Hansard, 1996-10-01

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 Mah Bow Tan - from 30th August to 1st September, 1996 Mr K. Shanmugam - from 1st to 5th September, 1996. Mr Chay Wai Chuen - from 2nd to 3rd September, 1996. Dr Wong Kwei Cheong - from 2nd to 7th September, from 12th to 20th September and from 3rd to 4th October, 1996. Mr Chng Hee Kok - on 3rd September, 1996. Mr Peh Chin Hua - from 4th to 8th September and from 22nd to 26th September, 1996. Dr Ker Sin Tze - from 5th to 6th September and on 12th September, 1996. Mr Leong Horn Kee - from 5th to 12th September and from 16th to 23rd September, 1996. Dr Beng Kian Lam, Arthur - from 6th to 14th September, 1996. Mr S. Chandra Das - from 7th to 8th September and from 4th to 5th October, 1996. Encik Sidek bin Saniff - from 7th to 8th September and on 19th September, 1996. Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam - from 10th to 11th September and from 28th September to 4th October, 1996. Prof S. Jayakumar - from 12th to 14th September and from 19th September to 7th October, 1996. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee - from 12th to 14th September, 1996. Mr Peter Sung - from 12th to 30th September, 1996. Dr Aline K. Wong - from 14th to 15th September and from 21st to 23rd September, 1996. Encik Ibrahim bin Othman - from 15th to 21st September, 1996. Encik Yatiman Yusof - from 15th to 21st September and from 29th September to 3rd October, 1996. Mr Lau Ping Sum - from 15th to 21st September and from 30th September to 8th October, 1996. Mr Chew Heng Ching - from 15th to 21st September, 1996. Encik Mohamad Maidin B P M - from 15th to 21st September, 1996. Dr John Chen Seow Phun - from 15th to 21st September and from 4th to 11th October, 1996. Mr Eugene Yap Giau Cheng - from 15th to 22nd September, 1996. Dr Ong Chit Chung - from 16th to 19th September and from 30th September to 1st October, 1996. Encik Othman bin Haron Eusofe - from 16th to 21st September, 1996. Mr Yeo Toon Chia - from 16th to 30th September, 1996. Dr Wang Kai Yuen - from 17th to 21st September, from 7th to 13th October and from 23rd to 31st October, 1996. Mr Chiam See Tong - from 17th to 22nd September, 1996. Mr S. Dhanabalan - on 18th September, 1996. Mr Loh Meng See - from 19th to 24th September, 1996. BG Lee Hsien Loong - on 21st September and from 11th to 18th October, 1996. Mr Koo Tsai Kee - from 21st September to 1st October, 1996. Mr Lim Hng Kiang - from 21st September to 2nd October, 1996. Mr Kenneth Chen Koon Lap - from 23rd to 26th September, 1996. Mr Choo Wee Khiang - from 23rd to 27th September, 1996. Mr Zulkifli bin Mohammed - from 24th to 28th Septmber, 1996. Dr Hu Tsu Tau, Richard - from 24th September to 6th October, 1996. RAdm Teo Chee Hean - from 25th to 27th September, 1996. Mr Chin Harn Tong - from 25th to 28th September, 1996. Dr Lim Chun Leng, Michael - from 28th September to 1st October and from 9th to 17th October, 1996. Mr Matthias Yao Chih - from 28th September to 5th October, 1996. BG George Yong-Boon Yeo - from 29th September to 3rd October, 1996. Mr Bernard Chen - from 30th September to 3rd October, 1996. Mr Lee Kuan Yew - from 1st to 10th October, 1996. Assoc. Prof. Low Seow Chay - from 6th to 20th October, 1996. Mr Goh Chok Tong - from 9th to 17th October, 1996. Mr Heng Chiang Meng - from 21st October to 1st November, 1996. Dr Kanwaljit Soin - from 26th October to 3rd November, 1996. TAN SOO KHOON Speaker Parliament of Singapore

The following Bills were assented to by the President of the Republic of Singapore on the dates stated: 29th August 1996 (i) Estate Duty (Amendment) Bill 1996; and (ii) Income Tax (Amendment No. 2) Bill 1996. 3rd September 1996 Supplementary Supply (No. 2) Bill 1996. TAN SOO KHOON Speaker Parliament of Singapore

The term of service of the six Nominated Members of Parliament appointed on 7th September 1994 expired on 6th September 1996. The Special Select Committee nominated the following six persons for appointment by the President as Nominated Members of Parliament to fill the vacancies: Mr John De Payva Mr Imram bin Mohamed Dr Kanwaljit Soin Mr Stephen Lee Ching Yen Dr Lee Tsao Yuan Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon Cheong Ming. On 6th September 1996, President Ong Teng Cheong, by Instruments of Appointment dated 6th September 1996, appointed the six Members as Nominated Members of Parliament for a term of two years with effect from 7th September 1996. The Nominated Members are present today to take their seats. They will now take their oath or affirmation of allegiance.

The following Members took and subscribed the Oath of Allegiance, or made Affirmation of Allegiance, in the order below: Mr John De Payva (Nominated Member of Parliament); Mr Imram bin Mohamed (Nominated Member of Parliament); Dr Kanwaljit Soin (Nominated Member of Parliament); Mr Stephen Lee Ching Yen (Nominated Member of Parliament); Dr Lee Tsao Yuan (Nominated Member of Parliament); and Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon Cheong Ming (Nominated Member of Parliament).

I welcome the Nominated Members of Parliament and look forward to their contributions in the proceedings of this House.

asked the Minister for Community Development whether the implementation of the Tribunal to hear cases on parents' maintenance is progressing smoothly.

Mr Speaker, I would like to report that the Tribunal for the Maintenance of Parents began operation on 1st June this year. 12 members, including the President, Mr K S Rajah, have been appointed to serve on the Tribunal. The Tribunal meets once a week on Thursday mornings. As at 15th September, 1996, 10 sittings have been held for either mention or hearing. The number of applications has dropped from 74 in June to 23 in July and to 16 in August. Only five applications were registered in the first two weeks of September. The Tribunal adopts a non-adversarial approach in settling disputes on maintenance issues within the family. Conciliation Officers in the Tribunal conduct mediation between parties to help them reach a settlement in a more amicable way. When the parties are unable to make a settlement, a hearing will be scheduled for the Tribunal to make an order to determine the outcome of applications. 65 applications for maintenance have been presented before the Tribunal since it convened its proceedings at the end of June 1996. 35 of these applications have been settled 28 were maintenance orders, five were dismissed applications, one application was withdrawn and no order was made for maintenance for one application. The other applications are in various stages of proceedings. Of the 28 maintenance orders made by the Tribunal, 17 applications were successfully settled through mediation, in other words, they were not even heard. The full legal provisions of the Act are thus being tested. The experience is still new to the Ministry and the Tribunal and the officers are fine-tuning the work processes as well as their conciliation techniques. They are also learning from the experiences of the Courts. I assure Members of this House that my Ministry and the Tribunal are closely monitoring the situation and will take the necessary steps to educate all parties involved on the purpose of the Tribunal and their rights at the appropriate junctures.

Sir, I would like to ask the Minister what is the waiting time for the cases to be heard by the Tribunal. The other supplementary question is: what are the future plans to integrate the work of the Tribunal with the Family Court?

Sir, as I mentioned earlier, of the 65 applications presented since the Tribunal began its first hearing at the end of June, some are still being heard and are in various stages of proceedings. The Tribunal would try to attend to the cases as soon as it can but it would depend on the difficulties and complexities of the cases. With regard to whether the Tribunal will be integrated with the courts, I think it is a bit too early to tell. We are just five months into the implementation of the Act and we will wait for some time before we consider the question of integration.

asked the Minister for Labour whether his Ministry will consider lowering the foreign maid levy from the current $330, especially for families where mothers work, as lowering of the levy will make it more attractive for them to join the workforce to lessen the burden of the household.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the purpose of the domestic worker levy is to dampen the demand for foreign domestic workers. The Government needs to ensure that the number of foreign domestic workers remains manageable as there are various social and political costs in having a large pool of foreign workers here. With rising income and affluence, more and more Singaporeans are finding it affordable to employ foreign domestic workers as evidenced by the rapid rise in the number of such workers over the years. Even with the levy, there are currently more than 90,000 foreign domestic workers in Singapore. Lowering the levy would send a wrong signal and lead to a surge in demand for foreign domestic workers. This would undermine the Government's efforts to manage the foreign worker population here. I would like to inform the Member that the Government encourages married women to work by granting them a tax relief on the domestic worker levy. They can claim a tax relief of twice the amount of levy paid for one foreign domestic worker employed by the married woman or her husband in the preceding year. The tax relief is deductible against the earned income of the married woman. In this way, married women are encouraged to continue working by reducing their cost of employing foreign domestic workers. Furthermore, the Government provides working mothers with child care subsidy of up to $150 per month for each child placed in a child care centre. Most families also rely on grandparents or other relatives to help out with child care. Hence, employing a foreign domestic worker is not the only answer to the working woman's need to balance career with household burden.

Sir, can the Minister commit to this House that the current levy of $330 will not be further increased?

Mr Speaker, Sir, in fact, I have told this House that the domestic worker levy has got to be reviewed from time to time in accordance with the wage increase in Singapore. We have got to keep a certain parity. As wages and incomes in Singapore go up, more and more people will find it affordable to have a foreign domestic worker unless the levy is at the same time adjusted to reflect the rising affluence.

asked the Minister for National Development, in view of the substantial demand for 3-room flats, whether it will be more cost-effective for the Housing and Development Board to build rather than buy back such flats in the open market to sell them to the applicants.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there are about 242,000 units of 3-room flats, making up 35% of the stock of HDB flats. HDB stopped building 3-room flats since 1985 because of the poor demand. Applicants have continued to show a preference for the bigger flats. With an average of 12,000 to 13,000 units of 3-room flats transacted in the resale market each year and HDB's programme to progressively sell suitable 3-room rental flats to sitting tenants, there is sufficient supply to meet the demand for 3-room flats. HDB has to be cautious not to create a situation of over-supply of 3-room flats. To build new 3-room flats will increase the already large pool of such flats. This may cause resale prices of 3-room flats to fall.

Sir, does the Minister agree that there is an increase in demand for 3-room flats because more people are eligible to buy these flats, including those who are single and some statutory boards? Because of the strong demand, the resale price of 3-room flats has also increased. Right now, the average resale price of a 3-room unit is around $200,000. In time to come, will it be cheaper to build rather than to buy back such flats?

Sir, HDB continues to monitor the resale prices of 3-room flats. Right now, it is still more cost effective for the HDB to buy the units from the resale market and sell them to applicants at a hefty discount, rather than to build new flats, because it costs more to build new flats. HDB will continue to monitor the situation. If it costs us more to buy than to build, then, obviously, we will build. But the objective of making the 3-room flats affordable to Singaporean households will be maintained. The Government is committed to make sure that 90% of Singaporean households will be in a position to afford 3-room flats. I want to assure this House that however high the resale prices of 3-room flats may go, the Government will make sure that 3-room flats will remain affordable to at least 90% of Singaporean households.

Sir, does it mean that the Government will increase the subsidy if the resale price goes up? At present, the subsidy is $50,000. Does it mean that the Government will revise this amount from time to time if the resale price goes up?

The Government will look at several mechanisms to make sure that the 3-room flats will continue to be affordable to at least 90% of Singaporean households. One solution will be to increase the subsidy. Other solutions may well include extending the mortgage loans and having other financial schemes to make sure that 3-room flats remain affordable.

asked the Minister for Community Development whether the Government will build and operate halfway houses to help problem families who need temporary shelter.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there are six halfway houses or crisis centres in Singapore, and the seventh is in the pipeline. These centres cater to individuals and families in distress and who need temporary shelter. They also cater to children who are abused or in need of care and protection, girls in moral danger, neglected wives and women with marital crisis, battered husbands, men with personality or emotional problems and families with financial or other difficulties. Some of these centres also provide support services and social skills training for their clients, eg, counselling, helping victims of abuse, career guidance, job placement and referral to other agencies. Where necessary, my Ministry provides supportive help to individuals and families who need shelter who are referred to by these centres. The help includes financial assistance, job placement, assistance in accommodation and placement of children in schools. My Ministry will continue to monitor the need for such centres and will assist VWOs to set up new ones, if necessary. My Ministry will not itself build and operate such halfway houses or crisis centres. VWOs with their specific objective of providing temporary care and shelter to help those in need are more focused and effective and are better placed to provide such services to help individuals and families in the community.

Sir, why is the Ministry of Community Development not providing such shelters? What are the reservations? Secondly, does the Ministry of Community Development provide support in terms of building and operating costs to these VWOs who operate such halfway houses?

Sir, I have mentioned why the Government is not involved in the building of halfway houses. As I said earlier, it is because VWOs are doing a good job and they could cater to the needs of their clients better. With regard to the kind of help given by Government in terms of buildings and equipment, among the help given are tax exemptions for donations for charitable purposes, release of State land or premises with rental subsidy to cover market rental and of HDB premises at concessionary rental, waiver of development charges, assistance for recruitment of staff, free medical treatment to clients who are eligible and exemptions for COE and vehicle taxes. Crisis centres are currently not funded by Government as they do not fall under the category of "approved projects" for Government funding. My Ministry, however, is looking at the need for additional assistance to these organisations to enhance their work and services they are providing to help individuals in crisis. The review includes the possibility of them being put under the Government financial assistance schemes. In other words, we will help them in the set-up costs and also operating costs.

Sir, is the Minister's assessment on the current number of halfway houses sufficient to house families who are in need? Because it was reported that families were turned away by halfway houses owing to lack of space.

Sir, according to our statistics, the total occupancy for the six crisis centres that we now have - the seventh is in the pipeline - has not at any one time reached 100%. In other words, they have, at one time or other, some vacancies at their premises.

Sir, may I have confirmation from the Minister that the Government is considering to bring projects like halfway houses into the so-called approved projects, thereby they will be eligible for financial assistance from the Government, especially the operating costs and recurrent costs?

As I said, we are reviewing the situation and we will make recommendations as appropriate.

asked the Minister for Education why Singaporeans are not permitted to send their children to International Schools in Singapore.

Mr Speaker, Sir, international schools in Singapore are set up specifically to cater to the educational needs of the children of the expatriate community. Singapore citizens residing in Singapore should receive their education in our schools where citizenship education consistent with our national values and aspirations is taught. If they attend foreign system schools, they will miss out on the curricula and activities conducted in our schools which seek to inculcate in our students desirable social values and a sense of national identity.

Sir, I do not quite understand the policy because the Minister has decided not to make education compulsory in the first place, which means that, effectively, children can stay at home. But, at the same time, they cannot attend international schools. So I do not understand the inconsistency in the policy.

Sir, there is no inconsistency. We want all our Singaporean children to attend school. We have not made education compulsory because there is no need to. Almost every child of school-going age is in school. The reason why we insist that they go to Singapore schools is for the purposes I have explained. We have our own curriculum. We have, for example, a bilingual policy. We also try to inculcate in our children certain values. International schools are meant for expatriates. For Singaporeans, we want them to go to our schools.

Sir, if for some reason like personal family circumstances, would the Minister be prepared to give a waiver on this policy and allow them to attend international schools?

Yes, we have done so in some cases. The majority of the children who go to these schools are either expatriates or they are children of mixed marriages, eg, European or American men married to local women. Their children may be allowed to attend international schools. There could be other cases of children with special problems, eg, they are autistic or they have other psychological problems, and if these schools offer special facilities, we may consider allowing them to go to these schools.

The following Question stood in the name of Mr Lau Ping Sum- 6. To ask the Prime Minister what were the amounts of medical benefits claimed by civil servants for the years 1994 and 1995.

Question No. 6, Sir.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the amounts of medical subsidy given to civil servants in 1994 and 1995 were as follows: FY 1994 $26.6 million FY 1995 $28.9 million These figures include the additional 1% Medisave contribution given by the Government in place of hospitalisation subsidy to officers who are on the Medisave-cum-Subsidised Outpatient (MSO) Scheme.

asked the Minister for Home Affairs what are the circumstances in which charges against persons who committed theft but had made full restitution will be withdrawn, and how many cases of such withdrawal were recorded since 1992.

Sir, theft cases including shoplifting are seizable offences investigated by the Police. Upon completion of investigations, the Police will assess the evidence and the merits of the case. If there is sufficient evidence, the offender will be prosecuted in court unless there are merits in the case to withdraw the charge. In such a case, Police will seek concurrence from the Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP) to administer a stern caution to the offender in lieu of prosecution. Sir, the rationale for cautioning an offender in lieu of prosecution is to allow him a second chance so that he can learn from his mistakes and change for the better. An offender may be considered for cautioning particularly if he has not been prosecuted in court or cautioned by the Police before or where there are mitigating circumstances leading to the commission of the offence such as in the case of a young offender. Police will evaluate the case as a whole, taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances. Making restitution is only one of the factors that Police will consider as a possible indication of remorse. However, making restitution by itself does not mean that the charge will be withdrawn. Sir, the Police does not have available records on the number of cases where the charge was withdrawn solely because restitution was made. Since 1995, there have been 1,123 cases of shoplifting and minor thefts where the offenders were cautioned and charges withdrawn against the offender. The majority of these cases are for shoplifting and the bulk of the offenders are minors.

Sir, I refer to the case of a British schoolboy, John David Raven, whose charge was withdrawn by the Attorney-General. I would like to know what were the merits of the case and under what circumstances was the charge withdrawn.

Sir, the case referred to by the Member is of a 18-year old British national who was charged for theft in July 1996. His counsel made representation where he expressed remorse for committing the offence and he also made full restitution to the victim. So the DPP, in accordance with normal guidelines, looked at it and handled it as a routine matter and withdrew the charge.

Sir, what were the merits of the case? And what principles were involved in withdrawing the charge against the boy?

Sir, as I said just now, the Police will look at all the circumstances of the case, particularly if the offender is a young person, like the case in question, and also the fact that he is a first offender. These were the circumstances. On top of that if restitution is made, as a factor, it is also considered in deciding whether or not to withdraw the charge.

The following Question stood in the name of Mr Lau Ping Sum - 8. To ask the Minister for National Development whether additional NETS Point-of-Sale terminals will be installed at Housing and Development Board Branch Offices to facilitate cashless payments.

Question No. 8, Sir.

Sir, NETS is a convenient cashless mode of payment. HDB installed a NETS terminal at the Ang Mo Kio Branch Office in May 1988. The average monthly NETS collection is about $157,000 comprising 1,000 transactions. This is only about 5% of the total number of counter transactions at the Branch Office. As the volume of NETS transactions is low, the NETS facility has not been extended to other Branch Offices. HDB encourages cashless transactions, primarily by making it unnecessary to make the trip to the Branch Office itself. The main scheme is the GIRO through which residents can make their regular monthly payments without the need to go to the Branch Offices. HDB residents can also pay their regular charges at any convenient OUB and OCBC ATM at any time of the day. They can also make use of the phone banking services provided by OUB, UOB, OCBC and DBS Bank in the convenience of their homes. In addition, residents with current accounts can pay their miscellaneous transactions by cheque, which can be sent either by post or deposited at the cheque deposit boxes located outside most Branch Offices.

asked the Minister for Finance what measures have been taken by the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation Private Limited in response to the following findings by the Auditor-General: (i) nine breaches of credit limits not being reported to the head of department; (ii) inadequate monitoring of credit limits of individual departments and trading limits of foreign exchange dealers; and (iii) purchases of securities from unauthorised issuers.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to assure the Member that GIC takes the findings of the Auditor-General seriously and has taken steps to address all of them. On the nine breaches of credit limit, the main concern was that the breaches had not been brought to the attention of the head of department. These breaches were actually technical in nature, arising from the basis of calculation. Essentially, the GIC officer concerned had used the "nominal value" of the bonds, instead of the "market value", to calculate the exposure. The "nominal value" calculations were well within the limits, but based on the "market value", the credit limits would have been exceeded. The breaches were all very small in magnitude, ranging from only 0.028% to 0.14% of the value for each of the transactions. Besides, the parties involved in those breaches of credit limits were reputable financial institutions. The risks of default from these breaches were insignificant. As pointed out by the Auditor-General, each department in GIC already has its own system to monitor adherence to credit limits. In addition, GIC has set up an independent Risk Control Unit to monitor compliance with these limits and to report on any breach of the limits, technical or otherwise, to the appropriate management level. This Unit also monitors the trading limits of foreign exchange dealers. The Member also asked about the purchase of unauthorised securities by GIC on behalf of the Board of Commissioners of Currency (BCCS). Under the Currency Act, the Board's funds have to be invested in securities which are guaranteed by foreign governments or international financial institutions. The problem arose because GIC had, on behalf of BCCS, purchased certain securities which were not explicitly guaranteed by a government, although they were issued by Government or State authorities. These securities were regarded in the market as implicitly guaranteed by Government. However, GIC has since been advised by the Attorney-General's Chambers that to comply with the Currency Act, the security must be explicitly guaranteed by Government. GIC now follows strictly the interpretation of the Currency Act to invest only in securities with explicit government guarantees.

Sir, prior to the findings of the Auditor-General, did the management of GIC know about all these breaches of credit limits and the buying of securities from unauthorised issuers?

I presume, Mr Speaker, Sir, that these were items which were discovered by the Auditor-General in the routine course of his audit.

In other words, the GIC did not discover these breaches prior to the findings of the Auditor-General.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as I have explained, in one case, it was a technical interpretation whether to use the nominal value or the market value of the bond to calculate the exposure limit. In the other case, it was a matter of judgment whether an instrument which is guaranteed by the Government needs to be explicitly guaranteed or can be implicitly guaranteed. I presume the management must have felt that these were within limits. The Auditor-General disagreed. We have decided to follow the Auditor-General's interpretation.

Sir, the Deputy Prime Minister in his answer said that the breaches were actually technical, ranging from only about 0.028% to 0.14%. I would like to know what were the amounts, based on these percentages.

There were nine transactions. The amounts were between US$200,000 and US$800,000 each, adding up probably to US$5 million.

Sir, would the Deputy Prime Minister disclose who were the unauthorised issuers which the GIC purchased the securities from?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not have the breakdown of the securities. I do not think that it is a practice for GIC to reveal what securities it has been buying.

asked the Minister for Labour what has been the initial response to the `Back to Work Programme' launched recently by his Ministry and what is the estimated number of people expected to eventually rejoin the work force.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the `Back to Work Programme' was launched by my Ministry on 13th September at the `Choice Employers 96 Exhibition', in conjunction with the Singapore Productivity and Standards Board, the National Trades Union Congress and the Singapore National Employers' Federation. The objective of this tripartite initiative is to raise the local labour force participation rates so as to better utilise our indigenous manpower resources. The programme is directed at potential employees outside the workforce. These are mainly the housewives and older persons. Under this programme, employment assistance will also be extended to retrenched workers. Sir, since the launching of the programme at the exhibition, the Employment Service Department of my Ministry has received many job applications and telephone enquiries. Between 13th September and 21st September 1996, a total of 1,053 job applications were received. Of these, 643 or 61% were married women in the 30 to 54 age group while 309 or 29% were persons aged 55 and above. Some 68% of the applicants have also indicated their preference for part-time and flexible work. Over the same period, a total of 968 telephone enquiries were also received. Sir, there are a large number of women in the 30 to 54 age group and persons aged 55 and above who are economically inactive. The labour force participation rates of these two groups are much lower than that in the developed countries. For example, the labour force participation rate of women in the 40 to 49 age group is only 52% compared to 71% in Japan. Likewise, only 41% of persons aged 55 to 64 are working compared to 66% in Japan. If we could achieve Japan's labour force participation rates for these two groups, we could increase our workforce by 150,000. The `Back to Work Programme'is the first step in this direction but it is not intended that this programme alone will be able to raise our workforce by 150,000. It will take time and changes in the mindsets of both employers and prospective employees before we can fully tap this pool of potential employees and make better use of our available manpower resources.

asked the Minister for the Environment whether his Ministry will consider constructing a roof for the Serangoon Gardens Food Centre and, if so, when.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Serangoon Gardens Food Centre which was built in 1972 was designed with an open concept where parts of the refreshment area are roofed over and the rest open. My Ministry will consider providing roofs over some parts of the open refreshment area at the Serangoon Gardens Food Centre. The feasibility and extent will have to be studied in detail to ensure that natural ventilation and lighting are not compromised.

Sir, first, I would like to thank the Minister for his positive reply. May I ask the Minister that, in view of the unique structure of the food centre, his Ministry officials consult the Management Committee of the food centre with regard to the actual requirements concerning the roof?

Mr Speaker, Sir, my Ministry officials and engineers will be happy to do that.

asked the Minister for Education how many children living in Tampines and Pasir Ris were unable to obtain Primary One admission in a school in their respective estates during the last registration exercise.

Mr Speaker, Sir, at the end of Phase 2C registration, schools in Pasir Ris New Town were able to admit all applicants, except Pasir Ris Primary School where balloting was conducted for children living within one kilometre of the school. In the case of Tampines New Town, four out of 11 primary schools conducted balloting for children living within one kilometre of the school. All the applicants who applied to the other seven schools were successful in gaining Primary One places. Sir, there were enough vacancies in schools at Pasir Ris and Tampines New Town to cater for applicants who applied at Phase 2C. In fact, there are still vacancies available in some schools at Pasir Ris and Tampines New Town for Phase 3.

asked the Minister for Communications whether the Land Transport Authority will reconsider constructing a pedestrian overhead bridge near the new Changi Hospital and Changkat Primary School in Simei Street 3.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Changkat Primary School is about 60 metres away from the junction of Simei Street 3 and Simei Street 1. There are signalised pedestrian crossing facilities at the junction which students can use to cross Simei Street 3 safely. The Land Transport Authority will be installing an additional set of traffic lights at the junction of Simei Street 3 and the access road to the new Changi Hospital. Signalised pedestrian crossing facilities will also be incorporated at this junction. In view of this, it is not necessary to build a pedestrian overhead bridge across Simei Street 3.

asked the Minister for Communications if his Ministry has any short-term plans to relieve the peak-hour traffic jams at Upper Serangoon Road/Braddell Road/Lorong Chuan/Boundary Road.

Sir, many of the key junctions in the Upper Serangoon Road/Braddell Road/Boundary Road/Lorong Chuan area are congested during peak hours due to very high traffic volumes. Marginal improvements can be achieved by adjusting traffic light timings and junction improvements. For example, traffic signals in the area have been brought under GLIDE, a computerised traffic light system, since March last year. The Land Transport Authority (LTA) is planning to expand the Upper Serangoon Road/Braddell Road/Bartley Road junction as well as the Upper Paya Lebar Road/Boundary Road/Upper Serangoon Road junction into multi-tier interchanges. Construction work on these interchanges is scheduled to start in the second quarter of 1997 and LTA is also planning to upgrade the existing CTE/Braddell Road flyover into a three-tier flyover.

asked the Minister for Education if there are sufficient primary schools in Tampines and Pasir Ris to cater for residents in those estates.

Sir, currently, 11 primary schools and three primary schools are serving Tampines and Pasir Ris, respectively. A new primary school, Park View Primary School at Pasir Ris Drive 1, will be ready to admit pupils in January 1997. One new primary school each in Tampines and Pasir Ris have been proposed under the 5th Primary School Building Programme to meet projected demand for primary school places. The schools are scheduled to be completed by the end of 1999. 1.13 pm

"to amend the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1992 Revised Edition)", presented by the Prime Minister (Mr Goh Chok Tong); read the First time; to be read a Second time on a day to be named, and to be printed.

"to amend the Parliamentary Elections Act (Chapter 218 of the 1995 Revised Edition) and to make related amendments to the Presidential Elections Act (Chapter 240A of the 1992 Revised Edition)", presented by Mr Goh Chok Tong; read the First time; to be read a Second time on a day to be named, and to be printed.

"to amend the Legal Profession Act (Chapter 161 of the 1994 Revised Edition)", presented by the Senior 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 repeal the Institute of Education Act (Chapter 140 of the 1985 Revised Edition)", presented by the Minister for Education (Mr Lee Yock Suan); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament; and to be printed.

"to amend the People's Association Act (Chapter 227 of the 1994 Revised Edition)", presented by the Senior Minister of State for Community Development (Mr Ch'ng Jit Koon); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

"to amend the Economic Expansion Incentives (Relief from Income Tax) Act (Chapter 86 of the 1996 Revised Edition)", recommendation of President signified; presented by the Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr Yeo Cheow Tong); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Countervailing and Anti-Dumping Duties Bill seeks to update and bring the existing Customs (Dumping and Subsidies) Act (Chapter 71) in line with the World Trade Organisation ("WTO") Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures as well as the WTO Agreement on Anti-Dumping Measures. When enacted, the new Countervailing and Anti-Dumping Duties Act will replace the existing Customs (Dumping and Subsidies) Act. The existing Act has been in force since 1962. Since then, the international rules governing countervailing measures that can be taken against subsidised imports and anti-dumping measures against dumped imports have been re-negotiated under the various rounds of GATT multilateral trade negotiations, culminating with the conclusion of the Uruguay Round and the birth of the WTO. As a WTO member, we need to update our existing laws on dumping and subsidies to meet our commitments under the WTO Agreements. This will reaffirm Singapore's status as a responsible trading partner. The detailed rules and procedures in the Bill will also give added assurance and certainty to the local and foreign parties concerned whenever an action is instituted. New Provisions and Significant Amendments Mr Speaker, the existing Act already contains the basic framework for anti-dumping and countervailing measures. The new Bill expands on this basic framework, clarifying and putting in place rules and procedures that are in line with the relevant WTO Agreements. Let me now bring Members through the salient provisions of this Bill: Definition First, the Bill sets out clear interpretations of key terms, and expands on the definitions in the present Act. For instance, the present Act does not specify who constitutes the "domestic industry", the scope of "interested parties" or what are considered "like goods" in any particular case. In the Bill, the scope of the "domestic industry" has been defined to mean domestic producers of like goods. "Like goods" in turn are defined to mean goods which are determined to be identical in all aspects or which most closely resemble the goods which are being dumped or subsidised. Similarly, "interested party" is now defined in the Bill to include producers, exporters, importers of the subject goods, trade or business associations representing these groups, the government or the producer's country and the domestic industry. The definitions clearly explain who can file a petition against dumped or subsidised imports, and allow the authorities to assess whether the dumped or subsidised goods are in fact causing injury to the particular domestic industry. Provisions for Procedures on Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Actions Another key improvement to the existing Act is the inclusion of clear and detailed provisions to ensure transparency and consistency in the procedures for anti-dumping and countervailing actions. These are in line with the disciplines set forth in the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures as well as the WTO Agreement on Anti-Dumping Measures. For example, when a particular domestic industry has sufficient proof that it is suffering injury from unfairly-priced imports, it can petition the Government to take action. If there is sufficient proof, the authorities will carry out thorough investigations according to the detailed procedures stipulated in the new Bill. These include questionnaires, invitation for comments from interested parties and on-site verifications. These investigations must be concluded within a year after initiation, and within 18 months in special circumstances. This ensures that complaints are processed expeditiously, minimising interruptions to or uncertainties over the trade concerned. If the investigations conclude that the goods have indeed been dumped or were subsidised and that the domestic industry in question was consequently injured, anti-dumping and countervailing duties can then be imposed. Such duties imposed under this Bill will be treated as customs duties and the provisions of the Customs Act will apply in relationship to the collection and enforcement of the duties. To take into account developments which may take place following the imposition of anti-dumping or countervailing duties, the authorities will conduct periodic reviews to determine whether the duties should continue to remain in place. In addition, to ensure transparency and fairness to all parties involved, the new Bill establishes an independent Anti-Dumping Tribunal. Interested parties can request the Tribunal to review the final determination in an investigation as well as the final results of a periodic review. Conclusion Mr Speaker, let me end by assuring Members of this House that Singapore remains firmly committed to the policy of free trade. However, from time to time, unfair trade practices such as export subsidies and dumping may still occur. Where these unfair trade practices cause undue damage to our domestic producers, Singapore is entitled to take action against the injurious exports. Let me also assure Members that the relevant authorities will carefully scrutinise any complaints made by our domestic producers that they are being injured by subsidised or dumped goods before taking action to impose any anti-dumping or countervailing measures. 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 Yeo Cheow Tong]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment, read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The main objective of the Bill is to enable the Sentosa Development Corporation, or SDC for short, to administer the Sentosa Cove development. The Bill will also make some minor amendments to the SDC Act to enhance the administration of Sentosa island and the Corporation. Sentosa Cove project Let me begin by giving Members of the House some information on the Sentosa Cove project. Sentosa Cove, which used to be known as Buran Darat, is located on the eastern end of Sentosa island. It will have a total land area of 116.5 hectares. SDC will turn Sentosa Cove into an integrated waterfront development, comprising a marina, a hotel, shops and a major residential housing development with bungalows, townhouses, condominiums and apartments. The concept was modelled after Port Grimaud on the French Riveria. Sentosa has subsequently studied other newer waterfront developments elsewhere in the world and incorporated concept and design features from these newer projects which suit our local environment. The Government decided on the Sentosa Cove project for three reasons. Firstly, to realise the economic potential of Sentosa Cove. Secondly, to provide in Singapore an unique waterfront development. Thirdly, to enhance the tourism product of Sentosa. Port Grimaud attracts many tourists because of its unique development. We expect Sentosa Cove to be equally successful as a tourist attraction, both to locals as well as to tourists. The project will be implemented by SDC's fully-owned subsidiary, Sentosa Cove Pte Ltd, which will operate as SDC's agent. SDC is now in the process of finalising the detailed plans for the entire development. It intends to parcel out the lots in a variety of sizes, ranging from single bungalow lots, to multi-bungalow, townhouse and condominium developments. The lots will be tendered out on 99-year leases. This approach will enable private individuals and developers to participate in the tender exercise. In drawing up the development plans for Sentosa Cove, my Ministry and SDC have recognised the importance of preserving the ambience and charm of Sentosa. This has been Sentosa's unique feature, and makes the island special to its many visitors. As such, we plan to limit Sentosa Cove to a total of 2,300 residential units. Vehicles travelling to and from Sentosa Cove will not be permitted into other parts of Sentosa. SDC's target is to launch the land sales in the second half of next year. The land sales phasing will of course take into account prevailing market conditions. Major amendments Let me now take Members through the SDC Amendment Bill. The major amendments to the SDC Act are those pertaining to the Sentosa Cove project. Under the existing SDC Act, SDC's charter is restricted to managing, developing and promoting Sentosa proper as a tourist attraction. Clauses 5 and 6 of the Amendment Bill will enlarge SDC's charter to include developing and administering Sentosa Cove for residential, commercial and recreational purposes. The clauses will also allow SDC to venture into the region, or provide consultancy services, if suitable business opportunities come along. Clause 9 of the Bill will give SDC the necessary powers to administer Sentosa Cove. The powers are in three main areas. Firstly, powers to lay down conditions under which building works, including structures on water, can be undertaken on Sentosa Cove. Successful tenderers will be required to clear their designs with SDC before commencing building works. This is necessary to ensure that the external facade of buildings on Sentosa Cove will blend in with the ambience on Sentosa. Secondly, powers to levy "estate maintenance contributions" on properties on Sentosa Cove for maintaining common areas on Sentosa Cove. SDC will set up a maintenance fund to maintain common areas such as canals, canal walls, sluices, gates and other land-based facilities on Sentosa Cove. Property-owners will bear the cost of such maintenance and improvements through a regular contribution to SDC. Clause 9 of the Bill will also empower SDC to recover arrears in conservancy charges through the sale of properties. This is similar to the provisions under the Land Titles (Strata) Act. There are stringent safeguards in the Bill to avoid abuses by SDC. Thirdly, powers to regulate the use of Sentosa Cove marina basin and inland waters. These powers are necessary for safety, navigation and environmental reasons, and to allow the marina to operate efficiently. The marina basin and inland waters will be policed by SDC staff. Clause 9 of the Bill provides for SDC's appointment of a "Harbour Master" who will be given the necessary powers to control the navigation and use of vessels in the Sentosa Cove waterways. It also prescribes the penalties for vessels which navigate in the Sentosa Cove waterways carelessly or dangerously. Terms like "Harbour" and "maritime" are used in the Maritime and Port Authority Act with their own meanings. To avoid confusing the maritime community, I am proposing minor amendments to the Amendment Bill to replace these terms. The term "Harbour Master" will now be replaced with "Marina Superintendent". I will take the House through these amendments later at the Committee stage. New Regulations Sir, new regulations are also necessary to enable SDC to manage Sentosa island more effectively. Existing SDC regulations were promulgated in the 1970s. Since then, there have been many changes to the island. The most significant change was the construction of the causeway bridge which opened in December 1992. SDC currently allows businesses operating on Sentosa and members of the Sentosa Golf Club to drive into Sentosa on a very restrictive basis. SDC controls the entry of such vehicles at its causeway checkpoint and administers a system of vehicle permits. But once on the island, some of these vehicles are driven around the island instead of to their designated locations. Some drivers park their vehicles in non-designated areas, inconveniencing Sentosa visitors and authorised vehicles. Clause 14 of the Bill will allow SDC to rectify this situation. It provides for new SDC regulations to regulate traffic and the parking of vehicles in Sentosa. Drivers on Sentosa must recognise that driving into Sentosa is a privilege, and they should not abuse this privilege. Minor Amendments Let me now take the House through the proposed minor amendments to the SDC Act. They are necessary to facilitate the administration of Sentosa island and the SDC. Clauses 4 and 11 will allow SDC to redesignate the General Manager of SDC to Chief Executive of SDC, to reflect his enlarged job scope with SDC taking on the development of Sentosa Cove. Clause 6 will allow SDC to grant loans to its subsidiary companies, such as Sentosa Cove Pte Ltd, subject to the written approval of the Minister for Trade and Industry. Clause 7 will allow SDC to issue bonds, if necessary, to raise funds in the future. The bonds would supplement existing instruments like loans and debentures. Clause 8 will extend the period by which SDC must present its Annual Report and financial statements from the current four months to six months from the end of the previous financial year. This will give SDC sufficient time to audit its financial accounts, and is in line with the practice in other statutory boards. Clause 10 will allow SDC to appoint professional committees to assist the Corporation. This is in addition to existing provisions for SDC to appoint advisory and technical committees. Clause 13 of the Bill will allow SDC to compound offences under the SDC Act and Regulations with fines of up to $500. Currently, SDC can only take actions against minor offenders through the Courts. The proposed provision will give SDC greater flexibility in dealing with minor offenders. Sir, the proposed amendments to the SDC Act are necessary to allow SDC to administer the Sentosa Cove development, and to facilitate the administration of Sentosa island and the Corporation. 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 Yeo Cheow Tong].

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

There are four amendments. Mr Yeo, amendment No. (1).

Sir, I beg to move, In page 2, to leave out lines 9 to 13. Sir, the term "Harbour Master" is used in the Maritime and Port Authority (MPA) Act with its own meaning. To avoid confusing the maritime community if the term "Harbour Master" is also used in the SDC (Amendment) Bill, I am proposing to delete the term "Harbour Master" from this Bill. Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. (2), Mr Yeo.

Sir, I beg to move, In page 2, after line 15, to insert - " "Marina Superintendent" means the Marina Superintendent appointed under section 18H and includes any Deputy or Assistant Marina Superinten- dent appointed under that section;". Sir, I propose to replace the term "Harbour Master" with the term "Marina Superintendent". This is to avoid any confusion with the MPA Act. Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. (3), Mr Yeo.

Sir, I beg to move, In page 2, line 16, to leave out "maritime" and insert "marine". Sir, the term "maritime" is used in relation to sea navigation and shipping in the MPA Act. I am proposing to replace the term "maritime" with "marine" in order to avoid any confusion with the MPA Act. Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. (4), Mr Yeo.

Sir, I beg to move, In page 3, lines 17, 23 and 24, to leave out "tidal and". Sir, deleting the words "tidal and" will make it clearer that the powers which SDC needs to operate the marina effectively are confined to the Sentosa Cove marina basin and inland waters, and do not extend into port waters. Amendment agreed to. Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 3 -

There is one amendment. Mr Yeo.

Sir, I beg to move, In page 4, line 7, to leave out ", employee or" and insert "or employee". Sir, this is to correct a drafting error. Amendment agreed to. Clause 3, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 4 and 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 6 -

There is one amendment. Mr Yeo.

Sir, I beg to move, In page 6, line 11 and in page 7, line 5, to leave out "maritime" and insert "marine". Sir, I have explained the reasons in the earlier amendment. Amendment agreed to. Clause 6, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 7 and 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 9 -

There are four amendments. Amendment No. (1), Mr Yeo.

Sir, may I have your permission to move amendments (1) and (3) together?

Yes, please proceed.

Sir, I beg to move, In page 9, lines 28 and 31, in page 10, lines 11, 18 and 21, and, in page 11, lines 3, 5 and 15, to leave out "maritime" and insert "marine". In page 17, line 30 and in page 18, lines 8 and 9, to leave out "maritime" and insert "marine". Sir, I propose to replace the word "maritime" with the word "marine". I have explained the reasons earlier. Amendments agreed to.

Amendment No. (2), Mr Yeo.

Sir, may I seek your permission to move amendments (2) and (4) together?

Yes.

Sir, I beg to move, In page 17, lines 17, 18, 24 and 25, to leave out "Harbour Master" and insert "Marina Superintendent". In page 19, lines 14 and 16 and in page 20, lines 1, 32 and 38, to leave out "Harbour Master" and insert "Marina Superintendent". Sir, this is to replace the term "Harbour Master" with the term "Marina Superintendent". I have explained the reasons earlier. Amendments agreed to.

The following two consequential amendments will be made: (i) To delete "maritime" and insert "marine" in the marginal note to section 18C. (ii) To delete the marginal note to section 18H and insert "Appointment of Marina Superintendent and Deputy and Assistant Marina Superintendents." Clause 9, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 10 to 13 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 14 -

There is one amendment. Mr Yeo.

Sir, I beg to move, In page 23, line 13, to leave out "maritime" and insert "marine". Sir, I propose to replace the word "maritime" with the word "marine". I have explained the reasons earlier. Amendment agreed to. Clause 14, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported with amendments; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 1.45 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Bill will amend the Skills Development Levy Act, which I will refer to as the SDL Act for short. The Bill will widen the definition of the beneficiaries of the Skills Development Fund, or SDF, transfer the existing SDF from the Government to the Singapore Productivity and Standards Board, or PSB, and make some minor amendments to enable PSB to administer the SDF more effectively. Background Let me first give Members of this House some background information on the SDF. The SDF was established in 1979 under the Ministry of Finance to support and encourage the upgrading of skills of workers in Singapore. Companies were required to contribute towards the Skills Development Fund through the payment of a certain percentage of their payroll for workers whose income falls below a stipulated cap. In October 1981, the Minister for Finance delegated the administration of the SDF to the EDB. As the focus of the SDF was on training of workers to improve productivity, the SDF was subsequently transferred to the National Productivity Board. With the merger of the National Productivity Board and the Singapore Institute of Standards and Industrial Research to form the new PSB in April 1996, the SDF now comes under the administration of PSB. The accumulated reserves of the SDF currently stand at $359 million. The SDF has played an indispensable role of facilitating and encouraging Singapore workers to upgrade and acquire new skills. Since its inception, $731 million has been disbursed to support 2.8 million training places. In 1995 alone, 489,911 training places were committed under the SDF. Our investment in training has now risen to a national average of 3.6% of payroll, a marked improvement from 1% in FY86. Main objectives The Government needs to amend the SDL Act for two main reasons. First, we want to ensure that all workers, whether they are salaried employees, self-employed or seeking employment, have greater access to training opportunities. Secondly, we want to ensure that SDF support for workers' training can continue uninterrupted during transitions of Government. With the proposed amendment to the SDL Act, the SDF will be transferred from the Government to PSB as a statutory board. PSB will be responsible for the management and administration of the Fund, with built-in Ministerial controls to prevent misuse of the Fund. PSB will expand existing programmes to support the training of a larger group of workers. The current SDF schemes will be immediately made available to all contract workers and the self-employed. PSB will also extend SDF support to new programmes designed for housewives and retirees who are preparing to re-enter the workforce. One such example is the pilot training programme launched recently by the Ministry of Labour and PSB, in collaboration with the Singapore National Employers' Federation and the National Trades Union Congress, to train housewives, retirees and dislocated workers and encourage them to return to the workforce. Major amendments I will now describe in more detail the major amendments proposed in the Bill. There are two major amendments. First, to widen the definition of SDF beneficiaries, and second, to transfer the Fund from the Government to PSB. Under the existing SDL Act, the beneficiaries of SDF grants are restricted to "persons in employment" and retrenched persons. The present definition therefore caters only to workers in active employment and retrenched workers. Clause 4 of the Amendment Bill extends SDF beneficiaries to include first, persons "in the workforce", for example, the self-employed and contract workers; second, persons "preparing to join the workforce", for example, school-leavers; and third, persons rejoining the workforce, for example, housewives and retirees. About 270,000 persons, or 16% of the workforce, who are self-employed or unemployed stand to benefit from additional training opportunities arising from this wider definition. The revised definition will also facilitate a large pool of the economically inactive persons to enter or re-enter the workforce. The second major amendment relates to the transfer of the SDF from Government to PSB. The SDF is currently a Government fund. It becomes part of the reserves when the current Government's term of office ends. With an annual grant commitment of about $70 million, the SDF will encounter serious cash-flow problems if it is not able to tap on its reserves after a transition of Government, but has to rely solely on fresh levy collections. Workers' training will be severely disrupted as a result. To avoid this, it is necessary to establish the SDF as a PSB fund, to ensure that funds continue to be available to support workers' training during transitions of Government. Clause 5 of the Bill transfers the SDF to PSB and establishes it as an independent PSB fund. PSB will be given some flexibility and autonomy to manage and administer the SDF. For instance, clause 6 gives PSB powers to appoint its own agents, decide on remuneration of such agents, and delegate its powers and functions to others accordingly without the Minister's approval. This is similar to section 3 of the Tourist Promotion (Cess Collection) Act. While PSB is given flexibility to administer the SDF, let me assure the House that there are sufficient built-in Ministerial controls to protect against misuse of the Fund. For example, clause 4 stipulates that the moneys of the Fund may be expended for purposes other than those listed in the Act, only with the approval of the Minister. Clause 7 states that approval from the Minister is needed before PSB can undertake investment outside the terms stipulated by the Trustees Act. The accounts of the SDF will continue to be separately maintained from the rest of PSB's accounts and submitted as part of the annual report to Parliament each year. Other amendments Let me now take the House through some of the other amendments of the SDL Bill. These amendments are necessary for PSB to administer the SDF flexibly and effectively as an independent fund. They also provide PSB with greater powers to deal with abuses of SDF funds. This is important as PSB has now been made the custodian of the Fund. Clause 3 expands the sources of income of the SDF to include not only skills development levy, but also donations, honorariums, as well as contributions by the Government. Clause 9 makes certain officers of a body corporate, a partnership, a society or associations liable for any offence under the Act. Clause 10 gives investigative powers to PSB for breaches of the Act, to allow it to request for information, conduct checks and retain documents for investigation purposes. Clause 11 increases the composition fine to a maximum of $1,000 for persons who infringe the Act. Clause 13 ensures that PSB conforms to standard financial provisions in administering a public fund. The set of financial provisions applicable to the PSB are described in the First Schedule. Clause 14 ensures that levies due from persons or companies are given priority in the event of individual bankruptcies or winding up of companies. And finally, clause 15 allows PSB to make specific regulations necessary for it to carry out SDF activities. These concern the administration, collection, and remission of SDF levies. PSB is required to obtain the approval of the Minister before making these regulations. Conclusion Mr Speaker, Sir, the proposed amendments to the SDL Act will enable the SDF to reach out to a larger group of Singaporeans and encourage them to acquire new skills through training. It will also give Government greater ability to support worker upgrading programmes and help keep Singapore competitive in the world market. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, one of the main objectives of this amendment is to widen the scope of the use of the Skills Development Fund to include not only employed persons but also to train persons to join or re-join the workforce. I have three points to make in this regard. First, the amendment will further our economic goals. There is an estimated target group of about 150,000 persons who are not working but can work. This comprises nearly 9% of the 1.7 million workforce which is not an insignificant proportion. It will therefore help ease our tight labour constraint if some of these people were to join or re-join the workforce. For this, they would need training and re-training. Use of the Skills Development Fund for this purpose will be beneficial to employers, the people themselves, as well as to the nation. Second, the use of the Fund to train people to re-join the workforce also contributes towards our social goals. It is important for society to recognise that it is not easy for women to balance family and work responsibility and that structures and institutions should be adjusted in order to help women to do so. This is for the sake of the family in particular, and society as a whole. One option is for women to work part- time, flexi-time or to re-join the workforce after a few years of child caring. The amendment Bill helps precisely in this purpose. Third, the use of the Fund also helps in enabling older people, retirees to be gainfully employed. Nowadays, with an average life expectancy of about 75 years, many older people are still physically and intellectually active and can be employed even when they are above 60. Providing them with re-training would contribute towards helping them to find meaningful employment and contribute towards their sense of dignity and self-worth. I therefore support this amendment. I hope, however, that the Government will not just stop here but will implement all changes necessary to help bring about this flexibility between work in the marketplace, work at home and retirement. For example, the Back to Work scheme recently elaborated on by the Minister of State is a very good start. It involves 18 companies which are offering more than 3,200 service jobs and the Skills Development Fund will give each employer $350 per trainee. But so far the scheme only involves 18 companies. I hope that more companies will join the current 18 in the scheme. And I hope also that in Singapore we will soon evolve a mindset and a structure whereby we will see women moving in and out of the workforce in order to be able to efficiently and fully balance their child-bearing, family responsibilities and work.

Mr Speaker, I would like to thank the NMP, Dr Lee Tsao Yuan, who spoke in support of the Bill. Dr Lee welcomes in particular the widening of the scope of the SDF to benefit those who are currently not working and those who intend to enter or re-enter the workforce and she has cited the example of the Back to Work scheme which is being supported by SDF. I can assure the Member that MTI and PSB, together with other agencies, will continue to introduce innovative programmes to encourage more Singaporeans to re-join the workforce and to encourage more companies to support the relevant training programmes.

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 Goh Chee Wee]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn to 10th October, 1996." - [Dr Lee Boon Yang]. Adjourned accordingly at Two o'clock pm to Thursday, 10th October, 1996.

asked the Minister for Defence what action has been taken in response to the seven irregularities highlighted by the Auditor-General concerning Unicorn International Private Limited and what measures are implemented to improve the operating control of the company.

Unicorn International conducted its own internal investigations into the 7 cases that were highlighted by the Auditor-General's Office in its report and has since taken appropriate action to rectify the irregularities. In the first three cases of double payments, the Police also conducted their own investigations, and concluded that there are no grounds for criminal prosecution. The company has recovered moneys from staff where there had been double payment. Disciplinary action in accordance with company policy and procedures has also been taken where required. The company has reviewed its operating controls and put in place measures to further improve its systems. These relate to procedures on claims to be reimbursed based only on original invoice and receipt to avoid double payments, and more thorough checks to avoid mistakes in mileage claims.

asked the Minister for Finance if he will state how much estate duty the Government expects to collect in respect of (i) immovable property and (ii) movable property following the recent amendments made to the Estate Duty Act.

It is difficult to estimate the amount of estate duty that could be collected following the recent amendments as death occurrences do not follow any pattern and it is not possible to predict which wealth category the deceased would come from. However, if we were to apply the new rates and exemption thresholds to the assessments done in 1995, it would result in the following amounts of estate duty: Immovable Properties $9.7 million Movable Properties $38.8 million

asked the Minister for Finance whether Government will help those citizens, especially the elderly, who have no CPF account, or insufficient funds in their accounts, or no children to top up the accounts to acquire the Singapore Telecom shares, and, if so, what are the Government's plans and whether such plans would include fully subsidising the cost of 300 shares.

The second offer of Singapore Telecom shares (ST2) was a huge success. 1,530,000 people took up the offer, 120,000 more than the first time round. ST2 was part of the Government's Share Ownership Programme. The aim is to encourage Singaporeans to own shares in blue-chip Singapore companies, and thus take a direct stake in the growth and prosperity of Singapore. Share ownership also provides an additional means for Singaporeans to invest their savings and broaden their range of assets. To help Singaporeans take up the ST2 offer, the Government implemented a SOTUS scheme to top-up the CPF accounts of citizens. Furthermore, it sold the ST2 shares at a large discount to their market value. The Government also encouraged children of senior citizens to top up the CPF savings of their parents, so that their parents can afford to take part in ST2. These schemes enabled many older citizens to participate in ST2. 290,000 citizens aged 60 and above were offered ST2 shares. 60%, or 175,000, of these took up the offer, including 94,000 who topped up their CPF to buy the shares. 115,000 did not buy ST2 shares, of whom 98,000 did not have enough money in the CPF. Elderly Singaporeans enjoy several benefits and concessions which other Singaporeans do not enjoy. These include the Pre-Medisave Top-Up Scheme, tax exemption for annuity income under the CPF Minimum Sum Scheme, and special subsidy on outpatient polyclinic charges. As for the poor in Singapore, they can benefit from Government subsidy programmes which were specially set up for them such as the Public Assistance Scheme, Medifund, and the Rental and Utilities Assistance Scheme. ST2, like most of the asset enhancement programmes, was targeted at a broad group of Singaporeans, particularly those who wanted to invest their CPF savings in shares, but not necessarily at every citizen. Those who participated in ST2 had to make a co-payment, to show that they valued the scheme and prevent a handout mentality. ST2 alone could not cover 100% of the population. But taken together with the other asset enhancement schemes, like HDB home ownership, upgrading, or Medisave Top-Up, every citizen can expect to benefit in one way or another from the whole package of asset enhancement measures.

asked the Minister for Education whether he will consider providing in-house schooling at Girls'/Boys' homes so as to relieve parents from having to fetch their children from these homes to and from schools.

Children from Girls' and Boys' Homes attend regular schools as part of the rehabilitation programme. By attending regular schools, these children will be able to interact with their peers and participate fully in educational activities. This will help them re-establish their links with society later. The Ministry is not in favour of providing in-house schooling at the Homes as this will only serve to isolate them even further. Children from the Homes normally go to the schools themselves. With regard to parents sending their children to and from schools, this only happens at the parents' request. This should not be viewed as an inconvenience as it provides an opportunity for parents and children to strengthen their family relationship and will contribute towards the rehabilitation effort.

asked the Minister for Labour whether he is aware that some manufacturing companies are making their workers work twelve hours a day and thus affecting the workers health, and, if so, what are his Ministry's plans for stopping such practice.

The Employment Act stipulates that an employee shall not work more than 12 hours in any one day. This is to protect the health and safety of workers. However, the Employment Act does allow for two exceptions. Firstly, if there is an emergency situation such as when an accident has occurred or is threatening to occur and secondly, if the employer has been granted exemption by the Minister. Employers who are seeking exemption must however provide valid grounds to support their applications. I would like to point out that exemptions are granted only under exceptional circumstances. We will scrutinise such applications carefully and take into consideration both the operational needs of the employer as well as whether the extended working hours are likely to affect the health and safety of the employees. Other than the two exceptions above, my Ministry also recognises that given our tight labour market, there are certain situations, from time to time, whereby employees may be requested to cover the duties of their colleagues who have fallen sick, and hence may have to work more than 12 hours. Such arrangements, however, will require the consent of the employees and are usually restricted to jobs involving shift work where the continuity of operations is needed. In such situations, to ensure that the smooth operations of the companies are not affected, my Ministry would take a more flexible approach and not apply the law rigidly, so long as the health and safety of workers are not compromised. I must however point out that this is an exception rather than the rule. Under normal circumstances, a company is prohibited from requiring its employees to work for more than 12 hours a day. The Ministry hardly receives any complaints of this nature. If it is brought to our attention that companies have violated the law, appropriate action will be taken against them.

asked the Minister for Communications if he will state (a) the number of units, to date, of shelters linking HDB flats to bus stops/taxi stands/MRT stations which have been constructed and under construction and the total cost of these constructions; (b) the number of such units constructed and under construction in the four opposition wards; and (c) the number of such units constructed and under construction in Sembawang GRC and Nee Soon South Constituency.

The Land Transport Authority (LTA) builds covered linkways between various public transport facilities like bus shelters, taxi-shelters, MRT stations and bus interchanges. As a rule, it does not build linkways to connect HDB blocks to such facilities. The provision of such linkways are undertaken by Town Councils. There have been only 5 cases in Queenstown, Braddell, Khatib, Jurong East and Outram Park where links from a HDB block to MRT stations were built by LTA and its predecessors because these blocks were very close to the road reserve and the stations.

asked the Minister for National Development if he will state (a) the number and the names, to date, of Town Councils (TCs)/Citizens' Consultative Committees (CCCs) which have used funds from the Community Improvement Projects Committee (CIPC) to build covered walkways or shelters for walkways; (b) the total number of such walkways constructed and under construction; (c) the total cost of such constructions; and (d) the number of CIPC-funded walkways in the Sembawang GRC and the Nee Soon South Constituency.

To date, 75 CCCs have used CIPC funds to build covered walkways. The names of the CCCs are at Annex A (Cols. 609 - 610). (b) Since the CIPC scheme first started in November 89, CIPC has approved a total number of 719 covered walkways. These have either been constructed or are under construction. (c) The total CIPC funding for the 719 covered walkways amount to $59.2m. (d) The number of CIPC-funded covered walkways in the Sembawang GRC and Nee Soon South Constituency, to date, are 35 and 15 respectively Annex A - CCCs which have used CIPC funds to build covered walkways (Cols. 609 - 610)