Hansard, 1994-08-26

Under the provisions of clause 2(d) of Article 46 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, the following Members have been granted permission to be or to remain absent from sittings of Parliament (or any Committee of Parliament to which they have been appointed) for the periods stated:- Mr Chew Heng Ching - from 29th August to 2nd September, 1994. Mr Chay Wai Chuen - from 31st August to 7th September, 1994. Mr Heng Chiang Meng - from 9th to 12th September, 1994. Mr Ch'ng Jit Koon - from 10th to 26th September, 1994. TAN SOO KHOON Speaker Parliament of Singapore

asked the Acting Minister for National Development, besides painting white heat-proof paint on the pipes, what steps the Housing and Development Board has taken to adequately insulate water distribution pipes on the roof tops of HDB blocks so as to prevent the water supply from becoming uncomfortably hot.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the problem of hot water is faced mainly by residents on the two top most storeys of HDB blocks, as these residents are served by separate water mains which are exposed to the sun. The water in these mains, which serve fewer units, is heated up faster compared with those in the main water mains. To reduce the amount of heat absorption, HDB has painted all the water pipes in existing blocks with white paint. This has been found to be the simplest and most cost-effective way of lowering the water temperature. There have been few complaints of the hot water problem after this measure was taken. For new HDB flats, HDB has successfully experimented with the use of UPVC half-round channels to cover the water distribution mains. This has been implemented in all new building contracts tendered from 1st September 1992 onwards.

asked the Acting Minister for National Development what new rulings the Housing and Development Board intends to implement in the allocation of flats to balance the interests of first-timers and upgraders.

Mr Speaker, Sir, HDB has finalised its review of the allocation system for new flats to balance the interests of first-time applicants and upgraders. I will announce details of the review later on.

Sir, would the Minister agree that it is the Government's responsibility to provide housing for first-timers and, after that, it should be left to market forces and that we should not subsidise upgraders at the expense of other taxpayers?

Mr Speaker, Sir, that is not the current Government policy. Government does provide housing for first-time applicants as well as provide the facility for upgraders to upgrade to a new and better flat.

Would the Minister explain the rationale of subsidising upgraders? Would that not be considered a handout?

Sir, the Government encourages Singaporeans to upgrade because this is part of the asset enhancement programme.

The following Question stood in the name of Mr Chiam See Tong - 3. To ask the Acting Minister for National Development whether the Housing and Development Board premises at Block 143, Potong Pasir Avenue 2 and at Blocks 211 and 213, Lorong 8, Toa Payoh, which are now occupied by the PAP Community Foundation kindergartens, can be taken over either by the Potong Pasir Town Council or by a church/charitable group to operate similar kindergartens there, if the PAP Community Foundation carries out its announced intention not to run the kindergartens in 1995.

Question No. 3, Sir.

Mr Speaker, Sir, HDB lets out Education Centres only to approved Foundations which are registered under section 29 of the Companies Act with a minimum paid-up capital of $5 million and are recommended by the Advisor to the Citizens' Consultative Committee. Town Councils do not have the mandate to run education centres. It would be possible for a church or charitable group to operate the education centres if it registers itself as a Foundation with the minimum paid-up capital.

The question is: if the PAP Community Foundation (PCF) should withdraw, would the HDB allow a charitable organisation to run the education centre at the said premises which were used by the PCF?

If PCF gives up the premises and it is deemed that the premises ought to be used as an education centre, then it will be open to those approved foundations under the conditions which I have stipulated just now.

Sir, does that mean that it will be by way of tender or by way of allocation by HDB?

As I have explained, there are several conditions: (1) it must be a charitable foundation; (2) it must be registered under section 29 of the Companies Act; (3) it must have a minimum paid-up capital; and (4) it must be recommended by the Advisor to the CCC.

Does it mean that if an organisation fulfils the conditions mentioned by the Minister, HDB will give them automatic allocation?

Not necessarily, Mr Speaker. We have to find out how many education centres there are to provide enough places for the children. We do not just convert all the void decks into education centres for every applicant that comes around and qualifies. We must also have some planning norms on the number of education centres compared to the number of children in the area.

If the premises become vacant, would the HDB consider tendering or letting out the premises to private organisations or charitable organisations?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am very glad that Mr Low Thia Khiang now talks in the same language of tendering out at market rates. But HDB believes that education centres, being for education purposes, ought to be at a subsidised rate. Therefore, we would like to let them out to approved foundations.

Besides the PCF, so far, has any approved organisation been allocated premises by the HDB to run education centres at void decks?

As far as I can recollect, none has applied.

Can I take it from the Minister that the rules are designed solely for the PCF to have the premises?

The rules are rational and there is a basis for them. As I have explained, first, education centres are meant for education purposes. So HDB does this not at market rates. Unlike the Member, we do not believe in making profit out of education. Second, since it is not to be let out at market rates, we must find some way to allocate it. Since it is subsidised, it should be given to foundations which do this as part of their mission. Therefore, it must be an approved foundation. We want to have some certainty that the approved foundation can do the job well. It cannot be any fly-by-night foundation. So we stipulate a minimum paid-up capital of $5 million. At the same time, we want the Advisor to the CCC to understand all the facilities available in his constituency so that he can organise the facilities for his residents and constituents. So we also ask the Advisor to have a say in recommending the foundation for allocation of these premises.

Would the Minister say, based on the criteria he has set, that so far PCF is the sole organisation which has qualified and it is justifiable to have the privileged allocation from HDB to enjoy such subsidies?

If no other charitable organisation, with these criteria, applies, how can I go and chase after them to apply? The only one that has applied is PCF and it is recommended by the Advisor to the CCC. So HDB allocates the premises.

asked the Acting Minister for National Development whether the Housing and Development Board will pass the savings from property tax reduction effective from 1st July 1994 to its tenants by lowering its current rental rate of residential, commercial and industrial property and, if not, why not.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the property tax reduction of 1% each year from 1994 to 1997 is meant to assist property owners to improve and upgrade their properties, and also to help absorb some of their operating costs. In the case of sold shops and flats, the lessees will enjoy this reduction. HDB's rental flats are let out at subsidised rates. The rents have not been raised since 1979. HDB has absorbed the higher operating costs over the years and has not passed on these costs to the tenants. The majority of HDB's rental shops and industrial properties are also let out at rents below the prevailing market rates. As such, HDB does not intend to lower its current rental rate for residential, commercial and industrial properties as a result of the 1% property tax reduction.

Sir, I declare my interest because my company is a tenant in HDB industrial premises. Based on the answer given by the Minister, was it the interpretation of the Acting Minister that the intention of the Finance Minister, in announcing the reduction of property tax, was to help Government reduce expenditure on subsidies to industrial premises?

The intention of the property tax reduction is, as I stated earlier, to help property owners, in this case, HDB, to improve and upgrade their properties and also to help them absorb some of the operating costs. In the case of HDB rental flats, the rent is kept very low. We do not see the need to reduce it by 1%. Similarly, for rental shops and industrial premises, the rents are all below market price. If any tenant feels that he is not getting a fair deal from HDB, he can give up his premises and tender for new premises.

Sir, has the valuation of HDB properties been increased over these years? If so, the 1% reduction is not enough to offset the increase in valuation.

HDB's shops and industrial premises are let out on a term tenancy depending on the tenants. Some choose one-year tenancy while others choose two-or three-year tenancy. At the end of the tenancy, there will be a rental revision by 10%, 20% or 30% depending on the term of tenancy. Many of these premises are let out at very, very low rates because many of them were resettlement cases. So even if we adjust by 10-30% at the end of the term tenancy, the final rates are still very far below the market rates.

Just now, the Acting Minister mentioned that industrial and commercial premises are let out at below market price. How about tenders? The HDB puts out tenders and the tenants tender at market rates.

That is correct. If the tenants obtain their shops in the first instance through tender they would have paid market rates for them. As willing buyer and willing seller, they sign for one-, two- or three-year tenancy at the rate that they want.

So for these tenants who have tendered for their shops on the open market and paying market rate, would HDB consider giving them the reduction in property tax?

The answer is no.

Why not? The rationale is that because it is below market rate, HDB will not give such a rebate. But in this case it is at market rate.

HDB treats its properties, both rental flats and shops and industrial premises, as a cost centre overall. I am sure all individual businessmen do not allocate cost to individual units.

asked the Minister for Health what is the occupancy rate of class C beds at government/restructured hospitals for the years 1985 to 1993.

Mr Speaker, Sir, occupancy rates of C class beds in public sector hospitals varied between 65% and 76% during 1985 to 1993. The bed occupancy rate for each year was as follows: 1985 - 71% 1986 - 70% 1987 - 71% 1988 - 68% 1989 - 65% 1990 - 70% 1991 - 76% 1992 - 75% 1993 - 76%

Based on the occupancy rate, it seems to be quite consistent. But I note that the number of C class beds in the hospitals has been reduced over the corresponding period. Would the Minister make an assessment as to whether the number of C class beds in the hospitals now will be sufficient in future in view of the aging population?

Yes, we will adjust the number to the demand required.

Sir, do the hospitals keep records of daily occupancy rates of C class beds?

I am sure they do.

Sir, is the Minister aware of any instance where a patient has been referred to a higher class bed because of the non-availability of Class C beds in the hospital?

If it happens on that day that the Class C beds are all taken up and the case is acute and the patient cannot be referred to another hospital with Class C beds available, then the patient will be admitted to a Class B2 bed but charged Class C rate.

Sir, what is the number of Class C beds planned for the Tan Tock Seng and Kandang Kerbau Hospitals when they are completed?

Sir, I do not have the numbers here. But if the Member will table another Question, I will be very pleased to give him the answers.

asked the Minister for Health whether the facilities at Alexandra Hospital will be further upgraded and if the current services are adequate to meet the demand.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the upgrading programme for Alexandra Hospital costing a total of $28.4 million commenced in early 1992 and is expected to be completed by the end of 1995. The upgrading works that have been completed to date include:-

Sir, I would like to ask the Minister what would be the future of this hospital in view of the amount of resources that has been pumped into it to improve the facilities.

We intend to continue operating the hospital up to the early part of the next century. Beyond that, we have to study population patterns in Singapore and the need for additional hospital beds.

asked the Minister for Communications whether he will instruct VICOM and the Automobile Association not to charge $20.60 (GST included) for the second inspection of vehicles which have failed the initial inspection.

Mr Speaker, Sir, under the Road Traffic (Motor Vehicles Test) Rules, the Registry of Vehicles sets the maximum inspection fee which inspection centres can charge. Since 1982, this ceiling has been set at $40 for the first inspection and $20 for each subsequent inspection. The inspection fee of $20 for repeat inspections which VICOM and the Automobile Association introduced in January 1994 is in accordance with the limits set by ROV in 1982.

Sir, I think this is not reasonable, because sometimes small faults are not easy to detect. Only when you go to VICOM and AA for inspection that you could find out the faults.

Order. Mr Cheo, are you making a speech?

I am asking a question.

Ask your question now.

I have to say this first.

No speeches. Ask your question. This is Question Time.

I will ask the question now. Can I ask the Minister what is the reason for ROV to want these two organisations to charge for a second inspection?

ROV did not ask these two organisations to charge. ROV has made provisions to set the limits so that organisations which are allowed to inspect vehicles, do not charge more than a certain limit. They have deemed it reasonable to set it at $40 for the first inspection and $20 for the second inspection. So long as these inspection centres do ot charge more than what has been prescribed, they are free to do so. It is not correct to say that ROV asked them to charge this amount. In fact, as I understand it, for many years, 1982 to 1994, these inspection centres did not charge anything for the second inspection. So I presume it must be because there are too many vehicles which are using the first inspection as their own quality check, and then coming back for the second inspection. I presume this must be the case. Nevertheless, it is up to them whether they wish to charge or not.

Sir, does the Minister agree that sometimes small faults are not easy to detect? So the vehicle owner has to send the vehicle for inspection and to be checked by more advanced equipment. Only then can they find out the faults. I think there should be no charge for the second inspection. I agree that maybe for the third inspection, the car owners should be charged.

I suggest that the Member makes representations to the inspection centres not to charge for the second inspection. It is up to them whether they wish to take these views into consideration. As for the small vehicle owners not being able to detect the faults, I know that there are many vehicle owners who do not have to go for a second inspection. Presumably, they must have had other means of checking to make sure that their vehicles pass the first time.

Sir, does the Minister have figures of how many vehicles passed the first inspection and the number of vehicles which needed subsequent inspections?

No, I am afraid I do not have these figures offhand. If the Member would like to have these figures, I will be pleased to provide them.

asked the Minister for Labour (a) whether the many fatal mishaps in shipyards and construction sites were caused by human error and can be prevented; (b) whether the errors were committed by new and raw foreign workers; (c) whether all local and foreign workers of contractors and subcontractors have to undergo some stringent safety training before being assigned to work; and (d) what are his Ministry's plans to prevent or minimize such disasters.

asked the Minister for Labour, in the light of the latest accident at the Sembawang Bethlehem Shipyard which resulted in loss of lives and injury of workers, in spite of industry reviews of safety systems and implementation of updated safety rules following previous accidents in other shipyards, what further steps his Ministry will take, together with shipyard managements and their contractors, to enforce compliance with safety measures.

Sir, may I have your permission to answer Questions 8 and 9 together because they are related?

Yes.

Sir, industrial accidents including those in shipyards and construction sites may be caused by many factors. Human error is certainly an important cause of such accidents. In fact, we have found that in many fatal accidents in shipyards and construction worksites, human error was a contributing factor. Such accidents could therefore have been prevented by workers and their supervisors being more safety conscious. For instance, in the case of the fire on board the "Stolt Spur", the chemical cleaning contractor chose to use improper equipment for cleaning the boiler. In the case of the "Indiana", the workers involved failed to ensure that their immediate work area was cleared of all flammable materials. As for the case of the "British Adventure", the senior technical personnel failed to take measures to isolate the power supply and close crucial valves before initiating hot-works on the hydraulic system. Sir, there is no conclusive evidence to show that inexperienced or new workers were largely responsible for the errors which led to the fatal accidents. Our records show that experienced workers are just as liable to commit errors and oversight. For instance, most of those who failed to take precautionary measures and were found negligent by the Committees that inquired into the "Stolt Spur", "Indiana" and the "British Adventure" accidents were not inexperienced workers. Sir, all workers, including local and foreign workers, have to undergo a safety instruction course before they are allowed to work in shipyards. In addition, workers carrying out hot-works have to attend a special safety module which emphasises preventive measures on fires and explosions. The Ministry also conducts safety courses for Supervisors and Ship Repair Managers. As for the construction industry, all foreign workers are required to undergo a safety orientation course before they are issued with work permits. Contractors are also required to send their local workers to the course before work is allowed to commence at their worksites. In 1993, about 12,000 shipyard workers and 71,000 construction workers attended such courses. Sir, the Ministry has stepped up its efforts to prevent accidents in the shipyards and construction worksites since the spate of accidents in shipyards in 1992 and 1993. The Ministry is stringently enforcing the Factories (Shipbuilding & Ship-repairing) Regulations which incorporated all the safety measures recommended by the "Stolt Spur" and "Indiana" Committees of Inquiry. Apart from many new specific safety requirements, major shipyards are now required to have their safety management systems audited. The Ministry has also been mounting special enforcement exercises on shipyards. Those found violating safety rules were dealt with severely. Stop work orders were issued where a workplace was found to be grossly unsafe. Since January this year, 30 such orders have been issued. Besides taking stringent enforcement action, the Ministry will continue to work closely with shipyards' managements, their contractors and the unions to promote safety and prevent accidents in shipyards. The Ministry, together with the Association of Singapore Marine Industry, the Singapore Institution of Safety Officers, and NTUC, is planning a workshop for next month to review safety management and audit system practised in the shipyards. Other similar workshops or seminars will be organised from time to time to review legislation requirements, safe work practices and safety management systems. We will make every effort to help the shipyards and their contractors to better understand their responsibilities in complying with regulations on safety in their workplace. Sir, stringent enforcement action will also be taken at construction worksites. The Ministry will amend the Factories (Building Operations & Works of Engineering Construction) Regulations to augment the safety and health provisions at construction worksites. Among other things, contractors will be required to have their safety management systems audited. The Ministry is currently taking action to amend the Factories Act to include more comprehensive provisions for the safety and health of workers. The maximum penalty for offences under the Act will be increased. The Ministry will continue to enforce safety regulations and provide safety training for workers, supervisors and managers in the construction and shipbuilding and repairing industries so as to improve safety at such workplaces.

Sir, would the Senior Parliamentary Secretary say that checking by the enforcement teams would be very effective and how many people are actually checking on worksites and the shipyards?

Sir, we have regular checkings. As to the number of people who are actually doing the checking, it depends on the officers and the programme. We have a very thorough programme to go round and check every one of them. I assure the House that we are very conscious of the safety of the workers.

After so many accidents and all the reports and inquiries, there still seems to be very frequent repeats. That means the checking system should be stepped up. If they do not have enough staff, probably they should increase their staff.

As I mentioned just now, human error is one of the important factors that causes fatal accidents. The best way to curb this problem is through training and improving the safety measures. So we will continue to go along this line and try to minimise the human error in shipyards and construction worksites.

I would like to ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary whether his Ministry is satisfied that,in view of the high percentageof foreign workers now working in shipyards, they have taken adequate measures to ensurethat the safety practices and methods that have been given to these workers are strictly enforced.

Sir, our aim is to have zero accident. Therefore, we are making every effort to improve this situation. As I have mentioned, next month we are having a workshop to get all shipyard managements, unions, and contractors to review the safety measures and to consider which are the areas we can improve. I assure the House that we are open to all suggestions which can improve the safety of the workers.

asked the Minister for Education whether a second primary school will be constructed in Simei Estate.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Ministry has no immediate plans to construct a second primary school in Simei Estate. In the Primary One registration exercise this year, there are still 24 vacancies in Changkat Primary School which is situated in Simei Estate. For the Simei/ Tampines area as a whole, there will be a new primary school, Tampines North Primary in Tampines Estate, which will be completed by the end of this year. With the completion of this school, there will be 11 primary schools in the Simei/Tampines area. These schools are well distributed and have sufficient places to serve the population in the region. If the need arises in future for another primary school in Simei Estate, the Ministry will certainly consider it.

May I ask the Minister whether he has figures to show the number of children from Changi, in particular, from Simei Estate, who have registered for primary schools in the neighbouring Tampines Estate for 1995.

Sir, my Ministry is still analyzing the figures. But for the information of the House, there are four other primary schools within one kilometre of Changkat Primary School. These four schools are Griffiths Primary School, which still has 103 vacancies; Qiaonan Primary School which has 94 vacancies, Yumin Primary School which has 3 vacancies, and Chongzheng Primary School which is full.

asked the Acting Minister for National Development (a) if he will give the number of Housing and Development Board units in (i) Tampines North and (ii) Pasir Ris that have not been allocated and (b) when and how these units will be allocated.

Sir, during the October 1993 Booking Exercise, a final one-time ballot was conducted for all the remaining available flats in Tampines Estate. Successful applicants were progressively invited to select their flats. The selection exercise is still in progress. As at 25th August 1994, there are 488 flats in Tampines Estate which have yet to be selected. These unselected flats will be offered to applicants who were not successful in the main ballot, but are kept on the Reserve List. A similar one-time ballot was conducted in the second quarter 1992 Booking Exercise for all available flats in Pasir Ris Estate. Successful applicants in that Booking Exercise were invited to select their flats from the second quarter 1992 to first quarter 1993. As at 25th August 1994, 500 units in Pasir Ris Estate remain unselected. Some of these units will be set aside to be offered to applicants in the Reserve List. The other units will be reserved for sale to tenants affected by relocation exercises, and for rental under HDB's rental schemes.

asked the Acting Minister for National Development what are the development plans of the Housing and Development Board for Pasir Ris Neighbourhood 3 and when will the HDB units be available for public balloting.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there will be no further public housing development within Pasir Ris Neighbourhood 3. All land designated for public housing in the area has been developed. The rest of the land would be catered for private housing.

asked the Acting Minister for National Development why HUDC Blocks 342 and 343 in Hougang Avenue 7 were left vacant and unsold for nearly nine years.

Mr Speaker, Sir, HDB completed nine blocks of HUDC flats at Hougang Avenue 7 in 1985. However, as the demand then was very poor, only five blocks were sold. As for the sixth block, only 16 out of 88 units were taken up by May 1989. Since the blocks were vacant for about four years, HDB decided to refurbish the remaining three blocks before offering the flats for sale. When the seventh block, Block 349, was refurbished and offered for sale in 1989, the take-up rate was also slow. 56 units were sold in 1990. By 1991, there were still four units left unsold. For the remaining two blocks, Blocks 342 and 343, HDB is in the process of studying how best to sell off these units.

asked the Acting Minister for National Development if he will give an updated report on the sale of Housing and Development Board shops.

Mr Speaker, Sir, HDB started to sell its tenanted shops under the Sale of Tenanted Shops Scheme in June 1992. So far, HDB has successfully completed nine quarterly sales. The tenants' response towards the sales scheme has been overwhelming. Out of about 4,000 shops offered, 3,879 or 98% have been sold. HDB will continue to schedule the remaining 8,000 shops for sale over the next four years.

Sir, I would like to ask the Minister whether in setting prices, the HDB takes into account the latest transacted price as in the market.

Sir, in setting the prices for sale, HDB valuers will look at the most recent tender prices near the area or in the surrounding area for comparison purposes. As a safeguard, HDB also appoints private valuers to value the shops for sale to the tenants. So there is a check to make sure that the price is a fair one.

asked the Acting Minister for National Development if he will give a breakdown of the demand for Housing and Development Board flats based on flat types.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in the third quarter 1994 Booking Exercise, out of a total of 93,367 applications, 27,863 (or 30%) were for 4-room, 43,413 (or 46%) were for 5-room, and 22,091 (or 24%) were for Executive flats.

Does this imply that in future sale of resale flats, those upgraders will have some difficulty in selling their smaller flats in view of the high demand for larger flats?

Sir, 60% of the applications come from upgraders. So it is natural to see the upgraders applying for the bigger flats. There is still a demand for the 3-room and 4-room flats, both in the resale market as well as demand for 4-room flats from first-timers and also from some upgraders.

Sir, may I ask the Minister to give a formal definition of what is a first-timer and what is an upgrader?

First-time applicants are those who have never applied for a HDB flat before. That is a first-timer. It is the first time you apply to HDB for a direct allocation of a flat. I thought it is quite straightforward.

May I find out from the Minister whether a couple, who has never bought a flat from HDB but from the open market, and has never enjoyed a subsidy from HDB, would be classified as a first-timer or upgrader?

Sir, such a couple would be classified as a first-time applicant to the HDB for direct allocation.

Is the Minister aware that some of these couples have been classified as upgraders for the purpose of balloting priorities.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as I will explain later on, in the present system of balloting in the Booking System, we classify applicants under "new households" and "upgrader households". HDB classifies people who are forming new households under "new households". So the couple that he cited was classified not as a new household. But we have now revised the definition and we will classify applicants under a new group more correctly as "first-time applicants" versus "upgraders". So the problem will now be resolved.

Can I bring the Minister back to my original question, ie, how does the HDB set the mixture of flats in a new town or new estate? Is it based on demand?

Sir, we have to build according to demand. But at the same time, we build to favour the first-time applicants. So the new town has a greater mix of 4-room flats for the first-time applicants as well as for upgraders from 3-room to 4-room flats. So there is a greater proportion of 4-room flats. At the same time, we have 35% of our building programme allocated to 5-room flats and 10% of our building programme allocated to Executive flats.

asked the Minister for Education, for female A-level students immediately after their A-level examinations and before entering universities (about six to eight months), whether he will consider organising job attachments with proper training such as (i) nursing - caring for babies, the aged and the sick; (ii) teaching - nursery and kindergarten; (iii) homemaking - cooking and sewing; and (iv) any other jobs that will help them in their later lives as mothers.

Mr Speaker, Sir, many 'A' level school leavers, both boys and girls, do work after their examinations and before they enter university. This work is usually carried out on a part-time or temporary basis. Some of them take up relief teaching in schools. In the current tight labour market, there is no difficulty for them to find jobs which suit their interest. As the students have already left school and would prefer to pursue their own interests, it is not necessary or practical for my Ministry to organise programmes to channel them to specific vocations.

The question is to prepare the girls, after the 'A' level, for some jobs that will get them ready for motherhood later on. Because the fear is that while the schools are chasing for As in academic achievements they might divert their attention from the basic motherhood later on.

Girls in school do learn home-making from their home economics. I would think that girls would learn more from their mothers to be good mothers in future.

asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether the Government will review the rules of the Registry of Societies affecting the qualification of membership for alumni associations so as to allow full-time National Servicemen and full-time students of tertiary institutions to join their alumniassociations, thereby contributing to the further development of their alma mater.

Sir, the Registrar of Societies does not currently disallow full-time students of tertiary institutions and full-time national servicemen from joining their alumni associations. However, there are some alumni associations registered in the 1960s' and 1970s' and perhaps even in the 1980s' with constitutions which disallow full-time students attending institutions of higher learning from joining them. If these alumni associations wish to remove such restrictions, they could amend their constitutions and submit the amendments for approval by the Registrar of Societies.

asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether ambulances of the Singapore Civil Defence Force can be used by private medical practitioners to ferry their patients from their clinics to private hospitals.

Sir, the objective of the Emergency Ambulance Service (EAS) run by SCDF is to bring victims of accidents and persons who require emergency medical care to hospital as quickly as possible. All persons picked up by an SCDF ambulance would be conveyed to the nearest hospital with Accident and Emergency facilities. The SCDF would respond to the call of a private medical practitioner for an ambulance provided it is an emergency case and the patient has to be sent to the nearest hospital. The ambulances of SCDF are heavily utilised. They respond to about 160 calls a day. If they are also to be used for non-emergency medical cases, then given the limited number of ambulances, there will be occasions when there are not enough ambulances in readiness when emergencies like road accidents or fires occur. Where lives are at stake, we must ensure that there are always enough ambulances on standby for emergency cases. For non-emergency cases, SCDF has always advised patients to use private ambulance services or even taxis, if possible. Presently, the private hospitals as well as some voluntary organisations, such as the Red Cross and St. John Ambulance, have ambulances which serve the public. There are also private ambulance services, for example, Heng-Gref, Civics Ambulance Services and Grace Vision Ambulance and Transport Services. I would encourage private medical practitioners to use these services if they want to bring their patients to a hospital in non-emergency situations.

1.17 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, balloting was introduced in 1989 as the basis of the new booking system. In its original form, all applicants had equal chances in the ballot. In 1992, HDB revised the scheme to give first-time applicants better chances of success than upgraders who apply at the same time. Furthermore, the probability of success was also increased with each successive application. The system functioned well for some time. However, the situation has changed dramatically in the last 12 months. First, the rapid increase in HDB resale prices has made upgrading affordable and profitable to an even larger population. Many can sell their 3-room or 4-room flats on the resale market, pay the 20% downpayment for their new 5-room or Executive flats, and still make a substantial capital gain. Second, the very buoyant property market has made many worry that if they do not buy their flats now, they will be unable to afford the higher prices later on. First-time applicants have also rushed to apply for their flats, despite Government reassurances that prices for new HDB flats will remain affordable. As a result, the number of applications has increased from between 20,000 and 30,000 in each quarter of the period 1991 to mid-1993, to 93,000 in third quarter 1994. In particular, the number of upgraders has more than tripled. As recently as the first quarter of 1993, the total number of applications from upgraders was only 16,000. By the second quarter of 1994, however, this number had shot up to 53,000. Difficulties faced by first-timers. Thus, despite the priority given to first-time applicants, first-time applicants have found it increasingly difficult to get their flats. Many first-timers, who are usually just-married young couples setting up their first home, are understandably concerned that their chances of getting a flat early are being eroded by the sheer numbers of upgraders. First-timers are also frustrated by the element of chance in the balloting system. They are not quite certain when they will get their flat. They may get it on their first try, or they may have to wait till their fifth try to get their flat. What upsets the applicants most is the sense of inequity when they see somebody who applies later than them, succeed in the ballot. Many Members of this House have raised the unhappiness of applicants with the uncertainty they face under the balloting system. For example, the Member for Bukit Batok, during this year's Budget debate, told the House that one of his residents described the ballot as a state lottery system. Allow me to quote the hon. Member: "Each computer ballot is like tikam-tikam. You pray that you will get it. Sometimes you do, but most times you do not, according to some residents." Mr Speaker, Sir, the balloting system worked when there was a reasonable match between demand and supply. The priority for the first-time applicants was effective, and the element of chance was tolerable. But when the number of applications surged to 93,000, the priority for first-time applicants is overwhelmed by the large number of upgraders. When applicants have to wait much longer, they prefer a more equitable and predictable system where those who apply earlier get their flats first. A review of the allocation system is therefore necessary. Increase in flat supply How then do we cope with this surge in the number of applications? The direct solution is to increase the supply of new flats. But how far can we increase? As this House has been told, HDB has already increased its building programme from 24,000 in 1992 to 28,000 in 1993, and 30,000 in 1994. In other words, we have increased the supply by 25% in three years. We should not raise the building programme very much beyond this level. If the Government responds to the surge in applications with an equally big surge in the building programme, say, to 50,000 per year as we did in the 1980s, we will create major problems. First, this will overstretch the construction industry. There will be overheating, quality will drop and costs will go up. This was exactly what happened between 1983 and 1986, and we should not repeat that mistake. Second, when we built 53,000 flats in 1983, these were allocated mainly to people buying flats for the first time. So they could absorb the huge supply. This time it will be different. 60% of applicants are upgraders. When they take delivery of their new flats, they have to sell their existing flats. Whom can they sell to? Every year, about 30,000 to 32,000 new households, made up of newly-weds, new PRs or expatriates, need new housing in Singapore. The private sector is building 8,000 to 10,000 new units per year. HDB is building 30,000 units per year. This means 38,000 to 40,000 units per year. When the upgrader takes delivery of his new flat in two to three years, he will find it harder than he now anticipates to sell his flat. More flats will be vacant. If we increase the supply too much, resale prices will tumble. HDB will therefore increase the building programme judiciously. It will build 32,000 flats in 1994 and 34,000 flats in 1995. Even so, between now and the year 2000, HDB will be building 164,000 new flats. Increasing the flat supply alone, however, will not remove the element of chance that has caused so much dissatisfaction, unless at the same time we change the allocation system. Hence, my Ministry will replace the balloting system with a queuing system, to be called the Registration for Flats system. Registration for flats system Under the new system, flats available for booking will be divided into three zones, in the North, the Northeast, and the West. Applicants will apply for flats in the zone they select and join the queue for a particular flat type for that zone. Applicants will then be called up to select their flats on the basis of their queue position. The queuing system will eliminate the chance and uncertainty inherent in the current balloting system. But how will it ensure that first-timers get their flats ahead of upgraders, and within a reasonable time? Apportionment ratio Mr Speaker, Sir, this will be achieved through the apportionment of flat supply between the two groups. There will be separate queues for first-timers and upgraders. The first-timers will be allocated 60% of the flat supply under the public scheme. The remaining 40% will go to upgraders. First-timers will, therefore, be assured of priority because they form a separate queue, with the majority of flats allocated to their queue. CPF Housing Grant Scheme To help first-time flat buyers to buy resale flats in the New Town or estate where their parents live, Government will pay, as the Prime Minister has announced, a $30,000 grant into CPF accounts of such flat buyers. The $30,000 grant is to be used solely as a capital payment to reduce the principal of the mortgage loan. The applicants must satisfy all the usual eligibility criteria as if they bought the flats direct from HDB, and also fulfil the same conditions. For example, they will have to occupy the flat for five years before they can apply for another flat from the HDB. They will then be considered an upgrader, and have to pay the resale levy or premium for their second flat. They will also have to wait five years before they can sell their flats in the resale market if they want to do so. The CPF Housing Grant Scheme will strengthen family ties by helping children to live near their parents, especially in the older estates where HDB is not building many new flats. This scheme will therefore widen the choice for the first-time applicants. They can opt to remain in the queue for new flats or buy a resale flat near their parents. Managing upgrader demand Mr Speaker, Sir, let me now turn to the upgraders. The Government appreciates the needs and aspirations of HDB dwellers to upgrade. It encourages HDB dwellers to make the effort to set aside enough savings to do so. It has structured the rules for selling HDB flats, so that households who have already bought one flat directly from HDB have a second chance to buy another flat directly from HDB. These upgraders pay more for their HDB flats than first-timer buyers, but still get their flats at prices well below true market values. What HDB cannot do is to guarantee an Executive flat to every Singaporean household who wants one. Nor can HDB satisfy all 53,000 upgraders at the same time. Therefore, we seek the cooperation of the upgraders to be patient as they queue for their second flats. We want to help HDB households to upgrade but the demand for HDB flats for upgrading exceeds the supply, so we need to prioritise the needs of the different groups of uggraders to make the system fair. One group which deserves priority is households living in 3-room flats, especially those who bought their flats sometime ago. Singapore was then less affluent than now. The flats that the HDB could provide then had simpler finishes, lower quality, and less resale value than the larger and better quality flats that HDB has been building in recent years. Furthermore, as the families of these 3-room households have grown over the years, the 3-room flats have become too small for them and their need for more space has become pressing. Therefore, as a general principle, households who have stayed longer in their first HDB flats should have priority in upgrading over those who have stayed only for a short period. Secondly, those who upgrade from smaller to larger flats should have priority over those who move from one large flat to another large flat. HDB will take two measures to implement these principles. First, owners who have bought flats directly from HDB may now only apply for a second direct-purchase flats after they have fulfilled the five-year minimum occupation period. At present there is no such rule. A minority of applicants have therefore taken advantage of this and applied for a new flat soon after taking possession of their first flat. In the second quarter 1994 booking exercise, 4,700 (or 8.7%) of the 53,000 upgraders applied before staying five years in their first direct-purchase flats. This new rule will therefore not affect the majority of upgraders, particularly the 3-room applicants, who are likely to have stayed longer than five years in their existing flats. Second, the premium imposed on the second flats bought direct from HDB will be raised from 10% to 20%. At present, lessees who sell flats bought direct from HDB, and apply to HDB for a second flat, must pay either a 10% premium on the price of the second flat, or a graded resale levy based on the flat-type of the sold flat. The levy is 10% of the resale price for 3-room flats, 15% for 4-room, 20% for 5-room and 25% for Executive flats. The graded levy is fair because upgraders from the bigger flats make a bigger capital gain from the sale of their flats and should therefore pay more. The 10% premium, however, favours those in bigger flats. As a result, upgraders from the 3-room flats choose to pay the 10% levy, whereas upgraders from the bigger flats opt to pay the 10% premium. The 10% premium makes it worthwhile for the owner of an Executive flat to sell his flat and apply for another Executive flat. To close this loophole, HDB will increase the premium from 10% to 20%, while continuing to allow upgraders to choose between levy and premium. Upgraders from 4-room and bigger flats will have to pay more. This will also discourage lessees from moving laterally between the same flat-types, and lessees who do not need the second flat from applying for one. For example, those who move from a 5-room flat to another 5-room flat will pay about $20,000 more than at present, while those who move from an Executive flat to another Executive flat will pay around $35,000 more. Upgraders from three rooms, however, will not be affected. They can continue to opt to pay the 10% levy. Low Income Group Mr Speaker, Sir, in the revision of the allocation system, my Ministry will make sure that the needs of those in the lower income group continue to be catered for. We will give a headstart in the first-timer queue to tenants of HDB rental flats, under the Priority Allocation for Tenants scheme. This is an existing scheme and we intend to preserve it when we change to the new scheme. From October 1994, HDB will offer to households with incomes of $1,000, or below, 3-room flats at subsidised prices that it has bought from the resale market. There will be a separate queue for such flats, which will be offered only to first-timers. Again, this is an existing scheme which we will preserve in the new system. Family Ties HDB will also take the opportunity to improve the existing schemes which promote the family unit. It will set aside 5% of the total flat supply for each of the Multi-Tier Family, Joint Selection and Third Child Priority schemes, or 15% in total. The Multi-Tier Family scheme gives priority to married couples who apply to stay together with their parents and grandparents in the same flat. The Joint Selection scheme allows both parents and their married children to submit separate applications for the same estate. As long as one of the applications is successful, the other will automatically succeed as well, and both parents and children will get to select flats in the same estate. The Third Child Priority scheme encourages families to have more children, if they can afford it. These schemes are HDB's contribution to the strengthening of the family unit because we acknowledge that geographical proximity is an important factor in enhancing family ties. Implementation by HDB Mr Speaker, Sir, the new system will come into effect from 1st October 1994. HDB will announce the details next week on how to handle the transition, especially on how to ensure fair treatment to those who have applied earlier and have participated in the balloting for the non-mature estates over the last few quarters. Mr Speaker, Sir, to sum up, the policy measures which I have outlined will strike a fairer and more equitable balance between the needs of first-time applicants and upgraders. The Registration for Flats system will ensure that the basic need for shelter of first-time applicants can be met within a reasonable and more predictable time. This solution addresses the suggestions and concerns raised by Members of Parliament and by the public. I hope Singaporeans will give the new system their strong support.

Mr Speaker, may I seek clarification?

Order. Mr Lim, I believe you want to move the motion for the adjournment to allow debate on your statement.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That Parliament do now adjourn. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would just like to ask a few questions. My first question is: Why three zones? We have a very mobile population and you find that Singaporeans move from North to South and East to West quite readily. Would HDB then consider a single register? It would prevent this problem of having to deal with these crossing-overs. If you do not accept a single register, then perhaps you should give some flexibility to those who are, at present, in the old scheme, trying to make adjustment to the new scheme. In the management of upgraders, I notice that the Minister has not made a distinction between those who urgently need to upgrade and those who are not in urgent need for upgrading. An hon. Member: How do you define them?

I think it can be easily defined. For example, for those living in the present 3-room flats and their families have grown larger and the space is very small, I think we can consider them to be in fairly urgent need for upgrading. They have to compete with those people who have just moved in. As the Minister has just said, 8.7% of them have just bought their flats and stayed for less than five years also wanted to upgrade. I think we must make a clear distinction between those who are really in urgent need for upgrading and those who are not. Would the Minister therefore consider allowing these people, who really want to upgrade but do not want to be in this scheme, to buy a new flat first, and later let them sell their old flat back to HDB at the valuation price? At least, we meet the needs of this group of residents who want to upgrade. Now, 5% of the total flat supply will be allocated to the Multi-Tier Family, Joint Selection and Third Child Priority schemes.

5% for each scheme.

How much of that will take up the 40% of the supply for upgraders?

In general, I support this change except that I have to study some of the details. I would like to ask the Minister to speed up the information process as to how he intends to establish a register. Currently, there are 93,000 applicants who want HDB flats. And I think there may be a frantic rush and creates fear in the people. Given the fact that the scheme is not fully announced, they do not know how to go about registering and so on. So I would suggest to the Minister to speed up the process of getting the information out to them.

Mr Speaker, Sir, first, I would like to thank the Minister for this new scheme because, as he said, it is a more equitable scheme. But I would like to give my support to the Member for Ayer Rajah's suggestion about having one register. Let me explain why. If we go back to history, in 1989, when the balloting scheme was introduced, it was then to replace the various registers on a queuing system. It was partly a response to cross-overs where, after a while, when they built the flats, for example, in Woodlands, they found that they were not popular and a lot of flats were empty in Woodlands. Now, with three zones, we may have this problem of cross-overs. Are they allowed to cross over? If so, will one zone be less popular and the flats be empty? Of course, the bigger the zone, the lesser the chances of a Woodlands' situation happening. On the other hand, there is no reason why we cannot have a whole national register and, using the experience that we have had from the balloting scheme, make sure that we will not have empty flats. Let me give an example. If there is one registration book, for example, and assuming that these 93,000 applicants go in, then you have, let us say, No. 1 to No. 93,000. Before you build the flats in a particular estate, you can still advertise as under the present system. And, let us say, 10,000 units will be built there. You can invite applications. The number of applications might be 15,000. All you need to do is to allocate according to their queuing position, and you choose the top 10,000 applicants who qualify. Although the 10,000 applicants may not have a queuing number of 10,000, they may have a queuing number of 80,000, or 80,000-odd; it does not really matter. My point is that a single registry will work better and we avoid this problem of cross-overs and whether they will lose their priority when they cross over. The second point I would like to bring up is about the eligibility status. For those with housing assets of $200,000, or less, is their eligibility considered at the point of application, or at the point of allocation? Under the previous system, it was at the point of application. But apparently, under the current system, ie, the balloting system, it is at the point of allocation. So I think this should be clarified by the Minister. Finally, I would like to come out with an old hobbyhorse of mine concerning the ageing population. There are people, just husband and wife, living in 5-room flats, or Executive flats, when their children are all married and have moved out, and they want to downgrade. Why should we always think of upgrading? Is there anything wrong if a couple has some CPF left, and they have got an Executive flat that is probably worth about $300,000 or $400,000 on the open market and now they want to downgrade to a 3-room flat which, if they had purchased from the HDB might only cost about $70,000-$80,000? And assuming that this couple had only purchased one unit during their life-time, why can't they be allowed to downgrade to a smaller unit? The other way round, they are allowed to upgrade from a 3-room flat to a 5-room flat and HDB gives a number of incentives for them to upgrade. But there are absolutely no incentives for them to downgrade. What is wrong with downgrading; especially when it means having a large sum of money left for their old age. It is a form of retirement, or a pension, for them. I think the HDB should really look into this question of allowing people in this situation to downgrade.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to say that I also support the new scheme. But, however, if I were an HDB applicant today, and after listening to the Minister, I would have two questions in my mind. Firstly, what will happen to my priority that I have applied in the past? Secondly, how long do I have to wait? I understand that the Minister has said that HDB will announce the details in the next couple of weeks. But, as Mr Chng has said, this is causing a lot of anxiety among these 90,000 families. I am also confident that the Minister and his Ministry have thought through the rationale and the principle of how to switch from the current system to the new system. Perhaps, he will take time to outline that principle to us. Also, I would like the Minister to give an estimate of how long, under the new allocation system, a first-timer and an upgrader have to wait for their flats.

I would like to join in the debate. First of all, I think it is good news to many first-timers. However, what I am worried about is that a lot of first-timers will ask why the ratio is 60%:40%. Given the anxiety among the first-timers, I wonder whether the Minister will give a higher percentage to the first-timers as opposed to the 60% now. I am sure many questions will be asked on why 60% and 40%. Probably the Minister could consider giving a higher percentage to the first-timers for the initial couple of years and then gradually go down to 60-40% or whatever appropriate percentages. The other thing that I am a bit worried is this. With this new scheme in place, there will be a lot more people who are really not in need of getting their flats for the immediate future and who will apply for HDB flats as first-timers. Such an influx of applicants will probably jeopardise those who are really in need as first-time purchasers. How is the Ministry going to tackle this particular influx of applicants? Also, I would like to know how the Minister is going to deal with mature estates like Jalan Besar GRC where there will be, I am sure, some small pockets of land being developed. Will the Ministry specially look into a mature estate like my constituency? Lastly, Mr Heng Chiang Meng and Dr Tan Cheng Bock mentioned about a single registration scheme. I do not quite agree with it. When first-timers apply for a flat, I am sure somehow they have already narrowed down to whichever area that they want to move to, and cross-over cases should not be too many. Probably special consideration could be given to such cross-over cases. By and large, I think we should really segmentise such applications. It will be easier and more expeditious.

Sir, I would like to know from the Acting Minister, under the new queuing system, how long would the following upgraders need to wait to upgrade to a 5-room or Executive flat? For instance, an upgrader residing in a 3-room flat wishes to upgrade to a 4-room, 5-room or Executive flat, and those residing in 4-room or 5-room flats and wishing to upgrade to a bigger flat, ie, 5-room or Executive flat. In regard to the increase in the percentage of the levy payable to the HDB for those who sell their flats and apply from the HDB, what is the basis for the increase in the percentage for 4-room, 5-room and Executive flat owners who want to sell their flat and upgrade? For those who sell their existing HDB flat and buy a flat from the open market or buy a private property, do they need to pay this levy to the HDB? I also share the concern of Mr Choo Wee Khiang on mature estates. I recall sometime ago someone in this House suggested going back to the old queuing or registration system. The answer from the Minister then was that because of a lopsided supply and demand which existed in mature estates, where there was a great number of applicants against a very small development, the registration system or the queuing system just cannot be applied any more under those circumstances. That is why I am wondering why we are now going back to the old system. If we are now going back to the old system of queuing or registration, why was there a need for the HDB, in the first place, to change the system into a balloting system? People are now running about and questioning about the new system. Those people who had applied earlier and, let us say, there was no balloting system, they would have got their flats by now. But I think many of them are still now waiting for the balloting. Why? Can I take it that, in these instances, given the scenario of a very important public service, ie, housing, the HDB has made a blunder in changing from one system to another and then swinging back again.

Sir, I would also like to express my support for the new scheme. In fact, I have spoken to ask for this change to the queuing system in the Committee of Supply debate last year. Sir, I have a few comments. First, I support Dr Tan Cheng Bock in asking why should there be three zones. I think one basic register would be fairer to Singaporeans. Another simple reason to add to why we should not have only one zone is for those who live right in between the boundaries: how should they decide which zone they should choose and they may have families and relatives living in between the two zones. Next, I want to ask the Minister how he arrived at the 60%-40% percentages. It may be a fair formula if you state that a certain advantage is given to the first-timers, but I like to suggest that this formula should be made quite clear. Later, the proportion could be varied, because every year, the numbers of first-timers and upgraders will be different and we should adjust the percentages each year so that a very transparent and clear advantage is given to first-timers. If it is a fixed percentage, then it can cause distortion, as the relative numbers change over the years. Finally, in view of the increase in the cost of living, salaries and prices, is the Minister not thinking about adjusting the ceiling criteria for eligibility of flats for Singaporeans?

Sir, I also support the new scheme. I would like to ask for two clarifications from the Minister. Firstly, for the old 3-room flats that have just been sold to tenants, I hope that the whole period of tenancy will be taken as the period of occupation, because there will be some priority given for those who have stayed longer. The flats have just been sold in the beginning of this year. And I hope that the whole period of their tenancy, whereby they are actually staying in that flat, will be taken as the period in which they will qualify for priority. Secondly, rather than raise the premium of 10% to 20% in one jump, I hope that he will also consider using this length of stay as a criterion in gauging this quantum leap, because I think the whole idea is to discourage unnecessary movement.

Sir, I just want to ask one question. I would like to ask how is priority to be given to the 3-room upgraders. Because we are going to have two queues. One is for the first-timers and the other is for the upgraders. For the 3-room upgraders, how is priority to be given to them?

Sir, I wish to thank the Minister for addressing the problem which was brought up by members of the public and Members of this House. I think this is a more equitable system. Of course, we cannot satisfy everybody in any system, but I think it is much more acceptable. I have just one question for the Minister and this is on the question of supply. He said that 34,000 units will be built by 1995. However, he also mentioned that we should not go to the extreme as what we did in the 1980s when we built 50,000 flats per year and we had poor quality flats in many of the estates. I wish to ask that, in view of the larger population base today as compared to the 1980s, higher aspirations, higher demand, and I am sure our productivity has gone up in the building industry and with better supervision, can we not raise the supply to, say, 40,000 or 45,000? Because it is not just a matter of changing the allocation system. The vital question remains, which is the supply.

Sir, would the Minister clarify which policy takes precedence and in which order: one, the ethnic quota; two, upgraders in the Joint Selection System; three, upgraders in the Multi-Tier Family Scheme; and, four, upgraders in the Third Child Priority Scheme?

Sir, the Minister has said that many people rush in for fear that the prices will continue to go up and that the Government has assured affordability. How is this affordability measured? Is there a formula whereby you can assure people who do not need a house now not to rush in? Because that will push up the demand. The Government's role, I believe, is to ensure that everyone has a roof over his head. The upgraders are actually rushing in out of need or out of the fact that there is a lot of money to be made. The Minister seems to be worried that satisfying the demand would bring down the prices in the resale market. But what is the problem? If we are satisfying the demand of the people, it is a one-off situation. Or is he worried about an over building situation? From the way we are going, there would be a day when we will have too many houses and too few people.

Sir, I am a bit disappointed with the three zones that the Minister has indicated. There is none in the city and urban areas. Can he confirm that there would not be any flats to be built in the city and urban areas? I think one of the concerns about the zonal registration is really the doubt as to the number of flats available per zone. If some indication can be given as to how many flats will be available per zone, I think people will be able to make a choice. Otherwise, it has to be balanced against the central registry. I feel this will be the main concern of applicants. The other thing is the $30,000 grant for children wanting to live near their parents. I think it is important for consideration to be given to parents living in mature estates. Because I think this is where the bulk of the elderly parents are and most elderly parents living in mature estates really do not wish to move out of the mature areas. I think we have to consider the elderly parents who are living in the mature estates and favourable consideration should be given to these people..

Mr Speaker, Sir, there seems to be some unhappiness over how the ratio of 60%:40% has been derived. May I suggest that we keep this a variable figure and work out a simple mathematical solution, in the sense that according to the number of first-timers and upgraders, the allocation be made proportionately.

Sir, I just want one clarification from the Minister. With the introduction of this new scheme, does it mean that the walk-in system is abolished? Because this system has created a lot of unhappiness. For every happy applicant, there were hundreds of frustrated unsuccessful applicants.

Sir, I would like to ask the Acting Minister, under the $30,000 grant to encourage children to live near their parents, would children whose parents live in private housing estates be eligible for this scheme? Because in Tanglin, for example, we have public housing right next to private housing.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thought I was just making an announcement on the allocation system. It looks like it has invited a whole host of questions. I will try to answer all of them, but I will stay away from details. First, let me explain that this switch to a queuing system is for the non-mature estates, and not for mature estates. My comments in previous sittings about the overwhelming demand for mature estates and that a queuing system is not suitable for mature estates are still valid. This system is only for non-mature estates in the three zones that I described. In the North Zone, it will constitute new towns like Woodlands, Yishun and Sembawang. In the North East Zone, it will constitute new towns like Hougang, Serangoon, Kangkar and, in the future, Punggol. In the Western Zone, it will constitute new towns like Bukit Batok, Bukit Panjang and every town west in that area. So this new system does not cater to the mature estates in the city area or developments in other mature estates. We are looking into the system for the mature estates. We will make the announcement in due course. The second question is: why three zones? Why not a single register? Again, my earlier comments about Singaporeans being particular about the area they want to buy their flat are still valid. I think if we have a single register and the applicant is thinking of a flat in Hougang and we offer him a flat in Jurong West, he is not going to be happy. If he gets knocked out of the queue position he will be extremely unhappy. So it is better to break them up into three areas so that there is some better matching in preference of the estate they want. The balloting system, of course, is the other extreme. You actually apply for the estate and those developments that you saw in the advertisement. I think the balloting is very useful in making certainty about the area that you are going to. Of course, the uncertainty is when will you get it. In the queuing system, there is certainty. Everybody is in the queue. But if you have it in one register, then you will be uncertain where you will be offered one. We are now trying to strike a balance in having three zones so that people can apply for the zone they want and still be assured that they will be called up according to the queue position. I have explained the two main principles of giving preferences to those who have stayed longer and to those who are moving from small flats to big flats. The way to go about it is not easy. If you have a point system, it will be an extremely messy system. Right now, we have opted for a very simple system, which is a cut-off of five years. So only if you have stayed for five years, then you are eligible. Of course, it does not satisfy several MPs here who suggest that there should be some weightage for the number of years that they have stayed. We will look into that, but right now it is a simple cut-off of five years before they can apply as an upgrader. The second way, of course, is by the pricing mechanism. By making the premium at 20%, you are favouring the 3-room upgraders, and those who are moving laterally will find it not so attractive to apply for a bigger flat if they already have a big flat. So our approach of giving priority to the 3-room applicants is through these two mechanisms. I will be happy to listen to other suggestions on how this priority can be given and I am sure that over the next few years there will be many more debates and modifications to the system. The third area which many Members have raised is how do we process the applications. Dr Soin asked which schemes should take priority. First of all, the ethnic ceiling is fixed for all estates, whether it is for new allocation of flats or resale flats. There is a ceiling, and HDB does not breach the ceiling. So when it allocates, it will allocate below the ceiling. Secondly, we will allocate according to the priority schemes: 5% to the Multi-Tier Family Scheme, 5% to the Third-Child Priority Scheme, and 5% to the Joint Selection Scheme. The remaining would then be allocated with 60% to first-timers and 40% to upgraders. So that will be how the system would work. Mr Chng Hee Kok asked for the speeding up of information. I said that HDB will announce the details next week. HDB will announce all the details on Monday. So it is not that we are going to keep people in suspense. Today, I announce the main parameters. HDB will give the details on Monday. Let me just reassure everybody that the priority of those who have applied previously will be kept. HDB would, over the next one month, send letters to the 93,000 applicants who have applied before and show them the application history so that they can confirm that this was indeed their application history, ie, the number of times they have applied. We will group those who have applied the highest number of times together, and we will ballot them, and this group, of course, will be given the highest queue position. Then we will group the next batch with the highest number of times of applications, and they will be balloted, and they will get the subsequent queue position, and so on and so forth. On 1st October, we will open up the application to all new applicants. We do not want a riot. It will be balloted for the whole month of October. So you can apply on the first day of October or the last day of October, you will be grouped together and there will be a ballot. From 1st November, it will be on a queue system, ie, on a first-come-first-served basis. This is how the transition will be carried out. HDB will explain this on Monday. When you have three zones you have better matching between the geographical preference and the offer. If you have one zone, the person will be hoarding his position and he will be choosing the flat and the zone, and he will exercise his queue position at the right time. That is not fair to all those people at the end of the queue. So I think we have a zonal system and we will allow cross-over of zones, but there will be a penalty in the queue position whenever you cross the zone. Again, HDB will explain this on Monday. As for downgrading from a 5-room to 3-room flat, unless I am wrong, HDB does not deter people from downgrading from a 5-room to 3-room flat. You can apply for your next flat and whatever type you want. The majority, of course, apply for a bigger flat. If you apply for a smaller flat, you are also allowed to do so. I will check on that. An hon. Member: What happens if they cross over the income ceiling?

If they cross over the income ceiling, they cannot apply. Just like upgrading, if you cross over the income ceiling, you also cannot apply. The next key area which many Members raise is the ratio of 60:40%. Let me explain the thinking. As I have explained in the Statement, we have about 25,000 newly-weds every year. That is our new household formation every year. With new permanent residents, plus expatriates, etc., you get a total of about 30,000 to 32,000 new households every year who need new housing. But from Singapore citizens, there are about 25,000 newly-weds, plus or minus, every year. Out of these 25,000, about 10% would buy private property. They would not come into the HDB system. Another 10% would buy the 3-room resale flats, the Buy-Back Scheme the HDB is introducing in October. So you have about 80% of our newly-weds who will be catered for in this system, which means something like 20,000 every year. We intend to build 34,000 units. So if we allocate 60% of that, it will be about 20,000 units. Even after you minus all the priority schemes, it will be around 60:40%, because first-timers also take advantage of the Multi-Tier Family Scheme and also the Joint Selection scheme. So that is the rough number. That means we are in a fairly stable system. We allocate 60:40%. It will cater for the yearly demand of new households - the 20,000 that we expect to apply every year. We have a temporary problem because there is a surge in applications by the new households, but once we clear the backlog, this ratio of 60:40% will cater for the long term. As I agree with many speakers here, we will adjust these numbers as the demand pattern changes. We are not in favour of having a proportionate system because, with the large number of upgraders, the first-timers will find that they are not getting the priority. If you have a proportionate system based on the proportion of first-timers and upgraders, then of course you are even-handed, but the first-timers will not get the flats in time. How long will people have to wait? We will have to go through the exercise before we can finalise the numbers. Every time we change over a system, we find that there is quite a significant drop-out rate, and many people apply because it is Hougang or because it is Tampines. But once you tell them it is three zones and by the time they get their flat, it will be Kangkar or Punggol, they are no longer interested. They prefer to buy from the resale market. Once we go through the exercise, we will get the numbers. But for the first-timers, there is a better "fix" because we know that there are only so many newly-weds every year and we have so many flats. So the first-timers can expect to be asked to select their flats between 1 1/2 years and 2 years after their first application during this transition period. Once we get into a steady stream and the backlog is cleared, hopefully, the demand and supply will balance out and they will need only to wait one year. For the upgraders, I am afraid I cannot give a good number. The back-of-envelope calculation will show you that if all the 53,000 upgraders remain on the queue and we are allocating 16,000 to them, then whoever applies on 1st October or 1st November will have to wait more than four years. But do not shoot the messenger. Whether it is the balloting system or the queuing system, the 93,000 applicants are also remaining in the queue and in the system, and they also have to wait four or five years before their turn. What we hope to achieve in the queuing system is a fairer and more equitable way. We know there is a big demand from the upgraders. It is how to allocate it fairly. Mr Low Thia Khiang asked how we calculate the levy and premium system. The choice is up to the applicant - whether he opts to pay the levy or the premium. If he opts to pay the premium, then he pays 20% of the price of the second flat that he is buying, ie, 20% premium. If he opts to pay the levy, then it depends what flat he is selling. If he is selling a 3-room flat, he pays 10% lvey of the sale price. If he is selling a bigger flat, the levy is according to the type of the flat - 15%, 20%, 25%. So the choice is up to the applicant. As I have explained, those who are in a 3-room flat and upgrading to bigger flats, most of them will opt for the levy. So they pay 3% of the resale price of their 3-room flatand they will get a bigger flat from HDB at the price HDB is selling. Mr Leong Horn Kee - he is not here - asked for a review of the income ceiling eligibility. HDB does this regularly. The next round of review is due in November. So when November comes, we will look at the income ceiling and the percentage of people who qualify. If it is due for an increase, we will increase accordingly. Dr Arthur Beng asked whether people who recently bought their 3-room rental flats under the Sale to Tenants scheme would have their previous years of tenancy computed in the five years. I am afraid the answer is no. Once you buy you start from that period. Dr Arthur Beng also asked why the premium has jumped from 10% to 20%. I think that makes the levy/premium system more equitable. If you keep it at 10%, then it favours the owners of big flats. With the 20% premium, it is fairer and there will be less of those people who have an Executive flat buying another Executive flat. An hon. Member: What about linkage to length of stay?

As for linkage to length of stay, HDB will consider all other novel suggestions. All these suggestions will be noted. Anything which is novel, we will keep it for future review. There are also several questions why we did not raise the supply to 40,000 or 45,000 units. I think Dr Ong Chit Chung raised this question. There are better productivity growth rates and better quality control. As I have explained, the issue is not just quality, productivity and cost. The other issues also the impact on the resale price. This is something which Mr Chia Shi Teck brought up. We have 30,000 to 32,000 new households every year, comprising the 25,000 newly-weds, permanent residents and expatriates, etc. We are physically building 40,000 flats. If HDB builds 45,000 flats and the private sector builds 10,000 units, that means physically we are building 55,000 units. Somebody has to take up 55,000 flats. As I said, there are only 30,000 to 32,000 new households who need new housing every year. So if you have this over production of flats, it will invariably affect the resale prices. Mr Chia Shi Teck asked: why worry if the resale prices tumble? It is our job to worry. There are several questions about the CPF Housing Grant Scheme. Let me explain. There seems to be some misunderstanding. The $30,000 CPF Housing Grant Scheme also applies to the mature estates. It is not meant only for the New Towns. So first-time applicants who are buying a flat in the mature estates so as to be close to their parents can apply for this $30,000 grant. Why then do we not apply to private housing? Let us keep the scheme within the HDB estates first. We will consider extending this scheme to private estates in subsequent reviews. Mr Kenneth Chen asks; what happens to walk-in selection? I thought walk-in selection has already gone. Mr Speaker, Sir, I think that more or less covers all the questions. If there are any more questions, I will answer them.

Mr Speaker, the Minister has missed out my question on affordability. I would like the Minister's assurance. Nobody believes in the word "affordability", as the prices are moving up. Will HDB, for instance, freeze the selling prices for the next five or 10 years to ensure affordability?

Can I remind Members that they can only seek clarifications on the Statement.

Thank you Mr Speaker for your indulgence. I actually want to seek clarification on the Minister's reply to my suggestion of having one zone, because I think he has missed out my point when I gave an example. I am asking for a combination of the old queuing system, where we try and match supply to demand, and the current system where we have balloting. Mr Speaker, Sir, let me once again show that a matching system is not really necessary under my suggestion. Let us take this present group of 93,000 applicants, and let us say that they are given allotment No. 1 to No. 93,000. The queue is there already. The registry is there. If we have got a new development, say, in Kangkar of 7,000 units, HDB can always advertise these 7,000 units in the newspapers, like the current system, and invite applications. There might be 10,000 applicants. The 10,000th applicant might be numbered 52,725. It may not be the 10,000. But all you need to do is therefore to select the first 7,000, and these people will qualify for the new development in Kangkar. Those who do not go for the selection or do not apply will retain their queuing position. They do not lose it at all. And I see no reason why this cannot be done. He spoke about holding the position on the queue. But, basically, I do not find anything wrong with this because after all, they were there first. There is no reason why they should not retain their position and let others behind them go ahead of them, if they are not interested in a particular estate that is being developed. But even if that is the case, there are ways and means of discouraging this. For example, you can have a ---

Order. Mr Heng, you are making another speech. Could you finish with your clarification?

Okay, Sir. This is not so much a clarification but to tell the Minister not to frighten the upgraders about the five years'requirement. By my own back-of-the-envelope calculation, there will be roughly about 10,000 units available for the upgraderseach year, based on 40% of 85% of 30,000. The luckiest upgraders will get their flats in the first year. The most unlucky ones will probably get their flats in the fifth year. So the average waiting time as a whole will be 2 1/2 years.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the Minister has forgotten to answer my question. Perhaps let me re-phrase it for him.

Dr Tan, could you just refer to the question? You do not have to re-phrase it.

I think I better re-phrase it for him. I am staying in a 3-room flat and now I want to upgrade to a 4-room flat, as my family has grown from four to maybe seven members. I really need a bigger flat very urgently. I am prepared to sell my flat to HDB at HDB's price. Would HDB let me buy the flat first over those 8.7% of the upgraders that the Minister talked about earlier in his speech?

Point of clarification, Mr Speaker, Sir. The Minister mentioned that there will be another system for mature estates. Does he mean that the redevelopment that is going on within our present estates will have a totally different scheme from this?

Point of clarification. The Minister mentioned about the buying-back scheme. Can an applicant be entitled to the Buy-Back Scheme and at the same time be eligible for the $30,000 grant given by the Government?

On the question of affordability - I have said this many times - when HDB prices its new flats, it takes into consideration thecost in building the flats and at the same time the affordability of the applicants. We do that by having the income profileof the applicants and we try to make the servicing of the mortgage loans for new HDB flats not to exceed 25% of the income of the median applicants. So there is an affordability assessment based on the income of the median applicants and we try to keep the servicing of the mortgage loans within 25%. So, by and large, 80% to 90% of HDB applicants service their mortgage loans using their CPF, and we try to keep the prices within that limit. On this question about one zone and Mr Heng Chiang Meng's suggestion, in fact, that is exactly what happened in the 1980s. We had a queuing system and we allowed people to opt. It was not a calling-up by number, but we had three choices. So they never exercised their third choice. As a result, we had a lot of flats in Woodlands and we could not offer to anybody because everybody was holding on to their queue position and queue number and waiting for that flat in the city area or Tampines.

Advertise.

Even if we advertise now, or we may not physically build it, everybody will be holding on to their chips and calling in their chips only when they see a flat in Bukit Batok where they want. Other than that, they will not put in their names. And this was exactly what happened in 1986. We ended up building more because the queuing system ended up with 45,000 applicants, but we never seemed to clear the queue. We were building 10,000 units in Woodlands, but we still had 45,000 applicants in the queue. So I think we will evaluate this system of one zone and one register in which you put in your number when you find the location of your choice. But my first reaction is that it looks very much the same problem that we have had in Woodlands. Again Mr Heng Chiang Meng is a good statistician. I am afraid I am a bit more honest. Although, on average, they wait 2 1/2 years, my point is that anybody who applies on 1st October has to take into consideration the 53,000 upgraders already in the system as of today. And if all 53,000 of them return to the queuing system, and there are about 16,000 flats allocated to upgraders, it will take about four years. Sir, I am talking about a person who now wants to put in an application. An upgrader who now has to put in an application in October. Dr Tan Cheng Bock's suggestion about returning the flat to HDB at posted price so as to be given priority to buy a new flat, we will evaluate the suggestion and see how applicable that is. On Mr Umar's question about the Buy-Back Scheme, you can only put yourself on the queue for the 3-room Buy-Back Scheme or you take advantage of the $30,000 grant. You cannot have both. On redevelopment of mature estates - I have said this previously - because of the overwhelming demand for mature estates, we are back to the same problem of excessive demand and limited supply. You can either have a queuing system, in which case there will be riots; you can either have a balloting system, in which case some Members will claim it is a tikam-tikam; or you can have a tender system, in which case we allocate based on price. We are still studying the system and we will make the announcement in due course. An hon. Member: Eligibility.

The eligibility will be assessed at the time of application.

Mr Lim, would you like to withdraw your motion?

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

Order. I suspend the sitting and will take the Chair again at 10 minutes to three o'clock. Sitting accordingly suspended at 2.27 pm until 2.50 pm. Sitting resumed at 2.50 pm

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Singapore Broadcasting Authority (SBA) Act will replace the existing Broadcasting and Television Act and the Singapore Broadcasting Corporation Act. The Act will establish the Singapore Broadcasting Authority as a statutory board to regulate and promote the broadcasting industry. It empowers SBA to exercise licensing and regulatory functions over broadcasting services and broadcasting apparatus. The Act also provides for the corporatisation and privatisation of SBC. Properties, rights and liabilities of SBC will be transferred to SBC's successor companies and SBA. The Act enables the corporatised SBC companies to offer for sale to the public their shares or debentures at a later date. The SBA Act spells out the regulatory framework for the broadcasting industry. Broadcasting plays an important role in informing, educating and entertaining the public. While we want the regulatory environment to be conducive to broadcasters, we must also ensure that the public interest is protected. A good framework will enable us to do both. We want foreign broadcasters to operate here and to use Singapore as a regional broadcasting hub. But we also want Singapore to remain a wholesome society. We must take into account rapid technological developments. Conventional methods of regulating television and radio based on modes of transmission are no longer adequate. For this reason, many countries are moving towards a broader definition of broadcasting. We will do the same. In the SBA Act, broadcasting is defined in terms of programme transmission to all or part of the public without reference to the particular means used. This wider definition enables SBA to regulate broadcast content in the face of new technological realities. It enables SBA to regulate not only nationwide radio and television services, but also in-house movie systems in hotels, private clubs and condominiums, video-on-demand services, audiotex services and computer information services. Such breadth is necessary to catch new forms of `narrowcast' programme dissemination. The Act provides that only the services gazetted by SBA as licensable broadcasting services will need to be licensed. The list of licensable broadcasting services is included as a Schedule to the Act. As new categories of information services become available, the Minister can vary the list of licensable broadcasting services. But we should not regulate more than is necessary. For example, we have not included broadcast faxes in the present list of licensable services as these are largely used for private communications. We have also not included computer information services as it is easier to regulate such services through the Films Act. There will be two types of licences - individual licences and class licences. Broadcasting services with major impact on society will be individually licensed, with conditions put on programme content as well as programming mix. The class licence provides a simple way to license non-major broadcasting services without requiring each service operator to apply for a licence. This enables SBA to regulate the programme content of services such as broadcast data services without having to license individual service operators. These services will be deemed to be licensed as a class as long as they comply with conditions laid down for the class. To safeguard programme standards, SBA will establish guidelines on censorship and programming mix. Obligations to protect and serve the public interest should continue to be placed upon broadcasters, including the privatised successor companies of SBC. For programming mix, SBA will specify in the licence minimum levels of public service broadcasts, such as, educational programmes, children's programmes and minority language programmes. SBA will commission broadcasters to provide public service broadcasts over and above the minimum levels to ensure that such programmes are not neglected. This will include subsidy of locally-produced programmes. For this purpose, our television and radio licence fees and broadcast franchise fees will be paid to SBA and become part of its revenues. In addition, SBA will receive an annual grant from the Government. In monitoring programme standards, SBA will consult independent advisory bodies, such as, the Censorship Feedback Panel, the Programme Advisory Committee, the Advisory Committee on Chinese Programmes and the Committee on Television Violence. SBA will have powers to censure, fine or withdraw broadcasters' licences if they breach licence conditions. The Act gives the Minister powers to proscribe objectionable foreign broadcast services that are receivable in Singapore. This makes it an offence to support a proscribed foreign broadcast service, for example, by facilitating reception, supplying equipment or programmes, advertising or publishing programme listings. This provision is targeted against foreign services that are pornographic or incendiary in nature. The UK Broadcasting Act of 1990 has a similar provision which may be used against offshore pornographic satellite television channels. Technology is making censorship harder and harder to enforce. To meet the public need for greater choice without losing control over pornographic and incendiary material, the Act also provides for the licensing of broadcast receivers. This enables SBA to regulate the use of receiving equipment, such as, satellite dishes and other broadcast receiving equipment. We will also ensure that ultimate control of major broadcasting companies remains in local hands. The Act provides for limits on foreign ownership and management as well as controls on the receipt of foreign funds. However, it is not our intention to prevent foreigners from operating regional broadcast services here. In fact, we encourage them to operate from Singapore. The SBA Act empowers SBA to require owners and developers of buildings to provide facilities of a standard acceptable to SBA within their buildings. SBA intends to use this power to require all new buildings to have cable-ready master antenna systems so that cable television and IT2000 services can be introduced quickly. This will reduce inconvenience and cost to individual households. SBA will also have powers to require owners of high-rise buildings to provide tap-off points to improve the reception of broadcasting services in surrounding low-rise buildings. This is important because of the number of high-rise buildings in Singapore. SBA will work out a system of cost-sharing which is fair to all parties concerned. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Act will give effect to the corporatisation of SBC and the transfer of assets and staff to the successor companies. Singapore International Media Pte Ltd (SIM) owned by Temasek will be the holding company for the successor companies. MITA plans to corporatise SBC into wholly-owned Government companies later this year. The privatised successors of SBC will remain Singapore's national broadcasters. In the era of cable TV and multimedia, there is a danger that foreign channels will displace local channels. However, protecting local channels in the old way is no longer possible. Instead, we should give them special positive support. And this will be one of the key tasks of SBA. To retain our own sense of place, it is essential that television in Singapore has sufficient local programming and content. It is important that our national broadcasters remain anchor channels in Singapore and not be swamped by overseas broadcasts. The objective of privatisation is to make the successor companies of SBC stronger in the face of unavoidable foreign competition. We want them to have more operational flexibility and be under the discipline of the market place. They must be more efficient in delivering better programmes and hold their audiences. Ultimately, the successor companies of SBC will have to stake a place for themselves in an ever competitive international broadcasting market place. As television becomes borderless, they will have to venture into regional broadcasting themselves. SBC's three free-to-air TV channels will be spun off into two separate companies. Channels 5 and 8 will be grouped into one company. Its mission will be to broadcast good English and Chinese programmes and fulfil public service broadcasting obligations. The second company will operate Channel 12. It will broadcast high-quality public service programmes as well as programmes in Malay and, later, possibly Tamil as well. We are now studying the feasibility of moving Tamil broadcasts from Channel 8 to Channel 12 to give them better slot times. Cultural and nature programmes on Channel 12 will then be moved to a new UHF channel. This will enable us to strengthen both Malay and Tamil programming. The existing SBC radio stations will be privatised under one radio company for economies of scale. In addition, a separate company to operate broadcasting facilities will be set up. It will be free to sell services to non-SBC companies. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I had a discussion with Members of the GPC on Information and the Arts on this subject and I now speak on their behalf in support of the Bill. Tremendous developments have taken place in IT technology and in broadcasting. Not to keep up with these developments is to be left behind and this will also affect the economic competitiveness of Singapore; something that we should avoid. The question really is whether there is a way to keep the technology separate from the contents of the programmes that reach the living rooms of every household in Singapore. Sir, this is not a new subject. We have discussed this at length during the Budget debate and in the Committee of Supply, not only this year but also last year. With your permission, Sir, I shall not repeat the points but would ask officials of MITA to read the Hansard again so that Members of this House and the Singaporeans they represent have their views noted and taken care of. MITA should continuously bear these points in mind in the administration of the SBA Act. Sir, I believe the Bill provides adequate powers for MITA to regulate and develop the broadcasting industry. I hope that MITA will not hesitate to use these powers judiciously in order to protect and safeguard the way of life that we Singaporeans want for ourselves.

( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, clause 8 of the Singapore Broadcasting Authority Bill stipulates that whenever the Minister declares an emergency, for national defence purpose or in the public interest, he can have complete control of the broadcasting service of the broadcasting licensee and all its equipment. This will involve both the personnel and the physical property of the licensee. Apart from having to carry out the Minister's instructions immediately, it is also provided in the Bill that all information connected with the entire operation shall not be divulged to others. In the event there is any doubt on the Minister's decision on the so-called emergency situation and on the "public interest", so long as the Minister issues a certificate, everything will be settled without any discussion. Clause 27 of the Bill also stipulates that the Government can censor all the scripts for broadcasting beforehand, or order the Singapore Broadcasting Corporation to send the programme they have made to the Government for inspection before broadcasting. The reason, of course, is to ensure that public interest or national harmony is not compromised. The two abovementioned provisions in this Bill give the Government the supreme power to have control over the broadcasting licensee and the contents of the broadcast, so that the Government can suppress any argument or views which are not favourable to it. For example, during the General Elections, will all coverage on the election campaign be required to be censored and approved by the Government before they are allowed to go on air? Will the coverage on the Opposition parties be required to be pre-recorded and censored to what the Government would consider to be appropriate before it can go on air? The Government feels that it is necessary to control the broadcasting licensee and its programme, purportedly to be in the public interest. But then, what is the definition of "public interest"? That again is to be determined by the Minister, and there is no need for the Government to announce it. The licensee is prohibited from announcing it. If it is supposed to be in the interest of the public, then it should be made known to the public, for public discussion to determine whether it complies with an objective standard that the Minister's decision is correct and unbiased. However, the Bill provides that what constitutes "public interest" shall be decided and defined subjectively by the Minister alone, without any committee, Parliament or public discussion. Now, I understand that, in Singapore, the so-called "public interest" is just a certificate issued by the Minister. The certificate should be known as a "Certificate of Public Interest"!

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank Mr Peter Sung for his support of the Bill and I assure him and Members of the GPC and all Members here that the comments made during the Committee of Supply will be taken into account in the implementation of the new SBA Act. Mr Low Thia Khiang made an interesting speech about how the new Act will give to the Minister powers to censor and control television. But I would like to remind him that I already have all these powers. If my intention is to keep these powers for the Government, then why privatise SBC in the first place? Why separate the SBC successor companies from the regulatory authority in the first place? If our intentions are what he claimed them to be, then it is clearly not in our interest to move on to a different way of developing the broadcasting industry in Singapore. So I would answer him by making the point that the fact that we have gone through all these changes, some of which were traumatic, affecting people in the broadcasting industry, causing members of the public to be unsettled, we do this not out of a whim, and certainly not in order to reserve more powers for ourselves, but because these are changes which we have to make to anticipate new problems on the horizon. Indeed, the points Mr Low Thia Khiang made remind me of the standard questions which Western editors and journalists raise with me when they see me. Their standard argument is this. It is becoming more and more difficult to control the flow of information. So what you are trying to do, in fact, a point Cherian George made in his article in the Straits Times yesterday, is a waste of time. Eventually, you are trying to regulate the unregulatable. But is that true? Is it true that just because when information is digitised, when images are digitised, when sound texts are digitised, therefore we should raise our hands and say, "No, we should give up completely." Worse, even to say that the standards we hold up should therefore be brought down. I do not think so, not at all. Because, while Singapore requires complete access to information, the challenge of education will always be with us. And it is not for other people, not for Westerners, not for our neighbours, to tell us how we should educate the next generation. In the public media, there is tremendous symbolism. It makes a big difference whether we see a Hollywood programme espousing a certain lifestyle or a locally-produced programme espousing the same lifestyle. At the National Day Rally, the Prime Minister made the point about the Sustagen advertisement, the little boy speaking like an American kid. It is one thing to have an advertisement of an American kid talking like an American kid, but quite another to have Singaporeans behaving as if they were Westerners. In the minds of Singaporeans, that distinction is made and that distinction is made both directly and indirectly through the way our national broadcasters carry out their tasks. Therefore, censorship, a sense of what is important for Singapore, must be at the core of the establishment broadcasting media in Singapore, and that is why we insist on tight regulations. It is very important. It cannot be that just because men sin every day that we then say, "All right, the 10 Commandments are no longer necessary." It is because we are constantly not able to meet those standards that we insist on the 10 Commandments, and this is what maintains the tone of society. But, mind you, there are problems and it will be increasingly difficult to censor on a water-tight basis. Take Internet, for example. As you know, we are introducing Internet in a big way in Singapore to our schools. I asked for a briefing from NCB the other day on Internet. And I said, "How easy is it to access pornography?" So they tried for a few days. They came back to me and they said, "Well, we know the existing sources in Europe and in America which any Internet user can easily gain access to." Of course, if you go through Singnet, it acts as a gate-keeper. But how does Singnet censor? Singnet censors on the basis that someone is there looking at the screen and picking up the obvious titles. It is like trying to censor magazines and books on the basis of titles and the cover page. In reality, censorship is very difficult and it is an endless game. So on the one hand, we must not give up the idea of censorship, of holding up standards, of saying these are the 10 Commandments, we adhere by them and, on the other, a realistic assessment that there are limits to what we can do. And some things we do for symbolical reasons, some things we do because we think they can be very effectively done. Mr Low Thia Khiang made a big song and dance about the powers of the Minister to tell broadcasters not to do certain things and require broadcasters not to divulge these things publicly. Why do we introduce this clause? Sir, we are Singaporeans. We are a small country. We live by our wits. Many foreign friends ask us: how is it we are able to maintain good relations with both China and Taiwan, with Indonesia and Malaysia? How is it India considers us such a special friend? It is because we have a keen and deep sense of what is in our national interest. And the profoundest of our national interest cannot be publicly discussed, at least not in an openly explicit way, for they border on matters of race, they border on matters of national security. But this is not to mean that there is no parliamentary oversight. This is not to say that there is anything to stop Mr Low Thia Khiang or Members of the Opposition from standing up here and asking me questions which they think are very difficult and very incriminating. And I will answer them here, but it may not be always possible for me to give full details.

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

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, it has now been clearly established and recognised that smoking is harmful to our health, and that it is addictive and therefore in our national interest to curb smoking. The Ministry of Health (MOH) is responsible for the National Smoking Control programme. MOH organises an annual campaign and enforces measures to curb smoking like banning tobacco advertisements, health warning labels on cigarette packs, prohibition of cigarette sales to under-18s' and so on. The Ministry of the Environment's role is to protect the public, the overwhelming majority of Singaporeans who are non-smokers, from the harmful effects of tobacco smoke. There is now enough scientific evidence to prove that a non-smoker who breathes in second-hand tobacco smoke also faces serious health risks. The US Environmental Protection Agency has a classification system for carcinogens, in other words, substances that cause cancer in human beings. They classify carcinogens into four groups: Group A, which is a known carcinogen with sufficient human and animal evidence. Group B1, which is a probable carcinogen with limited human evidence but sufficient animal evidence. Group B2, a probable carcinogen with inadequate human evidence but sufficient animal evidence. Lastly, Group C, a possible carcinogen with inadequate human evidence and limited animal evidence. Mainstream smoke or smoke that is inhaled by smokers is classified as a Group A carcinogen. The second-hand smoke that is inhaled by non-smokers is also classified as a Group A carcinogen, in other words, in the same category as mainstream smoke. When smokers light up, they know the risks that they face. But when non-smokers are exposed to the same risks, sometimes even despite protests, then the Government has a responsibility to step in to protect them. The debate on banning smoking in public places was initially characterised by loud protests from smokers, about abuse of their rights. The debate has now swung around to the belief that non-smokers have as much right to smoke-free air, especially when the dangers of second-hand tobacco smoke have been so clearly established. Sir, my Ministry is committed to creating a tobacco smoke-free environment. The current legislation allows my Ministry to prohibit smoking in public places as well as in public service vehicles. Over the years, we have progressively prohibited smoking in a number of enclosed public places where people congregate, in other words, places like air-conditioned restaurants, cinemas, departmental stores, and so on. Today, many of our air-conditioned public places are smoke-free areas. There are, however, many offices and factory floors that are not smoke-free. We have tried to encourage managers of offices and factory floors to introduce house-rules to control smoking within their premises. I am afraid not many managers have introduced such rules. Non-smokers, who are in the majority, have had to continue to suffer the harmful effects of tobacco smoke. Many of them find it very difficult to persuade their colleagues not to smoke in the office, especially when the CEOs or managers themselves smoke. The proposed Bill will allow my Ministry to prohibit smoking in any commercial, industrial or recreational premises. This is to protect our office and factory workers. With its enactment, we can proceed to prohibit smoking in all air-conditioned offices and factory floors. The new law will make managers responsible to ensure that employees do not smoke in the office or factory floors. The management or employer will be required to put up signs and inform his employees not to smoke. Any employee who believes that the no-smoking rule is not being observed may bring the matter up to the manager of the workplace. The manager will then be required to investigate the complaint and warn the offenders to cease smoking. If the manager is unable to resolve the matter, he can then refer it to my Ministry. Managers who fail to take action may be prosecuted. Managers themselves are also not allowed to smoke in an air-conditioned workplace. Employees may lodge complaints to my Ministry if they find their managers not complying with the no-smoking rule. The new law will also allow the smoking prohibition to be extended to the common property of residential premises. My Ministry recognises the problem faced by residents in private residential premises using facilities provided in enclosed or air-conditioned common areas. By this, I mean the lobby areas, function rooms, reading rooms or games rooms in condominiums. Non-smoking residents, especially children, using these premises have a right to be protected from second-hand tobacco smoke. Non-smokers frequently suffer in silence for fear of offending smokers, especially if they are their neighbours, should they tell them to stop smoking. We will continue to monitor developments in other countries which recognise, like us, that second-hand smoke is a serious health hazard, and countries which are prepared to act to protect their citizens from the dangers of second-hand tobacco smoke. Such countries include the US, Canada and Australia, which have already introduced laws to prohibit smoking in workplaces. We will constantly review our own laws to keep abreast with the developments in these countries. In conclusion, Sir, I would like to reiterate that the Bill is first and foremost intended to protect the interest of the majority of Singaporeans who do not smoke. The Bill will ensure that non-smokers will not be forced to breathe in harmful second-hand tobacco smoke against their will. If, at the same time, it also encourages some smokers to give up the habit, perhaps because of sheer inconvenience, this will be a bonus. If smokers still choose to smoke, they should do so in a place where no harm can be caused to non-smokers. They should be considerate to those around them who share the same space but who do not share the same desire to smoke, by refraining from smoking in the prohibited areas. Sir, I beg to move.

Mr Speaker, Sir, can I seek a clarification from the Minister?

Can you let me put the motion to the House first? The Member is advised to be patient. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Kevin Sullivan, a Business Times (BT) journalist, got it wrong when he opined in the OPINIONS column in the last weekend edition of BT that the Bill before us would not achieve its purpose of getting smokers to stop smoking. The objective of the Smoking (Prohibition in Certain Places) Bill is very clear. It is not aimed at trying to get smokers to quit smoking. As the Minister has said, that is the job of the Ministry of Health. This law is about protecting non-smokers and championing their legitimate rights. However, the existing law is not wide enough to cover certain places where smoking should be banned if the legitimate interests of the non-smokers are to be protected. It does not cover places such as air-conditioned commercial offices, reading rooms of condominiums, and even sports stadiums, etc. Should these places be included in the prohibition list? I think they should. The reason is obvious. If a non-smoker is affected by someone who smokes in the office, he or she cannot say, "I am not going to work in the office." Likewise, in a sports stadium packed with people, non-smokers who are affected by someone who smokes cannot move away from their seats. A non-smoker who has to leave the reading room of his condominium because someone is smoking in there is obviously being deprived of his privileges. Of course, one can argue that in these instances the non-smoker can always ask or request the smoker to stub it out. But we know that such requests will not always work, especially in places where smoking is not banned. Amending section 3(1) of the principal Act, as shown in the Bill, will allow the Government to gazette the places that I have just mentioned. The amendment, in my view, will then make the objective of this law fully realisable. However, the amendment will also, in theory, enable the Government to gazette any premises or building except private homes. But I do not think, and I hope the Minister will clarify, that it is the intention of the Government to do just that. For every place that the Government gazettes, it must also back it up with good reasons. Sir, I am therefore surprised, reading from the Straits Times and Business Times, that the Government intends to ban smoking in all public places, including car parks and HDB void decks. In fact, many of my friends are having the impression that the Government will be doing just that after reading the press report. They thought that the Government is unreasonable in these instances and are asking where the justifications are. Will the Minister clarify? I hope the Minister will also let us know what additional places he will be gazetting after the passing of this Bill and the rationale behind them.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I agree with the Minister that there is sufficient medical evidence that links smoking with morbid illnesses like lung cancer. So over time, the Government has tried to persuade people in Singapore to reduce, if not stop, smoking altogether. At the same time, legislation was progressively introduced to add more bite to the effort. Nobody would quarrel with the Government of its intention that seeks to give every Singaporean the best and, today, the best includes ensuring a smoke-free environment. Sir, I agree with the objective of the Bill, particularly in so far as it seeks to protect the majority, the non-smokers. I support the Bill, particularly when it is targeted at teenage smokers and those who are about to start smoking or who are marginal smokers, about to take up the kick of it. I think the Bill should come hard on them, clamp down on this group of people to discourage them from ever wanting to start smoking. Sir, I feel that clause 3 of the Bill is a bit harsh in the sense that it curtails the home further to exclude common areas outside one's home. Under the amendment, if I interpret it correctly, a smoker would have committed an offence if he smokes in a place for recreation or in a park, or even at an HDB void deck below where he lives, or if he steps out of his car with a lit cigarette in his mouth in a car park. I speak, Sir, for a small minority of habitual smokers. To this group of people, I think the Bill may be an overkill. Our current measures to discourage smoking through anti-smoking campaigns, education, excise duties and prohibitions of smoking in certain air-conditioned areas have been very effective. In fact, today we are proud that the percentage of smokers in our population is perhaps one of the lowest in the world. I believe this percentage continues to drop. Therefore, Sir, I was not surprised when I met some residents recently in my constituency walkabout, who are themselves smokers, and even a small group of non-smokers who expressed their displeasure to me on the Bill. And I must say that their impression was based on what they have read in the Straits Times. They felt that such prohibitions, as good as a total ban, is an overkill. They argued that in recreation as well as in social gatherings after a hard day's work, they want to be able to let down their hair and be merry. So why can they not be allowed to enjoy themselves and smoke, say, in a private function room in a hotel, in a HDB void deck, or in a designated area in the National Stadium when doing their Kallang roar in supporting the nation's soccer team? Sir, I have one concern also, and this is through personal experience. I am sure some Members of this House share the same experience. The publicity given to the Bill may have some adverse impact on the tourist industry. I think this may impact also on our effort to promote Singapore as a business centre. I have experience and I am sure my colleagues in this House, who are in businesses, would have the same experience. Today, one of the most onerous and most difficult tasks in trying to entertain foreign visitors in Singapore is to be able to select a restaurant that allows smoking, and there are not many such restaurants left in Singapore. Will this amendment not mean that visitors to Singapore will not be able to enjoy a meal followed by a smoke? We can be lenient to these foreign visitors. But if we do so, then would we not be accused by Singaporeans for not applying the law fairly? Sir, I want to say that I am not against the Bill. I think the Bill is good in the interest of the majority - the non-smokers. I think it will be effective, particularly in discouraging more and more Singaporeans from ever wanting to take up the smoking habit. But so long as smoking is not completely banned in Singapore, it is reasonable to assume that smokers should be given just that little more room to breathe and to exhale. I therefore urge the Minister to implement the law flexibly, sensitively and with compassion and sympathy on this group of habitual smokers.

Mr Speaker, I am equally concerned with clause 3 (new section 3(1)(b)) which reads "any common property of any residential premises or building". What does this mean and what does it cover? I hope the Minister would clarify. The Minister in his speech also said that the Government aims to create a tobacco-free environment in Singapore. Would the Government consider banning the import of tobacco to Singapore altogether one day?

Mr Speaker, I rise to speak in support of the Bill. Dr John Chen had asked the Minister to draft a list of additional places where smoking will be prohibited. I hope when the Minister does this, he will also include hawker centres, because these will be places visited by families with children and it can be a most annoying experience to be having one's meal in front of a smoker. The question is: how do we implement this? One way of doing so is to urge hawkers or to ban them from providing ash trays. And if the smokers are so inconvenienced, they will face being served with CWOs for indiscriminate disposal of cigarette butts and cigarette ashes. The other point that I would like to raise is that while this amendment Bill provides for punishment of managers and proprietors of establishments, who do not take up complaints against smokers, it also does not give them sufficient protection against offensive smokers. While the Act, section 6(5), has provided a $1,000 fine and/or six months' jail sentence, I would also urge the Minister to consider a caning order on people who are abusive and use physical assault on managers who try to stop them from smoking. We have done this with offensive drivers and road bullies, so why can we not do it with smokers?

Mr Speaker, I thank all the speakers for their comments and support of the Bill. I presume Mr Low Thia Khiang also supports the Bill because I do not think there was any point raised against it. First of all, let me address the concerns of Dr John Chen. He made the point that the existing law is not broad or wide enough in that the places that have been gazetted do not sufficiently cover those areas of concern. Let me clarify that the current legislation already allows the Ministry to gazette open-air public places where smoking is not allowed and this includes the place that he has mentioned - the sports stadium. In other words, under the current legislation, we could gazette open-air sports stadiums as places where smoking is not allowed. However, the current legislation does not allow us to do so for air-conditioned premises, workplaces, recreational areas, and so on. Hence, the Bill that is before Parliament today. Having made that clarification, let me say that the Ministry uses three general guidelines when it comes to gazetting places where we believe that smoking ought to be banned. Firstly, they are places where families and children gather. Secondly, they are places where the majority of people who go to such places are non-smokers. There are of course establishments where for one reason or another smokers tend to congregate. I think, for obvious reasons, it is not the business of the Ministry to go and ban smoking in places where smokers want to go. Thirdly, we only gazette places which are enclosed or places where it is obviously difficult for non-smokers to get away from the smokers. In other words, it is places, for example, like air-conditioned workplaces, where it is unreasonable to expect the non-smokers to move out because the smoker wishes to have his puff. These are the broad guidelines. And within these broad guidelines we gazette specific places where smoking is prohibited. So you will notice in the notification, each and every department store where smoking is prohibited has to be named. This provides sufficient protection, as it were, to make sure that we do not willy-nilly gazette all sorts of places where smoking is to be prohibited. And this is where I think the report in the Straits Times, which created quite a lot of apprehension, and which stated that we are going to ban smoking in HDB void decks, car parks, tennis courts, and so on, was a misunderstanding and misrepresentation of Government's intention. There is no intention whatsoever for us to prohibit smoking in HDB void decks, HDB car parks, and so on and so forth. While the Act says we can prohibit smoking in public places, we have to gazette these public places. So this is a distinction that I would like to make. If we were to ban smoking in HDB car parks and in public places, that would be tantamount to banning smoking completely in Singapore. Mr Low Thia Khiang asked whether it is the intention of Government to do so. Currently, because we allow smoking, we allow the sale of cigarettes, it is not tenable for us to ban smoking in all the public places in Singapore. But there is already discussion in some countries, for example, the United States Food and Drug Administrator is already thinking or talking about prohibiting the sale of tobacco as a controlled drug. There is currently discussion going on in the United States. There is already representation made to the US Congress as to whether tobacco should be classified as a controlled drug. If and when that occurs, it follows then that tobacco sales will be restricted, and it therefore follows that smoking will not be allowed in the open. But until such time, it is not tenable, it is futile for us to ban smoking in all these places because the enforcement exercise alone will be quite unthinkable. So that is a clarification that I would like to make. Mr Chew Heng Ching, while supporting the Bill, speaks, as he says, on behalf of the small group of smokers. As I said, it is not the intention of this Bill to stop the small group of people who insist on smoking from doing so. As I have already explained, we do not have any intention of prohibiting them from smoking in HDB void decks and car parks or making it illegal for them to have a smoke as they step out of their car. So I think that fear can be allayed. But, nevertheless, let me make the point that we would like to gradually extend the areas where smokers are not allowed to smoke, where such areas are also areas frequented by non-smokers for the reasons that I have stated at the outset of my Second Reading speech, which is, that we have to protect the non-smokers from the harmful effects of tobacco smoke. So while Mr Chew would dub this Bill before Parliament as an overkill, perhaps it might be better in such an instance to have a little bit of an overkill if we are able to protect non-smokers from the obvious hazards of tobacco smoke. I think that is an overkill which I do not think any thinking Singaporean, who is a non-smoker, would object to. As far as the tourist industry is concerned, the current legislation already prohibits smoking in many of the places that are frequented by tourists. The proposed amendment to the legislation does not affect tourists in any way. It merely adds places like air-conditioned workplaces, factories, recreational areas, and so on, areas which tourists do not normally frequent. So therefore the impact of this Bill on the tourist industry is minimal. But, nevertheless, we do recognise that there is already current gazette notification of many places that tourists go to, and this is something that I think most tourists have already accepted. They know that there are places in Singapore where smoking is not allowed. There are provisions made. In restaurants, for example, there are places where if you wish to smoke, there are open-air areas that you can smoke. There are no air-conditioned restaurants in Singapore where smoking is allowed. But there are many non-air-conditioned restaurants, open-air restaurants which such tourists can visit. Mr Chew can look for such places and he can bring his businessman friends to such places. As far as sympathy is concerned, I think if we have sympathy for the smokers, it is also incumbent on the smokers to have sympathy for the non-smokers. So if they wish to smoke, please do so, but not in front of non-smokers. That is all we ask. Finally, Dr Toh Keng Kiat asked for the list of places to include hawker centres. At the moment, based on the criteria that I indicated earlier, we do not intend to include hawker centres as part of the list. It is an open-air eating area. Yes, there are many families who go there. Yes, the majority of the people are non-smokers. But I think the current design and the current operation of our hawker centres do not really lend itself to the definition that we have followed so far. So at the moment, it is not the intention of the Ministry to include hawker centres. But if there is a genuine need and if there is a demand for it, we will certainly consider to do so. As far as the National Stadium is concerned, I would like to inform the Member that the Ministry of the Environment has discussed with the Singapore Sports Council to introduce house rules for the National Stadium. We hope that these house rules which prohibit smoking, which discourage smoking in the National Stadium, will work. We have done so in certain other places, for example, in the queuing area of bus interchanges and, so far, their reports seem to indicate that the commuters are respecting these rules. So we hope that similar response will be obtained from the people who go to the National Stadium. But if it does not work that way, then my Ministry will work towards gazetting the National Stadium and other open air stadia as places where smoking is prohibited as well.

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

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Fisheries Act was first enacted in 1966 to provide for the protection and conservation of fisheries and the regulation of the fishing industry in Singapore. The Act was amended once in 1973 to increase the penalty for illegal trawling in Singapore's territorial waters. Over the past 28 years, the fishing industry has changed considerably. Following a review, my Ministry has found it necessary to amend the Fisheries Act to update it to meet the current needs of the fishing industry and to achieve more effective implementation. Over 90% of fish consumed locally is imported. The Primary Production Department (PPD) regulates imports to ensure that all imported fish are safe for consumption. The present Act contains provisions to regulate the import of fresh fish but not processed fish. Currently, the import of processed fish is administratively regulated by PPD. Processed fish may be contaminated through poor manufacturing practices, or improper handling of products. To adequately ensure that all imported fish are safe for consumption, the Bill seeks to extend the provisions of the Act to include processed fish. Mr Speaker, Sir, currently, the maximum fine for offences committed under the Act or its rules for which no special penalty is provided is $1,000. The existing composition fine is one-fifth of the maximum fine for that offence. In today's context, these fines which have not been revised since 1966 are not adequate as deterrents. For the fines to have deterrent effect, the Bill seeks to raise the maximum fine and maximum composition fine to $10,000 and $1,000 respectively. The present provisions of the Act and the prescribed penalties for offences relating to the keeping of piranhas are inadequate. Piranhas are prolific breeders which may endanger public safety and our ecology. The Bill seeks to empower the Minister for National Development to make rules pertaining to the prohibition, regulation or control of piranhas and other prescribed dangerous species of fish. Contravention of these rules will be punishable with a maximum fine of $50,000 and imprisonment up to one year. These heavy penalties are to deter any would-be offenders and will help to ensure that dangerous fish species are not illegally brought into Singapore. To facilitate enforcement of penalties, the Bill seeks to make officers of a corporation liable for an offence committed by the corporation if these officers are found to be involved in the commission of the offence. The Bill also seeks to empower the Subordinate Courts to impose a full penalty for any offence under the Act or its rules. The present Act gives fishery and police officers powers of search and seizure with respect to fishing vessels and vehicles. For more effective enforcement action, the Bill seeks to extend these powers to include any place or premises. This is necessary to enable authorised officers to search places, such as, fish farms for piranhas and other dangerous fish species, and cold storages for contaminated fish and fish products. To further facilitate investigation, the Bill also seeks to enhance the powers of authorised officers to enter and search, without warrant, any suspected place or premises. This is important because it may be necessary to seize the contaminated or illegal consignments immediately to prevent them from being removed, distributed or sold for consumption. In order to safeguard the interests of consumers and the general public, it is timely to introduce amendments to update the Fisheries Act. The Fisheries (Amendment) Bill will enable the Primary Production Department to effectively regulate the fishing industry to protect consumers and introduce stiff penalties to discourage the illegal imports of dangerous species of fish. Sir, I beg to move.

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

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That Mr Koo Tsai Kee, Mr Ling How Doong and Encik Mohamad Maidin B P M be added to the Select Committee on the Maintenance of Parents Bill." When closing the debate on the Bill, Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon proposed, and the House approved, that the Select Committee on the Maintenance of Parents Bill be made up of the Speaker as Chairman and seven other Members. However, as the Bill has provoked so much debate in this House and interest in the public, I am proposing that the Select Committee be increased by three more Members. Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That Mr Koo Tsai Kee, Mr Ling How Doong and Encik Mohamad Maidin B P M be added to the Select Committee on the Maintenance of Parents Bill - [Mr Wong Kan Seng].

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