Hansard, 1995-08-07

Under the provisions of clause 2(d) of Article 46 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, the following Members have been granted permission to be or to remain absent from sittings of Parliament (or any Committee of Parliament to which they have been appointed) for the periods stated: Mr S. Chandra Das - from 10th to 13th July and from 2nd to 4th August, 1995. Mr Lau Ping Sum - from 10th to 12th July, 1995. Mr S. Dhanabalan - on 12th July and from 26th July to 5th August, 1995. Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon - from 13th to 16th July, 1995. Dr John Chen Seow Phun - from 14th to 15th July, 1995. Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam - from 16th to 17th July and from 27th to 30th July, 1995. Mr Bernard Chen - from 16th to 25th July, 1995. Mr Choo Wee Khiang - from 17th to 27th July, 1995. Mr Chew Heng Ching - from 17th to 20th July, 1995. Mr Tan Soo Khoon - from 17th to 19th July, 1995. Mr Charles Chong - from 17th to 20th July, 1995. Prof. S Jayakumar - from 18th to 20th July and from 28th July to 3rd August, 1995. Dr Beng Kian Lam, Arthur - from 18th to 19th July and from 23rd to 28th July, 1995. Mr Davinder Singh - from 19th to 21st July and on 7th August, 1995. Dr Wong Kwei Cheong - from 19th to 21st July and from 1st to 4th August, 1995. Mr Heng Chiang Meng - from 21st to 22nd July and from 3rd to 12th August, 1995. Dr Ow Chin Hock - from 24th to 28th July, 1995. Dr Ker Sin Tze - from 24th to 31st July, 1995. Mr Peter Sung - from 24th to 30th July, 1995. Mr Matthias Yao Chih - from 25th to 30th September and from 8th to 16th October 1995. RAdm Teo Chee Hean - from 26th to 29th July, 1995. Mr Lew Syn Pau - from 27th to 28th July, 1995. Dr Yeo Ning Hong - from 28th July to 1st August, 1995. Mr Koo Tsai Kee - from 31st July to 7th August, 1995. BG George Yong-Boon Yeo - from 31st July to 8th August, 1995. Mr Goh Chee Wee - from 2nd to 5th August, 1995. Dr Lee Tsao Yuan - on 7th August, 1995. Mr Peh Chin Hua - from 11th to 16th August, 1995. Dr Ong Chit Chung - from 28th August to 1st September and from 11th to 15th September, 1995. Dr Lim Chun Leng, Michael - from 14th to 18th September, 1995. Dr Tan Cheng Bock - from 16th to 23rd September and from 9th to 15th October, 1995. TAN SOO KHOON Speaker Parliament of Singapore

The following Bills were assented to by the President of the Republic of Singapore on the date stated: 24th July, 1995 (i) Legal Aid and Advice Bill 1995; (ii) Insurance (Amendment) Bill 1995; (iii) Jurong Town Corporation (Amendment) Bill 1995; (iv) Contact Lens Practitioners Bill 1995; (v) Regulation of Imports and Exports Bill 1995; (vi) Companies (Amendment) Bill 1995; (vii) Public Utilities Bill 1995; and (viii) Land Titles (Strata) (Amendment) Bill 1995. TAN SOO KHOON Speaker Parliament of Singapore

asked the Minister for National Development whether the Main Upgrading Programme can be further stepped up in the older Housing and Development Board estates.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Main Upgrading Programme has been gradually stepped up from six to 10 precincts a year. From 1995 onwards, it will be further stepped up to 15 precincts per year. Too rapid an acceleration of the programme may result in the overheating of the building industry which, in turn, may lead to increased construction costs and lower standards of workmanship. Whether the programme can be further stepped up will thus depend on the industry's capacity to absorb the added projects. It will also depend on whether the Government is able to generate s ufficient budgetary surplus to fund the programme. The Government will also have to consider how it apportions its budget for upgrading HDB flats vis-a-vis other public programmes like MRT lines, education and health.

In spite of the Minister's answer, are there any concrete plans for the older housing estates?

Sir, at 15 precincts per year the budget for the Main Upgrading Programme is almost $1 billion. As Members of the House will know, the Government has several very large projects in the pipeline and we have to ensure that the budget is fairly and rationally apportioned among the various projects. As Members know, the North-East sector MRT line will cost us $5 billion. The Public Works Department is also looking at the underground road system which may eventually cost us $4.8 billion. Last year, we set aside $1 billion for the Edusave fund. As Members also know, we have three big hospitals under construction: the Kandang Kerbau Hospital has a budget of $300 million; the Eastern General Hospital also has a budget of $300 million; and the Tan Tock Seng Hospital has a budget of $400 million, totalling another $1 billion. So there are several big projects and the HDB's upgrading programme, with a budget of $1 billion, is already a very large programme.

asked the Minister for National Development whether there are any plans to upgrade the bus shelters in areas where new linkways have been built.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Public Works Department (PWD) has no plans to upgrade the bus shelters in areas where new linkways have been built by the Citizens' Consultative Committees (CCCs) or Town Councils using Community Improvement Projects Committee (CIPC) funds. The CCCs can apply for CIPC funding for the upgrading of such bus shelters if they meet three conditions: (1) the bus shelters must be older than 10 years. This is to ensure that public funds are not wasted through the replacement of existing shelters which are still in good condition; (2) the existing bus shelter does not blend well with the covered linkway; and (3) they have obtained approval from the PWD and other technical departments for the design of the shelters.

asked the Minister for Labour, after 1998, or when the tax exempt Central Provident Fund (CPF) contribution scheme for foreign workers ceases (whichever is the later), whether he will allow the foreign workers to withdraw their savings from their CPF account at that time without waiting till the age of 55.

Mr Speaker, Sir, existing CPF withdrawal rules allow foreign workers, except West Malaysians, to withdraw their CPF savings when they leave Singapore at the end of their employment. As for West Malaysians, they are allowed to withdraw their CPF savings at age 50, if they have not worked in Singapore for the two years prior to their application for withdrawal. Hence, foreigners, unlike Singaporean workers, need not wait till the age of 55 to withdraw their CPF savings. The Ministry has no intention to change these withdrawal rules for foreigners with CPF savings who will be exempted from mandatory CPF contributions on or before 31st December 1998. The exemption from CPF contributions does not affect savings already accumulated in their CPF accounts.

asked the Prime Minister if he will name the 47 Members of Parliament who will receive the ex-gratia payment and how many of them were Cabinet Ministers, Ministers of State, Parliamentary Secretaries and Political Secretaries.

Sir, the 47 retired Members of Parliament who will receive the "ex-gratia" payment are listed in the Annex (Cols. 1489 - 1492) which I have asked the Clerk of Parliament to distribute. Annex - MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT WHO WILL RECEIVE THE "EX-GRATIA" PAYMENT (Cols. 1489 - 1492) Of these, 20 will also receive an "ex-gratia" for their office-holder service. Ten of them last held appointment as Ministers or Deputy Prime Ministers, four as Ministers of State and six as Parliamentary Secretaries. There are some other former MPs who have held office but will not receive the office-holder "ex-gratia" because they did not have the adequate service to qualify for an office-holder pension.

Sir, would the Minister tell the House the amount of gratuity and monthly pension that they received?

Sir, the pension received by the former Ministers and MPs is paid according to a formula under the Parliamentary Pensions Act. I do not have the information here but if the Member is interested he can work it out from the service that the Member has done and find out how much a person would have got in terms of gratuity or pension.

asked the Prime Minister, as Members of Parliament who retired before 31st December 1992 will receive the ex-gratia payment, whether the Government will consider the same for civil servants who retired before 31st December 1992 instead of 1st January 1982 and, if so, how many more retired civil servants will benefit from the scheme and the additional amount involved.

Sir, the answer to the first part of the Question is "no". The civil servants will not be considered for the same kind of ex-gratia payment when they retired before 31st December 1992 instead of 1st January 1982. The reason is that it is not appropriate to compare Members of Parliament with civil servants. The retired civil servants' contribution to the political destiny of Singapore, while important, was not equal to that of the retired MPs. They did not face the same risk to their lives and limbs as the MPs who stood for and won their elections in the turbulent period from 1959 to 1965. Furthermore, pensionable civil servants have secure tenure whereas the MPs' tenure is uncertain. They may or may not be re-elected. Moreover, those civil servants who retired after 1st January 1982 would have received a higher pension because the NWC payments after this date, till 1993, were made pensionable. From 1993, NWC adjustments as well as salary revisions were made non-pensionable. Although MPs who retired before 31st December 1992 will receive the "ex-gratia" payment, the cut-off date for computing their reckonable service for the "ex-gratia" payment is 31st March 1989, and not 31st December 1992. This is because the MP's allowance was significantly revised after 31st March 1989 and the service rendered after this date had been adequately recognised.

asked the Minister for Communications why the new NTUC Comfort taxis are not equipped with the radio despatch system.

Mr Speaker, Sir, my Ministry encourages all taxi companies to fully equip their fleet with radio despatch systems. This will enable the companies to utilise and deploy their taxi fleet more efficiently to meet commuter demand. It will also cut down the need for taxi drivers to drive around looking for passengers, thereby reducing unnecessary mileage and congestion on the road. All taxi companies, including Comfort, are actively looking into upgrading or replacing their present system to a new Automated Taxi Despatch System using Global Positioning Satellites. I am told that Comfort's present despatch system is only able to serve about 3,000 taxis. Increasing the number of taxis on its present network will adversely affect the system's efficiency. When Comfort commissions its new Automated Despatch System, it will be able to equip its new taxis with the despatch system. It can also expand its despatch network to its entire fleet of 10,000 taxis.

asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that a Government-linked-company, Keppel Shipyard, offered a bribe of $144,000 to an employee of Exxon and whether he will consider ordering an investigation with a view to prosecuting the wrongdoers.

The Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau has informed the Prime Minister that it has initiated action on the matter. It would be highly prejudicial to the investigations to disclose any further details.

asked the Minister for Communications whether the report on the feasibility study of the North-East MRT line has been completed and, if so, whether that MRT line shall pass through the Potong Pasir Constituency.

Mr Speaker, Sir, MINCOM announced on 14th July 1995 that the Mass Rapid Transit Corporation (MRTC) had completed its feasibility study on the North-East line. The MRTC study is based on a 20-km line running from World Trade Centre in the south to Punggol in the north. The exact route alignment, the number and location of the stations have not been finalised. These will be settled after further discussion with the land-use planning and other relevant agencies. Mr Chiam asked whether the line would pass through Potong Pasir constituency. The answer is "yes". But the location of the station has yet to be finalised. MRTC's consultants who carried out the North-East line feasibility study had analysed various possibilities for station locations. On the possibility of having a station at Potong Pasir, this is what they had to say: `Potong Pasir is the weakest station on the North-East line. Although there are plans to develop the area near the proposed station, it will improve the viability of North-East line, if Potong Pasir station were deferred (to save) about $1 million per year.' Straits Times reported Mr Chiam on 27th July 1995 as saying apropos the North-East line that "Any decision has to be made rationally." He is right. It is a $5 billion decision which must be carefully weighed. In deciding when to proceed with the construction of the North-East line and the exact alignment and station locations, the Government will take a broad view and consider other benefits that can be derived from this investment, such as reduced travel time, and an expanded and improved public transport system. The House can expect a firm decision by the end of this year.

Sir, I thank the Minister for telling the House that the North-East line shall be passing through Potong Pasir. Can the Members view the report of the feasibility study?

Sir, the feasibility study is a technical study and it contains confidential information, eg, information concerning possible alignment of the routes, locations and so on. Under the circumstances, such information at this stage would still be considered confidential and I am not prepared to release the report at this stage.

Sir, as the MINCOM's statement has indicated that $5 billion is a huge sum to spend on the North-East line, may I ask the Minister whether he would consider a much cheaper option by having a fish-hook loop, branching off from Yio Chu Kang station of the North-South line to pass through Jalan Kayu, Kangkar, Punggol and Serangoon New Towns? And if it stops there, many of the stations would be above ground. I believe it would be much cheaper. Unfortunately, it will also have the unintended effect of bypassing Potong Pasir.

Sir, I have not actually thought about that particular alignment. But since the Member has raised the possibility, I think it will be an interesting exercise to see whether we can still serve the residents in that area and save the Government some money as well.

Sir, why is the proposed station at Potong Pasir considered a "weak" station?

Sir, at each proposed station, the consultants have taken into account the ridership; in other words, they have taken into account the catchment area around that particular station, compared with the actual cost of running and operating that station. In that sense, I believe the consultants have come to the conclusion that of all the proposed stations that they have studied, the Potong Pasir station, taking the ridership from that particular station and taking the cost of operating that station, is the weakest station on that line.

Sir, how long does the Minister expect to wait before the station can become a "strong" station so that it can be built?

Sir, at this stage, it is difficult for me to answer that question. But based on the current plans for redevelopment of that whole corridor - and this is what the study is currently based on - the ridership around that station is still not sufficient or not strong enough to warrant it being built, that is, if the consultants' recommendation is to be accepted.

Sir, to put the matter in perspective, will the Minister tell us how does this $5 billion compare to the total cost of building the present MRT line, and how many people will benefit from this North-East line?

Sir, as the MINCOM's press release pointed out, the cost of $5 billion for the North-East line is equivalent to the total cost of building the North-South-East-West line. The North-South-East-West line today carries something like 700,000-800,000 passengers per day. As a comparison, the North-East line is expected to carry something like 200,000-250,000 passengers. The cost is the same. The ridership is roughly one-third.

Sir, what is the consultants' opinion about the strength of the proposed station at Hougang Central, in terms of ridership and other factors?

It is not the weakest, Sir.

Sir, in fact, there are two pieces of vacant land at Potong Pasir Constituency adjacent to Upper Sera ngoon Road. They are in fact ready for the construction of a station. Does the Minister not think that it would be more feasible to build the station once the line is built rather than to wait later on when prices would have gone up?

Sir, I am familiar with the two pieces of land that the Member is talking about. But I think he would also realise that building a station does not depend on whether there are empty pieces of land. It also depends on many other factors, including, as I said, the catchment area around that proposed station. In any case, if he looks at the area around his constituency, he will notice that there are many other empty pieces of land which are not within the Potong Pasir constituency.

Sir, would the North-East line follow approximately the Serangoon/Upper Serangoon Roads all the way to Punggol?

Sir, as I said, at this stage, it will be premature for me to give too much details about the proposed alignment of the North-East line, for reasons which I think the Member himself is aware. In other words, there are certain confidential information pertaining to the alignment and the location which must necessarily be kept under wraps at this stage. But he asked a specific question and I attempted to answer that question to his satisfaction.

Sir, can I ask the Minister how is Braddell Heights Constituency compared to Hougang and Potong Pasir?

It is quite strong!

asked the Minister for Communications if he will give an assessment on whether the proposed land bridge link between Penang in Malaysia and Songkhla in Thailand will affect Singapore.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Malaysia's proposal for a Penang-Songkhla land bridge was raised within the Indonesia-Malaysia-Thailand Growth Triangle (IMT-GT) economic cooperation framework. We do not know at this stage the details of the project proposal. However, it is clear that the envisoned project is a massive one, and will involve substantial investments in roads, pipelines and port infrastructure. The financial viability of the project will also depend on how competitive the costs of unloading, transportation and re-loading of cargo are, in relation to the existing alternatives. As the preliminary feasibility study into the project has not yet been completed, it is too early for me to comment on the project's impact on Singapore. The land bridge project is part of a wider trend in the Asia-Pacific. With rapid economic growth, the region will continue to experience an increase in container traffic. The volume of containers handled by PSA alone has been rising at an average rate of 21% per annum between 1984 and 1994. Emerging ports in China, Indochina and as far away as the Middle East are understandably eager to compete and tap a share of the region's dynamic growth. PSA is well-positioned to grow with the region. Singapore's strength is our ability to provide the shipping community a total service capability at competitive prices. This is due to our excellent infrastructure and active investment in anticipation of future infrastructure needs, as well as our ongoing efforts to maintain high productivity growth rates. The completion of Brani Terminal, and the upgrading of Tanjong Pagar and Keppel Terminals, will meet PSA's capacity requirements fully by 1997. PSA has already begun to develop a new container terminal at Pasir Panjang which will commence operations by 1998, and eventually double PSA's total handling capacity from 16 million TEUs (Twenty-Foot Equivalent Units) to about 34 million TEUs by the year 2007. PSA is also striving to keep our international port productivity ranking at number one through skills upgrading programmes and by increasing port automation. For example, state-of-the-art equipment like Overhead Bridge Cranes and Automated Guided Vehicles are being tested for the new terminal to enhance PSA's technological edge and operational efficiency. By adopting a farsighted and proactive approach, PSA is poised and ready to meet the challenges of tomorrow.

Sir, if the land bridge project should eventually proceed, would the Minister be able to assess how much it would affect the port of Singapore?

Sir, as I indicated in my answer, it is very difficult for us at this stage to give an answer to that question. Partly, it is dependent on how much the actual cost will be incurred by operators using that route, and how much will be the comparable cost using the port of Singapore. Secondly, the pie will grow. The region is growing and it is quite possible that eventually when the land bridge is built, if it is found feasible, it is quite possible that there will be sufficient business for both the land bridge as well as the port of Singapore. But all these are hypothetical answers because, as I said, we would have to, first of all, determine whether that particular project is feasible and what are the details involved in building such a massive infrastructure.

asked the Minister for Education whether he will consider reducing class size in schools in view of a recent study by Tennessee State University in the United States which concluded that students in small classes outperform those in large classes.

Mr Speaker, Sir, research evidence on the effect of reducing class size on pupil achievement is inconclusive. While studies such as the one conducted in Tennessee favour small classes, there are other studies which suggest that small class sizes do not result in any gain in pupil achievement. Better instructional methods and the use of information technology may well result in larger achievement gains. This is an important consideration in view of our limited manpower and land. A reduction in class size will entail the recruitment of significantly more teachers and the building of more schools. We should not commit such scarce resources unless there is strong and conclusive evidence that smaller classes do in fact bring about significant gains in pupil achievement. Schools in Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and Hong Kong generally have large classes of 40 or more pupils per class. Yet they have achieved better academic performance than western countries with much smaller class sizes. In Singapore, our better and more popular schools tend to have larger class sizes than schools with declining enrolment. One reason for the smaller class sizes in western countries is their reluctance or inability to close schools which have declining enrolment.

Sir, in the March 1992 Budget debate, I raised the same issue and in his answer, the Minister referred to the US computer studies of educational achievement. He said that class size did not matter. Whereas this study shows that smaller classes will help students to perform better. The Minister says that it is inconclusive. I would like to know from the Minister whether he is saying that the report he cited earlier from the US is more conclusive than this one.

Sir, over the years, there have been many studies. I did not just cite one study. There were in fact many studies in the United States, in UK and so on. And the studies have been inconclusive in general. Some show improvements, others show no improvement or, in fact, worse performance. This particular study shows improvement. For the information of Members, the study involved a reduction of class size from 24 to 15. That means a reduction of about one-third, and they applied it to pupils in kindergarten to Grade 3, which is our Primary 3. Even then, despite the substantial reduction in class size by over a third, the achievement gains were relatively small. In our case, the norm is 40 students per class. And it may be of interest to Members that the top school in Singapore at 'O' levels, Raffles Girls School, in fact, has 40 students per class.

Sir, would the Ministry consider conducting a study in Singapore to determine whether class size does have an effect on students' performance?

Sir, a study of this nature was done a few years ago. Again, the results were inconclusive.

In Singapore?

Yes, the study was done in Singapore.

Sir, the Minister said that class size in Japan was large and yet they had good results. Does the Minister realise that they have some kind of force-feed system there? The students are sent to cram classes to force knowledge into them. In Singapore, I think we are getting near to that with the vast increase in private tuition. Is this evidence not an indictment of a large class size?

Sir, the pupils' performance depends on many factors. Of course, tuition is one factor. But it also depends on how ready the pupils are for schooling. In the United States, many of the pupils enter school not prepared for schooling at all because of the family environment. The discipline situation in the class is very poor. If a teacher spends most of his time with a few pupils who are naughty, it will be wasting the time of the other students. In our case, the pupils are generally well behaved and ready to learn. So when a teacher explains a lesson to a class of 40, it is no different from explaining to a class of, say, 30 or even 20. Of course, the marking load will be different. If we do have additional te achers, the question is whether we should deploy them to do enrichment or to reduce the marking load of some teachers, for example, those with heavy marking loads, or should we reduce the class size. Basically, we are short of teachers in Singapore. For secondary schools, we even have to recruit teachers from Australia, New Zealand, UK and so forth. So our manpower resource is very short and we should be careful not to just go for small class sizes because intuitively people feel that small class sizes are useful for learning.

Sir, just now the Minister mentioned that a study was done in Singapore on class size. Would he release the result of the study to the public?

Sir, I believe some details were released some time back. I can check on that point.

Would the Minister please confirm that the classes for the Gifted Education Programme are small and, if they are, would he please explain the rationale, if studies are not conclusive, that small class sizes help?

Sir, for the gifted pupils, who are really the cream of our young population, we are trying to do the best we can to improve their creative thinking, their ability to learn on their own, and so on. We are trying to stretch them to the best of their ability. So for this group of pupils, we employ more interactive methods where the pupils have to do project work, to discuss and defend their position in the class and so on. If you have that kind of a situation, then maybe you do need a smaller group to be effective. But when you are lecturing to a class of, say, 200 in the university, it is no different from lecturing to a class of 40. So we have to be careful about the scenario and what we are talking about in this situation.

The Minister has said that Singapore is short of teachers. So the reason for not reducing the class size is in fact the shortage of teachers and probably the shortage of buildings and a lack of other facilities. It is not the educational fact that teachers can in fact teach more effectively in smaller classes.

Sir, the shortage of teachers is clearly an important consideration, but it is not the key factor. If need be, we can try and hire more teachers. The point is whether it is worthwhile putting all those resources into the education system by reducing class sizes. For example, if we were to reduce the class size from an average of 40 to an average of 30, it means that we have to increase the teaching workforce by one-third; from 20,000 to about 27,000. If we halve the class size, it means going up from 20,000 to 40,000. So it is a big question mark as to where we are going to find those teachers. But that is not the key point. The key point is that we must be sure that it is worth investing those resources. With the use of information technology, you have self-paced learning and the additional teachers could be used for enrichment. For example, in the case of RGS, which I have mentioned, it is an independent school, it has stuck to the class size of 40. It uses the additional resources for enrichment and it can use the additional teachers to lighten the loads in certain subjects like English where the marking load is high. There are other independent schools which have reduced the class sizes. Lately, they have been going back again closer to 40, because it is very costly to reduce class size, and yet the benefits are not evident.

Just now the Minister admitted that for an interactive method of teaching and creative thinking, you would probably need a smaller class size. In view of the recent MOE's policy on the teaching methods and that we should encourage creative thinking, would it be justified for the Ministry to review the class size of schools in Singapore by reducing the present class size from, say, 40 to 30?

It is true that if you want to be more effective in teaching certain things, you need to have different arrangements. For example, in universities, you have lectures for 200, 300 or even bigger numbers, and then you break them up into smaller groups for tutorials. So when we try to inculcate creative thinking, we have to do it in various ways. For example, we have to try and structure the curriculum and the contents to emphasize on the project work, problem solving, learning for themselves through the use of computers. So it does not follow that we should therefore go for smaller class sizes. It will be a factor to be considered. But until we are convinced that there is a need, we should not go that way.

Would the Minister agree that RGS is not an ideal example of looking at class size because the students are very good? So would the Minister agree that in some of the neighbourhood schools, to give value added, it might be useful for the students who come from ordinary homes to have more inter-active teaching with a smaller class size?

If we study the schools that have added value, we will find that many of them have big class sizes. They tend to be more popular. So the schools tend to try to admit more pupils. The class size per se is not an important factor. It is more a question of the teaching methods, how dedicated the teachers are, do they come back for remedial lessons and so on. By changing class size, you are going to commit a lot of manpower resources. Unless we are sure that it is worthwhile, we should not do it.

Does the Minister agree that in fact class sizes of 40 to 43 are counter-productive because the teachers in such big classes are overworked. They cannot teach effectively.

As I have explained, Sir, it depends on the subject and it depends on the situation. When you have prepared your lecture notes and you teach a class of 40 and they are all paying attention, it does not make much difference whether you are teaching 30 or 40. Maybe you have to raise your voice a bit louder because the class room is bigger. Of course, you have to mark books. There will be more books to mark. So it varies with the subject. Certain subjects like English, yes, maybe there is a heavier marking load, and maybe more individual attention is needed. So when we do have manpower resources, we should deploy them in an optimum manner, and not just by reducing class sizes across-the-board, but maybe by having a lower work load for those subjects with a heavy marking load. So it depends on a lot of factors.

asked the Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs, in view of a recent case which ruled that the High Court had no jurisdiction over the Syariah Court on matrimonial property settlement cases, what action is being taken to resolve the situation.

asked the Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs if he will give an update on the progress made to review the Administration of Muslim Law Act (AMLA).

Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission, I would like to take Question Nos. 11 and 12 together and to reply in Malay.

All right.

( In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, the recent High Court ruling concerns one Mdm Salijah Abdul Latef. She had applied to the High Court for a Declaration that she was the owner of her matrimonial home. The basis of her application was the ruling of the Syariah Court which ordered that she be given her matrimonial home on her divorce from her husband in 1993. If Mdm Salijah succeeds in obtaining the Declaration and if her husband continues to refuse to sign the papers transferring the property to her, then the Registrar of the Supreme Court would be empowered to sign the transfer papers. In doing so, the Registrar would be carrying out the order of the High Court, not that of the Syariah Court. I wish to inform the Member that an appeal has been lodged against the decision of the Judge concerning the case of Mdm Salijah. It will be premature for MCD to comment further on this matter until the legal position is conclusively settled. Until then, persons in the same position as Mdm Salijah should seek legal advice on alternative means to give effect to the orders of the Syariah Court. On Dr Soin's question, besides looking into how AMLA could be amended to deal with cases such as Mdm Salijah's, I wish to inform the Member that the Ministry of Community Development, in consultation with the Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura, the Syariah Court, and the Registry of Muslim Marriages, is also conducting a general review of the Administration of Muslim Law Act. Some of the subjects being reviewed are: (a) Strengthening MUIS's position on the regulation of Haj matters and on the issue of Halal certificates; (b) The provisions in the Administration of Muslim Law Act relating to the financial management of the Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura; (c) The need for the Syariah Court to call for a report or advice from a person trained or experienced in child welfare when the Court deals with matters related to custody or maintenance of a child; (d) Enhancing MUIS's role in dealing with deviant teachings. Many of these issues require detailed and careful study. This involves looking into the laws, practices and experiences in other countries and procedural and enforcement matters. References to the Fatwa Committee have also to be made on matters which require religious rulings.

( In Malay): May I ask the Minister responsible for Muslim Affairs whether past cases, that is, cases before the Salijah matter, will be affected by the recent High Court ruling? May I also ask what alternatives we should offer to those in the same position as Mdm Salijah? Should we wait for the outcome of the appeal or are there other avenues? Could the Minister please elaborate?

( In Malay): Mr Speaker, as regards the past cases, their position will not change following the outcome of the Salijah Abdul Latef's case.

( In Malay): What advice can we offer to those who are in the same position as Mdm Salijah?

( In Malay): As I said, they can await the outcome of the matter before the Court of Appeal. They can also seek advice from their lawyers as to the best way to proceed with their cases.

( In Malay): This concerns the Islamic Religious Council of Singapore with regard to AMLA. Could the Minister inform the House when the study would be completed and when the Bill would be tabled before the House?

( In Malay): Mr Speaker, actually the review is almost completed and is only awaiting the outcome of the Salijah case. When the question is resolved, we shall take the appropriate steps where AMLA is concerned.

Order. On behalf of hon. Members, I welcome His Excellency Mr H Wahono, Speaker of the House of Representatives of the Republic of Indonesia, and his delegation who are present in our Gallery. [Applause].

asked the Minister for National Development yhow the Housing and Development Board (HDB) ensures the quality of the repair to spalling concrete and how it determines whether defects in HDB flats are caused by natural deterioration of building material over time or due to poor workmanship during construction.

Mr Speaker, Sir, HDB ensures a high quality of repair works to spalling concrete by adopting repair methods and approved materials which adhere to stringent international standards. HDB uses a pool of competent local contractors who employ trained workmen to carry out the repair works. HDB also conducts systematic on-site supervision and carries out random testing of materials used to ensure that these high standards are met. Spalling concrete defects are usually caused by natural deterioration of building materials, misuse or under-maintenance. All building materials deteriorate over time. Spalling concrete is due to a natural deterioration process called carbonation. HDB's trained technical staff is able to determine the cause of defects by carrying out both on-site as well as laboratory tests.

Sir, is the Minister aware that the same problem of spalling concrete recurred again after it was repaired by the HDB's contractor and will HDB provide a warranty period after the repair?

If a section of the ceiling affected by spalling concrete has been repaired by HDB's term contractors, it comes with a warranty. And if there is a failure in the repair method, the contractor will have to go back and make good the repair. This is very rare because the method of repair is a standardised method. The material they used has got chemical bonding as well. So the chance of recurrence of defects after the repair is very, very slim. If Members have specific cases, they can write to HDB's branch office and the contractor will be required to re-do the job. But I can assure Members of this House that any repair method by HDB's term contactors generally does not fail a second time.

Sir, how long is the warranty period?

I do not have the specific warranty period. But if any residents face defects in the area that has been repaired by HDB's term contractors, I think they should just refer the case to the branch office and it will take steps to remedy the situation. But, again, I assure Members that this is not a big situation, and that is why I do not have the numbers.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I hope the Minister will make public the warranty period provided by the HDB for repairs to spalling concrete. Sir, would the HDB admit that the possible cause of spalling concrete is due to BRC reinforcement insufficiently supported by spaces or the displacement of spaces during the construction stage which resulted in improper concrete coverage and, under the circumstances, there is no proper bonding and corrosion-resistant to the reinforcement? I think that could be the cause of the spalling concrete over time.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as I said, whenever there is a case of spalling concrete, HDB's technical officers will go to the site to inspect. Generally, if the spalling concrete occurs in small patches, then it is not likely to be a workmanship problem because such a problem is either due to poor spacing or lack of coverage by concrete has to be over an extended area for that poor workmanship to take effect. Generally, spalling concrete occurs in the wet areas, for example, kitchens or toilets, because the higher rate of moisture and carbon dioxide results in the deterioration of the concrete much faster than in other areas, for example, the sitting rooms or bedrooms. That is why all home owners must maintain the kitchen and toilet areas more regularly than the other areas. A typical mistake of most Singaporeans is that they will paint their house once every three or four years and they treat the bedroom area in the same manner as the kitchen area. I think this ought to be changed. It is more prudent to paint the ceilings of your kitchen and toilet more regularly rather than wait till you are painting the whole house. The Member mentioned that if the spacing between the reinforced bars is insufficient, then spalling concrete will occur. That is possible, ie, the thinner the concrete cover, the greater the chances that carbonisation will take place and the quicker the moisture will reach the steel bars, therefore causing corrosion and spalling concrete. So if it is a widespread spalling concrete, HDB's technical officers will take a look and check whether the concrete cover is according to the design criteria. If it is according to design, then obviously there is no workmanship problem. But in very rare cases where the spaces are not followed, then it could cause spalling, in which case, the defect will be very widespread. Again, this is very, very infrequent.

Would the HDB make public its detailed specifications on concrete for construction, the required space in between the steel bars and things like that?

I think specifications on the spacing of reinforcement bars and concrete coverage are generally available in the design code and in the tender specifications of HDB contracts. These are standard requirements in all HDB contracts.

Is the Minister saying that if it is proven that the space is insufficient as required or does not comply with the specifications, the HDB will repair the spalling concrete free of charge?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the way we have structured the spalling concrete co-payment system takes care of this. If it is a case of poor workmanship, we will expect the spalling concrete to occur over a very wide area. In this scheme to co-pay for the repairs to the defects, HDB has put a cap of $300 to be paid by the residents. This means that if it is a widespread area and probably due to workmanship problem, then the residents only pay up to $300 and the rest will be covered by HDB.

The Minister confirms that this problem of carbonisation is common among all buildings in Singapore and not just HDB flats. In relation to the total number of flats built by the HDB, how does this problem of spalling concrete compare in the private sector?

Spalling concrete as a result of carbonisation affects all concrete buildings, both public as well as private homes. In HDB's case, because we take greater care in the maintenance of the buildings and the residents have recourse to report such cases to the HDB's branch office, we capture the statistics more regularly. The private homes do not have to make this report. If they see spalling concrete, they just go and hire a contractor and repair it. Therefore, the Ministry has got no data on spalling concrete in private homes. There is no requirement that they report to us. If they report to us, we are not going to pay for them. But in HDB's case, we over-indulge in looking after HDB flats. They call on us and we help them find term contractors or we pay. That is why we collect these statistics. It is a common occurrence. It happens in my own house and we have to paint and repair it. I do not go and call the HDB's branch office.

Sir, in other words, the Minister says that in the case of private homes, beyond the defects liability period, owners are supposed to carry out repairs on their own.

The Member is absolutely right. In private homes, you have a one-year defect liability period during which the developer will make good any defects discovered during that period. Beyond that one year, you have to make good any defects that occur in your homes. In HDB's case, after 20 years, if you have a spalling concrete problem, you report to the branch office, HDB's technical officers will still come to your house, take a look, and advise you what to do.

Sir, if there is spalling concrete in HUDC flats, would the HDB repair the spalling concrete before they are privatised?

The answer is no.

asked the Minister for National Development, under the new sales procedure for Housing and Development Board shops, what is the rationale for having prior feedback from the Citizens' Consultative Committee (CCC) and what are the criteria used by CCC advisers for the selection of shops for sale.

Mr Speaker, Sir, feedback from CCCs is useful because CCCs are familiar with local conditions such as the needs of the residents and shopkeepers in the constituencies. As such, they will be able to make good recommendations and also explain to the people why certain shops were selected for sale. HDB does not specify the criteria that must be used by Advisors to CCC for the selection of shops. It is likely that the Adv isors will look for groups of shops which give good service to the residents and where the shopkeepers are prepared to restructure their operations to increase their productivity in line with the objectives of the sale of tenanted shops.

asked the Minister for Labour if he will explain (i) the need to exempt men cabin crew and women passenger relations staff of the Singapore Airlines Limited from the Retirement Age Act; (ii) whether applications for exemption from other relevant businesses based on youthful looks for maintaining competitiveness will be considered as an adequate ground; and (iii) whether such ad hoc exemptions will undermine the spirit and intent of the law.

Mr Speaker, Sir, while the basic objective of the Retirement Age Act is to provide opportunities for Singaporeans and Permanent Residents to work up to 60 and beyond, the implementation of the law must not undermine the operational efficiency and competitiveness of companies. The airline industry is a highly competitive industry. It is common among airlines, particularly those in the Asia-Pacific region, to adopt a business strategy which projects a youthful and dynamic image to maintain and enhance their competitiveness. This strategy includes the deployment of younger personnel to provide in-flight passenger services and the maintenance of a newer fleet of aircraft. To ensure that the Retirement Age Act does not undermine the competitiveness of our airline industry and ultimately the interest of all airline employees, cabin crew has been exempted from the Act on an industry-wide basis. The exemption is applicable to both male and female cabin crew engaged by airlines in Singapore to provide in-flight passenger services. In the case of SIA, the company has also applied to the Ministry for the exemption of its Passenger Relations Officers who provide liaison services to passengers in Changi Airport VIP lounges. For the same reasons mentioned earlier, we have also exempted them from the Act. In granting the exemptions, the Ministry has also encouraged companies to, as far as possible, retain and re-deploy exempted employees to other suitable positions within the company upon their retirement. Regarding Dr Soin's second question, Sir, I would like to assure her that MOL will consider youthfulness as a ground for exemption only when there is a clear need for the company to project a youthful image to help promote its products or services. For example, we have approved a cosmetic company's application to exempt its Beauty Advisors from the Act in view of the company's need to employ young sales personnel to promote their products. My Ministry will scrutinise all such applications carefully to ensure that employers are not deliberately using youthfulness as a ploy to get around the fundamental objective of the Retirement Age Act. On Dr Soin's third question, Sir, I wish to point out that the Ministry takes into consideration a wide range of factors including the nature of the businesses, requirements of the jobs, safety of the workers, employment practices and industry norms. This is to ensure that exemptions are granted only when there are strong and valid grounds for the Ministry to do so. Exemptions granted to companies will therefore not undermine the spirit and intent of the law.

Sir, would the Minister agree that in the long run it will be better to build our competitiveness on grounds of safety, efficiency rather than youthful looks and that as a general rule, the Minister would advise industries that depend on youthful looks to change their strategies in the long run?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do agree that in the long run we should always try to compete by way of having higher quality workers, more skilful workers, and by offering a better quality service. But the fact of the case is that today, as it stands, the airline industry in particular faces tremendous competition and the competitors that SIA has to face are not subject to the same regulation of having to employ their cabin crew right up to the age of 60. So if we were to enforce this requirement on SIA right now, it will be unnecessarily hampering SIA's ability to compete successfully in the international market. 1.30 pm

Order. End of Question time. [Pursuant to Standing Order No. 21(3), Question Nos. 16-18 have been postponed to the next sitting of Parliament.]

"to amend the Singapore Academy of Law Act (Chapter 294A of the 1989 Revised Edition) and to make consequential amendments to the Notaries Public Act (Chapter 208 of the 1985 Revised Edition) and the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Chapter 322 of the 1985 Revised Edition)", presented by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Law (Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

"to amend the Income Tax Act (Chapter 134 of the 1994 Revised Edition)", recommendation of President signified; presented by the Minister for Finance (Dr Richard Hu Tsu Tau); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

"to amend the Currency Act (Chapter 69 of the 1992 Revised Edition)", presented by Dr Richard Hu Tsu Tau; read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Under the current Central Provident Fund Act, the Government may credit a cash grant only to the Ordinary Account of a CPF member. Sir, the Prime Minister has, during the Parliament sitting of 7th July 1995, announced the Pre-Medisave Top-Up Scheme for all Singapore citizens aged 61 and above on 1st of April 1995. The intention of this scheme is for the Government to make grants ranging from $300 to $1,050 to older Singaporeans who retired before or soon after the CPF Medisave Scheme was announced in April 1984. This will help older Singaporeans build up their Medisave savings to meet increased medical expenditure in old age. It is, therefore, necessary to amend the Act to allow cash grants to be paid directly to the Medisave Account. Clause 2 of the Bill seeks to do this by allowing cash grants to be credited to any CPF account as the Minister may direct. Sir, the existing section 14(2) of the CPF Act provides that cash grants may only be withdrawn if it is explicitly provided for under regulations made under section 77. However, not all CPF withdrawal regulations are made under this section. For instance, regulations on MediShield are made under section 57. Thus, cash grants paid by the Government under the Pre-Medisave Top-Up Scheme cannot be withdrawn for MediShield under regulations made under section 57. To rectify this, clause 2 of the Bill amends section 14(2) to allow any cash grant to be withdrawn in accordance with provisions of the Act or any regulations made under the Act. Mr Speaker, Sir, under the Revised Minimum Sum Scheme, CPF members who do not have sufficient CPF savings to set aside the full Minimum Sum at age 55 are required to top up the shortfall with future CPF contributions. They do so when they subsequently apply for withdrawal on or after every third anniversary. Clause 3 of the Bill introduces section 18A to allow CPF members to transfer their Ordinary Account savings to top up their Retirement Accounts at any time after age 55. Members will recall that the Minister for Finance had approved the payment of an additional 1.25% interest above the normal CPF interest for savings in the Special Account. This was implemented on 1st July 1995. Clause 3 of the Bill will enable members to take advantage of the higher interest rate payable on savings in the Retirement Account, thus further enhancing their old-age savings. Sir, about 1.4 million CPF members had bought Singapore Telecom (ST) `A' shares with their CPF savings under the national share ownership scheme. Of these, about one million of them did not buy any other shares with their CPF savings. Other than the ST `A' shares, many older CPF members may possess no other shares. Existing CPF nomination rules cover only the distribution of cash savings in the CPF account of a deceased CPF member, and not shares bought with CPF savings. As a result, such shares belonging to a deceased CPF member will be disposed of as the estate of the deceased. This estate will be distributed in accordance with the will of the deceased or, in the absence of a will, the intestate succession law. Where the ST `A' shares form the entire non-cash estate, disposing the shares by either way will be tedious and not cost-effective. This is particularly so for low-income CPF members where their families may have to incur cost and wait a long time for the shares to be distributed. Sir, to save CPF members the trouble and cost, clause 5 of the Bill introduces a new section 26A to extend the nomination provision to cover the disposal of shares or class of shares that the Minister may designate. If any nominees are unable to receive the shares, the CPF Board will also be empowered to sell the shares and pay the nominees their proceeds. The Government has decided that only ST `A' shares and other similar shares sold by the Government under the national share ownership scheme will be designated for disposal in this way. This is because such shares had been treated differently right from the start. For instance, ST `A' shares were bought only with CPF savings without requiring CPF members to meet the criteria of the CPF Basic or Enhanced Investment Schemes. CPF members also did not need to open an Investment Account to buy the shares. Furthermore, the ST `A' shares are held under a block account with the Central Depository Pte Ltd (CDP), and not in the individual names of members. As for ST `B' shares and other securities bought with CPF savings under the CPF Investment Schemes, they will continue to be disposed of as estates of the deceased, as is the current practice. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

May I seek clarification from the Minister, Sir? I would like to know whether, with this Amendment Bill, Singaporeans who do not have an existing CPF account will still need to pay $50 to open an account so that they will qualify for the top-up in their Medisave account.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if a member does not have a CPF account and he wants to qualify for the Pre-Medisave Top-Up Scheme, then the first thing he has to do is to open a CPF account. The next thing is to put in a co-payment of $50 to qualify for the top-up for that year. In other words, for the next three years, if a person wants to qualify for the annual top-up, he must pay $50 a year into his own CPF account.

A further clarification, Sir. Is $50 a requirement under the scheme, or is it a minimum requirement to open a CPF account?

Mr Speaker, Sir, there is no minimum requirement to open a CPF account. In fact, we are welcoming Singaporeans who do not have a CPF account to just fill up a CPF application form. They need not even have to put in any amount for a start. But if they want to qualify for all the various top-up schemes, they will have to deposit their co-payment.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the Bill. My only question for the Minister is: in the disposal of shares in which the prices vary from day to day, how are the interests of CPF nominees protected in the event of disposal of the shares?

Mr Speaker, Sir, if the shares have to be disposed of by sale, which means the nominees are unable to receive the shares, for instance, when the nominee is a minor, a bankrupt, or a person of unsound mind, then the CPF Board will have to sell the shares and pay the proceeds from the sale to the nominees. They will have to take the nearest available date or the most opportune time to sell the shares regardless of the price of the shares at that point in time. The whole purpose of this amendment is to expedite the distribution of CPF assets to the member's nominees. Therefore, the sale will be made as soon as it is administratively possible.

May I remind hon. Members that this is no longer Question Time. We are debating the Bill and the rules governing the debate will have to apply.

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

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, in March this year, during the Budget debate, I explained to this House that, in order to support economic growth, we need an efficient transport system that can allow both people and goods to move freely. Strong growth over the years has enabled many Singaporeans to own cars and many more to desire to own one. Most people accept that this desire must be tempered by the reality that ours is a small country, with limited land which has many competing uses. The challenge facing us is how we can meet the rising expectations of Singaporeans for better mobility, given these constraints and in a way which can be sustained in the long run. In my statement, I spelt out a series of measures that the Government would take to meet this challenge, including extending the range of public transport services, upgrading their quality of service, and managing private vehicle usage to sustain a higher vehicle population. To coordinate all these efforts, I announced that the Government would set up a new statutory board. The Bill before the House today is to establish the legislative framework for this new board which will be called the Land Transport Authority. The Land Transport Authority, or LTA for short, will integrate the functions of planning, development, implementation and management of all public and private transport infrastructure and policies. Hitherto, these functions have been carried out by different agencies such as the Ministry of Communications, Ministry of National Development, ROV, MRTC, URA and PWD. There is a need for greater coordination between planning for private and public transport infrastructure, formulation of vehicle restraint policies, as well as evaluation of trade-offs between alternative infrastructure and policy options. A single integrated agency, given the mission and the responsibility of meeting the nation's needs, will be better able to undertake these functions. LTA will be able to ensure that transport projects and measures undertaken complement each other in the most effective and cost efficient manner. This in turn will help us achieve an optimal national transport system, holistically designed, as one total system, providing better service to commuters and value-for-money for the nation. The LTA will be formed by merging the present Roads and Transportation Division of PWD, the Registry of Vehicles, the Land Transport Division of the Ministry of Communications and the Mass Rapid Transit Corporation. Earlier, I had announced that the MRTC would be merged with the LTA within two years. I have decided to merge MRTC with the LTA when it is formed rather than later. This is to allow the new organisation to settle down to work as quickly as possible without being distracted by further changes down the road. We are targeting to establish the LTA on 1st September 1995. To constitute the LTA, we need to enact three Bills - the Land Transport Authority of Singapore Bill, the Rapid Transit Systems Bill and the Street Works Bill. All three Bills are now before the House. Currently, the entities forming LTA administer their respective Acts and subsidiary legislation. The Road Transportation Division of PWD administers the Local Government Integration Act, the rules in the Planning Act dealing with provision of car parks as well as the Parking Places Act. ROV administers part of the Road Traffic Act while MRTC administers the Mass Rapid Transit Corporation Act. As the Local Government Integration Act is outdated, it has been reviewed and is now being replaced by a new Street Works Act to be administered by LTA. MRTC will be merged with LTA by repealing the MRTC Act and replacing it with a new Rapid Transit Systems Act. Rather than subsume the legislation administered by the different entities into a large and complicated legislation, we have decided to enact the LTA Act as the umbrella Act empowering the statutory board to administer the various legislation. Sir, I now move on to the key aspects of the Bill. LTA's Board of Directors will have not more than 15 members, including the Chairman. The Minister may appoint a Deputy Chairman, and the Chairman can also appoint any member of the Board as Acting Chairman to cover his duties when he is away. The Board will seek the Minister's approval for the appointment of the Chief Executive of LTA. The Minister will consult the Public Service Commission before granting his approval. The key functions of LTA are to plan, construct, manage and maintain the various components of the land transport system, including roads, MRT, LRT and other transit systems and commuter facilities. LTA will also implement, operate and maintain traffic management and control systems to optimise use of our roads. It will advise the Government on the land transport system including the fees and taxes to be levied for the efficient functioning of the system. LTA will take over all existing functions and powers of ROV, RTD and MRTC, including their licensing and regulatory roles. These functions and powers will continue to be governed by the Road Traffic Act, Street Works Act, Planning Act, Parking Places Act and Rapid Transit Systems Act, but under the ambit of LTA. LTA will also have powers, inter alia, to form and participate in any joint ventures and set up subsidiaries. It will be empowered to collect fees and charges for services rendered to external parties, and it will have powers to make legislation governing its operations, with the approval of the Minister. With regard to how the LTA will be financed, Government will continue to fund the construction of all public and private land transport infrastructure projects. LTA may, with the approval of the Ministry of Finance, also raise money through borrowings to finance these projects. However, the repayment of instalments and interest will be met by Government. To fund its own operations and programmes, LTA will be allowed to retain certain revenue streams which are listed in the Second Schedule of the Bill. These comprise mainly the vehicle registration fees, administrative fees and composition fines. LTA will continue to collect fees like ARF, COE premium, ALS and RPS fees, and VEP fees on behalf of Government. In return for these services, LTA will be given a management fee by the Ministry of Finance. The revenue streams and management fee will be just enough for LTA to finance all aspects linked to the planning, maintenance and management of the land transport system. LTA's annual surplus is expected to be modest, in the region of $5-$10 million. This will allow LTA to meet any unexpected contingency or fund very minor development projects such as improvements to walkways and commuter facilities. In addition, LTA will only be allowed to invest its funds in accordance with the provisions of the Trustees Act, but may seek the Minister's approval for investment in other instruments. Currently, the MRTC Act provides for a Compensation Board to assess claims by members of the public for damages to their property arising from construction work carried out by the MRTC. The Compensation Board will now be provided for in the LTA Act and its role expanded to include claims arising from tunnelling works for the construction of road tunnels, eg, the Underground Road System which will be carried out under the Street Works Act. Procedures for the assessment and award of compensation and the proceedings of the Board are basically the same as those which are currently laid down under the MRTC Act. Provisions have been made in the Bill for assets, interests, rights, privileges, liabilities and obligations of ROV, RTD and the Land Transport Division of MINCOM to be transferred to LTA. Government will continue to retain ownership of infrastructure assets like roads and bridges, while the LTA will keep and manage the operating assets such as traffic lights. Staff working in the various agencies will be transferred at terms no less favourable than those they are currently enjoying. The pension rights of existing pensionable officers will be preserved. LTA will need to have an enforcement unit of sufficient size and given sufficient powers to enforce its rules and regulations. Currently, ROV relies on seconded police officers to carry out its enforcement functions. It is not feasible for the LTA to establish its own auxiliary police force, and we will continue with the present practice of seconding police officers to LTA for as long as possible. However, provisions have been included for the Authority to establish its own enforcement unit should the need arise in future. The Bill also contains provisions for consequential amendments to be made to the Road Traffic Act, Parking Places Act and section 30(2)(e) of the Planning Act to bring them under the ambit of the LTA Act. With the Parking Places Act brought under its ambit, the LTA will be the authority to license and/or to regulate the provisions of car parks as part of its overall land transport programme. The LTA, in consultation with the Minister, will set the charges for car parks used for public parking, including HDB season car park rates. URA and HDB will continue to provide and manage public car parks under their charge. Sir, the formation of the LTA is a significant milestone in the Government's efforts to keep Singapore and Singaporeans on the move in a way that recognises the rising expectations of our people. With better mobility, we enhance our economic efficiency and we sustain growth. At the same time, we improve our quality of life. This, in a nutshell, is LTA's mission. The Bill before the House sets out the legislative framework for the LTA to carry out its mission. With the support and understanding of all Singaporeans, I am confident that we will be able to rise to the challenge and give ourselves the best transport system that we deserve. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill would merge four existing departments, viz, MINCOM'S Land Transport Division, PWD's Road and Transportation Department, ROV and MRTC into one single entity. As the Minister put it in his speech, the vision is for the Land Transport Authority (LTA) to plan and develop infrastructure for land transport of Singapore as a total system. For new satellite towns and commercial developments, for instance, this will be done as an integral part of town planning together with HDB and URA. In other words, transportation is built into the system even before the housing units are constructed. The objective is to move people around using various modes of public transportation as seamlessly as possible. Roads and LRT/MRT tracks will be designed to serve people in a more user friendly manner. Intermodal transfer between bus and train will be seamless and a great improvement over the situation today. For instance, one could visualise stepping off a train, and stepping right onto a bus across the platform or vice versa. It will be a complete departure from the conventional view of building land transport infrastructure as captured in the Chinese proverb: ( ), which means that the road exists because people walk there. In the conventional method, a road is built if there is enough traffic. An MRT line is constructed if there are enough passengers to justify its viability. Transportation infrastructure, in the conventional approach, is an after-thought. Sir, the new approach, to borrow a term from the business arena, is a paradigm shift. I dare say that this is an innovation in legislation, probably never attempted elsewhere in the world. This demonstrates the calibre of our Cabinet and, in particular, the vision of the Minister. Furthermore, this legislation calls for the merger of four Government departments from two Ministries with their own well-defined turfs. In other countries, inter-Ministry rivalry and civil servants' instinctive protection of their turf would have killed the Bill. I am glad that in Singapore, we have civil servants who are prepared to forgo departmental interests for the greater interest of the nation. I think this House should acknowledge these civil servants for their selfless dedication in supporting this Bill. Mr Speaker, Sir, as it is currently constituted, the LTA will keep only a small portion of the revenue to maintain its operation but the larger amount of revenue collected such as road taxes, COE quota premium and in future usage fees, such as Electronic Road Pricing, will continue to be transferred to the Consolidated Fund. As the Minister said, to fund other infrastructure development, we might have to borrow money in the open market. This, to me, is still reflective of the old mentality in the operation of the land transport system. To me, Sir, the paradigm shift I mentioned earlier is incomplete. What are the problems of the existing approach? There are many. The key one is that each sector of the land transport system is considered distinct and separate from the rest. In other words, private vehicles are considered private vehicles. Public transportation is public transportation. They are managed separately even though they share the same infrastructure. How do we address the problem of too many vehicles on the road? The COE system is introduced to control the number. Motorists pay large amounts of money for the right to register their vehicles. What has happened to the money they pay? They are transferred to the Consolidated Fund. In effect, it becomes a new source of tax revenue when it was not meant to be. Worse still, under the provision of the Elected President, which is meant to safeguard our reserve, the COE money ultimately becomes part of the reserve, especially after the current term of the Government when Parliament is dissolved. It gets locked away and becomes unavailable, even to the same Prime Minister in the new Government to tap for land transportation system improvements. This can be problematic, Sir, since land transportation solution such as MRT lines and LRT lines would typically take more than five years to plan and build. From the private vehicle owner's point of view, acquiring a COE today becomes an exercise of his ability to bump another fellow Singaporean off the car ownership queue. Is the money he contributed used to relieve the constant pressure of ever-rising COE prices in future? No, Sir. When the person goes back to the COE market a few years down the road, he has still to go through the same treadmill. He does not see his COE money being used to provide relief to car ownership. Another problem of sectorisation is the justification of new bus routes, MRT lines and LRT lines. For instance, before a new MRT line is built, such as the North-East line, its viability is analyzed and considered on its own in isolation to the rest of the MRT system. On the other hand, Sir, bus companies are supposed to average the revenue from all money-making as well as money-losing routes to meet their social obligations to the commuting public. So that leaves one to wonder why different principles are applied to different sectors. Why is the North-East line considered in isolation and not as part of the total MRT system? If we apply the same principle to the MRT as we apply to the bus companies, the question we should ask is whether the SMRT will remain profitable in operating the whole system including the North-East line? Mr Speaker, Sir, in operating the land transportation system, the Government is adopting an approach of piecemeal optimisation in the belief that the summation of all these piecemeal optimal solutions would result in a globally optimal solution. Sir, I would surmise that this might not be true. The LTAS Bill provides us with a good opportunity today to address this problem of sectorisation. We should consider the operation as well as the planning of the land transportation system as a total system. We should allow the paradigm shift, I mentioned earlier, initiated by this Bill to go all the way. What do I mean by that? I suggest that we do not look at private vehicles and public transportation as separate and unrelated modes of moving people around. Instead, they are actually alternatives people choose based on their own preference of balancing cost versus convenience. Sir, I surmise that this is a very different approach. In this case, the land transportation system would be viewed as a total system. As long as the whole system is viable, it should be acceptable if part of the system makes money and the other part loses money. Of course, we must ensure that in subsidising one sector against the other, we would not encourage dependency and unbridled consumption. Therefore, if we look at the system as a whole, it is viable or feasible to use COE money to improve the public transportation system such as building new MRT lines and LRT lines. I am also sure that all car owners would be quite happy to see their money being used this way to relieve the pressure of future COE price increases. Hence, I would advocate that Government allows the LTA to function much like the other statutory bodies in the Ministry of Communications, such as the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS) and the Port of Singapore Authority (PSA) in keeping more of the revenue in the land transportation system within the Authority. In the case of CAAS and the PSA, these organisations have used their resources wisely to improve their infrastructure to the benefit of Singapore. Today, we have the best airport and the best port in the world. They have also used the resources to plan for the future without having to justify every project on its own viability. For instance, when PSA proceeds with its plan to construct the new container port, it utilises more than $7 billion from its cash reserve. If we were to apply the same principle to PSA and ask it to justify the new container port on its own viability, it is possible that the new container port would be deferred for several years. Perhaps it is easy to rationalise the operation of the airport and the port as the CAAS and PSA manage crucial entry points into Singapore by air and by sea. The efficiency of the management of these is also important to the economic development of Singapore. They are also centralised at certain locations. It is perhaps less easy to visualise land transportation in the same manner. For one thing, the resources of land transportation are distributed throughout Singapore. For another, land transport serves mainly Singaporeans in their daily commute. However, Sir, if one takes a helicopter view, one can visualise the distributed network of roads and railroads in exactly the same manner as the airport and the port. Furthermore, as the Minister has just said, the Government has always justified the measure to keep our roads free flowing on the economic ground that it is an important infrastructure in Singapore. So I would suggest that the visualization I propose is only one additional small step forward. Sir, I believe we should set up the LTA in the same mode as CAAS and the PSA, to plan, build and operate the land transportation system. We should give it the mandate and enough resources to build the land transportation system of tomorrow. As land transportation touches the life of every Singaporean every day, this Bill is likely to be one of the most important Bills introduced in this House. I support the Bill. I am proud that we have a visionary in the Minister. I am also proud that our civil servants are prepared to give up their own turf for greater interests. I would only urge the Minister to take the logical step to allow th e new Land Transport Authority of Singapore to manage our land transportation system as a crucial resource for the nation, much like the CAAS and PAS. I am confident that given this mandate, we will have, in the not so distant future, the best land transportation system in the world.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the setting up of the LTA is welcomed and timely. At this stage of our economic development, when Singapore is being developed as a business hub for the region, we cannot afford an inefficient land transportation system that would paralyse us. This Bill unifies four very important bodies managing different areas of land transportation. As has been mentioned by Dr Wang Kai Yuen, the fact that this is possible today is testimony to the political will and vision of our civil servants and the Minister to make land transport the new challenge for us. Sir, the challenge to the LTA is indeed great. I am sure that the officials in the LTA will rise to the occasion. They will be vested with powers under this Bill to do their job. They face a unique challenge and I believe that today there is no equivalent of the LTA that exists in any part of the world. Indeed, in the words of the Minister, he says that it is a single agency to meet one nation's needs. They will be a pioneering group and, to be sure, their performance will be watched not only by all Singaporeans closely, but by the world transportation community. Sir, this Bill already spells out in quite explicit detail the formation and duties of the Authority. In 1991, the United States Congress, realising that the building of the Interstate Highway alone (ie, roads) was not going to solve their land transport problems, passed a major piece of legislation called the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act. The legislation authorised US$155 billion for transportation investment during a six-year period, an increase of 25% over past trends. This was indeed a paradigm shift in transport policy supported with Government funds that made it possible. I support what Dr Wang has said that the Land Transport Authority requires more funds to be able to carry out its mission successfully. Sir, the new transport policy in the US is characterised by the following, and I mention this because I think there is much that we can learn from this. (1) Emphasis on a systems approach, in particular on alternative modes, environmental protection and mobility of persons and goods. (2) A holistic approach to planning, as has been mentioned by the Minister, which expands the concept of system performance to include mobility and access, equity, reliability and external impacts, and which stipulates cooperative planning by local and state government. While in the US they talk of local and state government, here we can talk in terms of the involvement of Town Councils. (3) Emphasis on flexibility in allocating money among modes (roads, transit, bicycles and pedestrians), so making funding decisions clearly a part of the planning process. I hope that this would be done soon by our Land Transport Authority so that we can know how much funds we require to be able to achieve integration. (4) Linking to air quality and environment in both funding and planning. The haze of last year is still fresh in our minds. (5) Emphasis on performance with a focus on preserving, maintaining and managing the existing system through management systems. (6) Emphasis on aesthetics with both planning requirements and funding set aside for scenic by-ways and easements, history preservation and other features. (7) Emphasis on safety on the roads and in community for both users and non-users, (8) Emphasis on public involvement, moving the nation towards a participatory model of decision-making in which an informed citizenry plays a key role. I am sure that the LTA has all these eight points, and maybe even more on their agenda. I for one know that the Minister has item (8), emphasis on public involvement, high on his agenda having accompanied him in his study of the Light Rail System in Europe. Sir, like the Americans in 1991, we today make this paradigm shift in land transportation management. Let me give some examples of areas which I feel that the LTA should immediately focus on. Firstly, integration of our existing systems: bus, rail, taxis and cars. We need to quickly take decisions on how to use the light rail or other people-mover-systems to harmonise our existing systems. We need to make inter-modal transport more user friendly. In this context, flexibility must be achieved by the LTA by persuading all operators to work more closely together. As has been mentioned by my colleague, Dr Wang, the total cost would be taken as one total land transport system. Advanced integrated transportation for new towns. We should move away. Let us dare to make this paradigm shift from our present thinking of waiting for the road system to be less than efficient before putting an alternative rail system in place. Let us dare to do this. We should not think of transportation as road or rail, but road and rail right from the planning stage. Here is where the issue of new methods of funding then becomes relevant. In this respect, I urge the Minister to move on with the North-East line immediately. What about the old towns? This is most worrying. This is admittedly the most tricky and difficult problem. Can the LTA be involved with the Main Upgrading Programme and the Interim Upgrading Programme of the HDB and Town Councils to advise on this problem? The old towns must not be left out in this reorganisation of land transport. Public involvement. Very much more needs to be done in this area. Close liaison should be established with the CCCs and Town Councils. Sir, all studies show that transportation planners are often "swimming up stream" in trying to convince commuters to give up their cars. To quote a Japanese transportation specialist Prof. S. Morichii, Professor of Engineering at the Tokyo Institute of Technology: `When you plot a graph showing the relationship between these two factors (per-capita GDP and car ownership), most Asian cities show a straight line. In other words, as soon as they have money, people in Asian countries want to buy cars.' This, we know, also applies to developed countries, but maybe not as a straight line relationship. What then is the answer to this vexing problem of car ownership? The answer lies in providing good alternative public transport together with car restraint measures. One without the other will not be able to reach the goal. Providing Singaporeans with travel choices with a sense of good design, convenience, reliability, safety, comfort, and at an affordable cost - this is the challenge to the LTA. I support the Bill.

( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of this Bill. I hope that with the passage of this Bill and the establishment of the Land Transport Authority (LTA), we will not only be able to improve on the infrastructure of land transport but also enable the whole public transport system to provide a better quality of services. Mr Speaker, Sir, the establishment of the LTA will have one great advantage, that is, to ensure that we will have an overall and comprehensive planning for the whole land transport system in Singapore. The land transport system covers a very wide range from planning, development, management to operations. At present, these tasks are being handled by six different Government agencies. So in terms of coordination, there are inherent disadvantages. I believe that with the establishment of the Land Transport Authority, the whole land transport system in Singapore will be developed more systematically and rationally so as to ensure that the limited land resources in Singapore will be put to optimal use, especially our road network and the rail network which will then be better linked to the convenience of the commuters. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is my hope that the Land Transport Authority will be able to accomplish the following two tasks and objectives. One, to have optimum use of limited land resources; and two, to improve our public transport services as soon as possible, including the bus services and the MRT services. Singapore is a small island. The land that we have for housing and roads is becoming very scarce. So for long-term planning and requirement, our land transport system should take into consideration the necessity to save land space. To achieve this objective, road development and MRT development should be closely interwoven and linked. They should not be taken separately. We should not only make the best use of the land space available, but also make the best use of the underground space available. On the North-East line, I would like to look at it this way, that is, the entire North-East line should be built underground. I think this is a far-sighted concept. I will support this concept, although the cost will be much higher. I believe that in the long term, this is worth it. As in other great cities which are densely populated, Singapore should plan its future MRT systems underground rather than above ground, because this is the only way to reserve above-ground space for other development purposes. Right now, Sir, Serangoon Road and Upper Serangoon Road are the main trunk roads in the north east sector of Singapore. In order to meet the needs of future development and the transport requirements, I think these main trunk roads will have to be expanded. If the North-East MRT line can be properly coordinated with the development of the main trunk roads, that is, to build it under the main trunk roads, then the widening of the roads will not need to be so extensive. In this way, we will not only be able to save the land space above ground, but also help to alleviate any effect on the properties along this line. The second point is the improvement to the public transport services. I hope that the Land Transport Authority will be able to operate in such a way that they can integrate the bus and the MRT services to ensure that the public can have a better overall public transport system. They will find that with the system in place, the need for owning cars will be less. After the operation of this MRT, we find that the bus companies have already undertaken a very comprehensive adjustment to the bus routes. The impression given to the people is that the bus companies are there to make money and they cut down the less viable routes and services, resulting in great inconvenience to the bus commuters. So if the Land Transport Authority can succeed in this integration, that is, to link together the bus services and the MRT services so as to cut down the waiting time of the commuters and to improve the efficiency of the public transport, I think that will be in keeping with the wishes of the great majority of people in Singapore. Finally, Sir, I hope that with the establishment of the Land Transport Authority, the North-East MRT line and the road network can be completed as soon as possible without any further delay. In this way, we will not only be able to improve the transport system for this part of the island, but will also help people whose properties are affected. As far as I know, the properties along these roads were zoned by red or yellow lines five or six years ago. As a result, the property owners along these roads are not able to sell their property because there are no takers for fear that they will be affected by road construction. As a result, property owners are in a dilemma. If our road construction work and MRT construction work can be undertaken as soon as possible, I think those property owners affected will be able to have a better picture of where they stand, ie, whether their land or property will be acquired or not. I hope that the Minister will consider the plight of the people concerned and proceed to build the North-East MRT line and carry out the road development there as soon as possible.

( In Malay): Mr Speaker, I rise in support of the Bill. Looking at its objectives, we would find that the Bill is aimed at promoting policies and allocating resources towards achieving a safe and well-administered, maintained and managed land transport system in Singapore. It also seeks to vest all responsibility for the administration of the land transport system in Singapore in a single body that will coordinate its maintenance and management, in contrast to the present situation where various Government agencies and statutory bodies are involved, like the Registry of Vehicles (ROV), Mass Rapid Transit Corporation (MRTC), Housing and Development Board (HDB), Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) and the Police. A safe and efficient land transport system is important for us to meet future challenges and ensure our further economic and social advancement. May I ask the Minister to consider the following points. For instance, with regard to clause 7(1)(e), (f), (g) and (h), could the Minister consider whether LTA should be empowered to engage in business. I think this might not be compatible with the Authority's status as a statutory board whose function is to mana ge and maintain the land transport system in Singapore. Even if LTA is to be allowed to do this, the type of business it may engage in must be related to its objectives. Next, on clause 7(1)(n), as LTA will be having its own source of revenue through the collection of fees, I feel it should not be receiving donations as well for its operations. Collecting donations is more appropriate for a non-profit social or charitable organisation. As regards clause 22(1), the period for making claims, may I ask the Minister to reconsider this. Under this clause, those who suffer damage or loss as a result of the functions of LTA are entitled to claim compensation. Under the Fourth Schedule, Part I of the Bill, the period for making such a claim varies from one to six years. Firstly, these different periods are confusing. It is more equitable to fix a single time limit, say, three years for all claims. Secondly, although the Board of Compensation has the discretion to allow an extension, this applies only in the case of a mistake of fact or of law and if the Authority is not prejudiced by the delay. The Board's discretion is thus restricted. This should not be the case; the Board ought to be given full discretion to allow an extension. On clause 23(1), the procedure for claims might be too technical and complex for the layman to follow. The layman might be prevented from obtaining a fair compensation if he fails to follow the procedure. Thus the procedure should be simplified for the benefit of the public. On clause 25(3), the power given to the Board of Compensation to penalise a party with costs for not settling a claim earlier, leading to an award which is lower than the offer by LTA, is unfair to the claimant. A party may be forced to accept an offer he deems unsatisfactory for fear of being penalised with the cost of the proceedings. To allay this fear, the Board of Compensation should be given the discretion to determine the cost it deems appropriate and reasonable, "unless for special reasons the Board thinks it not proper to do so". Under clause 26(10), a professional valuer cannot represent a claimant in a matter and be paid for his professional services, unless the valuer is treated as an agent appointed by the claimant under clause 26(10)(c), and he will not be paid as a professional. Finally, Mr Speaker, under clause 31(2), the power of review of the High Court does not extend beyond the decision on the quantum of compensation awarded by the Board of Compensation. If a case before the High Court cannot be considered in accordance with the law concerning such a decision, it means that the aggrieved party has no recourse for appeal if he truly believes that there had been no consistency in the compensation awarded. Subject to these qualifications, I support the Land Transport Authority of Singapore Bill.

Order. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 3.00 pm. Sitting accordingly suspended at 2.35 pm until 3.00 pm Sitting resumed at 3.00 pm

Debate resumed.

Sir, may I be allowed to join in the debate?

Yes, carry on.

Sir, I support the Land Transport Authority of Singapore Bill. It is rational of the Government to put all transport matters under the charge of one authority. A Member has said that this Bill is perhaps one of the most important pieces of legislation so far to be passed by Parliament, as it intends to rationalise and regulate the transport systems in Singapore. The LTA is also poised to become one of the richest statutory boards as it has powers of revenue collection from motorists. One of the main functions of the LTA is to link up the various transportation systems such as MRT, the proposed light rail system, motorcars, buses and taxis. Various suggestions have already been made by Members to improve the transportation system by linking the various transport systems together. I would suggest that the Minister, in addition to the transport systems already suggested, also look into the possibility of providing more facilities for cyclists. The humble bicycle does not seem to stand out as one of the possible means of transportation. In Europe and China, the bicycle is widely used. In Holland and Denmark which I have visited, the bicycle is a common mode of transportation. In Copenhagen, certain parts of the road have been designated and reserved for bicycles only. Bicycle lanes are part of the road system in those countries. I wish the Minister could also introduce bicycle lanes on Singapore roads. I would suggest that perhaps for a start, the Minister could consider a pilot project by constructing bicycle lanes in certain housing estates, with a view to making bicycle lanes widespread in Singapore. I hope the Minister will take up this suggestion.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, judging from the earlier speakers, it is clear that they welcome the establishment of the Land Transport Authority of Singapore, specially since the LTA is meant to have the total perspective of all the land transport policies and implementation in Singapore. Sir, just as clear is also the call, especially from the two earlier speakers, for the Government to give the LTA adequate resources and, in this case, I specifically mean the funds and the money to carry out its responsibilities. If the LTA is to be successful, surely it must be in the best position to know what is needed in terms not only of policies to ensure the smooth flow of traffic and other land transportation modes but also what is needed in terms of infrastructure. Therefore, it must also have its own resources to build this infrastructure. It should not be dependent on the generosity of the Ministry of Finance. Otherwise, what we are doing today is nothing more than a reorganisation of some Government functions. There will be little or no value added if resources are not forthcoming. Sir, in this respect, I just want to correct one point of the hon. Member for Potong Pasir, ie, under the present Bill, the LTA cannot be one of the richest statutory boards in Singapore, because the bulk of the funds from COEs and ARF actually goes to the Ministry of Finance. In fact, the Minister in his speech mentioned that LTA's projected surplus would be about $5-$10million a year. Sir, I hope that the Minister will be able to persuade his Cabinet colleague to give the LTA adequate resources, not when the LTA needs the funds but from the start. In this way, the Land Transport Authority of Singapore can have the means to properly plan its objectives from day one. Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, first of all, may I thank all Members who have spoken for their support of the Bill, including Mr Chiam. I would like to take some of the points that have been raised by Members, particularly those that have been raised by several Members. First of all, the question of funding for LTA. Mr Heng mentioned this in his speech just now. He has made the point that we should not be stingy with funds for public transport. On that score, I would agree with him. But when he also says that we should give LTA adequate resources to do its job right from the beginning, this is where I have to explain our position. Although this point has been raised in the House several times, let me reiterate Government's position on this. As far as improvements in land transport are concerned, there is no question about Government's commitment to improving our land transport system. And even with the formation of LTA, as the funding is currently constituted, where the LTA is only going to keep the administrative fees, registration fees and some of the road taxes for purposes of carrying out some development works but not the entire sum from COEs and ARF and the other major public transport revenues, even under this kind of scenario, there is no doubt that the Government is committed to land transport. And with the formation of LTA, we will continue to fund and invest in transport infrastructure, both public and private, to meet the needs of our people. The Government has so far invested a total of more than $6 billion - $5 billion for the present MRT system and another $1-$1 1/2 billion for the Woodlands Extension. In addition to that, each year we spend about $250 million building and upgrading our comprehensive network of roads and expressways. We are fortunate that we have been able to accumulate revenue and also to spend it wisely, rather than to squander them away on projects which are not justifiable. So long as we continue with this prudent fiscal policy, we should be able to set aside sufficient funds for our land transport programme without affecting our priorities in other important areas like defence, health and education. The issue therefore is not whether land transport revenues from COEs, ARF and road taxes should be earmarked and channelled directly to land transport expenditure, or whether sufficient resources have been devoted in this area. We are not suffering from a budget deficit. That is not the problem. The basic issue is how we should make use of our revenues in a manner that benefits our nation most. Sir, the revenues from COEs, ARF and road taxes which are channelled into the Consolidated Fund are ultimately used by Government to fund the various programmes that benefit the nation, including transportation. As long as there is a need and as long as the expenditure is worthwhile, the Government will not shy away from investing in our land transport infrastructure. Whether the money comes from Government via the Ministry of Finance out of the consolidated revenue or whether the money comes directly from the LTA is not the important issue. And if we look at the issue from this perspective, then part of the revenue from COEs, ARF, road taxes, etc, is already being used to fund our public transport infrastructure. I am not saying that it is not possible to have this direct nexus between land transport revenues and expenditures. This is another way of looking at the problem. But we have opted not to do so for now. Since the LTA is a new statutory board, it is better to start off on the current basis cautiously, allowing it to gain more experience, to take on this new role of advising Government on how best to improve the total transportation structure, how best to invest, where to invest, in a way that will give us best-value-for-money. With time, as LTA gains more experience, we can explore the ideas that have been raised, including the idea of earmarking more land transport revenue for funding infrastructure projects. At that time, we can have another discussion in this House to determine if this is the best approach to take. Dr Wang Kai Yuen has asked why we do not consider the possibility of cross subsidising non-viable MRT lines with the viable ones, in the same way that we are currently cross subsidising non-viable bus lines with the viable ones. The main problem is that MRT lines are not like bus lines. Buses operate on the roads and it is easy for us to change or to remove a bus route if it is deemed to be not worth having for whatever reason. It can be adjusted. It can be part of an overall integration programme. It can be duplication of a service which is now going to be provided by another mode of transport or whatever. But we cannot do the same for an MRT line. Once we build an MRT line, that is it. We cannot change its route and we have to live with it. So before we build an MRT line, it is important for us to study the proposal carefully and consider the long-term viability of the line before we can make a decision whether to proceed or not. This, of course, does not mean that we will always wait for the line to be assessed to be viable before we start construction. As I have said, if it makes economic sense to do so, we will consider building lines ahead of demand. Mr Goh Choon Kang has raised the question about optimising the use of limited land and he has in this case supported the idea of building the North-East line underground. This is what the consultants have said. In their study, they have mentioned the possibility that if we eventually build the North-East line underground, there are certain benefits accruing from so doing, even though the cost of construction will be higher. This is why in the feasibility study we have asked the consultants to consider this possibility and to give us costings if we want to build it 100% underground, 80% underground or whatever. Mr Goh Choon Kang has also pressed for the building of the North-East line. In an earlier Oral Answer to Members of this House I have explained the position of the Government on this. But let me just repeat that the Government has agreed in principle to pay for the capital cost of the North-East line if it satisfi es this criterion of being able to at least recover its operating cost. The latest feasibility study that the Ministry released last month shows that this criterion can be met but based on the existing pace of development, this can only be met by the year 2006. So it is not a question of whether we build the line but when we build the line. Do we build it now or do we build it at the outset in four years' time? It is going to cost a lot of money. $5 billion is a lot of money. It is a heavy investment and it is incumbent on the Government to make sure that this expenditure is carefully considered because the full capital cost of this investment is not going to be recovered. That is an important point for us to note. While we argue about whether or not we should build the line or whether we should build it earlier, let us not forget where the money is coming from in the first place. We are in the happy position of being able to argue about when to build, and not if we build, where is the money going to come from, as is the case in other countries. We are in the happy position because we are able to finance this from our own resources and surpluses which have been generated as a result of sound policies, conducive environment for growth and the hard work of our people. One of our sound policies is that we only spend where we can fully justify our investment. We do not spend because we have the money available. The public can be assured that the Government's position on the North-East line would be a rational one. We would build it at the appropriate time. It is a rational decision which would be taken in the interest of all Singaporeans. Encik Harun Ghani has asked some rather detailed questions about the powers to be conferred on the new LTA, for example, the powers to be involved in business, to receive donations, etc. I would just like to make a general response to this, and that is to say that these provisions are generally standard provisions which allow statutory boards to enter into either business ventures or to receive donations which would give them some flexibility. It is not a new provision and it is not a new practice in Government. In so far as compensation is concerned, again this is not something new. We have simply lifted the current provisions of the MRTC Act and just added a new provision that allows for compensation to be given to those who may be affected by underground tunnelling works. So there is nothing exceptional about these new provisions and I would be happy to answer any further questions on this if Encik Harun would like to raise them later. Sir, finally, let me once again reiterate Government's commitment to improving transport infrastructure in general and public transport in particular. But when I say this I just want to also make the point that we are not against private transport per se, whether it is cars, motorcycles or even bicycles. The Government can understand and empathise with the aspirations of people to own cars, but it also at the same time has to point out clearly that our constraints as a city state leave us with little choice but to continue to manage both car ownership as well as car usage. If we duck this issue now, because it is politically unpleasant, we are really storing up problems for ourselves in the future in the form of massive traffic jams, gridlock and so on. Such an outcome is clearly not in our national interest. We want to build a city for people, not for cars. So in order to preserve our quality of life, we really need a sustainable transport policy. In this respect, all Members who have spoken are clearly in favour of our current emphasis on upgrading and building up our public transport, building it up into one that is efficient and convenient, which gives value for money. Some Members have suggested that we should give more funding to public transport. They have also suggested other ways of improving public transport. Sir, I agree with many of their suggestions, but we should not forget that, as with most things in life, all these improvements will come at a price. The question is not who pays for the burden. It is ultimately the people themselves. If we want public transport improvements, the tab has still got to be picked up. If commuters are not prepared to pay, where is the money coming from? If Government pays, it must be at the expense of expenditure on some other public cost, whether it is on education or health, or other equally pressing needs. Dr Arthur Beng touched on this. He raised the question of LTA, for example, being involved in discussions with HDB and Town Councils concerning the upgrading programme of existing towns. Sir, the LTA will have to study these and many other complex and difficult issues and at the end of the day formulate solutions that balance the needs and aspirations for greater accessibility and mobility on the one hand and the desire for a quality living environment on the other. It is a task that the LTA cannot shoulder alone. The Authority will have to work closely with related agencies sharing the same concerns. It will have to gain the support of our people if it is to build a transport system that meets their needs. It will continue to welcome suggestions and feedback from all quarters, especially Members of this House. So your support of this Bill will signal the commitment of this House to build a transportation system befitting our vision of a city of excellence, a system which all of us can be proud of.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I raised a point in my speech regarding the provisions of the Elected President and I would like to seek confirmation from the Minister whether my understanding is correct. I stated that under the provisions of the Elected President, all the reserves we put into the Consolidated Fund after the current term of Government will then become our reserve, which would no longer be available to the next Government to tap, even for land transportation improvements. Is that correct?

Sir, my understanding is that under the Elected President provision, the funds to be used for all development purposes, including public transportation, will have to come from the reserves that have been built up by this current Government. So that is correct.

By the next Government.

Yes, that is correct.

So if we were to build the North-East line in the next term of Government, the sum of, say, $5 billion, has to be raised by the next Government, even though it is under Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong. Whereas by the end of this term of Government we probably would have collected maybe $3 billion from COE premiums, which will no longer be available for use to build the North-East line.

That is correct.

Whereas if you decide to build the North-East line today, it is possible that some of the funds can be used. In other words, we have sufficient surplus to build it. If we wait till the next general election, the next Government will start with zero in their Consolidated Fund and they would have to wait a few more years until the Consolidated Fund is built up in order to build the North-East line.

That is strictly correct, but it will take us, if we were to start building the North-East line from the moment we say yes, six to seven years to build. So we will not be incurring all the $5 billion in one go. We will have to make certain provisions in order to allow for funding to be available if such a decision were made.

If we establish the LTA in such a way that the LTA is going to keep most of its funds from the land transportation system, like PSA, then this problem of transitional government will no longer arise.

I do not believe that that is so, because if we were to allocate revenue in the way that the Member has suggested, then the LTA could come under the Elected President provision in which case all the reserves in the LTA will also be considered as part of Government reserves. So that is not a solution if the Member suggests that by putting the funds into the LTA, we will not have to seek Presidential approval. It could still come under the ambit of the Elected President provision.

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." As I have explained earlier in my speech for the Second Reading of the Land Transport Authority (LTA) Bill, this Bill is to provide for the merger of the MRTC into the LTA. The existing MRTC Act was enacted in 1983 to establish the Corporation for the construction, regulation and operation of our Mass Rapid Transit System. With the formation of the LTA, the roles and functions of MRTC will be transferred to the new statutory board. This Bill therefore repeals the MRTC Act and re-enacts the provisions governing the regulation and operations of the MRT System as the Rapid Transit Systems Act which will come under the ambit of the LTA. We have also taken the opportunity to review the provisions of MRTC Act to remove obsolete ones and insert new provisions into the Rapid Transit Systems Act to cover the broader functions of the LTA and to rationalise all legislation coming under its purview. The words "Mass Rapid Transit" and its acronym "MRT" have over the years become synonymous with the rail system that we are familiar with. In time to come, other forms of transit systems may be introduced, for example, the light rail system or LRT which we are now examining. We have therefore expanded the definition of the term "railway" to give the LTA the flexibility to plan, construct, operate and maintain other types of guided transit systems. The MRTC Act was enacted on the premise that there would be only one mass rapid transit system in Singapore and one operator of the system. It is intended that the LTA will oversee not only the present heavy rail system, but also other light rail as well as guided transit systems which could be run by other operators. To cater for a multi-system and multi-operator rail or guided transport industry, provisions have therefore been included to allow the Authority to license more than one operator for the various systems. Provisions relating to claims and compensation under the MRTC have been deleted and re-enacted in the LTA Act. The intention, as I have explained previously, is to broaden the functions of the Compensation Board to include claims made against the LTA arising from road tunnelling works instead of only claims made with respect to railway construction. Provisions have been made in the Bill for the transfer of the MRTC's existing assets, rights, interests, liabilities and obligations to the LTA. Provisions have also been made to transfer all persons employed by the MRTC to LTA on terms no less favourable than those enjoyed by the employees prior to their transfer. Other than the above mentioned and other incidental provisions, the Rapid Transit Systems Act essentially incorporates the existing provisions in the MRTC Act governing the regulation and operations of the MRT system. Finally, Sir, I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the staff and Board Members of MRTC for the hard work and services that they have rendered in the past 12 years since its formation. The board has built the first 67 km of our MRT system. It has ensured its smooth and efficient operations since the first set of trains rolled out in 1987. The job of the LTA is to build upon the good work of the MRTC. The solid foundation laid down by the MRTC in the last 12 years makes the task of LTA that much easier. With MRTC becoming part of the LTA, our people can look forward to a better and more efficient rail transport system. Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Mr Mah Bow Tan]. Bill considered in Committee; 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." As I have explained before, this Bill repeals the existing Local Government Integration Act, or LGIA, and replaces it with a new Street Works Act, or SWA, to be administered by the LTA. The existing LGIA was enacted in 1963 from the then Local Government Ordinance. The Act integrated certain functions of the City Council and the Rural Board with those of the Government. However, the City Council and the Rural Board no longer exist and their functions had either lapsed or been integrated with those of other Government agencies or statutory boards. A number of provisions in the LGIA are now outdated or obsolete. The Act is now mainly used by the Public Works Department for the construction, widening and maintenance of public and private streets and backlanes. A review of the LGIA was therefore initiated by the Ministry of National Development and PWD two years ago to bring the Act up to date. Obsolete provisions including those which have been incorporated in other legislation will be removed, for example, those relating to trade effluent, the transfer of employees from City Council and the appointment of District Officers. New provisions have been added so that the LTA can more effectively and efficiently develop and manage roads and their related facilities. Government will continue to decide on the acquisition of land for development purposes. The LTA will replace PWD as Government's agent for the purposes of road development, as approved under the Planning Act. New provisions have been incorporated to allow the LTA to carry out road improvement works within private land without acquisition. For instance, the LTA can carry out tunnel works underground without affecting ownership of the land above. Landowners who do not like this arrangement can request the Government to acquire their land. To maximise the use of our road network, new provisions have been included to allow LTA to levy charges on persons or parties who occupy road space and cause traffic congestion and inconvenience to motorists. Such levies will ensure that persons or parties who need to make use of the road space will carry out their activities quickly occupying as little road space as possible and in the shortest possible time. The LTA will also be empowered to take action against any person found to cause damage to our roads. Recently, the PWD has upgraded the walkways in the Civic District and the Orchard Road areas to give pedestrians a safe and pleasant walk along the roads. The LTA will continue with this task and extend the walkway upgrading programme to other parts of the island. To enable LTA to carry out this programme effectively, new provisions have been included in the SWA to allow LTA to improve walkways over private land without land acquisition. Landowners of shopping centres will also be allowed to participate in the walkway improvement programme so as to bring more shopping traffic to their premises. Several new provisions will facilitate the roadworks to be carried out by the LTA. The road reserves will remain the property of the Government, but LTA will be allowed to enter road reserves to carry out minor improvement works. It would, however, be required to seek the Minister's approval for major works that require additional lands. The existing LGIA allows PWD to recover from landowners the cost incurred from the construction of roads to open up new areas for development. However, the recovery of such charges can only be done when the accounts are finalised. By then, the properties may have changed hands. The practice has caused inconvenience to landowners, developers and also to purchasers in that the financial liability may not be clear during a property transaction. So, in the SWA, provisions have been incorporated to allow the LTA to recover the roadmaking charges progressively as and when they are incurred. The parties concerned in the transaction will then have a clearer picture of their financial liability. In line with the Government's decision to have qualified engineers take on more responsibility, the SWA will have provisions to require structural plans for road elements to be certified by accredited and experienced structural engineers. The arrangement will ensure that the roads built by private persons will meet the safety and performance standards laid down by the LTA. Finally, fines and penalties in the LGIA have been updated in the SWA. Three new fines will be introduced. They are for: (a) failure by private persons to deposit within the time frame specified by the LTA the amount determined for their execution of street works; (b) failure to comply with the order by the LTA to cease and remove works on public streets and make good any damages caused to these streets; and (c) failure to comply with the notice by the LTA to stop activities causing damages to the public streets and make good any damages so caused. The LTA may compound any offences which are prescribed as compoundable under this Act or its regulations. It may, with the approval of the Minister, make any regulations to prescribe any offences which may be compoundable. Sir, I beg to move.

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

Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed." - [Mr Wong Kan Seng]. Adjourned accordingly at Fourteen Minutes to Four o'clock pm to a date to be fixed. Annex - MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT WHO WILL RECEIVE THE "EX-GRATIA" PAYMENT (Cols. 1489 - 1492)

asked the Minister for Education when did Peirce Secondary School start its classes and how many students have been expelled since the school started.

Peirce Secondary School started in January 1994. In 1994, no pupil was expelled. In 1995, one pupil was expelled. He was a persistent offender who used violence on another pupil, and continued to misbehave with no sign of repentance. To date he has rejected the Ministry's efforts to counsel and assist him.

asked the Minister for Education why the National University of Singapore did not conduct its own investigation into the cyanide poisoning of its lecturers.

On 11th February 1995, a police report pertaining to the cyanide poisoning incident was lodged by the Head of the NUS Chemistry Department at the Clementi Police Division. The case was classified as "attempted murder". The CID began an immediate and thorough investigation as soon as the report was made. The Chemistry Department co-operated fully with them during the course of their investigations. As it was an attempted murder investigation, it was inappropriate for the Department to carry out a parallel investigation. The Department took immediate measures to tighten and improve on safety and security measures.

asked the Minister for Home Affairs how many suspected drug addicts fell to their deaths between January 1994 and June 1995 when drug enforcement officers raided their homes.

During the period from January 1994 to June 1995, Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) conducted 2333 checks on homes to arrest drug offenders. In 8 of the cases, the persons sought by CNB attempted to escape by scaling down from their flats' rear windows and they fell to their deaths. Seven of them were absconders from CNB's supervision and one was a drug pusher. No CNB officer wants any drug suspect to fall to death. They take all precautions to minimise such incidents. CNB officers are trained to exercise discretion during such house checks and would try to persuade the offenders to open their house doors. An officer would also be deployed to cover rear windows to look out for any escape attempt and to detect drugs being thrown out.

asked the Minister for Trade and Industry if he will give an appraisal on the total amount of money spent on the advertising campaigns to promote Singapore as a good place to live to the people of Hong Kong and whether he will be able to assess the success of these campaigns in some tangible ways.

The Government has been spending an average of $1.5 million annually on STPB's advertising campaigns in Hong Kong since 1990. The primary objectives are to promote Singapore as an attractive tourist destination and to shape the general perception of Singapore amongst the Hong Kong public. This year's campaign in addition focuses on Singapore being a good place to work and live in, to attract Hong Kong businessmen and professionals to invest and work here. One good indication of the success of these campaigns is the increase in visitor arrivals from Hong Kong since 1990. Tourist arrivals from Hong Kong have increased from 194,000 in 1990 to 271,000 in 1994, a growth rate of 9% a year.

asked the Minister for Health, since the completion of Yishun Medical Centre, how many units in the Centre have already been taken up and how many are still left vacant; what are the services provided by the tenants already functioning in the Centre; and when the Centre will be fully operational.

Ten out of the 26 units in Yishun Medical Centre have been leased out. They are to a general practitioner and a dentist who are sharing one unit, an obstetric and gynaecology practice, a surgical practice, a clinical laboratory and an X-ray clinic. Five units have been leased out to a Child Care Centre. The Ministry is looking into various means to attract more doctors and other health related professionals to lease the remaining units.

asked the Minister for Health if he has the figures from 1990 to 1994 relating to violence in the home with respect to victims presenting themselves at public hospitals and, if so, whether he will provide the breakdown figures of males and females in the following categories: (i) children; (ii) adults; and (iii) the elderly.

Statistics on victims of violence in the home presenting themselves at public sector hospitals are not available prior to 1994. The Table below shows the number of cases of child abuse, spouse abuse and elderly abuse seen at government and restructured hospitals in 1994 and the first six months of 1995. Cases of Violence in the Home seen at Public Sector Hospitals ____________________________________________________ Categories 1994 1st half of 1995 ____________________________________________________ Children Abuse 203 57 Spouse Abuse 624 240 Elderly Abuse 136 67 ____________________________________________________ Breakdown of the figures by gender is not available.

asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what were the reasons for the closure of the Empress Place Museum; (b) what was the total amount spent on the whole venture; and (c) what lessons were learnt from the experience.

Reasons for the closure In February 1986, the PRC and Singapore Governments agreed to stage in Singapore a series of 5 exhibitions on PRC historical and cultural relics. This was part of our bilateral co-operation in tourism. As part of the agreement, Singapore Government formed a company, the Historical and Cultural Exhibitions Pte Ltd, to stage the exhibitions. The Empress Place Building was selected as the venue for the exhibitions. The first exhibition started in April 89 and the fifth, and last in the series, was completed on 30th April 95. Government decided to close the Empress Place Museum from 1st May 1995 as (a) the 5 exhibitions under the bilateral agreement have been staged; and (b) the Historical and Cultural Exhibitions Pte Ltd, which operated the Empress Place Building, was not financially viable despite the support of the travel industry. (b) Total amount spent The entire venture cost $31 million, most of which were spent renovating the building and offsetting the operating losses. (c) Lessons learnt The Empress Place Building was opened in 1989 for a specific objective, namely, to stage the 5 exhibitions on PRC historical and cultural relics as part of our bilateral co-operation in tourism. It has achieved this objective. The 5 world-class exhibitions have fostered a better understanding of Chinese history and culture among the more than 1.5 million Singaporeans and tourists who visited them. The intention when the Historical and Cultural Exhibitions Pte Ltd was set up was for the company to operate on a commercial basis with no Government subsidy. Despite the company_s marketing and publicity efforts, and the quality of its exhibits, the exhibitions did not draw in the crowds. This was especially so among locals, whose visitorship dropped from 218,000 when the exhibition first opened in 1989 to less than 40,000 a year during the last 4 years. This reflects the need for continued arts promotion among Singaporeans by the Government and interested cultural groups.

asked the Minister for Labour what is the employment ratio of foreigners to locals in the electronics industry.

The electronics industry falls within the manufacturing sector. As a policy, all manufacturing companies are allowed to employ foreign workers up to 50% of their total workforce. The actual foreign worker ratio varies from one company to another but most electronics companies have not used up their foreign worker entitlement. Therefore, the majority of workers in the electronics industry are Singaporeans.

asked the Minister for National Development whether there are plans for the open space near to Block 609, Yishun Street 61 and, if so, whether he will give the details.

The open space near Block 609, Yishun Street 61 is a reserved site designated for future residential development and a school.

asked the Minister for National Development whether sheltered parking lots for motorcycles will be constructed in future and whether existing parking lots will be upgraded and covered with shelters.

I believe the MP is referring to parking lots in HDB housing estates. HDB provides multi-storey car parks for cars and motorcycles in all its new housing estates. The motorcycle parking lots inside the multi-storey car parks are therefore sheltered. There is no plan to build shelters for the motorcycle lots in the existing surface car parks. However, should multi-storey car parks be constructed to replace the surface car parks, then motorcycle lots can be provided under shelter.

asked the Minister for National Development whether the Housing and Development Board flat at Block 718, Yishun St 71, #03-223 has been left vacant since 1986 and, if so, why.

The unit in Block 718 was offered for sale together with other flats in the same block when it was completed in 1985. Although it was made available for selection, none of the applicants chose this unit. HDB has since offered the unit for rental. To-date it has not been taken up. Perhaps, people do not like to stay in that part of Yishun.