the contractor as well as impose fines to recover the cost.

In other words, is the Minister of State saying that it is a civil matter between the HDB and the flat owner? The second question is: are contractors of HDB flats compelled to furnish insurance cover before they undertake any work in HDB flats?

Let me clarify. HDB's action against the lessee is not a civil matter. The lessee is a lessee of HDB and under the lease terms he has certain obligations, one of which is to seek permission for any renovations to his flat. In this case, the lessee did not seek permission and the HDB would take action against the lessee by making him pay for the damage and the subsequent costs of repairing the column, failing which HDB has the power to acquire his flat. On the question of whether the contractors should take up insurance cover, we have left it to the contractors themselves. In any business, they know the risks they are in, and if they think they need to take up insurance cover, we leave it entirely to the business concerned.

Sir, I am referring to the consequential damages. In other words, the Minister of State is saying it is not a civil matter. The HDB can claim in court for consequential damages. In view of the large number of renovations being carried out in HDB flats every year, does this concern not warrant further study of the current legislation on this aspect of HDB flats?

As the Member has said, there are many thousands of renovation works being done, and these have always been carried out well within the regulations. They have been done in accordance with the regulations. We have had very little problems. This is the first case where we have a very unusual combination of factors. First, the flat was renovated during the resale transaction. So we have to take action against both the new purchaser as well as against the original lessee. Second, the contractor is an unlicensed contractor. So we have to take action against him under the Building Control Act as well as under the Penal Code. HDB is also exploring whether we should take action against the parties concerned through civil action as well.

Will the Minister of State say that the Hotel New World incident is also an unusual event?

If the Member remembers, we had a Commission of Inquiry and the Building Control Act was put in place precisely because of the lessons learnt from the Hotel New World's case.

The following Question stood in the name of Mr Peter Sung - 4. To ask the Minister for Community Development whether he will raise the subsidy for childcare.

Question No. 4, please.

Sir, the current subsidy for childcare centre fee was fixed in 1987, six years ago. My Ministry is now reviewing the childcare subsidy scheme. I expect the review to be completed soon.

Sir, I would like to know what is the amount of increase and when will it be implemented. I would also like to ask whether the Minister will consider giving childcare subsidy to parents with a fourth child.

Sir, we are still in the midst of the review. So I would not be able to tell the Member how much we are considering. I will ask the officials to bear in mind the request about including the fourth child.

asked the Minister for Labour whether, in anticipation of the increase in foreign construction workers, appropriate measures have been taken to enhance the awareness of safety in the construction industry and to reduce the possibility of social, health and security problems.

Mr Speaker, Sir, my Ministry conducts safety orientation courses for foreign construction workers. These courses are conducted in the foreign workers' own languages to ensure that they understand the importance of work safety. The Ministry has sufficient training capacity to cope with the expected increase in foreign construction workers. In November 1992, the Ministry announced the intention to make attendance of the safety orientation course a condition for the issue and renewal of work permits for foreign construction workers. We hope to see greater safety awareness among work permit holders with the implementation of this scheme from 1st April this year. Sir, any increase in foreign workers will pose an additional strain on our social infrastructure. Hence, we have been very cautious in allowing more foreign workers to enter Singapore. The recent relaxation for the construction industry is the result of high growth and demand in this industry. We will run the risk of stifling the construction industry if we do not allow more foreign workers for the time being. By restricting the period of employment and charging a realistic foreign workers levy, we will encourage employers to repatriate their workers as soon as they are not needed. This will help to minimise the social problems caused by the foreign workers. Sir, foreign construction workers, like all work permit applicants, must undergo medical examination by Singapore-registered doctors before the issue of work permit.Those who have signs or a history of contagious diseases or drug addiction are not given work permits. Our medical practitioners are able to cope with the increase in the number of foreign construction workers. Before work permits are issued, Sir, the Ministry checks applicants against the Police's database to sieve out foreigners with known criminal records. This procedure has helped to minimise the risk of admitting criminals into Singapore. Furthermore, the Ministry revokes the work permits of those who commit criminal offences and rejects future applications.

Sir, there were recent instances of drug-related misdemeanours occurring at construction work sites involving foreign workers. Does his Ministry feel that it is timely now for the Government to consider providing dormitory or hostel-type accommodation for guest workers as this will serve two purposes? Firstly, it will solve the recurring problem of adequate housing for foreign workers and, secondly, it will allow closer surveillance for anti-social activities.

Mr Speaker, Sir, my Ministry is aware of the difficulty of some employers with a large number of foreign workers face in providing them with proper accommodation. In fact, my Ministry has been in discussion with the Ministry of National Development for some time and we are looking for a solution to this problem. In due course, we will be reporting on the progress made on how to provide adequate accommodation for this large number of foreign workers. But the problem is not one of surveillance or control on the foreign workers or lack of such control. If you have such a large number of foreign workers in Singapore, whether they are living in their own accommodation on the work site or in any accommodation provided through any Ministry or department, there will always be the possiblity of criminal elements or drug traffickers getting involved. What is required is continuous surveillance by the CNB to ensure that the problem does not arise, and if it does appear, it should be nipped in the bud immediately.

Sir, not too long ago, there were press reports locally that the employment of illegal workers was still rampant. And one report quoted a foreign labour official as saying that "of 12,000 workers from his country in Singapore, 50% were doing so without legal work permits". Sir, is this still a prevalent problem? Would the Minister be able to tell this House how many, if any, illegal immigrant workers have been prosecuted under the amended Immigration Act, 1989?

Mr Speaker, I am afraid I am not able to comment on the anonymous reports of large numbers of illegal foreign workers in Singapore. Let me assure the Member that my Ministry is monitoring closely this problem of illegal workers in Singapore. We do from time to time come across cases of employers employing foreigners without work permits and, in all cases, they are dealt with according to the law, either by prosecution in court for some of the offences or a heavy compound fine is levied against the employer. We do not think the situation is out of control. The numbers, I believe, are not as large as had been suggested by this anonymous source quoted by the Member. As to how many people have been prosecuted under the amended Immigration Act, may I suggest that the Member direct a question on this detail to the Minister for Home Affairs.

asked the Minister for Labour (a) how Singapore companies venturing overseas can recruit staff from overseas for training and attachment in Singapore before eventual posting to their overseas subsidiaries; (b) what will be the restrictions; and (c) what kind of workers will be allowed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I declare my interest as an employer. Question No. 6, Sir.

Mr Speaker, Sir, my Ministry does allow companies venturing overseas to bring in foreign workers for training before posting them back to the overseas subsidiaries. Employers have to apply for work permits for their trainees. The number of foreign trainees will be included in working out the employers' foreign workers' dependency ratio. There is no restriction on the type of training that employers can provide to their overseas employees. Employers are, however, required to pay fore6gin workers levy for their work permit trainees. Sir, in view of the need for Singapore entrepreneurs to step up their regionalisation efforts, my Ministry, together with the Ministry of Trade and Industry, is reviewing the work permit training scheme to make it easier for compaines with overseas operations to train their essential foreign staff in Singapore. The improvements will be announced when the review is completed.

asked the Minister for Finance whether any tax, fiscal or other incentives will be given to help Singapore manufacturers invest abroad as they regionalise or globalise their operations.

My Ministry has been looking into how the income tax system can be fine-tuned to encourage Singapore companies develop business opportunities overseas, and to facilitate the flow of incomes from Singapore investments abroad. The changes will be announced in my Budget Statement on 26th February 1993.

asked the Minister for Health if he will consider allowing the use of Medisave for medical check-ups that screen for cancer.

Sir, the Medisave Scheme is primarily to meet the hospitalisation expenses of account holders, especially in their old age, and those of their immediate family. It has also been extended to cover certain costly outpatient treatments, such as radiotherapy and kidney dialysis. Currently, there are only a few effective cancer screening tests recommeded for the general public. Screening tests which are effective such as screening of women for breast and cervical cancers are inexpensive and generally affordable. Therefore, the use of Medisave for cancer screening is not necessary.

Does the Minister agree that diseases like cancer cannot be detected at an early stage unless a proper medical screening is conducted, and by allowing CPF to be used for this purpose it will encourage Singaporeans to go for medical screening?

Sir, in fact, it is not recommended that Singaporeans go for regular screening for cancer and that is because the screening test should be carried out only when it is indicated rather than on a population-wide basis.

Does the Minister agree that, in view of cancer being the second highest killer disease in Singapore, by allowing CPF to be used for screening for cancer, there is a great chance that cancer could be detected at an early stage and thus save some of the patients' lives and it will also cut down medical costs?

Sir, as I indicated just now, screening for cancer should only be done when there are indications. For example, pap smear. Pap smear is something which we recommend to all women. That is one of the very few screening tests that we recommend routinely and it costs only $15. So women should have no problem going for pap smear tests. For the other cancers, it should be done on an indicative basis. For example, people with nasopharyngeal cancer, ie, cancer of the nose. We would not recommed that all Singaporeans go for that test regularly because it is not cost-effective. Very few Singaporeans do have cancer of the nose. But for those whose immediate families have cancer of the nose, then we recommend that they go for a blood test costing only $25. It is more cost-effective for those patients who have definite indications to do cancer screening rather than for the whole population.

Do patients who are recommended by a doctor for such a test be allowed to use CPF right now?

The answer is "no" because such tests are still fairly inexpensive and very affordable.

Does the Minister agree that encouraging medical check-up, especially rcommended by doctors for screening for cancer, if they are suspected of cancer, is also part of preventive medicine? Do not forget the Minister allows CPF to be used for hepatitis-B immunisation which also costs about $60. It is also cheap, but it is allowed. So I do not understand. I consider this as preventive. But why is it that it is not allowed to be used for screening for cancer?

Sir, Medisave is allowed to be used for hepatitis-B immunisation, and this is because hepatitis-B is fairly widespread in Singapore. And the only way to cut off the transmission to future generations is to ensure that every new born child is immunised against hepatitis-B. But we do not allow Medisave to be used for routine screening for hepatitis-B.

asked the Minister for Communications how does he intend to spend the sum of $693 million which was paid by successful Certificate of Entitlement tenderers in 1991.

Mr Speaker, Sir, for the record, the amount of $693 million was the total revenue collected from COEs since the inception of the scheme which was in May 1990 until March 1992. For 1991 alone, the total revenue collected was $338 million. Sir, like other Government revenues, this revenue has been credited to the Consolidated Fund from which Government expenditures are financed. The Government has invested heavily on transport infrastructure. Over the last five years, the Government has spent over $1,500 million on building and maintaining roads, and building bus interchanges. The construction of the MRT has cost the Government $5,000 million. Another $1,400 million will be spent on the MRT extension to Woodlands. And if the ring road tunnel project is found feasible, this will mean another $4,000 million to build. To put things in perspective, for this last project alone, the underground ring road tunnel system, it would take more than 10 years of COE revenue, at current rates, to pay for the cost.

Does the Minister agree with me that what he has said are all budgeted for? And in the case of this $693 million, these monies were not budgeted for. They are extra monies, so to speak, that have come into the hands of the Government. Is the Minister willing to use this money perhaps to educate motorists, to improve the skills of motorists and other useful devices or means to improve the traffic system?

Sir, the Government is always willing to spend money to upgrade and improve the public transport infrastructure and also to ensure and enhance safety on the roads, and this has been done all the time. Whether it will use money from COEs to do this is, as I said, not material in this case, because COE monies are collected for a specific purpose, which is to control congestion on the roads. And if money is to be spent on a good cause to enhance safety on the roads, it will be spent.

Does the Minister agree with me, as I have earlier said, that these monies were not budgeted for? They are like a windfall to the Government. They are extra monies.

Sir, the money from the COEs was derived from a specific purpose. The fact that they are additional revenues is not the issue. As for the purposes for which this money is to be spent, it is up to the Ministry of Communications and the Ministry of National Development to justify any expenditure, whether it be for extra roads or education of motorists, as the Member has suggested, or in defraying the cost of motoring in other ways, or defraying the cost of public transport in other ways, such as has been done in providing infrastructure.

asked the Prime Minister if it is timely now to set up a Ministry of Youth and Sports with a full Cabinet Minister in charge.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I share the sentiment of Mr Chia Shi Teck behind this question. Our youths are a precious asset and their needs and aspirations should be specially catered for. It was for this reason that, as Deputy Prime Minister, I set up an Advisory Council on Youth in 1988. The Council was asked to identify the needs, interests and aspirations of youths, review Government's policies and programmes affecting youths, and to recommend new programmes to enable our youths to maximise their potential and contribute towards nation building. The Council was chaired by BG Lee Hsien Loong and included many young Singaporeans. It published its Report in February 1989. The Member may wish to read it. Amongst other things, the Council studied the need for the Ministry of Youth and Sports. It observed: 'Singapore does not really need a Ministry of Youth as we do not need an agency to undertake administrative functions. We need one to set directions and coordinate. A National Youth Council is recommended to assume these functions.' The Advisory Council's recommendation not to have a separate Ministry of Youth and Sports remains valid. Youths' needs are diverse covering education, training, employment, housing, health, the arts, sports and recreation. At present, their needs are effectively met by the various functional Ministries. The National Youth Council was set up in 1989. The Council's current Chairman is the Minister of State for National Development, Mr Lim Hng Kiang. Youth organisations and Government agencies providing services for youths are represented on the Council. The Council identifies and plans programmes to meet the needs of youths in education, training, employment opportunities, sports and recreation. It also coordinates youth exchanges with other countries. The Council works behind the scene and leaves the implementing agencies to execute the programmes. Because of this, it takes a low profile. I shall ask the Chairman, Mr Lim, to consider ways to raise this profile so that young Singaporeans can identify with it. I hope young Singaporeans can contribute ideas as well as dedicate themselves to Singapore's future prosperity and progress. It is their future really.

asked the Minister for National Development whether concessions will be given to families living in shop-houses in the City Area affected by rent de-control to be allocated Housing and Development Board flats early.

Sir, rent de- control is a private matter between the landlord and his tenants. However, to mitigate the impact of rent de-control, the Government put in place the Old Single Person Tenants scheme, which gives priority allocation of HDB rental flats to old single persons affected by rent de-control. In view of the fact that many of those affected by rent de-control in and around the Central Area are low-income families, I am pleased to announce that my Ministry has decided that, with effect from 1st February 1993, priority allocation of 2-room HDB rental flats will be extended to families affected by rent de-control, on terms similar to priority allocation for families affected by Government resettlement. As for those families which can afford to buy their own flats, HDB will give them priority allocation to purchase Home Ownership flats, on terms similar to priority allocation for families affected by Government resettlement, as long as they satisfy the normal eligibility conditions.

asked the Minister for Trade and Industry if he will explain the Government's policy concerning the pricing structure of government industrial land leases and factory rentals and whether any measures have been taken to ensure that such pricing will not unduly erode the international competitiveness of Singapore manufacturers.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Question No. 12. Let me declare my interest as a director of a company which is a lessee of Government land and factories.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore has limited land resources compared to our neighbouring countries. We have therefore to ensure that industrial land is used efficiently by industries. JTC's land prices are therefore based on prevailing market rates. But JTC's rates are lower than the market because it recognizes that it has a developmental role to play in ensuring that land costs do not erode the competitiveness of our industries. JTC takes into account current economic conditions, infrastructure provided, performance of the manufacturing sector and the state of the property market when reviewing annual rentals. JTC's land lease prices are determined by the costs of acquiring land. In the past, the price of industrial land was very low, hence land lease prices set by JTC were lower. Over the past few years, JTC has had to pay higher prices for acquiring new land. Lease prices have therefore increased. To ensure that industrial land prices reflect market prices more accurately, we have implemented a programme of tendering out industrial land sites. Two parcels of industrial land at Kaki Bukit and Tuas have been tendered out for private development of fairly large industrial parks. This will reduce JTC's monopoly of industrial land development. As far as rented factory buildings are concerned, JTC has decided to freeze rentals for 1993 because the rental market has softened. JTC's rentals are currently 10%-15% lower than market rates. Regarding new land leases, prices have been increased by about 5% to reflect the rising costs of land acquired by JTC, but this is still 9% lower than JTC's assessed market values. In addition, existing lessees of industrial land have had their rental revisions capped and the majority of leases will continue to pay at below market prices, especially those on the 5-year rental revision scheme. The increase in rental payments must be considered in the context of the profitability and competitiveness of our manufacturing sector. Although our land rentals are higher than our neighbouring countries, they are comparable, for example, to those in the Tai Po Industrial Estate in Hong Kong. Since we do not have an advantage of cheap industrial land, we need to be competitive in other factors of production and ensure that we remain competitive on an overall basis. The Unit Business Cost (UBC) index for manufacturing measures the total business cost per unit of real output in the manufacturing sector. In the UBC basket, rentals form only about 4%. Other major cost components are wages which form about 47% and services costs which constitute the remaining 49%. The increase in the UBC index has moderated. It rose by 6.7% in 1990 and 4.8% in 1991. For 1992, the increase has moderated even more to 1.3%. Our manufacturing firms continue to be internationally competitive and earn a high rate of return. According to the Survey of Current Business by the US Department of Commerce, US investments in Singapore have consistently earned one of the highest returns. For 1991, the overall rate of return for US investments in all sectors stood at 29% in Singapore, compared to 22% for Hong Kong and 19% for Taiwan. Indonesia and Malaysia registered higher returns at 49% and 31% respectively. This was largely due to the returns on petroleum investment. Excluding petroleum, Singapore's manufacturing sector has the highest rate of return at 28%, compared to around 6-16% for the ASEAN countries and the other NIEs.

In determining the pricing structure of Government industrial land leases, has the Minister taken into account the acquisition costs of these lands compared to the acquisition costs in the private sector? The Government acquires land at a low price, whereas the private sector has to purchase the land at a high price. Does the Government take this into account in determining its rental rates?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have already stated that the cost of acquisition is one of the factors. Because the cost of acquisition lately has gone up, therefore, rentals have gone up.

Can the Minister give me a percentage of what the Government and the private sector pay for land?

I cannot give him an answer, Sir. It varies very much. I do not know how the private sector acquires land. They may negotiate and buy. Whereas the Government acquires land under the Land Acquisition Act. Even though we can acquire under the Act, we still have to pay a price related to the market price prevailing as of a certain date. This has gone up over the years. So if the Member wants to have a range in specific areas, I suggest that he submits a Question and the Minister in charge of land acquisition will answer.

I understand that in certain of these industrial lands, they were acquired as cheaply as 15 cents per square foot.

What is your question, Mr Chiam?

Is that true?

That depends on where and when it was acquired. I am sure the lands that were acquired in the 1960s were very, very cheap. They were swamp lands and they had to be reclaimed, and infrastructure had to be put in. So if he has a specific point to make, I suggest he puts it in the form of a proper Question.

asked the Minister for Trade and Industry what plans are being implemented to upgrade the skills of female workers.

Mr Speaker, Sir, to remain competitive, Singaporean workers must continually learn new skills and upgrade themselves. Female workers form 40% of our workforce, and are no exception. A wide range of courses such as BEST (Basic Education for Skills Training), WISE (Work Improvement through Secondary Education) and MOST (Modular Skills Training) are available to train workers at the Institute of Technical Education, the National Productivity Board as well as in many private sector schools. These courses meet the training needs of our female workers. A recent survey by the National Productivity Board shows that the participation rate of female workers in training programmes is higher than that for male workers. In 1991, 44% of our female workers participated in on-the-job training, and 32% undertook off-the-job training, as compared to 40% and 30% respectively for males. We will continue to provide more training opportunities and in greater varieties for all workers. This is because workers face different demands on their time, such as commitment to their families and also work schedules. We have introduced the Fast Forward Programme, a video-based training programme by NPB, which provides the flexibility for workers to learn at home.

asked the Minister for National Development whether planning permission has been granted to the People's Action Party Community Foundation to utilise part of its premises at the void deck of Block 143, Potong Pasir Avenue 2 for political purposes and, if so, if he will specify the rationale for allowing such change of use.

Mr Speaker, Sir, part of the void deck at Block 143 Potong Pasir Avenue 2 has been let to the PAP Community Foundation (PCF) by HDB since 1st July 1987 for use as an Education Centre. Under the terms of the Tenancy Agreement, the tenant may allow other organisations to use the premises for non-profit purposes for a maximum of 20% of the total operational hours within a year, subject to the rent charged not exceeding the monthly rent payable to HDB. The use of a room in the premises for meet-the-people sessions held two hours per week is within these guidelines. Since office use is occasional and does not constitute a material change of use, there is no need to seek planning permission.

Is it not true that the PAP Community Foundation is a charitable organisation? Because it is a charitable organisation, the HDB rents out to this organisation at a special rate. If it were a charitable organisation, can it then be allowed to let out part of its premises, which are supposed to be for charitable purposes (education is a charitable purpose), for political purposes? Is it not right that planning permission has to be obtained first for a change of use before it can let out part of its premises?

Sir, obviously, the Member for Potong Pasir did not pay attention to my answer. First, whether the PAP Community Foundation is allowed to sub-let its premises for other non-profit purposes. I have already explained that the Tenancy Agreement allows the PCF to use the premises for non-profit purposes for a maximum of 20% of the total operational hours. The PCF operates the premises at a concessionary rent and when the PCF sub-lets its premises to non-profit organisations, the rent that it charges to such non-profit organisations is not allowed to exceed the concessionary monthly rent payable to HDB. So the PCF is a non-profit organisation and does not make profit out of sub-letting. Secondly, the use of the premises for meet-the-people sessions at two hours per week is within these guidelines. Since the use is only two hours per week, the use is occasional and does not constitute a material change of use. Therefore, there is no need to seek planning permission.

I am surprised at the answer of the Minister. The premises are let out by the HDB, I presume, for a charitable purpose. I said that education is within the definition of "charity". But now that the premises with which it was originally rented out for educational purposes were sub-let for a different purpose, my question is: has the PAP Community Foundation obtained a change of use? As far as I understand, other organisations --

Order. Mr Chiam, you have asked your question.

But he has not answered it. Has the PAP Community Foundation asked for a change of use? Please answer the question.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the premises were let to the PCF to conduct kindergarten classes. Indeed, it conducts kindergarten classes and, therefore, it is well within its Tenancy Agreement for the use that it applied for. Many other premises that have tenancy agreement with HDB are also allowed to have sub-letting provisions in their tenancy. So this is not something unusual. In getting the premises from HDB, they are allowed 20% of their operational hours to be let out for non-profit purposes. For example, in my PCF centre, we let out the premises in the evening for conducting BEST classes. These are all non-profit organisations. We did not depart from our main purpose, which is to run kindergarten classes for our students. But when it is not used at night, we let it out for all other uses, for example, BEST classes.

The Minister has still not answered my question. The point is that it has sub-let for a political purpose. In the original permission given, is there a clause which says that the whole premises were allowed for political purposes? If there is not, then the PAP prospective candidate at Potong Pasir should not be using it for political purposes. He has got no right to, because it is in breach of section 5 of the Building Control Act, as he has earlier quoted.

Maybe I could answer in Mandarin the next time.

Do not be sarcastic!

The tenancy agreement allows the tenant to sub-let its use and it is working well within the tenancy agreement. So when the HDB gave the premises to the PCF, it is provided for within the tenancy agreement for the PCF to sub-let it for not more than 20% of its operational hours.

I am not happy with the Minister's answer. I want an answer - "Yes" or "No". Has planning permission been given to the PAP Community Foundation for a political purpose? "Yes" or "No"?

Now I must answer in Tamil. I have already said that the office use is occasional and does not constitute a material change of use and, therefore, there is no need to apply for planning permission.

asked the Minister for National Development whether the Housing and Development Board will consider extending the zonal parking by granting reciprocal parking rights between immediate family members who live in the same HDB neighbourhood.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member has suggested that a season ticket holder be allowed to park in another car park group within the same HDB neighbourhood where his immediate family members reside. I take it that this is with the intention of encouraging the preservation and enhancement of family ties. To encourage relatives and friends to visit one another, HDB has introduced the Free Parking Scheme on Sundays and public holidays. This scheme now covers 1,105 car parks, or 86% of the total number of car parks island-wide. This, in my Ministry's view, is a sufficient measure for the purposes that we assume are intended by the Member. If the Member's suggestion to grant reciprocal parking rights is implemented, HDB will have difficulties restricting it to immediate family members residing within the same neighbourhood. Immediate family members who are not staying within the same neighbourhood would also request similar privileges. After all, it could be argued that there is a greater need to extend reciprocal parking rights to such residents, in view of the greater distances involved in maintaining family ties. For HDB to meet all these requests, however, will cause congestion to the car parks, and lead to residents being unfairly deprived of parking lots, especially in the popular car parks.

Is it true that so long as the RC and CCC members obtain a season parking ticket within one constituency, they are allowed to park in other constituencies within the GRC zone?

If the RC member has a season parking ticket, he is allowed to park in all HDB car parks within the same constituency to facilitate his work as a community leader within the constituency.

asked the Minister for Education if he will consider introducing ethnic ceilings for admission to primary schools to promote inter-racial interaction and understanding.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there is already a ceiling of 25% on the intake of Malay pupils into any primary school. This arose out of a proposal from the Malay Members of Parliament in 1987 to my Ministry to limit the intake of Malay pupils into a primary school. They had observed that Malay pupils from schools with a high proportion of Malays tended to mix among themselves and speak Malay only. As a result, their English language proficiency suffered and this affected their academic performance. By limiting the intake of Malay pupils to 25%, Malay pupils would be encouraged to mix more freely with pupils of other races and speak more English. However, this limit is applied flexibly in locations where the Malay population is high so that pupils do not have to travel too far to school. There has been no necessity to apply a similar ceiling on the proportion of other pupils in schools. 1.30 pm

Order. End of Question time. [Pursuant to Standing Order No. 21(3), Questions Nos. 17, 18 & 23 have been postponed to the next available sitting of Parliament. Written answers to Questions Nos. 19-22 on the Order Paper are reproduced in the section, 'Oral Answers to Questions Not Reached' (Cols. 465 - 468).]

"to amend the Civil Law Act (Chapter 43 of the 1988 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 Land Acquisition Act (Chapter 152 of the 1985 Revised Edition)", presented by Prof. 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 Interpretation Act (Chapter 1 of the 1985 Revised Edition)", presented by Prof. Jayakumar; read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

"to prohibit advertisements relating to smoking, to control the use of tobacco products by young persons, to control the sale, packaging and trade description of tobacco products and for matters connected therewith and to repeal the Smoking (Prohibition on Advertisements) Act (Chapter 309 of the 1990 Revised Edition)", presented by the Minister for Health (Mr Yeo Cheow Tong); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, this Bill repeals and re-enacts the Land Titles Act to provide for changes in land development and practices. In drafting this Bill, we have consulted the relevant Government departments dealing with land, the Law Society of Singapore, the Real Estate Developers Association of Singapore and the Singapore Institute of Surveyors and Valuers. However, in view of the technical nature of the Bill, I intend to submit it to a Select Committee so that all those interested can submit their views. I intend to speak only on the main changes to the Act. First, let me deal with the question of title by adverse possession. The Bill will do away with acquiring of title to registered land through adverse possession. Adverse possession is occupation of land inconsistent with the rights of the owner. There are good reasons why we should do away with the concept of adverse possession because not only does it cause disputes between neighbours, but it is also not right to acquire title to other people's property in this way. In West Malaysia, the law does not permit adverse possession to registered land. There is a savings provision to allow claims by adverse possession to be lodged within three months of the date of coming into operation of the Act. Next, unilateral severance of a joint tenancy. The Bill allows a person owning land jointly with another person to unilaterally sever a joint tenancy. Let me explain, Sir. Many people in Singapore buy property and register it in joint names, eg, parent and child, husband and wife, and so on. There are situations where one party, for example, the parent/husband is under a legal obligation to provide for the child or the wife. In such situations, even if the parent or husband provides the entire purchase price, the law presumes (unless it is proved to the contrary) that a gift of the property is in favour of the child or the wife in recognition of the father's or husband's legal obligation to provide for the child or the wife. This form of co-ownership, called a joint tenancy, is very common in Singapore, especially among newly married couples who pool their financial resources together to buy their homes. In law, each co-owner owns or co-owns the whole of the property. When one dies, his or her undivided share is extinguished and the survivor becomes the sole owner. This is known as the rule of survivorship in joint tenancy. A joint tenancy has certain advantages as a means of owning land. For example, for probate purposes, no further vesting of title in the other co-owner is required. For sale or mortgage purposes, only one title needs to be investigated. For succession purposes, it is unnecessary for one co-owner to make any testamentary gift of his or her share to the other. Those are the advantages. However, a joint tenancy, by its very nature, also has some serious disadvantages in cases where one co-owner, for good reasons, does not wish the survivor to take the whole of the property. To achieve that, he has to destroy the right of survivorship by severing the joint tenancy. The effect of the severance is to create a tenancy in common under which each co-owner holds a distinct share in the property. In cases where the joint tenants are father/child or husband/wife, the law will presume that each owns a 50% share. Existing law permits severance of a joint tenancy only in very limited circumstances, for example, by mutual agreement or conduct of the parties; by one co-owner selling and transferring his share to a third party; by an order of court; or where there is a bankruptcy. But a co-owner may wish to sever the joint tenancy in a simpler way, without having to transfer away his or her share of the property and without having to obtain the consent of the other party, which sometimes may not be feasible, especially in certain domestic situations. Because of these existing legal limitations, injustices can occur. Take the simple example of a father and son who are joint tenants of a house. The son subsequently marries. Unfortunately, later on, let us assume the son dies and the father becomes the sole owner, because of the nature of the joint tenancy; father is unable to get along with the daughter-in-law and her children, and the father ejects her and family from the house which can be done, because the daughter-in-law does not inherit the share of her husband. Therefore, the proposed amendment will enable a son/daughter or wife to secure his or her interest in the property for himself or herself or her immediate family in a situation where he or she may need to do so. The Bill provides for severance of a joint tenancy in respect of both registered and unregistered land. A joint tenant may sever a joint tenancy in respect of registered land by an instrument of declaration and by serving a copy of the instrument on the other joint tenants. In respect of unregistered land, a joint tenant may sever a joint tenancy by a deed of declaration and by serving a copy on the other joint tenant/s. Of course, no co-owner needs to use this procedure if he does not wish to sever the joint tenancy. The amendment does not affect adversely the beneficial interests of co-owners in the property. Joint tenants in law may have unequal beneficial interests. The reason is that the law distinguishes between the legal title and the equitable title. What counts in the eyes of the law is the equitable title which gives the right of beneficial enjoyment of the property. This amendment, of course, will also apply to HDB flats. The amendment, let me stress, will not affect the rights of the court under the Women's Charter in ordering in a domestic situation the division of the assets of the parties acquired by them during the marriage by their joint efforts. Sir, this amendment is in the public interest. In fact, in England, the law was changed as long ago as in 1925 to allow a co-owner to sever a joint tenancy by a simple unilateral notice in writing. The amendment enabled co-owners to have full dispositive powers over their interest in property by this simple procedure. What our amendment seeks to do is to give property owners in Singapore the same rights that joint tenants have in the United Kingdom. Next, let me speak about the amendment on conversion of lands from the common law or the old system to the land titles or the new system of registration. Sir, there are now two systems of land registration, the common law system under the Registration of Deeds Act and the land titles system under the Land Titles Act. The land titles system of course provides for a clearer and simpler land-register for members of the public. At present, the Registrar can convert land from the common law to the land titles system only in three situations when, firstly, the land owner makes a Primary Application; secondly, when planning permission for development or subdivision of the land is given; and thirdly, when a deed for valuable consideration is filed at the Registry of Deeds. The Bill enables the Registrar to initiate conversion of land by examining the Register of Deeds and selecting lands for conversion. Conversion of all lands, let me add, will enable all land records to be computerised. The Bill also enables the Registrar to convert leasehold land under the common law system which has an unexpired term of not less than 10 years. This has been reduced to 10 years from the previous periods of 30 years and 21 years. Let me now touch on the amendment dealing with qualified and unqualified titles to registered land. Sir, under the present law, a qualified certificate of title will become unqualified five years after the date of issue of a qualified certificate of title and when a purchaser applies to cancel the caution as to title. The Bill shortens this period. A qualified certificate of title will automatically become unqualified in favour of a purchaser five years from the date of the last conveyance which was cancelled by the Registry when creating the qualified certificate of title. Next, the period for investigation of title. The period for title searches specified under the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act will be reduced from 30 to 15 years. The period concerning matters set out in the recitals, statements and descriptions of facts, will be reduced from 20 to 12 years. The advantage of this amendment is that it will facilitate title searches by lawyers and conversion of land by the Registrar of Titles from the common law system to the land titles system. Next, caveats. A caveat is lodged by a person claiming an estate or interest in land, for example, a purchaser or a mortgagee. Under the present law, a caveat has a life span of five years after which it will lapse. As some large developments take more than five years before the purchaser is able to obtain legal title to his unit, this amendment provides that the life of a caveat may be extended for consecutive periods of five years. To protect buyers and mortgagees of units in large developments where legal completion takes more than five years, the Registrar has in fact been accepting for notification, extensions of caveats. But in 1989 the High Court in a particular case called United Overseas Finance Ltd v. Mutu Jeras cast doubt on the validity of this practice. The Bill therefore regularises the position of a large number of caveats which have been so extended by the Registrar before the commencement of the Bill. Sir, the Bill requires a purchaser lodging a caveat to state in the caveat the date of his contract or the date when he exercised his option to buy the property, and the purchase price. These particulars are required for the Ministry of National Development to compile the Property Price Index. Sir, as I said at the beginning, there are many other provisions which are fairly complex and technical which I will not take this House through and, as I said, I intend to submit this Bill to a Select Committee so that others, particularly experts amongst the legal profession, may have the opportunity to comment on the Bill. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the Bill. Sir, I am neither a lawyer nor knowledgeable about the intricacies of land law or the registration of titles. But I do know, from discussions with lawyers, that many in the legal fraternity welcome this Bill. I commend the Minister for Law for having consulted many different interest groups, like the Law Society, the Real Estate Developers' Association of Singapore and others. In view of these consultations, I wonder why it was necessary for him to refer the Bill to a Select Committee. I accept the Minister's explanation that this is indeed a very technical Bill and it can also have implications for property owners that it is right that they should have yet another opportunity to give their views. I also hope that experts on property law in Singapore will come forward if they have views on improving this Bill. This is indeed a massive piece of law. I wish to comment only on two aspects which, I believe, are of general public interest. Firstly, doing away with adverse possession. Sir, I completely support this proposal to do away with adverse possession as a means of getting title to land that actually belongs to someone else. I think it is not right that a landowner with an established title should be deprived of his title just because, for example, he has been away from the country and his neighbour has encroached on part of his land and squatting on it for many years. Next, unilateral severance of joint tenancy. Sir, I have listened to the explanation given by the Minister and I wish to lend my support to this amendment. Many of my parliamentary colleagues, I am sure, have also come across cases where a wife and child or children have been thrown out of the deceased husband's home just because the husband had been a joint tenant, say, with his father or someone else. This new amendment which facilitates the unilateral severance of joint tenancy is most welcome.

Sir, I rise also in support of the Bill, in particular, the computerisation of the registration of titles at the Land Titles Registry. This is a welcome step to those who wish to buy or sell property which, I am sure, many of us do at one time or other in our life-time. Property developers and the business community generally, I believe, also welcome the efforts of modernisation of the system at the Land Titles Registry. I do hope also that the other Government departments, like the PWD, MRTC, Sewerage Department, etc, are also computerising their systems so that searches made to them in relation to a property will not take the normal six weeks but can be cut down to a shorter period. Sir, at this stage, I would like to declare my pecuniary interest as a practising lawyer. I do a little bit of conveyancing work. But what I am going to say shall be against my professional interest. But, nevertheless, I am going to advocate it because it benefits the public and the business community and Singapore's economy. What I advocate is that the Government should take expeditious steps to fully computerise the system in all Government departments connected with the sale and purchase of land, not only at the Land Titles and Deeds Registry, so that the sale and purchase of a property can be done expeditiously and cheaply. That can be made possible when all the legal technicalities connected with the title to a property can be done away with. This is possible. Sweden has done it. It has such a system and has been in operation for many years. I understand that in that country, a person can buy a house with the transfer of title to the purchaser within four days. That is possible because the whole system in their land office and other related government departments are fully computerised. All the requisite searches can be done in one afternoon and not in six weeks under our present system. And the sale and purchase of a property comprise just filling in forms by the purchaser and the vendor. It is as simple as that. I believe over there, they do not even need the services of a lawyer. A trained bank officer or a property agent can do the job. I am afraid my fellow lawyers, should they know that I advocate such a system, will not be very happy with me, especially the more successful ones who deal mainly with this type of work and their earnings are derived from conveyancing work. But I say such a conveyancing system should also be put in place in Singapore. After all, Singapore's economic growth for many years was pushed up by the construction industry. So by expediting the sale and purchase of properties with a faster turnover, the volume in property transactions will naturally increase and Singapore's economic growth will increase to an even higher level. I therefore support this Bill. I welcome the establishment of a computer database of all land titles and I do hope that in the not-too-distant future that we too, like Sweden, can complete the sale and purchase of a landed property in four days' time, with or without the services of a lawyer, at a cheap rate and with the purchaser getting a good title for his property.

Sir, I also rise to support this Bill and since the Minister has committed the Bill to a Select Committee, I do not think I want to go through the points except for two which I hope he will direct the Committee to look into. Both points, Sir, may not actually be under the purview of the Bill itself, but I think they are very much related. On the first, I must say that it is very seldom that I agree with the Member for Potong Pasir. But in this case, I would like to support his point regarding the speedier registration of all land titles in Singapore. In fact, the Land Titles Act came into operation in 1959 and it was for the purpose to simplify the registration of land titles under the Torrens system. To-date, I must say that the experience has been quite poor in the sense that we must still go through legally trained personnel to do transfers of registered titles, even for properties where developers buy the properties from the HDB or URA and the titles are in good order. Yet, all these transfers must still go through legally trained personnel who, I believe, charge fees that are not in proportion to the amount of work that they have done. The second point is regarding registration of leases. Sir, the Bill intends to exempt leases of seven years and less from registration. Although I do not know why the term of "seven years" is used, there is actually an unintended impact on leases of real estate in that registered leases attract a very much higher stamp duty than non-registered leases. Such registration and the high stamp duty will affect the development of long-term leases for property in Singapore. In developed countries or cities of the world, like London or New York, where businesses can lease properties for 20 or even 30 years, a great amount of certainty is added to their business plans. In Singapore, because of the difference in stamp duty, most leases go up to three or six years. In this respect, you always have a certain amount of uncertainty for businesses here in the sense that they cannot see what sort of rental they are going to pay beyond the three or six years' period. So if leases below or above seven years can be unregistered, it will, therefore, attract a lower stamp duty. I think this will encourage the development of long-term leases in Singapore.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to thank the three speakers for their expression of support for the Bill. With regard to Mr Chiam's comments, I take his point that it will be beneficial for all the Government departments which have dealings in land to have a computerised system. In fact, this is well in hand, and I am not sure whether he is aware that a full briefing was given to members of the legal profession on the computerisation which links up all the information on land. But in case he has missed it, I would ask my Registrar of Land Titles to give him more information because it is one of the most advanced features of our computerisation system. And in fact, the intention is that practitioners can have access to it on-line from their law offices. What he is asking for has, in fact, been done. I note what he has said about the experience in Sweden and elsewhere on non-legal practitioners doing conveyancing work. In fact, Dr Wang Kai Yuen had asked me this question not so long ago and I explained to him why we are proceeding with caution on that. It is not to protect the vested interests of lawyers but we have found out when we went into it in detail that in England, for example, having set up the system of licensed practitioners to do conveyancing, they have had to set up a parallel system of training, educating such licensed conveyancing practitioners and the whole system for investigation of disciplinary offences, disciplining them and so on. So whether in our place it is worthwhile or justifiable to have a parallel system of education, training, disciplining of a new breed of practitioners, is something we need to consider very carefully, although there is no objection in principle to non-lawyers doing conveyancing On the two points raised by Mr Heng Chiang Meng, I think it may be best if we leave to the Select Committee to examine these points in further detail.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time. Resolved, That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee consisting of Mr Speaker as Chairman and seven Members to be nominated by the Committee of Selection. - [Prof. Jayakumar].

Order for Second Reading read. 1.58 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill has nothing to do with my portfolio as Foreign Minister, but I am moving it as the Deputy Chairman of the People's Association. Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The People's Association (PA) was established on 1st July 1960 with the primary objective of promoting racial harmony and social cohesion. The PA Act was enacted on 19th May 1960 and subsequently amended in 1963 and 1965. This Bill now seeks to amend the PA Act in five areas, namely, the election of corporate members to the Board, the holding of general meetings, the powers of the Board, the adoption of annual report and the deposit of money. Election of corporate members to the Board The People's Association Board now has 14 members comprising the Prime Minister as Chairman, nine appointed members and four elected members. Currently, the four elected members are elected from amongst the PA's corporate members at an annual general meeting. They hold office for only one year unless they are re-elected. The proposed amendment to section 6 of the Act will enable the elected members to hold office for three years. This will be consistent with the 3-year term of the appointed members and ensure continuity of the Board. Holding of general meetings The PA has 90 corporate members. They comprise organisations from different interests and professional groups. As it is now proposed that elected members hold office for three years, the general meetings for election of members need only take place once every three years. Hence section 8 of the Act is to be amended to provide for this. But PA will continue to organise smaller and separate meetings with the corporate members and conduct joint projects with them and regularly keep in close touch with the corporate members. Powers of the Board The present section 10 (2) (f) allows the PA Board to manage or run community centres, youth clubs, boys' clubs and girls' clubs. The amendment will enable the PA Board to manage or run clubs or institutes or such other bodies as the Board thinks fit and this will give the Board a great deal more flexibility. Adoption of Annual Report The existing section 12 requires the adoption of the PA's annual report at its annual general meeting. The section has to be amended now since there will be no more AGMs. The Bill also seeks to adopt with some minor modifications the model provision to be incorporated in an Act of Parliament establishing a body corporate recommended by the Attorney-General. Deposit of money The existing section 13 (1) only allows the PA and its approved committees to deposit money in banks in the name of the PA. The amendment seeks to allow the PA and its committees to deposit money in approved finance companies other than banks and to invest funds which are not immediately required for use in such securities which trustees may by any written law be authorised to invest trust moneys in. Sir, all these amendments have been presented to the PA's annual general meeting on 10th July last year and have been approved by the corporate members. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I cannot support the amendments in the People's Association (Amendment) Bill. The People's Association is fully supported by taxpayers. And yet the way it is run and its functions, it appears to be a propaganda arm of the PAP. The People's Association is made to be in charge of community centres which are supposed to be the focal point of all social, cultural, educational and recreational activities of a constituency. But its real purpose is to promote the interests of the ruling political party. That is the reason why all Opposition MPs are shut out from community centres. The reason given is that the Opposition MPs do not support Government policies. But do the PAP MPs themselves support Government policies? I do not think so. The community centres have mounted an intensive campaign to speak Mandarin. But what happens? When it comes to the crunch at the Marine Parade by-election, we see that the PAP MPs flouted Government policies. They strayed away from Government policies and used dialects extensively and that is one of the reasons why they won the by-election. And when it really comes to the bottom line, the PAP MPs do not believe in Government policies when it hurts their own interests. So it cannot be said that the Opposition MPs do not support Government policies and therefore community centres should be handed to them. They must be made advisors to community centres, like all PAP MPs. In the case of Potong Pasir which I know very well, the People's Association even committed a breach of trust. Residents of Potong Pasir Constituency have contributed generously to build a lovely community centre at Sennett Estate which is part of Potong Pasir Constituency. The people have contributed money on the understanding that the money shall be used to build a community centre for the constituents' use. Yet, when I was elected in Potong Pasir in 1984, the community centre at Sennett Estate was quickly taken away by the PA and used, I believe, as a grassroots secretariat. Its use as a community centre was discontinued. That act was clearly a breach of trust on the part of the PA. Despite our many protestations, nothing has come out of it. Under clause 4 of the Bill, the PA is to expand its power not only to run youth clubs, boys' clubs and girls' clubs, but institutes and such other bodies as the Board thinks fit. This is like giving a blank cheque to the Board of the PA. I sincerely urge this House not to allow them to do that. The powers given to the Board are too extensive. What exactly are institutes and bodies which the Board has in mind? These institutes and bodies must be clearly spelt out in the Act. Otherwise we do not know what we are approving? I hope the Minister will clarify. What does the Board have in mind? Do they want to form other bodies that will help in the PAP MPs' politicking or what? At the moment, we have got the CCCs, CCMCs, RCs, youth groups, clubs and the lot. Why are they not enough? Why is there a necessity to increase the powers of the Board? Therefore, unless the Minister specifies them, I cannot agree with this amendment.

Mr Speaker, Sir, actually I did not intend to speak on this Bill. I thought it was straightforward and formalising what has been carefully thought out. But I cannot let the Member of the Opposition go with some of the accusations about PAP MPs. To say that PAP MPs do not support Government policies is heresy.

Prove me wrong.

And to say that because we used dialects in the Marine Parade by-election was the reason why we won the by-election is hogwash. And neither can he prove that too. As to complaints of Mr Chiam on what the PA and community centres do or did not do, for his constituency they are nothing new really, and the Hansard is full of instances of what he said were the "misdeeds" of PA and of the community centres against his Party. But as the Deputy Chairman of the People's Association mentioned just now, one of the reasons for the extension of the tenure of the elected members from one to three years is simply to be in line with the tenure of the appointed members which is also three years. I see nothing wrong in that. Besides, I think it is much more efficient for a member to be there for three years and be thinking about what to do in PA, for the people, mind you, not for PA, not for the Board members. With regard to whether the PA ought to think of also taking part in other activities other than what they do in community centres and boys' clubs, it is also for the people. It is not for PA members, it is not for the Board members. So I do not see anything wrong in the PA trying to enlarge its activities to other than those in community centres and boys' clubs. The other issue about investment of funds which he did not mention is to make more efficient use of the funds which CCs and these bodies have. But I also have this caution: perhaps the Minister could ensure that the investments in portfolios are those investments which should not incur losses because these are public funds. Sir, that is about all I have to say on the Bill and I do support the Bill.

Sir, I rise in support of the Bill read by the Minister mainly because, on the whole, the proposed changes as recommended will help to make the PA continue to be efficiently run and to provide scope for further expansion in future. Sir, before I continue, I must declare that I am an appointed member of the PA Board. Sir, for the past many years, in fact, since its inception, the activities of the People's Association have obviously benefited many Singaporeans, young and old. And in the past many years, we have read and followed how the Association tried to adjust itself not only to continue with its basic activities of helping to promote racial harmony and social cohesion but also to make the community centres a hub of activities in various constituencies. We not only tried to make PA relevant to the older generation but also to the younger generation. So in this instance, Sir, the amendments proposed here will help PA continue to make the necessary adjustments and make itself relevant and useful to young and old, men and women. Sir, from what I know, the existence of the community centres and the activities organised by the CCMCs have also benefited the residents in Potong Pasir and other constituencies not under the PAP. I also see no contradiction in the PA running various activities including, if some Members do not know, the National Community Training Institute (NACTI) and also the Outward Bound School, which means that under the present line-up of activities, PA does not only run community centres. Sir, I hope these amendments and the plans they have put forward will not only help make PA a more relevant and attuned organisation but also help more Singaporeans to take part in various activities and propose activities more suitable to the changing needs of our younger generation.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I also rise to support this Bill and the proposed amendments to the People's Association Act. I would just like to say, as Mr Maidin has said, that the People's Association has organised several activities, courses and programmes in the community centres which are beneficial to all people, people of all segments, different interest groups and even different political interest groups in Singapore. I would like to quote an example. In the case of the community centre in Thomson Constituency, I understand that an Opposition Member of Parliament indeed supports the community centre by sending his child to the kindergarten class organised by the community centre. This is a very good endorsement of the very good courses and programmes organised by the People's Association for community centres. I think it is a good endorsement by all sectors in Singapore. Therefore, it should not be said that our community centres are only political in nature.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the Bill. Mr Chiam obviously does not support the Bill and in the process of his speech, he said that the PAP won a solid victory in Marine Parade GRC because the candidates spoke in dialect. I wonder, in his post-mortem analysis, if it is his view that the Marine Parade voters are so simple-minded that a few Hokkien and Teochew speeches will sway 73% of the voters to our platform. Sir, our belief is that the Marine Parade voters supported the Prime Minister and supported our solid programme. It is as simple as that. Sir, the People's Association has a very comprehensive list of activities and is constantly expanding on the activities. With the conversion of the community centres to community clubs, a lot of residents have signed up to be members of the clubs. This Bill allows the People's Association to be more flexible in its activities and I fully support it.

Sir, I thank the Members for their support of the People's Association (Amendment) Bill. I make no apology for the fact that the PA is a unique creation of the PAP Government. We had the foresight in 1960 to create the PA, to galvanise and mobilise the people to support Government policies. We will continue to do that so long as the PAP Government is in power. Sir, the PA is not a propaganda arm of the PAP. People who use the PA facilities know full well that no PAP activities are conducted in the PA's community centres. If that were the case, if the PAP were to conduct propaganda activities in the community centres then, as Mr Leong just pointed out, Opposition Members would not have sent their children to the PA's community centre's child-care centres. Mr Chiam See Tong rose ---

Mr Wong, do you want to give way to Mr Chiam?

I do not know why Mr Chiam is so agitated. I have not finished yet.

I repeat this question which has been asked many times in this House. As the Minister claims, if the PA and the community centres are non-partisan, why are the Opposition Members kept out of community centres?

That is why I do not understand why he is so agitated because I am going to answer his question in due course. Sir, the PA runs activities for the benefit of all residents. I think there is no country in the world, as far as I know, that has community centres like what we have, offering a wide range of facilities for recreational, educational and social purposes. Whatever people want, that can be legally done, that can be beneficial to them, that can be of use to them, the PA will run these activities. The PA will, of course, carry out Government policies. That is why the Government set up the PA in the first instance to propagate Government policies. It is quite logical and rational, therefore, to have the PAP MPs, who are after all the people forming the Government, to be the advisors to the community centres. I think it is quite difficult to envisage an instance where Opposition MPs will, in their capacity as advisors to the community centres, help to carry out Government policies. After all, their job is to oppose the Government, as we have seen in many instances. So, the simple answer is that we do not see how Opposition MPs can help to carry out Government policies and, therefore, logically, we do not see how they could be appointed as advisors to the community centres. It is that simple. As to why the PAP MPs spoke dialects instead of Mandarin during the recent by-election --

I do not think it is for the Minister to answer that.

Well, you just raised the question.

Order. Mr Chiam, I suggest that you allow the Minister to finish his reply before interrupting.

Sir, the Member for Potong Pasir raised the point earlier on that PAP MPs do not support Government policies just because during the recent by-election they spoke dialects. That is why I am going to answer the question, unless he does not want to listen to my answer. Sir, speaking dialects at election rallies is not new. It has been done before, long ago, way back in the 1950s, and even after we had the "Speak Mandarin" campaign in 1980/81, we continued to have dialects spoken during rallies. I remember Dr Lee Siew Choh speaking in Cantonese. I heard him speaking in Cantonese. I remember Mr Low Thia Khiang speaking in Teochew. Therefore, dialects have been spoken in the past and they can be spoken in future rallies too. If the SDP thinks that by speaking dialects is a way of swaying people and they did not do it, then maybe they should try the next time. Mr Chiam again raised the point about the Sennett Community Centre that when he became the Member for Potong Pasir we took away the Sennett Community Centre. But I think he has forgotten that in place of the old Sennett Community Centre, we have built a new modern community centre in Potong Pasir, almost right next to his branch, whereas the Sennett Community Centre is quite far away in the old Sennett Estate. The Sennett Community Centre is not misused. It is being used by community workers, who are contributing to the cause of nation building, for their activities. There is nothing wrong with that. There is no breach of trust or faith or anything. I am not a lawyer. We are continuing to use the facility for community purposes. Mr Chiam also objects to the amendment in clause 4 and he says that we are giving too much power to the PA to run all kinds of things. I think he has not kept pace with time. Since 1960, the PA has changed, not just in the activities they run, but also in the institutions, clubs and the various organisations that it has been running. The PA has taken over the National Community Leadership Training Institute. So that is an Institute. It does not appear in the present section 10(2)(f). We also run the Outward Bound School. Again, that is going to be reflected in this present Bill. The reason why we are updating it is to make PA relevant, and to continue to run and organise courses, activities, programmes, institutes, bodies, or whatever, that will be consistent with PA's objectives. Surely, we are not going to run, say, a secondary school. That is not part of PA's objective. They are not going to run a company to make money. That is not PA's objective. So have no fear. We will run activities, programmes, institutes, bodies, whatever, that will be consistent with PA's objective. As I said, we will be careful with the management of funds. When the PA invests its money, it will try to get a good return. But we cannot assure ourselves that we will always make money or always get positive returns in all investments. But we will be very prudent in where we invest the funds.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I clarify with the Minister on a point? Is it true that the youth group leaders are asked to join the PAP if they wish to remain as leaders in the PA?

Sir, I have not heard of the PA insisting on all youth group leaders to be members of the PAP. But if they are willing to join the PAP, why not? Mr Chiam See Tong rose ---

Yes, Mr Chiam. You asked questions but you objected to the answer given, and you want to ask questions.

Mr Speaker, can I get some clarification from the Minister? He said earlier on that the PA has been running institutes and the Outward Bound School. The amendment is only made today and I see that the powers of the PA have not been given retrospectively. In other words, all the activities that the PA has been running are ultra vires. All the funds that were allocated to the Outward Bound School and other institutes were done illegally because they have no powers. I hope the Minister can comment on that. In regard to the community centre at Sennett Estate, when the PAP MP was there, they promised two community centres for the Constituency. I am asking the Minister why they are taking away one. In regard to transfer of use, it is certainly not used as a community centre. Therefore, there is a clear breach of trust, even if it is used for a similar purpose, a charitable purpose. But it is certainly not used as a community centre, and I still maintain that that is a breach of trust.

Sir, I only quoted the example of the National Community Leadership Training Institute as an example. If Mr Chiam were to read the present Act carefully, which says that the PA can "generally do all such other acts as may be necessary to achieve the objects of the Association," then, of course, running the National Community Leadership Training Institute, even without the amendment, or running OBS without the amendment, will still not be ultra vires the People's Association Act. If Mr Chiam thinks so, then maybe he can challenge us in the court. On the community centre, as I said, we built a better and modern community centre in place of the old one. There is no reason, and it will be wasteful, to duplicate services and activities in centres which are so close in a place that does not require both centres. We have in many instances closed down centres if we see that the usage has not been high. So it is not new. The fact that we closed the Sennett Community Centre does not mean that we are taking away one from him and not giving something in return. We have given the Potong Pasir residents a better centre. We have closed down other centres in other parts of Singapore which have not seen a high demand from the residents.

I do not know which section the Minister is referring to, when he said that the PA has the power to run the Outward Bound School and other institutes. If that were true, then we are all wasting our time here. Why spend so much time in trying to amend section 10(2)?

Sir, he is a lawyer. I am not a lawyer. Let us look at the old Act? Have you got a copy of the Act?

No.

Go and look it up then. You are a lawyer. You would have a copy of this in your office. Section 10(2)(k) says the PA can: 'generally do all such other acts as may be necessary to achieve the objects of the Association.' So his question is, if that is the case, why do we need to amend the Act? Why not? Because we want to update section 10(2)(f). There is nothing wrong with that either.

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

Clause 1 -

The citation year will be changed to 1993. This will be done. Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 2 to 5 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 2.30 pm

Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Prime Minister announced during his National Day Rally in August 1991 that the Government will be setting up an endowment fund, called Medifund, to help poor and indigent Singaporeans pay for their medical care. During last year's debate in the Committee of Supply on my Ministry's budget, I also gave Members some details of Medifund. This Bill is to enable the Government to establish Medifund. Sir, we have today one of the best health care systems in the world. To achieve a similar level of health care, most developed countries have to spend over 7% of their GNP, with the USA topping the list at over 13% in 1992. In Singapore, we spend about 3% of our GDP on health care. This shows that overall, our health care system is a very efficient and cost-effective one. Health care costs are very much influenced by the nation's wage levels. Health care is very labour-intensive, requiring highly trained personnel such as doctors, nurses and other professional staff. As a result, labour costs make up over 70% of health care costs. Hospitals must pay their staff fairly and competitively. Otherwise, they will not be able to retain their staff or recruit new ones. It is therefore inevitable that the healthy pay increases enjoyed by Singaporeans over the last 10 years have had a significant impact on health care costs. Expensive modern drugs and advanced medical equipment, and high-tech medical tests and procedures have also helped to push up costs. The best way for individuals to keep their health care expenses low is to adopt a healthy lifestyle, and to reduce their chances of falling ill. For those who do fall ill, the Government is committed to ensuring that every Singaporean is able to obtain good basic health care. For lower income Singaporeans, this has been achieved through our nation-wide network of polyclinics, and the provision of heavily subsidised Class B2 and C beds in our acute hospitals. In the Class C wards, the Government pays $4 for each dollar paid by the patients, and in the B2 wards $2 for every dollar paid by the patients. Medisave helps Singaporeans meet their hospitalisation costs. And our catastrophic medical insurance scheme, MediShield, provides relief to those who are seriously ill and who require long hospitalisation and therefore face bigger hospital bills. However, we recognise that there would be some who, for various reasons, cannot even afford to pay the heavily-subsidised Class B2 or C bills. At the moment, they can apply to have their bills fully or partially waived. In 1991, about 6,000 patients out of a total of over 160,000 Class B2 and C patients in the Government and restructured hospitals applied for waivers. About 98% of the applicants were granted waivers, amounting to a total of $1.7 million. When this Bill is passed, Singaporeans using the heavily subsidised health services who face problems paying their hospital bills can apply for waivers from Medifund. The scheme will have more flexibility when considering appeals for fee waiver. The Medifund privilege will be extended to only Singaporean citizens, and not to non-Singaporeans. The Government will establish Medifund with an initial capital of $200 million, and thereafter increase the capital by $100 million per year, provided that there is continued economic growth and a budget surplus. Only the income from Medifund will be used. However, as there will be no income for the first year, the Government will provide Medifund with a more than adequate sum of $5 million to fund its first year operations. This sum will not be regarded as part of the capital money of the Medifund. Sir, Medifund will act as a safety net for those needing medical treatment. Initially, it will provide grants to approved hospitals and medical institutions for them to help Singapore citizens who, either by themselves, or with the help of their families, cannot afford to pay their hospital bills. Additional schemes to help Singaporeans meet their health care expenses will be considered later when Medifund has more resources. Singaporeans eligible for Medifund support will include, first, the destitute and indigent, who presently apply for hospital fee waivers; second, elderly Singaporeans with no Medisave, or who did not accumulate enough Medisave before retiring because the scheme was implemented too late for them; and third, younger Singaporeans who have not worked long enough to accumulate sufficient Medisave, but who are unexpectedly faced with high medical expenses. Medifund will give greater support to those who have contributed regularly to their Medisave accounts, and who are covered by MediShield. The Bill provides for the establishment of an Advisory Council to advise the Minister on the use of the income of Medifund. We will be decentralising the processing of Medifund applications to the individual hospitals. Each hospital will have its own Hospital Medifund committee to consider and to approve applications, and to decide on the quantum of remission according to the guidelines recommended by the Advisory Council. The Advisory Council and the Hospital Medifund committees will largely comprise members who are actively involved in community and social work. They would be familiar with the needs and problems of lower-income Singaporeans, and would be able to adopt a flexible and helpful attitude towards applicants. Sir, Medifund will grow over time, provided our economy continues to improve and grow, and we achieve budgetary surpluses. It will be a valuable safety net. With Medifund, no Singaporean need ever fear that he or she will be unable to receive good basic health care, no matter how much financial difficulties he or she is facing. However, we must not let Medifund lull us into a false sense of security. It is important for every Singaporean to maintain a healthy lifestyle in order to reduce the risk of falling ill. Singaporeans must use their Medisave wisely, by using the class of ward that best suits their income level. This way, we will have enough finances to look after our health care needs in our old age. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support this Bill. I am very happy that the Government has finally come up with this proposed Bill. It is indeed a very important safety net to the less well-to-do Singaporeans. They can count on the Government to help them in time of need. The Minister mentioned that the amount spent in waivers and remission of fees in 1991 was $1.7 million. We do not know what the amount was in 1992, but certainly the initial sum of $5 million is a generous one. Sir, I think there is concern when the amount of capital money added each year is made dependent on budget surplus and economic growth because the concern is one that there is a need by the less able Singaporeans. And if you were to tie it to economic growth and budget surplus, it means that we are not addressing that need. One difficulty is that medical condition can be recession-proof and people do get sick under all economic circumstances. I presume what the Minister has said is that the eligibility for such assistance will only be confined to patients admitted to Class B2 and C wards and it will not be for any other wards. So maybe the Minister would like to clarify and confirm the class of ward eligibility. The Minister has not told us what those approved hospitals are likely to be. Is it mainly the Government restructured hospitals or will they include the new community hospitals that we are going to have? Because in the new community hospitals, we believe they are built to provide for more affordable hospitalisation of patients. We would like to know, at least in preliminary terms, how the grants will be allocated to each of the hospitals and on what basis we are likely to be depending on in allocating the grants to the various hospitals. Is it based on historical experience that we have so far with the number of waivers or is it based on the number of beds of subsidised wards? I welcome the inclusion of community leaders in the Hospital Medifund committee. The Minister had said so in the past and he has put it into practice, and we certainly look forward to the participation of these local community leaders in helping out in the decision-making and in approving applications for Medifund from the less able Singaporeans. One last point, Sir. We understand that there is a cost involved in the auditing and administration of the accounts. We know that the respective hospitals are to maintain their accounts. We hope that the hospitals do not have to levy a high charge in the administration of the accounts which will take away money from these people who are in need. Sir, I support the Bill.

( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, in March last year, during the debate on the budget for the Ministry of Health, I told the Minister for Health that people in Singapore had described our medical service as one in which "people can die but cannot fall sick". I wanted the Minister for Health to assure the House that the Government would pick up the medical bills for any Singaporean who could not afford to pay the medical expenses. At that time, the Minister for Health replied that the Government was already subsidizing 80% of the class C ward charges, and that if the patients cannot afford to pay for the remaining 20% of the charges, Medifund would pay for them. I quote (in English): "And for those who cannot afford to pay the remaining 20%, we have Medifund to help them." Mr Speaker, Sir, now the Medical Endowment Scheme Bill introduced in this House allows the Government to set aside a sum of money for investment and to get the revenue of the investment to help those patients who cannot afford to meet their medical expenses pay their bills. Clause 15(1) of the Bill clearly states that it would depend on whether there is money in the Hospital Medifund Account to effect the said payment. This Bill does not tie in with the Government's original promise. Singaporeans who cannot afford to pay for their medical expenses cannot expect the Government to keep its promise of writing off their outstanding medical bills. They have to pray that the investment committed by the Medical Endowment Fund would reap big profits all the way, and that the Medifund Account of the hospital which they are admitted to is also receiving profits from all sources of investment, so that they will have a chance to make use of this Fund. Can this be truly said to be a form of protection? I have yet a number of other doubts about the Bill. Firstly, if unfortunately, the investment does not yield any profit, or even suffers losses, then Medifund will have no money to pay the medical bills of those people who cannot afford to meet their own medical expenses. What will happen to these people? Although the Minister said that in the first year the Government will make available the money for the Fund, what if, in future, the investment is not getting any positive returns? Secondly, under the Bill, the Government will allocate the money to the approved hospitals to set up their own Medifund accounts. What will be the criteria for the allocation of funds? Supposing one of the approved hospitals has more patients who cannot afford to pay for their medical bills, and hence exhausted the money in its account, does it mean that the patients in this particular hospital will be unable to get financial assistance? If that is the case, then will the hospital concerned allow the patients to check the amount standing in its Medifund account before their admission to the hospital? The Bill states that so long as a hospital is approved by the Minister, it will be entitled to maintain and operate a Medical Endowment Fund. I would like to ask the Minister which are the hospitals that he will be approving for this purpose. For example, if a patient stays at Mount Elizabeth Hospital, can he consider Mount Elizabeth Hospital as an approved hospital? Concerning the application for use of Medifund, clause 13 of the Bill merely states generally that anyone who is a Singapore citizen staying in an approved hospital and who cannot afford the hospital expenses can make application to the Medical Endowment Fund Board. My questions are : (1) If the patients who stay in class A and class B wards cannot afford to pay for their hospital charges, can they apply to make use of the Medisave? (2) If a patient has stayed in an approved hospital for some time and he subsequently succumbed to his illness, leaving a hefty hospital bill outstanding, then can the medical social worker of the hospital apply to make use of Medifund to pay for the outstanding bill? Then the hospital will make a profit instead of a loss, and the Government will not have to end up with the bad debt. Under clause 15(5) of the Bill, even if an applicant satisfies the conditions as laid down under clause 13 to become an eligible applicant, the Medifund Board of the hospital or the persons authorized to approve such application may not necessarily approve the application by the eligible applicant. What then are the criteria for any Singaporean who cannot afford his medical expenses to be entitled to make use of Medifund to pay for his medical bills? How can the Government ensure that the persons who are authorized to approve such applications are exercising their power fairly and justly? More importantly, in the case of those who cannot afford to pay their medical expenses and whose applications to make use of Medifund have been rejected, what would happen to them? Do they just hang on and wait for time to die or for the Government's letter demanding payment of their medical bills, and even be made bankrupt because they cannot afford to pay for their medical expenses? Mr Speaker, Sir, from the points that I have raised, we can see that Medifund cannot truly ensure that the poor people in Singapore can get the proper medical care that they need. With the increase in wages, rising cost of medical services, and the fact that Government hospitals have to be responsible for their own profits and losses after privatization, coupled with the Government's long-term target of subsidizing only 80% of class C ward charges, we can expect hospital charges to keep on going up. Some Singaporeans, particularly the older ones who have no Medisave account, or with inadequate amount in their Medisave account, will have trouble meeting their expenses once they are sick and have to be hospitalized. Among these people, some might have retired. But, do not forget that they too have contributed to the prosperity of Singapore. Some of them might be from the low-income group, but they are, nonetheless, part of us. When they are sick and they require medical care, should it not be the responsibility of the Government to look after them? They should be given the assurance that when they are sick, they will be given proper medical care, even if they cannot afford to pay for the medical expenses. But here, we have Medifund which can only pay the medical bills of those who are in need if the Fund can generate revenue. Furthermore, even an eligible applicant is not assured that his or her application for waiver of medical bills will be granted. Is this the safeguard that the Government is providing for the people of Singapore? Do not tell me that this is what the Government meant when it promised in its Next Lap that it will "continue to provide free medical service to the poor and indigent"? Mr Speaker, Sir, if the Government is sincere in fulfilling its promise of "providing free medical service to Singaporeans who are poor and indigent", as stated in its Next Lap, then the Government should make good use of the money to provide the people with good and proper medical safeguards, with a clear statement as to the circumstances under which medical assistance would be available, so that those Singaporeans who genuinely cannot afford to pay for their medical expenses and who stay in C class wards will not have to worry about the ever rising cost of medical care.

Order. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 3.15 pm. Sitting accordingly suspended at 2.50 pm until 3.15 pm. Sitting resumed at 3.15 pm

Debate resumed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I support this important and commendable Bill as it ensures that no Singaporean will be denied basic medical care even if he or she is unable to pay for it. Many of our senior citizens do not have adequate financial resources. 31% of the males and 74% of the females have no personal income. Only 13% of the elderly males and an abysmal 2% of the elderly females have CPF accounts. It is therefore very important that the safety net exists for these senior citizens. However, it appears to me that there is one needy group of people for whom we are not extending the safety net. Because of discriminatory immigration laws, children of Singaporean mothers and foreign fathers born outside Singapore have no right to become Singapore citizens. Many of these children live in Singapore and go to local schools and live with their mothers who are forced to become single mothers because their fathers cannot get permanent residency. Some of these women have contacted me or the Association of Women for Action and Research and told us of their plight. These children are not eligible for Medifund if clause 13 is not changed. These children would be eligible if they have chosen to have foreign mothers and local fathers, and not foreign fathers and local mothers. I therefore urge that we change the amendment so that needy children in this category will not be denied basic medical care because of unfair and outmoded immigration laws. The other point that I would like to make concerns the funding of Medifund. At present, the main CPF account can be withdrawn at 55 but the Medisave account has to stay, and what is left in this account after one's death goes to the nominees. I suggest that an opting-in scheme be devised so that each Medisave account holder is given the option to donate all or part of the Medisave account into Medifund after one's death. This will enable Medifund to grow through the altruism of Singaporeans and not only be dependent on budget surplus.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak in support of this Bill. Increasing cost of health care is a world-wide problem for a variety of reasons which have already been touched on by the Minister. In Singapore, we also have to contend with a huge wage bill. Our pragmatic Government has made it an avowed objective to contain health care cost so that it does not rise beyond affordability for both the country as well as the individual. One way of doing this is to discourage over consumption through excessive subsidy. The Government's health subsidy has over the years fallen from 88% in 1965 to 57% in 1990. In the last five years, it has remained at 0.7% of the GDP. This has been achieved by either reducing subsidy to those who are deemed not to need it or by increasing co-payment from those who can afford to do so when public health services are consumed. For the lower-income group using C class hospital facilities, the subsidy has remained at 80%. Despite this, there are some in this group who find it difficult to co-pay in part or in full the recoverable 20%. For them, there is a genuine fear that as costs rise and subsidies are trimmed, even basic health care may become inaccessible. To them, the Medical Endowment Scheme Bill 1993 is welcome legislation and the Scheme, when implemented, will gain political mileage for the Government as still a caring and concerned one. Apart from the conditions for obtaining grants, clause 13 in the Bill spells out the criteria from which one could draw from Medifund. However, in clause 15(5), there is a provision that notwithstanding all this, nothing in the Act shall be construed to require approval of an application. Like speakers before me, Sir, I am worried about this. The Medical Endowment Scheme pared to the bones is a welfare scheme to help the needy. No self-respecting person would like to turn to welfare for aid if this could be avoided. I am worried that some deserving and eligible applicant may be denied because of petty bureaucracy from an approving authority as a result of clause 15(5). To safeguard against this, when an eligible applicant has been denied aid perhaps there should be recourse to an appeals committee. On interpretation, I hope, like others before me, that "approved hospital" will not be only confined to Government or restructured hospitals but include gazetted institutions where alternative medicine is sought, and also the nursing homes, the rehabilitation centres and even the hospices. Initially, Sir, we are informed that $5 million will be made available for drawing on in the first year of implementation and another $200 million will be paid in as capital money. There is no target set as to how much this capital should grow. But there is a provision for topping it up when the capital sum should be diminished for one reason or another. Theoretically, disbursements from Medifund may no longer be available as a result of this in some lean years. It is perhaps necessary that a minimal sum be set based on the level of subsidy that is thought desirable and pegged to the consumer price indices below which income from Medifund should not be used for topping up capital under clause 4(4). As it stands, the scheme is too open. Sir, with these reservations, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill as it provides an avenue, particularly for those in the lower-income group, to seek defrayment in whole or in part the medical cost incurred. However, I would like to seek clarifications from the Minister with regard to two clauses of the Bill. Clause 13(1)(b). In the context of this clause, I would like to know whether any treatment received or required means treatment arising from hospitalisation. Or does it mean any treatment, be it for hospitalisation, ordinary or specialist outpatient treatment which sometimes can be quite a substantial amount? The other clause is clause 15(1). This clause says: ' ... the Hospital Medifund committee of an approved hospital may, if it thinks fit and subject to the availability of moneys in the Hospital Medifund Account, approve the application of any eligible patient ... ' The clarification I wish to seek is: what recourse can the eligible patient seek if there is no money in the Hospital Medifund Account? If there is none, I must stress here that the Act must provide for one, or else it will defeat all intents and purposes of this Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support this Bill. I have two basic points to make, one on a point of general principle and the other on a rather more specific area. Social welfare is always an attractive thing, but I think that it is very easy to be seduced by promises of free treatment and the Government is absolutely right to go for this kind of scheme which goes for full funding rather than for free treatment out of revenues that may or may not arise in future years. Subject to the reservation that has been expressed by Dr Toh regarding the necessity to amend clause 4(4) to ensure that there is a minimum subsidy, I would fully support the idea of an endowment fund rather than the provision of free services. The other point that I would like to raise is basically a point of principle on clause 13 itself. The scheme of the Bill is that an application for use of Medifund should be made by a Singapore citizen and this is as it should be. But because of the way clause 13 is drafted, I think you will find that there will be a certain class of citizens who will not benefit completely from Medifund. The application has to be made by a citizen. If a Singapore citizen falls ill and needs a subsidy, he applies on his own behalf. Or if he cannot, his immediate family applies. If a child of a Singapore citizen falls ill, the parent cannot apply under clause 13 as presently drafted. The application has to be made by the child which is of course not possible in most cases. So what happens? We rely on clause 14 to have the application made by the parent or a member of the immediate family. The problem arises where the child is not a Singapore citizen. Because if the child is not a Singapore citizen, under clause 13, no application can be made on his behalf. There are two situations where you might have a Singapore parent with a non-Singaporean child. Firstly, in the case of adoption. When you adopt children, they do not automatically become citizens. So you might find that someone who has adopted a baby from abroad, the baby falls ill, he cannot pay. The child cannot get Medifund because the child is not a Singapore citizen. He does not fall within clause 13. Application cannot be made on his behalf. The second situation is the situation that Dr Soin has brought up, where a Singaporean woman marries a foreigner and has a child abroad. The child is not a Singapore citizen. The woman is deserted. She returns to Singapore. The child is brought with her. The child falls ill. No application can be made because it is a foreign child, not a Singapore citizen. These are the people, I suspect, who are most in need of the Medifund subsidy. And you might say that there are very few of them. That may be true. There may be very few of them. But if the mother is a Singapore citizen, if she is a single mother, if she is struggling to bring up a child in Singapore, I think it is very cold comfort to her to be told, "Well, there are only very few of you." If the idea is to give some privileges to Singapore citizens, to give privileges especially to those who cannot help themselves, then I would suggest very strongly that this particular problem be looked into simply because it is so easy to cure. A simple way to solve the problems that I have highlighted is to allow the parent, being a Singapore citizen, to make the application if treatment is sought for his child, whether or not the child is a Singapore citizen. It may be said that if you allow this, then you reduce the disincentive for Singapore women to marry foreign men. If the aim is to provide disincentives, may I suggest that this is the wrong place to look for disincentives. Sir, with these two points, may I reiterate my support for the Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Hougang, Mr Low Thia Khiang, made essentially one point. His point is that the Bill does not ensure that all those who are unable to pay are covered by Medifund, and he cited clause 15(1) and (5) to support his point. Sir, first of all, when Mr Low heard from some Singaporeans that the situation is such that ke yi si bu ke yi bing [ ], I think he owes it to them to explain that the Government, through all the Government and restructured hospitals, has always waived in whole or in part the hospital charges and fees of those who are unable to pay. Secondly, as the Minister for Health has mentioned earlier, in 1991 the Government spent $1.7 million in waiver of fees. Now that we are going to set up Medifund with an initial grant of $200 million, if we assume a 3% income annually, we are going to have $6 million. I think that is more than adequate for the time being to provide for the waiver of fees. Thirdly, he cited clause 15(1) that because there is a provision that subject an application to the availability of monies in the Hospital Medifund Account, the applicant may not necessarily get the money even though he may be genuinely in hardship. Sir, this clause is needed to ensure financial prudence on the part of the hospital. He cannot use this clause to say that because it is there, therefore, the Government may not honour its commitment to look after those who are in need. The commitment is there and the Government would honour that commitment. I believe that in genuine circumstances, when the fund is not sufficient, the hospital can always turn to the Minister, and if the Minister is satisfied that more funds should be provided, I am sure the Government would provide the fund. Sir, the setting up of Medifund is the realisation of one of the many election promises made by the Government. Compared to the existing practice, Medifund would put in place a far-sighted, more structured and more transparent scheme to help the poor. It will become an important pillar of our health-care system in Singapore. It is far-sighted because we are setting aside a big sum of money now in good times to look after the present and future health-care needs of the poor. These needs will certainly increase as the population ages. Medifund, therefore, enlarges our social safety net and makes it much stronger. It is more structured and transparent because of the different roles which will be played by the proposed Advisory Council, the Hospital Medifund committee and the way the scheme is administered and held accountable to Parliament. Sir, clause 13(1)(a) of the Bill requires that an applicant for Medifund must be a citizen of Singapore. That is logical. But I also share the same concern expressed by Dr Soin and Mr Walter Woon. I would also like to bring up another possibility that we may have cases where the patient's son or daughter is a Singaporean and is financially unable to pay for the unsubsidized hospital bill. In such circumstances, should we not consider the plight of the Singaporean son or daughter and give some subsidy for the treatment of his or her non-Singaporean parent? Sir, many speakers also expressed reservation on clause 15(5). I feel that we have a need for that clause because you may have a situation where a Singaporean patient is unable to pay, but we cannot be sure what other possible circumstances that might appear. Therefore, I believe that it is prudent to have that clause in to ensure that we only give benefits to those who are in need. Sir, according to the Bill, the Advisory Council will recommend to the Minister the guidelines on the approval of applications from eligible patients. These guidelines can never be perfect, especially at the initial stage of implementation of Medifund. They must, therefore, be improved as actual implementation takes place. We, therefore, need the views and feedback from people who are involved and who are on the ground. I therefore support the idea that community leaders be involved in a committee to assess applications to Medifund. Community leaders are involved in charity work either at the constituency or national level. They know the problems faced by the poor. The latter are also more willing to approach them for help. Community leaders' involvement in Medifund committees will strengthen social ties and help build a more caring and closely knit community. Sir, Medifund is a good welfare system. Unlike welfare systems in the West, it does not put the burden on the taxpayers, both present and future. The welfare system fails in the West also because they provide benefits to everyone in broadly defined groups such as the old, the sick and the unemployed who may not actually be poor or need to be poor. Sir, we should avoid such pitfalls and ensure that benefits get to those who really need them. I believe we will succeed through schemes such as Medifund. I support the Bill, Sir.

Mr Speaker, Sir, before I start, can I just ask Mr Low Thia Khiang whether he supports the Bill or he is against this Bill. Listening to him at length, I am not sure whether he supports or he is against it.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I support, in principle, providing a safety net for Singaporeans or those who cannot pay. But I would like the Minister to clarify the doubts that I have before I decide whether to support the Bill.

I thought you support the Bill but now you want clarification from the Minister. Anyway, Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support this Bill. As a responsible Government, we should continue to make sure that those who cannot afford medical attention should be adequately provided for. Medifund is one scheme whereby we can ensure that the poorest Singaporeans are provided for, especially our older Singaporeans, those of our forefathers who came to this island and they are old now. They really need a lot of assistance. As a medical practitioner, I have come across many cases of such people having difficulty in paying, and we usually refer them to the social worker. What I want to ask the Minister is that I hope the criteria for getting such funds would not be as strict as those in the Public Assistance Scheme. Many a time when we refer cases for public assistance we find that the criteria are so strict that many of them are really cheesed off because they have to answer so many questions and they are very disturbed by them that some of them give up trying to get assistance. I feel that because Singaporeans have been working so hard we must make sure that at the end of their working life, they must never feel insecure, especially when we come for help. If they feel insecure, then something is wrong. The provision of a scheme like this to ensure that we take care of them when they really are in that difficult position is very good. I notice that 6,000 patients out of 160,000 patients in B2 and C wards applied for waivers. Out of this, 98% were granted, and the sum was $1.7 million. Judging from the initial sum of $200 million for Medifund, that means we will have about $5 million or $6 million every year from investment income. I think that is very, very generous. On top of it, the Government is going to add another $100 million annually. I think that is very generous and Singaporeans should appreciate it.

Resolved, That the proceedings on the item under discussion and the remaining items on the Order Paper today be exempted at this day's sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1. - [Dr Lee Boon Yang].

Debate resumed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the Medical Endowment Scheme Bill. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Prime Minister once said, "this Government does not believe in welfarism." But that is not to say that there is no welfare for our people. This Medifund scheme would allow the very poor among us, the destitute, to tap into our medical services and get at least basic health care. But the catchwords must be "the poor and the destitute". Because if this Medical Endowment Fund is to fund for everybody - you, me, the rich - then the very poor who needs this fund most will be deprived. If a person is very poor, he or she will not be asked to be sent to Mount Elizabeth or Gleneagles Hospitals. Because if you allow people to go to Mount Elizabeth or Gleneagles Hospitals and allow him or her to use this Medifund, the next step will be he may want to go to St Vincent in Sydney or he may want to go to Mt Sinai in America. I think we must tell the poor, "Look, you cannot help yourself. Yes, we look at your circumstances. We ask the community leaders to vet you. If you deserve help, then you should go to SGH, which I think is the best hospital in Singapore." There is no need to extend the fund to outside non-authorised hospitals. I am not sure if Mr Low Thia Khiang really is in favour of allowing everybody to get--

May I clarify a point raised by Mr Koo?

Do you allow Mr Low to clarify?

I will repeat myself, I was interrupted. I am sorry. I am not sure if Mr Low Thia Khiang will allow people to go into Mount Elizabeth Hospital and turn to the fund, because he is for the poor. I think we must learn from the experience of other countries like Australia or the UK. They also have the equivalent of Medifund, but it is funded out of general taxation. It is for everybody. This means that the people who really need medical services have to queue up for years. By the time they reach the hospital bed, many of them do not need the cure any more. I just came back from China. I talked to some of the Chinese officials. The Chinese officials are now telling the Chinese that free medical health care is bad because if everybody goes for free medical health services, then the queue will be lengthened unnecessarily long and people will go for all kinds of services when they do not need one. So they are also thinking of a scheme where they will only allow the people who really need it, the people who cannot afford to pay, to tap into the services. I share the concern of Dr Soin and Mr Walter Woon. But let us get first thing first. This scheme is meant to help Singapore citizens. I think what they are referring to is mainly immigration problems. We must help our citizens, many of whom live in my area, the Tanjong Pagar GRC. Many of these san shui po [ ] came from China. They have worked hard, but they were caught in a time warp, they have no savings. Now they are destitute in the sense that they do not want help but they need help. These are our citizens. I think we help these people, the people who really need our help, instead of trying to dilute the fund, which is limited in the first place, to helping potential beneficiaries. 3.45 pm

( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I fully support the Medical Endowment Scheme Bill introduced by the Minister for Health. However, having heard the speeches by so many Members of Parliament, I am rather puzzled by what Mr Low Thia Khiang has said. He suggested that Medifund should also be extended to cover patients who stay in private hospitals and also those in wards A and B1. He seems to suggest that this fund should be made available to everybody. Everyone should be entitled to apply for the use of this Fund. This is not consistent with what the Minister has proposed and it is contrary to the primary objective of this Scheme, that is, to help those Singaporeans who are poor and destitute. If what he said is true, then I think it will not be necessary for us to have this Medifund. We might just as well have a Singapore Fund! Since it is inevitable that everybody will one day become old and fall sick, then would it not be better if we just give everyone a sum of money, so long as he or she is a Singaporean? Why should we go through all the trouble of setting up Medifund? Therefore, the use of Medifund should be selective. Only those Singaporeans who are poor, who do not have a Medisave Account and who truly deserve our help should be allowed to make use of this Fund. If everybody is entitled to apply, then as the Chinese saying goes: the gruel is meagre and the monks are many - there will not be enough to go round. The Fund will not be sufficient to cater for the needs of all those Singaporeans who really deserve our help. So I believe that Mr Low Thia Khiang should clarify his point. Another point raised by Mr Low is that any patient who satisfies the condition for the use of this Fund should be automatically granted this assistance. I think for everything we do, there should be a proper procedure. We should let the Ministry of Community Development, the grassroots leaders and the relevant officers from the Ministry of Health to come in and investigate, examine and check whether the patient who is making the application is truly a deserving case. If we do that, we would be able to check any misuse of this Fund and, at the same time, we would be able to understand the needs of these people: what is their medical condition and how much help they need. Finally, Mr Low asked what would happen to the outstanding medical bill left behind by these patients who have passed away. If the family of the deceased has the means, I think they should pay up all the outstanding medical bills. However, for those families which do not have the means, I hope the Ministry of Health will adopt a sympathetic attitude and waive all the medical expenses left behind by the patient concerned. I support this Bill.

Sir, I rise in support of the Bill but would like to raise some concerns. It is most assuring when we hear both the Prime Minister and the Minister for Health assuring us that no Singaporean who cannot afford to pay his bills will not be treated. But on the administrative side, we often hear and get the feedback that it is not that easy and that the administrative procedure is difficult and unless they can produce their Medisave account, they may not even be admitted to the hospital. As Dr Tan Cheng Bock has said, we hope that the whole procedure could be simplified. As we are an Asian society, I think the sensitive part about having to fill in long forms and all the details sometimes deter people from filing their applications. My biggest concern is that when Medisave was first introduced, there seemed to be an upward momentum in the medical costs. Now with this wonderful fund, will the doctors be just jacking up the fees since there is a fund to pay for all patients? There is this danger of an upward momentum. There is also this feeling that many of the patients do not wish to get into ward C. One perception, and I tend to believe it is real, is that there are certain surgical operations which are not given in ward C simply because they are too expensive. That perception, if it is not real, should be taken away, because the latest we hear is that the number of C ward beds will be reduced because of less usage. But less usage could be because they fear that they are not given equal treatment.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I must say that this Medical Endowment Scheme is a very innovative scheme so far. With the growing number of the single unsupported aged in our community, particularly those living in estates that are greying, there is an urgency to see how this scheme could be implemented as quickly as possible. I agree that the principle is to assist those who really need the fund, but the question is whether those who really need it will get their needs addressed as quickly as possible. I think we should be concerned about the time lag from the time that a person applies to get the fund to the time the decision is made. And if the scheme is indeed to help those who really need the support, then I feel that they should be given the Medifund support as quickly as possible. Otherwise, one would find that various types of means tests are applied by the bureaucracy. If applicants are made to wait unnecessarily longer, then I think the scheme would lose its credibility. Sir, the other question that we should address is the question of how flexible the scheme is. I would like to ask the Minister whether, besides the essential criteria that are established in the Bill, the scheme would be compassionately applied to people who really require it but they may not necessarily be citizens, ie, those who are permanent residents. Will they be eligible to apply? For those who really are rooted in Singapore and who have spent a large part of their years contributing to Singapore, we should see how the criteria should be compassionately applied and the necessary support given to them. I would like to find out from the Minister whether other more specific eligibility criteria will be spelt out to provide access to Medifund. The other concern that I have is the people who are sitting in the committee verifying and assessing the applications. Would there be a wider representation of community leaders or would the committee comprise mainly people who are within the hospital system? I want to argue that a broader representation of people from the community itself, particularly community leaders assessing the cases, would provide probably the best input in terms of the cases that are being reviewed.

( In Malay): Mr Speaker, I support the Medifund Bill. I would like to say that the proposed Medifund scheme is very timely. As Singapore moves on to further development and progress, we cannot ignore the inter2ests and the health of its population. A healthy population will bring about a more stable development and economy for Singapore. Mr Speaker, I welcome the Medifund scheme because it would reduce the burden of needy, poor families in meeting rising medical costs. Furthermore, the Medifund scheme would act as a safety net for every citizen, rich or poor. Every citizen, rich or poor, should not be denied access to quality medical care. Mr Speaker, the Government has been a responsible one. It has spent a lot of money introducing various schemes, medical and otherwise. I would like to propose a further improvement to this scheme. May I suggest that the criteria for approving disbursements out of the Medifund should not be too strict, so that more needy families could enjoy them. On the other hand, we should also ensure that the scheme would not be abused in the manner suggested by Mr Low Thia Khiang, because if we are not cautious, the scheme could well result in unfairness.

Mr Speaker, Sir, will you allow me to clarify in regard to the speech made by Mr Choo?

All right.

I was just asking the Minister for Health whether or not he will approve private hospitals, like Mount Elizabeth, to use Medifund. I am not in favour of private hospitals using the fund. So there is no suggestion whatsoever. This is my position. I think many Members have misunderstood me.

Sir, I just want to clarify. If that is the case, Mr Low Thia Khiang should not have raised this point. It is understood that private hospitals will not allow their patients to apply for such fund.

Mr Speaker, Sir, under the Bill, it says that "hospital ... approved by the Minister". So it can be any hospital approved by the Minister. I would like the Minister to clarify the type of hospital. It could be a private hospital and there are some Members who suggested community hospitals for that matter. I am raising this as an example, and not that I am in favour of private hospitals using Medifund.

Sir, first, I would like to thank all my colleagues in this House for their very active participation in the debate on this Medical Endowment Scheme Bill. I am glad that many of the colleagues have spoken out strongly in support of the Bill although they have some questions on some specific clauses in the Bill. Sir, I would like to go through the concerns of the Members, one by one. Mr Loh Meng See has asked about waivers in 1992. I quoted the 1991 waivers and that we waived about $1.7 million in 1991. He has asked whether that figure is in the same ballpark for 1992 as well. In 1992, for the first nine months, we waived about $700,000. If you pro rate it for the full 12 months, you will expect the 1992 waivers to be close to about a million dollars. So the $5 million that we have allocated for 1993, I think, should be more than adequate in the light of our previous years' experience. He has also expressed some concern about the need to tie Medifund to our ability to generate a budget surplus. Sir, I think that is very important because the Government has a limited pool of money. There are a lot of competing demands - education, defence, on-going programmes. We must make sure that our budgetary process allows us to generate a surplus so that we can contribute to Medifund. But whether or not we have the surplus, the endowment is safeguarded. We are already starting off by putting $200 million in the endowment and for the next few years, we hope to be able to contribute another additional hundred million dollars a year into Medifund. The $200 million that we are talking about for this year will be invested in Government bonds which are guaranteed, because it is the job of Medifund to safeguard the capital of the fund and not to invest in speculative investments. It will be invested in very safe, very guaranteed type of investments so that there will always be a continuing income to Medifund. And investing in Government bonds, I think, should get us, even with just the $200 million, about $5 million or $6 million quite easily every year. As Medifund capital increases in the coming years, the amount of income available to Medifund should increase and I think it should be more than adequate. Even though the income should be more than adequate, there must be the proviso that the Hospital Medifund committees act responsibly. Because in a hospital like Singapore General Hospital, the expenditure each year comes to the region of between $200 million and $300 million. So if the Hospital Medifund committees are not responsible, the few million dollars that we give to them would be quickly dispensed with. We must therefore make sure that they live within the budget given to them and they prioritise, identify and give out the available funds only to those people who genuinely need the assistance. This process is very important. To identify who are the people who genuinely need the assistance, we must get them to fill in a form and give some basic data about the family - family income, how many are there in the family, how many dependants, etc. These are very basic details which most patients have no problems filling them. Patients who are deterred because they need to fill the form and who can find other ways of paying for their treatment are clearly not amongst that group who really need help to pay for their hospital bills. We must have some basic criteria. We must ensure that people apply and provide the necessary financial data. And we must make sure that we vet carefully so that the sum that is available, which must always be limited, is used carefully and wisely. Mr Loh Meng See asked which would be the approved hospitals. He asked whether community hospitals would be included. Mr Low now says that he is asking for clarification as to whether Mount Elizabeth and the private hospitals would be included. Sir, we must get back again to the objective of Medifund. Medifund is to help poor, indigent Singaporeans who need medical care in the hospitals. So we must only make sure that those hospitals that are catering for this group of patients will be approved. Obviously, Mount Elizabeth and the other private hospitals would not be catering for these people, unless they have a welfare or charity section of their own. Mount Elizabeth and the other private hospitals will therefore not qualify. Yes, we will also be considering the community hospitals and we will be in favour of approving them because they too perform a very vital role in our health care system. How would the grants be allocated? We will be waiting for the advice of the Advisory Council when it is formed. But I would expect them to take into consideration the historical waivers being given by the hospitals as well as the composition of the wards - what percentage of the beds are in class B2 and class C, because the poorer patients would be using this sort of beds, and the absolute number of beds in each of these hospitals. Mr Loh has asked that the audit and administrative costs be kept low. The main secretariat support will be provided by my Ministry and there will be no charge to Medifund. For the hospitals, we expect them to continue processing claims for waivers as part of their service to patients and, therefore, not levy a charge to Medifund. Mr Low Thia Khiang again opened up with a quote from other people, which he did also in the last Budget debate, that one can afford to die but cannot afford to get sick. Sir, I hope that when he does come across such people, and being more aware of the health care system, he would act responsibly by explaining to them that that is not true in Singapore. It may be true in other countries, including the US, where 37 million people are without medical insurance and, therefore, cannot get access to medical care. But in Singapore, no one is ever deprived of medical care. A person who is very poor, who does not have any Medisave, is provided treatment the moment he arrives at the hospital, and billed later. The medical treatment and the billing are two entirely different things. Priority is given to treatment. If they cannot pay, they will be sent to class B2 or class C ward where there is vacancy. But treatment is given first and then the hospital worries about billing. I am glad that in the eight years that I have been in Parliament, I have not come across any case of a Singaporean being driven away from any Government hospital because he could not pay the bill. There has never been any case of that nature, and we are very proud of that. Sir, our aim is to make sure that the poor and the indigent get treatment. And Mr Low has asked whether we can give an assurance. Sir, that is an assurance. Every Singaporean, no matter how poor he is, will be given medical treatment and, later when his bills are sent to him, if he applies, we will waive them. I assure him that we will provide free treatment to those very poor Singaporeans who cannot afford to pay their bills. There has been some concern about clause 13(1) on applications for Medifund by citizens of Singapore only. Sir, that is the basic objective of Medifund. Medifund is meant as a privilege to be extended to Singaporeans, and Singaporeans only. And that is why clause 13(1)(a) is very specific. Some Members have expressed concern about children and parents who are non-Singaporeans. Dependants of Singaporeans, either the children or parents, who are permanent residents, already get subsidised services because they are free to go into class C wards and be subsidised 80%, even though they are non-Singaporeans. We have to look at this, not just in the context of Medifund, but in the overall perspective of how do we discriminate positively in favour of Singaporeans. At the moment, non-Singaporean children of Singaporean parents do not pay the same fees as Singaporean children when they go to school .It cannot be. We must discriminate in favour of Singaporean children. Similarly, with Edusave and Medifund. That is the privilege of being a Singaporean and we should be proud of that. Dr Soin has suggested that we should consider allowing Medisave account holders to opt in and donate their Medisave funds to Medifund when they die. It is a good suggestion. Unfortunately, this is not currently provided for. We will take a look. But there is nothing to prevent any Singaporean from willing his assets, whether it is Medisave or otherwise, to Medifund, and we would be very glad to accept that. Dr Toh Keng Kiat expressed some fears. He has expressed the view that, although the 80% subsidy for class C is very generous, some people still cannot afford the 20% co-payment and, therefore, they fear that health care is not accessible. Sir, the fear, if any, is without basis because we have always been treating Singaporeans regardless of income level and regardless of their ability to pay upon arrival at the hospital. The waiver system has been in existence all the while, and it is not a new thing. It has been in existence for decades and that system has ensured that no one is ever deprived of health care. Mr Tong and others fear that in lean years, there will be no Medifund income and that medical illnesses are recession-proof. Sir, the investment of Medifund will be in long-term bonds and the interest income will continue to be available regardless of whether there is a recession. Mr Walter Woon has asked how do we help children who are not Singapore citizens. I have answered that. But I also want to put it in perspective. Medifund is not the only safety net available. The fact that they are non-Singaporeans does not preclude hospitals from reviewing and considering the appeals of their Singaporean parents. The hospitals are at liberty to waive fees using their own financial resources, but of course not from Medifund. So that does not preclude other forms of assistance. The hospitals will review. They will consider carefully and if there are good reasons, good justifications, I am sure the hospitals will proceed to give them assistance. The last speaker, Mr Chia Shi Teck, also mentioned that class C ward, based on feedback received by him, is not popular because some operations are not available and therefore the patients are not being given equal treatment. Sir, in the class C wards, most operations are available. Yes, there are some tertiary operations that may not be available in class C but they are available in class B2. Patients who go there and who cannot afford to pay the B2 bills will still get waivers. There is no reason for them not to use the subsidised wards in the hospitals. Sir, Dr Vasoo is worried that the Medifund procedures will be so complicated and so time consuming that patients may not get treatment in time. As I have explained earlier on, the treatment and the billing procedures are two different things. They will first get treated regardless of whether they are Medifund applicants and then they will be billed later. Dr Vasoo asked who are the Medifund committee members. They should not be hospital administrators. Sir, I explained in my Second Reading speech that they will comprise mainly members who are community and social workers. In fact, the intention is not to put any hospital administrator on the Medifund committees. Sir, I believe I have answered all the questions.

May I seek clarifications, Sir?

Yes.

First, is the Minister saying that Medifund will only be available to C class wards? Will it be available to B2 as well? Second, would the Minister or the Hospital Medifund committee spell out under what specific circumstances Medifund will be granted to applicants? Thirdly, would the Minister confirm what Dr John Chen said, ie, the Government is committed to providing a safety net for people who cannot pay their medical bills and he suggested that if the hospital is lacking in funds in future, he believes they can apply to the Minister and the Government will be obliged to provide the funds.

Sir, I think the Minister forgot to clarify one point which I raised and that is whether the treatment will include ordinary or specialist outpatient treatment.

Yes, patients in B2 and class C wards will be eligible to apply for Medifund. As for B1 and A class, if they are poor they should not be going to A and B1. As regards the criteria, I would expect the Hospital Medifund committees as well as the Advisory Council to publicise the criteria when these are finalised. As regards hospitals lacking funds, Sir, as I explained earlier on, some funds will always be available. But as in everything, the funds are finite. The hospitals must ensure that they utilise the funds in the right way. And if they do that, I think the funds would be adequate. This means that they must stick to the criteria and not deviate from them. But if there are some exceptional reasons, I am sure the Advisory Council will be prepared to consider. Mr Tong has asked about outpatient treatment. For patients who are receiving outpatient treatment in the hospitals and they cannot afford to pay their bills, yes, they are also eligible to apply for Medifund.

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

Clause 1 -

The citation year will be changed to "1993". This will be done. Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 2 to 27 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. The Schedule ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 4.20 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." By way of introduction, may I say that the general situation on vehicle accident rates is satisfactory. We have a vehicle population of 556,028, more than half a million, and nearly a million people licensed to drive or ride various kinds of vehicles, 954,354 to be exact. Despite this tremendous increase in vehicle population and vehicle use, the accident rate has been contained. In fact, casualty rates, whether fatalities or serious injuries, have come down over the years. I think this is due to two factors: greater public awareness and education of road safety and, secondly, strict enforcement of our laws. We are, however, concerned over a small group of incorrigible, habitual, high-risk drivers who show blatant disregard of the law and of the courts, despite repeated prosecutions and convictions. They are undeterred by the punishments presently prescribed by law. The amendments before the House today are targeted only at this small group of recalcitrant offenders, specifically at those who repeatedly drive whilst under disqualification or suspension, those who are repeat drunken driving offenders and those who are repeat reckless or dangerous driving offenders. The objectives of the Bill are as follows: firstly, to enhance the punishment for driving a motor vehicle whilst under disqualification. Here I am talking of disqualification by the courts. In this connection, the Bill also seeks to empower the courts, for second and subsequent convictions, to order forfeiture of the vehicle used in the commission of the offence. Secondly, to empower the courts to impose a range of punishments on offenders who are convicted for a third or subsequent offence of driving whilst under disqualification or suspension, of reckless or dangerous driving, of causing death by reckless or dangerous driving and of drunken driving. Let me take the first amendment. There have been a number of cases, Sir, where motorists who are disqualified by the courts from driving for committing a serious offence, have deliberately ignored the court's prohibition and continued to drive. Between January 1990 and September 1992, the Traffic Police detected a total of 228 such offenders, of which three have been previously convicted twice or more for driving whilst under disqualification. For two of the three, it was their third offence. In one particularly bad case, it was his ninth offence. According to the Traffic Police, there are more such offenders, but it is not easy to catch them. The Traffic Police can detect them only when they are stopped for some traffic offence or when they are involved in an accident. I hope Members will agree that such a driver is really a menace to all other road users. He is, in fact, a lethal, unguided missile. Moreover, when he causes an accident, the victims will not legally be covered by insurance. Of course, there is an agreement between the Ministry of Finance and the Motor Insurers' Bureau of Singapore where the Bureau will consider paying any unsatisfied judgment against an uninsured driver. Each insurer will meet the liability if there is an insurance policy in force even if the driver is disqualified from driving. But the point is that, in law, the victims are not legally covered. Sir, we should be strict with such a repeat offender because, firstly, he has committed an offence which is sufficiently serious that it was not compoundable and he had to appear and be prosecuted in the courts. Secondly, he was convicted and the court, apart from imposing any other sentence, also decided to impose a disqualification order on him. In short, the court was telling him that he should not be on the roads for whatever period the court decides. Thirdly, the offender blatantly ignores the court's injunction against him and continues to drive on the roads. And fourthly, this repeat offender, after being sentenced for driving while under disqualification, commits the offence yet again, and in some cases, and again. At present, such an offender who drives whilst under disqualification only faces a maximum punishment of up to six months' jail or a $1,000 fine or both. This is clearly inadequate. In fact, as the Chief Justice commented in August last year on the notorious case of a person having nine previous convictions, the punishments in the law for those who drive while banned from so doing are far from adequate. Sir, we should confer more powers on the courts to deter such offenders. This is exactly what this Bill seeks to do. The amendment increases the maximum penalty to a fine not exceeding $10,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years, or both. A new provision would also allow the court to forfeit the vehicle of an offender who has committed a second or subsequent offence of driving whilst under disqualification. Here we are dealing with a driver who has committed an offence for which he has appeared before the court and has been disqualified; then he flouts the court order and he is convicted for driving whilst under disqualification. Then he commits that offence again. The Public Prosecutor is given the discretion to apply for an order for forfeiture in an appropriate case. The Court can order forfeiture only where the accused owns the vehicle or where the owner of the vehicle had allowed the accused to use it, knowing that he was disqualified from driving. The next feature of the Bill, Sir, is to empower the courts to impose a range of punishments on offenders who are convicted for a third or subsequent offence of the category that I have mentioned earlier. No sympathy should go to those who commit such offences on three or more occasions. This provision that I am referring to is not one which deals with those committing parking or other such offences. We are concerned with offences like driving whilst under disqualification or suspension, reckless or dangerous driving, causing death by reckless or dangerous driving and drunken driving. These offences rank high amongst the most serious offences. As mentioned earlier, drivers who drive whilst under disqualification, in our view, should be considered grossly irresponsible. This equally applies to those who drive whilst under suspension. Similarly, reckless or dangerous driving exposes innocent road users to danger and even to death, and must be dealt with firmly. Finally, drunken driving. Despite tougher measures taken in 1990, the problem of drunken driving still persists and continues to rear its ugly head. In 1991, a total of 10 persons died in drunken driving related accidents, an increase of nine over the previous year. Another 71 were injured, four seriously. Members might recall that only some weeks ago in November 1992, five persons died and one was injured in a rather horrific 2.30 am accident along Nicoll Highway. All six passengers had been completely flung out of a car which had crashed in a single vehicle accident. The Traffic Police investigations indicate that the likely driver had consumed alcohol. Repeat offenders of drunken driving must be dealt with severely. In fact, Members may recall that a few months ago the press reported a case of a drunken driver who was before the courts for his third offence of drunken driving. Therefore, the amendments we are introducing would empower the courts to impose a range of enhanced punishments on those offenders who are convicted for a third or subsequent time for committing these specified offences. According to the Traffic Police records, there have been 10 such chronic offenders who have been charged in court in the past two years. The range of punishments would include meting out to the repeat offender punishment not exceeding three times that which he would otherwise have been liable to for the first offence, subject of course to a maximum of 10 years' jail. In addition, if such repeat offender, that means the third or subsequent offender, while committing his third or more offence, causes serious injury or death, then the court will also be empowered to punish him with caning with not more than six strokes. Let me stress that these are not mandatory penalties. These are provisions which enable the court in the exercise of their discretion to impose them. The criterion is imposed in this Bill in the new section 67A. In other words, the court must be satisfied by reason of his previous convictions or antecedents, that it is expedient for the protection of the public or for the prevention of further commission of such offence. So the court will decide in the circumstances whether they should impose these enhanced penalties. Those are the major amendments, Sir. I should mention the consequential amendment to the penalty for driving whilst under suspension as a result of DIPS offences, and for driving whilst under immediate suspension pending a court trial. These are also enhanced. Such an offender will face a $5,000 maximum fine or a year's jail or both, if it is his first offence. A repeat offender will face a maximum fine of $10,000 or three years' jail or both. As with driving whilst under disqualification, this is also a problem area. Therefore, the enhanced penalty is aimed at deterring suspended licence holders from driving. Allow me to conclude, Sir, by saying that the vast majority of motorists in Singapore are law-abiding, and will not be affected by this Bill. On the contrary, they will be protected. It is aimed and tailored at a small group of what I have termed "unrepentant, incorrigible motorists" who need to be effectively deterred from endangering the lives of other law-abiding road users. Such repeat, chronic offenders obviously are not held back by the normal prescribed penalties. A vehicle in the hand of such an offender in fact becomes a potential weapon and can wreak death and destruction on our roads. The proposal in the Bill, therefore, is to give our courts the power, where appropriate, to impose the enhanced penalties and potential offenders would be put on notice that they cannot get off lightly if they repeatedly flout the law. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, at first glance, one may be shocked that the House is being asked to support a Bill whereby for a road traffic offence, a hefty fine of up to $10,000, imprisonment and even caning are being considered. However, on closer scrutiny, the nature of the offence justifies this Bill. Let me explain. Sir, before a person is disqualified from holding a driving licence, he must have committed one, or usually several driving offences. This would include offences of a serious nature, for example, reckless driving, disregard of the traffic light ("red" light), driving under the influence of alcohol, etc. After this, he would be allowed to defend or mitigate his offences to the Traffic Police or in a court of law. When found guilty, then only does disqualification as the ultimate form of punishment in serious driving offences take place. Disqualification is usually for a specific period after which the driver has to be re-tested or he has to undergo a remedial driving course before his licence is reinstated to ensure that he is no longer a danger to the public. As the Minister has mentioned, this Bill addresses a small group of recalcitrant people. Sir, laws are passed in this House to protect the innocent majority. A person driving whilst under disqualification is a person driving without a valid driving licence. Thus, he is not insured. Should there be any accident, and a third party is injured, the person or persons have no recourse to insurance coverage. If the accident results in a third party death, the bereaved party has no recourse to insurance claims. This is the tangible result of an accident involving a person driving without a valid driving licence. In this regard, let us again remind ourselves, as the Minister has said, that the motor vehicle can be a lethal weapon in the hands of the irresponsible. Furthermore, morally, what it means is that the disqualified person has totally no regard for the law, and is totally irresponsible to other innocent road users, who may include pedestrians. The punishments spell out escalating punishments for the recalcitrant. Although punishment for the first offence is already severe, that for subsequent offences is even more severe. For the third offence, the court will have the power to further enhance these up to three times. Sir, when we consider this Bill, we again have to remind ourselves that it is important to have this Bill as a deterrent because it is not easy for the Traffic Police to detect a person driving under disqualification until he has committed an offence, ie, until maybe someone has been hurt or killed on the road. The alternative to this would be to mount massive, disruptive and regular checks on all motorists. This will result in regular disruption to traffic flow and inconvenience to the innocent majority. The bottom line is that it is not easy to detect this offence until it is too late to protect the innocent. Sir, some feedback has come to me regarding the "fairness" to forfeit the motor vehicle, as the owner may be innocent. I believe that the proposed section 43(3B)(a) and (b) provides adequate protection to innocent parties. In this regard, I would like to suggest that when a person is disqualified, and to prevent him from falling temptation to driving the vehicle again, he should also not be allowed to own a vehicle. Administratively, this may be cumbersome, but it would be good not to tempt him. However, he should be given reasonable time to effect the transfer of ownership. On the part of motor vehicle owners, let us not be shy to ask for the driving licence of someone whom we may not know too well who wants to borrow our vehicle. After all, all car rental companies do not hesitate to do this. Sir, I would also urge the Minister to ask the Traffic Police and ROV to constantly remind those who have been disqualified, for example, by mailers, of the seriousness of driving under disqualification. This should also be explained to the parent, if the person is a young man or woman, or spouse, especially as they may not be aware of the serious consequences. Pressure from the family, I believe, can assist. As the saying goes: "Prevention is better than cure". The cure in this case is indeed a very bitter but necessary pill. Sir, at the end of the day, Members of this House have to ask themselves why, with better education and a more affluent and perhaps gracious society, we have had to introduce more severe punishments over the years. As the Minister has mentioned, in the case of drunken driving, even after enhanced punishments, we still have chronic offenders. Perhaps during the Committee of Supply debate, we should consider this.

( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, having heard the explanation from the Minister, I am very satisfied with the rationale behind the Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill, and I support the Bill. As a matter of fact, this Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill is aimed at dealing with those whom I would describe as extremist drivers or motorists, that is, those motorists whose licences have been suspended and yet repeat the offences. They are the recalcitrant, recidivists, people who keep on repeating the offences, such as those driving under the influence of alcohol and those who were charged with dangerous driving and so on. Basically, I endorse the views of the Minister that these motorists have already been given ample and repeated warnings by the courts, the Traffic Police, etc. Despite being punished again and again, these motorists sill persistently choose to act in contempt of court and ignore the law and order. They just simply do not care about the authority. They continue to commit the same offences. For this small group of people, using severe punishment against them is a real necessity. They truly deserve it! Only then can it achieve its deterrent effect. When this Bill becomes law, I believe it will make Singapore roads even safer and will also prevent or reduce unnecessary traffic accidents which cause unnecessary loss of lives and properties. Sir, here I would like to suggest to the Minister that apart from legislation, I think, more importantly, we should go through public education and the mass media to educate our people. This is indeed very important. I hope that the Minister, after the legislation is passed, will take immediate steps to instruct the Traffic Police or the Public Relations Department of the Police Force to launch a series of campaigns to drive home the message that breaking the law can be prevented. Driving under the influence of alcohol can be prevented. Dangerous driving can be prevented! Driving while under suspension can also be prevented. The repeat of such offences can be prevented! If all these can be prevented, then the so-called extremist motorists will not have to face such severe punishments. It is also my hope that the Minister will consider the following cases: (1) How do we deal with the cases of those people who have never obtained a driving licence, were caught driving without a valid licence and punished, and then go on repeating the offence? If they are caught again, how should we deal with them? (2) Singapore is a very international cosmopolitan country. There are many foreigners who are here on holiday or are working and staying here. These people are in possession of driving licences issued by their own countries. If they happened to be what I described as "extremist drivers" who have repeated previous convictions in dangerous driving or driving under the influence of alcohol in their own countries, and they are caught committing such similar offences in Singapore, then how do we deal with them? Will the Minister consider getting in touch with the Traffic Police Department of the countries concerned so as to promote better road safety in the various countries? Finally, Sir, I would like to refer to the point raised by Dr Arthur Beng. I do not agree with his suggestion that people with suspended driving licence should not own a car. I personally think that a driving licence and owning a car are two entirely different matters. They are totally unrelated. I think the main thing to do is to promote public education. Tell them that once their licences are suspended, they should not carry on driving. There is nothing wrong in owning a car. I support the Bill. 4.45 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill . In Singapore, we are enjoying perhaps one of the best traffic accident records compared to any major city in the world. That we are able to continuously maintain this good record can be attributed to us having a very efficient traffic policy and an excellent well-built and well-maintained road system. Above all, we have a set of very stringent traffic regulations policed by our highly efficient Traffic Police Department. But there are irresponsible people who will always try to insinuate that the Government is trying to make more money out of traffic fines and even imply that our Traffic Police officers are given quota to fine motorists every month. These people are doing great injustice to our hardworking police officers and, more importantly, undermining the Government's effort in keeping down accident rate and protecting our innocent road users. Those offenders of traffic laws who had their licences suspended have no business in driving a vehicle as a vehicle is a very powerful weapon and can cause serious accident with tragic consequence. These people are potential killers on the road and the Government has the responsibility to do everything possible to prevent these law breakers in committing offence by driving their vehicles under suspension. The heavier fines and punishment will no doubt set a strong deterrent to the would-be offenders and give added protection to other law-abiding road users. I fully support the Bill as all measures to minimize traffic accidents should be taken because life lost in accident is most tragic and unnecessary. However, in supporting the Bill, I would like the Minister to clarify one provision, that is, under clause 2 (section 43 (3B)(b)). It implies that the owner of the vehicle who allows the offender to use it, even having prior knowledge of the offender's disqualification, can have his or her vehicle forfeited. Mr Speaker, Sir, a person may consent to lend a car to another person under all sorts of circumstances. Maybe at that moment he was preoccupied with something or someone or attending to some urgent matter, or even just at that moment a slip of the mind. And even though he has prior knowledge, if that person has his vehicle forfeited by just lending the car, I think this would be unfair and a little bit too harsh. I therefore suggest that the forfeiture of the vehicle should only be confined to the vehicle belonging to the offender, unless it can be proven beyond doubt that he lends his car to the offender out of explicit knowledge of his or her disqualification and not just out of certain absent-mindedness. I support the Bill.

( In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill which will go a long way towards making our roads safer and thereby help to minimise unnecessary loss of precious lives. No one can dispute that our roads today are getting more congested which therefore means that the probability of serious road accidents and road deaths occurring is high. Whilst some may lament that the proposed measures in the Bill should have been initiated earlier, it is better to be late than never as we must always look on the positive side of things. Sir, after going through the proposed amendments, I fully endorse the stiff fines and enhanced jail sentences to be meted out to motorists who are repeatedly convicted of reckless driving, drunken driving and those who drive whilst under suspension. Although the increase in fines and jail sentences appears to be a quantum leap, I have not the slightest doubt that it is commensurate with the offences committed. This must be so if the intention and spirit of the amendment is to protect adequately the interests of innocent parties who may become victims through the negligence of the category of drivers I had earlier mentioned. However, Sir, I am less comfortable with the amendment to impose caning of up to six strokes when the offender has caused death or serious injury. Since this amendment Bill was first introduced in Parliament on 16th November 1992, certain quarters have expressed reservations as they feel that this sentence is disproportionate to the offences committed whilst acknowledging that it is meant for an offender who has had two previous convictions. In this regard, Sir, I would appreciate the Hon. Minister's clarification as to what steps can be taken to alleviate this anxiety. Finally, Sir, on the amendment to forfeit a motor vehicle used in the commission of an offence, could the Minister assure the House that there are sufficient safeguards in place so as to minimise the likelihood of an unnecessary confiscation of a vehicle belonging to a non-offender?

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me first declare my interest. I am a practising lawyer. Mr Speaker, while I support the Bill, I have my reservation in respect of certain provisos in this particular Bill. Firstly, one must really consider what are the grounds where one can be disqualified from driving. The grounds one can be disqualified would be, one, having a drink or drug and incapable of having control of the vehicle. The second one would be reckless or dangerous driving and the next one would be if he is convicted of causing death by reckless or dangerous driving. I do not know whether you cover a case where one is disqualified by way of the demerit system. If one examines these grounds carefully, one would have noticed that one could be disqualified on technical ground. I cite you a very simple example, like driving while under the influence of alcohol. At one time, driving while under the influence of liquor was not an offence. The prosecution must prove that he has consumed alcohol to an extent where he was incapable of having control of the vehicle, because there is a presumption in law. We have a presumption in law under the Road Traffic Act that one is presumed to be not capable of having control of the vehicle if, on examination, they discover that you have 80 milligrammes of liquor in 100 millilitres of your blood. But you have to prove the content of alcohol in your blood. One must do that. In a court of law, in the past, besides proving the content of alcohol in your blood, they must also prove that you were incapable of having proper control of the vehicle. It would appear that in a few recent decisions of the court of appeal, the moment they have discovered the content of alcohol in your blood, it becomes an irrebuttable presumption. And I have been given to understand that if you take two big glasses of beer, not surprisingly enough, the alcohol content has gone up to the 80 milligrammes mark as spelt out in the law. In other words, not everyone with this alcohol content in the blood would be incapable of having proper control of the vehicle. There are people with alcohol content of 120 mg or 150 mg, and they are still very steady on the road. But of course this is a safeguard to prevent this. Sir, the recalcitrant person ought to be punished. What I am saying here is that some people could be just attending some social gathering and after having one or two drinks too many, he was in a position to control his vehicle but yet, because of this particular provision, he was disqualified. Sir, imagine for a moment, on this groun-d, he drove a vehicle, say, a second time, and then a third time. The point here is that one must look at the enhanced penalties now to deal with them. I agree that at present, six months' jail is insufficient. With this amendment, in respect of the other proviso, the point is whether it is sufficient deterrent for the people who have been caught driving while under prohibition. If you are caught the third time, you can get a fine of up to $30,000 and you can be imprisoned up to nine years, your vehicle will be confiscated, and you will face a life ban. These are the four punishments you can get. My question is: are these sufficient deterrents for any would-be wrongdoer? As I said, do we need to include caning as another aspect of the punishment? Sir, one must draw a distinction between criminal and quasi-criminal activities or offences here. I feel that in a civilised society, whatever it needs to introduce would have to conform to that sort of norm. With all those punishments I have mentioned earlier, I feel that they are sufficient to deter anyone, other than caning. Caning should be reserved for really violent crimes. Of course, I am not saying about a person who has been banned and then he committed reckless and dangerous driving. Probably in those circumstances, one may consider that punishment as a necessity. But as I said earlier, we are a civilised society, and caning should be reserved for violent crimes, but not for this offence. The Minister mentioned that if you are caught driving under disqualification for a third time and if you cause injuries and death, you will be subject to all these punishments. May I suggest that he must be convicted for causing injury or death, because one could be driving but, through no fault of his, he knocks somebody down, especially when he is disqualified on non-technical grounds. He was in control of the vehicle but he caused that injury through no fault of his. And yet he will get this sort of punishment. He must be convicted for causing grievous hurt or death before this particular provision is brought to bear. The next point I would like to bring to the Minister's attention is this. One of the amendments is that it is an offence now merely to apply or obtain a driving licence while under disqualification. I thought in this modern era of high-tech and computers, the Police or the ROV should have the proper machinery to keep a record of those disqualified in the computer and when you apply, they will inform you, "Sorry, you can't apply because you are under disqualification.", rather than having this all-embracing clause where once you apply for a driving licence, you have committed an offence and you can get a fine of up to $5,000. While SBC and ROV could remind licensees, "Your licence fee is due next month." or "Your road tax is due two months later.", I see no reason why this aspect cannot be introduced rather than penalising someone who applies for a driving licence, bearing in mind that disqualification varies from one year to 10 years. So during this long period, surely you do not expect an ordinary motorist to remember, "Is my licence going to expire or not?" If he applies, you penalise him. My suggestion is that we have a proper computerised recording system. This particular clause should be deleted from the Bill, and we should not penalise people merely for applying for a driving licence while under disqualification. I feel that this ought to be run that way. Sir, the next point I would like to bring up is this. The Bill seems to discriminate against an owner of a vehicle and a non-owner of a vehicle because under the provision if you are convicted the second time, and on the application of the DPP, your vehicle can be confiscated. Whereas if you do not own any vehicle, you do not have to suffer this extra penalty here. The next point is what would happen to someone buying a car under hire purchase. I suppose he would not be penalised because the hire purchase company would not know whether this man, in his lifetime, is going to drive his vehicle while under disqualification. So this is another discrimination. Would it then lead to a result that every time one buys a car under hire purchase he drags his instalments over a long period of time so that he would not get penalised under this Bill? Sir, while I support the Bill, as I said earlier, I would urge this House to really consider the necessity of the provisions I have mentioned earlier.

Mr Speaker, Sir, generally, I support the Bill that we should enhance the punishment for reckless, drunken driving and repeat offenders who have been disqualified. But I voice the same concern that the owners of vehicles who have lent their vehicles to such people, knowingly or unknowingly, should not be penalised to the same extent of having their vehicles forfeited because, to them, the vehicle may cost a couple of hundred thousand dollars compared to the fine of $10,000 which the offender is expected to pay, of course, on top of the jail term. I am concerned about the proposed section 43 (3B)(b) that owners of vehicles, who are not the offenders, should lose their vehicles just because they lend it to them, whether knowingly or unknowingly. They always say that vehicles are actually very well designed engineering machines, but we need only one loose nut behind the steering wheel to wreck it or to kill somebody. Let us put away the nut, but let us not punish the owner of the vehicle who is not the offender.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank Members who have participated in the debate. I shall comment on the points in the order in which they were raised. Dr Arthur Beng asked two questions. One, whether a person who has been disqualified, is there a way of reminding him what is in store for him if he were to repeatedly commit the offence and, eventually, he is subject to these enhanced penalties. I think this is a good idea. Probably, it can be done when and after he is disqualified in the first round. I will ask my Traffic Police to look into this. Probably, when he is disqualified for the first time, some advisory note can be sent to him, just as is done with the case of demerit points. He has raised the question whether a person who has been disqualified ought not also be disqualified from owning a car. Of course, this raises a separate issue altogether on which there is already disagreement from one of our Parliamentary colleagues. I think this raises several more serious issues as to whether there should be a linkage between an offence which is related to the use of a car with the possessory or right of ownership of a vehicle. Our thinking, at this time, is that it is not necessary to do so. Mr Choo Wee Khiang asked, first, about a campaign. He wanted a mass media campaign on these new enhanced penalties so that each offender will be told. As I have mentioned that the majority of drivers in Singapore are not prone to such repeated offences, it may be that the publicity and advisory campaigns should be targeted at those who have committed the first offence because that is the trigger which would lead on to the second offence and the third offence. What is important for the majority of motorists is to constantly keep up with campaigns, on road safety awareness, and on dos and don'ts of good driving on the roads. That will continue to be done. In fact, Traffic Police is poised to launch a major road courtesy campaign. Although the accident rates might have come down, I think what is sorely lacking in Singapore amongst drivers is consideration by one driver for the interests of other road users. The road bully situation is a good manifestation of lack of road courtesy among the driving public. Then he asked what about those who drive without driving licence, in other words, not those who have a driving licence and then were disqualified but those who may drive without a driving licence at all. The answer to his question is that that is already an offence under our Road Traffic Act. Perhaps the thrust of his question was whether such offenders should also be dealt with under the ambit of this new provision. My discussion with the Traffic Police shows that the number of those offenders who drive without driving licencei s not that many, and it does not pose such a serious problem as to include them. Also, my approach in the crafting of this Bill is to restrict it as narrowly as possible to the real serious offences. He asked about foreigners who commit offences here. Although there are foreigners who commit traffic offences here, the number is not that great because when foreigners come here, they know that the laws have to be complied with and that we are very strict. For example, when you catch a foreigner committing a moving offence, he is booked and he is, in fact, accompanied to either the Traffic Police headquarters or police station and he has to pay the penalty or fine. His question was: what about those coming from abroad who might have been disqualified in those countries? I will ask my Traffic Police to look into this. I presume that other countries have pretty much the same procedures like ours where, if you are disqualified, you have to surrender your licence. In other words, when he comes to Singapore, he would not have a driving licence, or in possession of a driving licence. If he were to fraudulently still possess a driving licence, his question was: can we liaise with the other countries? It can be done, but I think it is quite a major task for other countries to supply us with thousands of names. Since the number of foreign driver population is not that great, I am not sure whether that has to be done. But if the Traffic Police tells me that, yes, it is a pretty serious problem, I will certainly take the suggestion into consideration. Mr Kenneth Chen spoke on forfeiture. He was talking about a case where a person knew that the driver whom he was lending the car was disqualified but since there was a slip of the mind and so on, he wanted it to provide for a case where a person has "explicit knowledge", to use his words. I am not sure what is the difference between "knowledge" and "explicit knowledge". If you look at the provision, I think it is quite clear. There is a safeguard, if I may mention to the others who have expressed reservations. The proposed section 43 (3B) says that the order for forfeiture should not be made by the court if the court is satisfied that "the person who has committed the offence had used the vehicle without the consent of the owner (that means he stole it, for example, or did not have his permission) or where he had used the vehicle with the consent of the owner, that owner had no knowledge of his disqualification." So if the court is satisfied that you, the owner, have no knowledge of his disqualification, even though you may have consented, the court will not make the order. It is sufficiently clear. We do not have to add extra verbiage to this, like "knowledge" or "explicit knowledge". It is not going to improve it. Either you have knowledge or you have no knowledge. So I think that safeguard is quite clear. I think the comments made about the provision on forfeiture answer Mr Zulkifli's point about forfeiture. He said he was less comfortable about the provision on caning and asked whether I could alleviate the anxiety that he has. What I can do is to recapitulate what is the situation for the caning provision. First of all, I want to stress that it is not mandatory. It is for the court. Secondly, to whom it will apply? Let us take, of the four categories, drunken driving. It is not going to apply to the offender who is convicted for drunken driving for the first time. It is not going to apply to him when he is convicted for the second time. In fact, some have asked me: why not apply it to the first time or the second time offence? But it is not going to apply to him for the second time offence. It is not even going to apply if he is convicted for the third time unless he has caused death or serious injury. Is that going too far? I am not sure it is going too far. If you ask someone who has lost his loved one, a child or wife, and he has lost the loved one in a road traffic accident where the accident was caused by a drunken driver for whom it is a third timer, I think that bereaved parent has every right to ask this House why is it that we have not taken stiff penalties to have prevented this. In fact, those who have given me feedback that perhaps we should have provided for this earlier than the third offence may have a point, but certainly I do not think it is going that far to provide for caning. And if I may take this opportunity to link up with the points raised by Mr Ling How Doong when he says caning in our society should be reserved for criminal or quasi-criminal activities. I take the point of those that caning, while it is part of our criminal justice system, must not be lightly or indiscriminately applied in our legislation. But, as I said, is it lightly or frivolously applied here? I do not think so. It is a measured response to a recalcitrant offender, a third-timer for the same offence, appears before the court, has caused death or serious injury and the court will not automatically apply. The court has to consider the criterion in the legislation which is: '... the court is satisfied, by reason of his previous convictions or his antecedents, that it is expedient for the protection of the public or with the view to the prevention of further commission of such offence that a punishment in excess of that prescribed for such a conviction should be awarded,' So this is the criterion given to the court. Yes, Mr Ling may have a point that this should be reserved for violent crime. But I would like to ask whether or not such an offender, say, for drunken driving, reckless and dangerous driving, third conviction, causes death or serious injury, is it not reasonable to equate him with a person who commits a violent or serious crime? I think it is perfectly justifiable. It is a proportionate and measured response. He says a person who causes death or serious injury might not be at fault for having caused the death or serious injury. In that case, I should think that the court will take that into consideration because this is not a mandatory penalty. If it can be shown to the court that he was drunk when driving but it was not his fault that he killed - I am not sure whether such a situation can arise, but if it does happen - I guess the court will take into account the totality of the facts of the case and the circumstances before it imposes such a penalty. Mr Ling How Dong made another point that for drunken driving, one can be disqualified for technical grounds. I tried to follow his reasoning but I am afraid somewhere along the line I lost it, because the provisions of sections 67 and 68 of the Act are quite clear as to the ingredients of the offence that go into drunken driving. And in any case, these enhanced penalties are not just for first timers but it is for repeat offenders. Sir, I believe I have answered Mr Robert Chua also because he had reservations over the forfeiture of vehicles. He said owners of vehicles who knowingly or unknowingly lent a vehicle should not be penalised. Obviously, we have a disagreement here because the approach in this Bill and the approach which I commend to the House is that where a person knowingly gave his vehicle to a person who has been disqualified, these provisions provided in the Bill should apply. "Unknowingly?" Of course, I fully agree with him, and the court will not forfeit the vehicle.

Sir, I raised a point whether the Minister would consider not to punish those who merely apply for a licence while under disqualification?

I am sorry I missed that point. Yes, that was a consequential provision. It is not a new provision. It is already in the Act. I agree with Mr Ling that it may seem very odd to have such a provision with today's computerisation. The only reason that I have retained that provision - and if it is retained, penalties have to be rationalised - is that although we have computerisation, renewal notices for driving licences are sent in advance one and a half months to sometimes two and a half months ahead of the date of expiry. The Traffic Police tells me that although we have computerised our records, in some cases there is a short time lag, where the court's conviction, before it is computerised, there can be a few days' window and some drivers would take advantage of this, knowing that they are disqualified, to apply at the Post Office for a driving licence. So this is done with knowledge. Perhaps, as we improve, we do not need this provision, but it is to take care of a short time lag in our system where a person, having been disqualified, receives a notice and he can go during the short time lag to have it renewed. As I said, perhaps we can do away with the provision later on.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I just clarify what I said. What I was suggesting was that the owner of a vehicle should not be the one to suffer for the offence committed by the offender, because the cost of his vehicle can be a lot more than the fine to be imposed on the offender himself. So the owner should be spared.

I have taken his point. The question is one of approach. The approach that this Bill takes is that such offenders are so serious in the potential harm that they can cause to other road users that where a vehicle owner with full knowledge gives consent to a person whom he knows to be disqualified, you are more or less aiding and abetting. I think it amounts to that. Whatever other terminology may be used to describe it, that is what it amounts to. The question is: should such an aider or abettor be spared? He may know now because of this provision that he has got to be careful. But if there was no deterrence, then people would merrily continue to lend their vehicles even when they have knowledge. The point is if they have knowledge, then they should not do so.

Would the Minister consider putting it the other way? Someone who knows that the offender is a repeat offender lends his vehicle knowingly, so that it amounts almost to abetting, then the vehicle is forfeited rather than to have it done the other way right now. Would the Minister consider this?

We can have as many refinements of this Bill as possible. The important point is: if we agree that there should be a deterrence even for those who lend their vehicles, then we give this approach a trial and see how it works. The way in which such legislation is implemented, I do not think it will lead to injustices, but it will be an effective deterrent. We can have many permutations of putting the same point in different ways, but I think this drafting has been done with some care and let us give it a try.

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

Clause 1 -

The citation year will be changed to "1993". This will be done. Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 2 to 4 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 5.25 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Children and Young Persons (CYP) Act was enacted in 1949. It is a comprehensive piece of legislation for the rescue, care, protection and rehabilitation of children and young persons. It strikes a balance between parental authority and responsibility for the care and supervision of children, and the protection of children by the State. Many of the provisions of the present Act are as socially relevant as they were in the 1950s. However, some amendments are necessary as certain social problems that were prevalent in the late 1940s and 1950s no longer exist today. The Children and Young Persons Bill 1993, while retaining most of the provisions of the existing CYP Act, will incorporate several major changes to give the State wider powers to protect children at risk and to make the Act more relevant to present day needs. Penalties are also being increased to a more appropriate level. As there are several major amendments as well as numerous drafting amendments to the existing Act, the Bill proposes to repeal the existing Act and to re-enact it with amendments. The main changes are as follows: First, increased penalties. Mr Speaker, Sir, the quantum of fines and penalties has not been changed since the Act was enacted in 1949. For example, any person who causes a child to beg is liable on conviction to a fine of up to $250 or to imprisonment of three months, or to both. The penalties for offences against children in the existing CYP Act are now too low to be a deterrent. Under the Bill, penalties for offences have been greatly enhanced, especially for offences like child abuse and exploitation and contribution to the delinquency of children and young persons. In Singapore, we are fortunate that we are not overwhelmed by offences of cruelty to children and young persons. Indeed, the figures over the last five years show that there has been a downward trend in the number of complaints of child abuse. For example, in 1986, there were about 280 complaints, dropping to 112 in 1991. For the first six months of last year, there were only 47 complaints, of which 18 had evidence of child abuse. Mr Speaker, Sir, whilst the incidence of child abuse is low, what is worrying are the instances where child abuse has resulted in the death of the abused child. Between 1985 and 1988, there was an average of one death from child abuse each year. This increased to an average of two deaths a year for the past three years. The present penalty for both fatal and non-fatal cases of child abuse is a fine not exceeding $1,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or to both. These penalties are manifestly inadequate. The Bill proposes to enhance the penalties to strongly discourage such abuses of defenceless children. In fatal cases, the Bill will increase the penalty to a fine not exceeding $20,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years, or to both. In non-fatal cases, the penalty will now be a fine not exceeding $4,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding four years, or to both. Mr Speaker, Sir, another area of concern is that there is no express provision in the present Children and Young Persons Act to protect children and young persons against adults who exploit them for their sexual gratification. With video cameras now widely available, the risk of children and young persons being exploited for pornography is higher. The Bill provides a new provision to deal with such mischief. The Bill repeals the existing provisions on transferred children. These provisions exist because of historical reasons. After the Second World War, many displaced children were taken care of by relatives and friends and by persons whose interest in the children was questionable. Many of the children were consequently neglected, ill-treated or abused. The transferred children clause served to protect the children. Such a situation no longer exists today, and therefore we are repealing the provisions. The present Act requires children and young persons taking part in public entertainment to be licensed by the Ministry of Labour. These provisions reflect social problems faced by children and young persons in the immediate post-war period. In those days, children were often employed by wayang operators to perform on stage, or were used by street musicians to collect money. We do not face such problems today. Children and young people who are in employment are now adequately protected under the Employment Act. The existing provisions on licensing have, therefore, been deleted and a new provision enacted in the Bill. It ensures that no child or young person is allowed to take part in any public entertainment of an immoral nature, or which is dangerous to life or prejudicial to his health and physical fitness. Mr Speaker, Sir, another important area is the jurisdiction of the Juvenile Court. The Bill seeks to make it clear that the Juvenile Court shall not try an offender who has already attained the age of 16 years at the commencement of the hearing of the charge. Where an offender attains the age of 16 during the trial, the Juvenile Court will have the jurisdiction to proceed with the trial if it thinks fit. The provision ensures that the Juvenile Court maintains its distinct forum as a Court which deals with persons of a tender age, ie, offenders between the age of 7 and 16 and even lower, in circumstances where a child requires care and protection either because of abuse, neglect or ill-treatment. The regime and programme of our approved schools and homes are designed to meet the special needs of such children and young persons. These institutions are not geared to deal with young adult offenders, for example, as old as 20 years of age. The Bill will provide the Juvenile Court with additional powers to order a person who has been found guilty, where it deems fit, to be brought before a district court for sentencing for reformative training. Under the present Act, juvenile offenders found guilty are sent by the Juvenile Court to an approved school for a minimum of three years to a maximum of five years. In practice, an offender normally spends about 18 months in an approved school with the unexpired portion of his approved school order on licence, under supervision. This is because the institutional rehabilitation programme in the approved school is geared to a minimum period of one year. The Bill therefore reduces the prescribed period of a sentence to an approved school to a period of not less than two years and not more than three years. Sir, the various amendments incorporated in this Bill will make the measures for protecting children and young persons more effective and more relevant to today's society. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the statistics on abuse of children and young persons, in absolute terms at least on the number of children with evidence of abuse, has declined, from 67 cases in 1986 to 31 cases last year, ie, halved. The number of cases reported or complaints, as has been mentioned by the Minister earlier, also dropped from 280 to 112 within the same period. Judging by these numbers alone, it may appear that our record of offences against children is not as bad as in many other countries. Still, Sir, this is not something we can really be proud about and crow about as it is, to my mind, akin to a man saying that he beats his wife less than other husbands do. Therefore, we should continue to find ways to diminish further, if not altogether eliminate, acts of abuse of children and young persons in our society. Therefore, this Bill is welcomed. The main reason for updating the Children and Young Persons Act is to remove any ambiguities present in the Act and to make it more socially current, the overriding considerations being to promote and safeguard the interests and well-being of our children. We therefore, Sir, cannot over-stress this important principle as children are our responsibility when they are young and our future when they grow up. I support this Bill, Sir, and I feel that every Member in this House should do so too. I am particularly glad to note that penalties for offences against children have been enhanced so that they may act as deterrence. The quantum of fine, for example, has been increased and so have been the jail terms. The quantum of fines has not changed since the Act was enacted in 1949, as mentioned earlier. What was a deterrent sum then, which is about 1 1/2 decades ago, is a painless sum to be of any deterrence now. This is especially so for abuses which lead to the death of children. While such penalties may not be the best way of stopping child abuse, it is nevertheless an effective one in most cases. I am also very glad to note that a new provision has been included in the Bill, which is clause 6, which deals with sexual exploitation of children and young persons. It is high time that we dealt with such vile acts decisively. One concern I have, however, Sir, is the effective implementation of this provision. The nature of such abuses may make it difficult or reluctant for the victims to give evidence or their parents to do so or complain for fear of the social stigma and embarrassment that usually accompany such abuses. I would like to ask the Minister what measures are being taken or planned to ensure that such abuses come to light and at the same time do not jeopardise the identity or the future of the abused. I am also pleased with the new provision, which is clause 52(3), which stipulates that the Juvenile Court may commit a probationer or supervisee who is above 16 years but not yet 19 years old to be remanded in a remand home instead of a remand prison, as is the situation in the present Act. It is undesirable, Sir, for people so young to be so closely acquainted with prisons so early in life. This is unsatisfactory and I am glad that this situation will be changed. Before I conclude, Sir, I would like to say a few words about mandatory reporting by medical practitioners to the Protector of Children of cases of possible physical or emotional injury of children under their medical examination. I can understand the difficulties of enforcing such a system - the need for it in the local context and the possibility of such a system discouraging parents or guardians from seeking treatment for abused children. But this could at least reveal more cases which would otherwise be lost or hidden. So I do hope that the Ministry of Community Development and the Ministry of Health would not drop this subject altogether for the earlier mentioned reasons, but would continue to monitor the situation to see whether such an option need to be implemented here in future. In my view, we should look into all measures which can eliminate the abuse of children and young persons in Singapore. I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the amendments in the Children and Young Persons Bill. The new provisions will help deter potential child abusers. They will help to protect our children from people who exploit or are cruel to them in any way. The passage of this Bill will send a strong message to these people that such barbaric behaviour will be met with fitting punishments. Unfortunately, the law can only do so much, but for the victims, their experience can be very traumatic. Professional counselling can help these abused children and their families cope with their bad experience and carry on normally with their life. So too, counselling can help the offenders realise their mistake and change their behaviour. So I would like to call upon the Ministry to give more attention to the counselling service. I am happy to note that educational and skills training programmes are provided in homes for juvenile delinquents. Such rehabilitation programmes help these misguided children adjust more easily when they return to society. However, the training is often biased towards technical and vocational skills. Perhaps we could offer a choice of technical or academic training in these homes. They will allow children with the potential and inclination to re-join the mainstream for their education after their release. Our children are our future. I think it is worth our while to see that every child, even those who have made mistakes in the past, get a second chance to make good.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government has, in its effort of introducing this Bill, shown adequate attention to the protection of our children and young persons. The onus of maintaining their safety and care is on us. It has been obvious that of late cases of crimes committed on the young of child abuse and sexual exploitation are evident in disturbing numbers. As the future well-being of Singapore lies in their custody, it is pertinent that measures and safeguards be implemented and reviewed from time to time to meet current expectations and on-coming challenges. As such, the introduction of this Bill is very relevant today. The sensitivity of this matter is enlarged due to the tender age of this section of the community involved. The amendments, repeals and new provisions are well drafted and they are introduced to provide better measures while retaining the intended purpose and substance of the 1949 Act. However, as this Bill is now open for debate, I intend to take this opportunity to offer my opinion in the light that it will be considered for the improvement of this proposed Act. Sir, the introduction of a new clause pertaining to sexual exploitation of the young in this Bill is with few justifications. This allows that deterrents be provided in protecting the innocent and the ignorant. The young are proven to be very vulnerable towards any form of well-administered advances that tend to endanger their morality and chastity. The one factor that may be worth further consideration is the penalty imposed on such offenders. This Bill sought to protect the young in this respect. The rationale behind it would be to deter the commission of any obscene or indecent act because of the possible life-long trauma or emotional damages that the victim may suffer. The effects may not be visible in the aftermath of the offence. But one cannot deny the eventuality that the person against whom the offence was committed will be affected in his or her later years. His or her ability to lead a normal life may be impaired long after the offender has been released. Unless it can be scientifically proven that the damage suffered by an adult who is sexually exploited is distinctively more than the young who has been subjected to a similar experience, then it is only prudent that the penalty as recommended in clause 6 of the Bill be increased. May I suggest to the Minister that stiffer penalty be imposed on any person found guilty of sexual ex-ploitation of a child or young person. Secondly, it is my opinion that the introduction of clause 11, sub-clause (1)(a), which prohibits the participation of young children in any public entertainment of an immoral nature is rather restrictive and misleading. There are situations in which public entertainments are morally acceptable and yet pose the same dangers spelt out in sub-clause (1)(b) of this clause. It is my interpretation that the reason behind this introduction is the safeguarding of a child's life or physical condition. If this is rightly so, then the provision of this clause should be extended to include any procurement of a child's participation which contains therein imminent risk or danger, be it immoral or otherwise. Mr Speaker, Sir, in conclusion, there is ample justification for such a revised Act. I am sure that this proposed Bill, for all its intents and purposes, will be welcomed and supported by the public, especially parents whose children are (within the age) affected by this Bill. Far more important is our effort to ensure that ultimately at every turn of the generation, Singapore will be left in the hands of a society that preserves and appreciates peace and conscious living. With that, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, first, I would like to thank the three speakers for speaking in favour of the Bill. Sir, Mr Tarmugi has raised his concerns about two points. First, what sort of measures we have for reducing abuse in the future and, second, how do we make sure that these measures are effective. Sir, the key to any measure is education of the public. We will continue to educate the public through the support of various voluntary organisations as well as through MCD, and the newly implemented programmes that we have for newly-weds will also make sure that they are prepared for family formation. So education is one of the key platforms that we have and have been stressing, and which we will be further enhancing in the coming years. With education, comes the question of how we ensure that we are aware of cases where abuses have happened and how we are able to intervene before those abuses progress to a stage where fatalities occur? We have to really depend on a few sources. One is concerned neighbours; second, concerned relatives and, of course, third, concerned teachers in the case of children who are in schools. Sir, these three sources have proven to be very useful and most of the abuse cases that have come to light have been brought up through these avenues. We will have to continue educating Singaporeans, making Singaporeans more aware that if and when they come across cases of child abuse, they should not hesitate to report to MCD where an investigation can then be carried out. Sir, in the case of doctors, we need to draw a balance between mandatory reporting and the fear that because there is mandatory reporting, parents would then be reluctant to bring their children for treatment. The understanding at the present moment between MCD and MOH is that if the doctors in the public medical system come across cases which indicate that some form of child abuse has taken place, they will investigate further and if there are good grounds for suspicion that child abuse has actually taken place, they will then bring it up to MCD's attention. So far, I think it has worked very well. We will continue with that. Mrs Yu-Foo has asked whether we can reorientate the training programmes in our approved schools so that those who are academically inclined can then be assisted to take academic courses rather than proceed on to vocational or technical education. Sir, the approved schools do have both academic as well as technical and vocational training. As to which course a detainee is put into, it depends very much on the detainee's interest. So in cases where they are academically inclined, the schools have arranged for them to take up BEST courses as well as WISE, before proceeding on to take their 'N' level examinations. So those two streams (academic and technical) are presently available. Sir, Mr Umar has proposed that the penalties in clause 6 be further enhanced. This is a new clause which we have introduced in anticipation of future problems. Our assessment is that the penalties should be adequate. But I think the key thing is we should be prepared to monitor the situation and if, as Mr Umar feels, the penalties are proven to be not adequate, we will then be prepared to come back to the House and ask for the penalties to be enhanced. Sir, the penalties of $5,000 fine or imprisonment of two years or both are, in our view, quite adequate at the present moment. But we will review and enhance them in future if need be. He has also asked for further protection for children against people who use them for immoral purposes. Sir, there are adequate provisions in the Bill here as well as in the Penal Code against adults who take advantage of children for immoral purposes. I think these provisions are, as they stand now, quite adequate.

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

Clause 1 -

The citation year will be changed to "1993". This will be done. Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 2 to 87 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. 5.55 pm

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Hindu Endowments Act (Chapter 364) was enacted in May 1969. The Act provides for a Board, appointed by the Minister, to administer Hindu religious and charitable endowments. Since its enactment in 1969, the Act has been amended only once, in 1973. This was a minor amendment to change the year of business from calendar year to financial year. The Hindu Endowments Board currently manages four temples and owns a property at Serangoon Road in "Little India". Following the lifting of rent control in "Little India", the Hindu Endowments Board intends to redevelop the Serangoon Road property to generate funds for the benefit of the endowments. To ensure the success of this project, the Board will be jointly redeveloping the property with a property development company. However, the Hindu Endowments Act, as it now stands, does not empower the Board to mortgage any property or to enter into any joint-venture arrangements. We therefore need to amend the Act to enable the Board to do so. Sir, over the last two decades the activities of the Board and the temples it administers have grown significantly. The procedures and working arrangements of the Board need to be strengthened and updated. We have therefore taken this opportunity to amend several other sections of the Act to enable the Board to operate more effectively. The Bill will enlarge the composition of the Board and enable it to form various Committees as and when required. Currently, appointments to the Board are limited to only two consecutive terms. With our limited talent pool, this restriction often leads to the Board not being able to continue tapping the experience and expertise of key members. The Bill will remove this restriction, except for the appointment of the Finance Member. The Bill also incorporates several minor or consequential amendments. These amendments will enable the Hindu Endowments Board to play a more active and effective role for the benefit of the Hindu community. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Hindu Endowments (Amendment) Bill. Sir, the amendments being made now are extremely timely and will certainly go a long way to help the Hindu Endowments Board to function more effectively. Firstly, Sir, the removal of restriction that members of the management committee of an endowment shall not be appointed for more than two consecutive terms is indeed an improvement. As the Minister rightly pointed out, the Hindu community in Singapore is small, and this restriction will reduce the talent pool available. This new provision will enable more qualified people to continue to serve the various endowments. Sir, having said this, I would like to point out to the Minister that this should not be used as an excuse for not bringing in new people into the various boards. The new provision must also not be used to give life-long membership to existing members. A proper balance ought to be struck. While deserving members should continue to serve longer periods, at the same time new members should be inducted. Sir, the second amendment which gives the Board power to mortgage its property, to raise funds, to redevelop its property in joint ventures is definitely a step in the right direction. This amendment would allow the Board access to external funding and expertise. This provision will enable the Board to make use of its assets which are currently nearly idle. With this amendment, the Board can go ahead with the redevelopment of its property in "Little India" which will really involve the refurbishment of property belonging to the Board according to URA guidelines, allow for a more comprehensive development of shopping units, restaurants and a food court, so that the character of "Little India" could be retained. Finally, there will also be a good flow of rental income from the property for the Hindu Endowments Board. Currently, I am told, Sir, that the Board collects around $16,000 per annum in rental income. However, with proper redevelopment, I am informed, that this can be easily raised to $2 million per annum. With this income from property development, the Board will be better placed to cater for the religious, educational and cultural needs of the Singaporean Hindus. Sir, whilst encouraging the Board to go into joint ventures with property developers, the Board, I feel, must exercise extreme care and caution in the selection of joint venture partners. Consideration must be purely not on commercial basis as there are various other factors to be taken into account. After all, the Hindu Endowments Board is not a pure commercial organisation. Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the amendments in the Hindu Endowments (Amendment) Bill. First, I declare my interest as a member of the Hindu Endowments Board. Sir, as Mr Chandra Das said, the Bill is timely. It would help to structure and improve the administration of the endowments and the projects of the Board. The Board caters to the needs of Hindus in Singapore who comprise Tamil, Malayalee, Telegu, Hindi, Bengali, Punjabi, Gujerati and other origins. The Board, through its activities, has become a focal point for the entire Hindu community in Singapore. In addition to the day-to-day running of the four temples administered by the Board, the Board, for a few years now, has embarked on a number of community services, in response to requests from the Hindu community in Singapore. These include medical counselling, welfare counselling, educational counselling and other educational programmes, and the publication of an informative newsletter called 'Singapore Hindu'. In fact, in the field of education, the Board pioneered the first English-Tamil kindergarten. This kindergarten caters not only to Hindus but also to non-Hindus. In view of the Ministry of Education's decision to remove Religious Studies from the school curriculum, the Board is embarking on a mass scale correspondence course on Hindu Studies for young Singaporean Hindus. Worthy projects like these require additional resources and there is an urgent need to have more members in the Board. Also, for such projects to succeed in the long term, there must be continuity of leadership. At the same time, as my colleague, Mr Chandra Das has pointed out, we should not allow for a life-long Chairman or Secretary of the Board. Therefore, the proposed amendment to section 5 of the Act to enlarge the composition of the Board and to allow re-appointments of members beyond two consecutive terms is appropriate. The proposed amendment to section 11 provides for the setting up of the office of Deputy Chairman and Finance Member and this would further help to streamline the Board's operation. The insertion of a new section 15B to empower the Board, inter alia, to mortgage its property to raise funds to re-develop its commercial properties in "Little India" is certainly welcome. I believe that this amendment is long overdue and, when passed, it would certainly become a significant milestone in the history of the Board which dates back to 1906 when it was a Muslim and Hindu Endowments Board. The concept of this development revolves around reinforcing the Indian heritage of the district by integrating the existing three blocks of 26 units of two-storey pre-war shophouses into a commercially viable complex, comprising retail, food and beverage and entertainment activities. The arcade may possibly be owned and developed by a joint-venture company to be set up comprising the Hindu Endowments Board and, possibly, DBS Land. The project is scheduled to be completed in 1994. With its strategic location and exciting concept, this development is poised to be the catalyst for the revitalisation of the "Little India" district. When completed, the arcade will provide visitors with a flavour of both North and South India, something which even Indian cities cannot offer. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, there has been some apprehension and concern amongst some members of the Hindu community on the rationale to give partial ownership of the property to another party in return for professional, development and management costs and services. I understand that the Board has explored extensively various other options of 'going on its own' and the management and financial scenarios have been analysed in detail. This present proposal is the best of the options available, and it is in the long-term interest of the community. This joint venture agreement allows the Board to buy back from a party, DBS Land or others, the share of the property in a period of years on a 'first right of refusal basis', and/or at market prices. Sir, I would urge the Ministry to ensure that the Board has the resolve and not detract from the objective to buy back the shares, so that the land that once belonged to the pioneer Indian merchants before they became endowments of the Board, will continue to be part of the Hindu community in modern Singapore. Sir, with that, I support the Bill.

Sir, I would like to thank all Members for their strong support for the amendments. Both Mr Chandra Das and Mr Sinnakaruppan have expressed concerns about the dangers of life-long membership for certain key people and they stressed the need that new talent should continue to be brought in. Sir, that is the intention. We must strike a balance between maximising the use of talent of the people that we have now as well as, at the same time, identifying new talent outside to bring in. So this process will continue. As to the joint venture partner, the Board comprises very competent, experienced people of good integrity. I am sure they will be very careful in the selection of a joint venture partner. We should allow them to maximise the benefits to the Hindu Endowments Board as well as to benefit the Hindus in Singapore. I will keep in mind the points raised by Mr Sinnakaruppan about the possibility of buying back the shares that are being given out to the joint venture partner in the coming years.

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

Clause 1 -

The citation year will be changed to "1993". This will be done. Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 2 to 8 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

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

asked the Minister for Labour if he will indicate where will the Jurong East Regional Centre for one-stop payment of bills be located and when the centre will be ready.

The proposal to set up Government Service Centre is part of the Service Improvement Unit's (SIU) long term strategy to encourage different Government agencies to examine interagency efficiency from the customer's point of view. It is still in its initial planning stage. SIU has appointed a Working Committee to study the concept. Ministries will be requested to consider setting up Government Service Centres by co-locating several different agencies for the convenience of the public. SIU considers the Regional (Town) Centres, conceived under the Concept Plan review undertaken by the Ministry of National Development, the ideal locations for the Government Service Centres. The Regional (Town) Centres are being developed to enable both public and private sector organisations to decentralise and bring their services closer to thier customers. In the case of the Jurong East Regional Centre, the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) is currently working on the design parameters to guide developments. URA will take into consideration the requirements of a government service centre. The establishment of such a service centre will only be possible when URA launch the development for the Jurong East Regional Town Centre.

asked the Minister for Communications what were the reasons for introducing the registration of company `Q' plate cars, whether the reasons are still valid and, if not, whether he will scrap the classification.

`Q' plate cars were introducted as a result of the tax shield enjoyed by companies. Car expenses incurred by companies are tax-deductible. Private individuals can thus exploit this by registering cars under a company's name for private use. To discourage this, a ceiling of $35,000 on capital allowance has been imposed, and expenses incurred are only tax-deductible in the ratio of $35,000 to the purchase price of the car. Company cars pay $5,000 for Registration Fee (five times that for private cars) and double the quota premium, road tax and Area Licensing Scheme (ALS) fees payable by private cars. From the land transport point of view, all cars whether privately or company owned should be subject to the same vehicle restraints. My Ministry will consult the Ministry of Finance to review the tax regime to achieve this objective.

asked the Minister for Communications what was the amount of the 5% tax collected by the Telecommunication Authority of Singapore on telephone bills for the years 1988, 1989 and 1990 and for the periods January to November 1991 and December 1991 to October 1992.

The government tax on telephone bills was suspended from April 1985. It was reintroduced from 1st April 1989. The amounts of tax collected over the periods of April to December 1989, January to December 1990, January to November 1991, and December 1991 to November 1992, are $6.2 million, $9.2 million, $8.5 million and $8.3 million respectively.

asked the Minister for National Development (a) how many blocks of Housing and Development Board flats in the Marine Parade GRC will be upgraded; (b) where are these blocks situated; (c) when will they be upgraded; and (d) how much will it cost each flat owner.

A total of nine blocks are currently being upgraded in Marine Parade GRC under the Demonstration Phase of the Upgrading Programme. The Ministry of National Development (MND) is in the process of identifying the second batch of precincts to be upgraded under the steady state phase. As MacPherson estate in Marine Parade GRC has some of the oldest flats in Singapore, it is very likely that these flats will be included under the second batch of steady state precincts for upgrading. The second batch of steady state precincts will be announced sometime early this year. MND is currently reviewing the cost-sharing arrangements for the steady state phase of the Upgrading Programme in the light of experience from the Demonstration Phase. Every effort will be made to ensure that the flat owner's share of upgrading cost is kept at affordable levels.

asked the Minister for Information and the Arts if he will give (i) the number of films screened in Singapore cinemas under each classification and (ii) the number of tickets sold for each of those films for the periods (i) July to September 1992 and (ii) October to December 1992.

The number of films screened and tickets sold is as follows: Classification G PG R(A) No. of Jul-Sep 92 1 160 11 Films Screened Oct-Dec 92 1 212 10 No. of Jul-Sep 92 19,117 4,366,165 562,717 Tickets Sold Oct-Dec 92 56,654 5,341,770 522,359 The above statistics were compiled from figures furnished by film distributors and exhibitors.