Hansard, 2001-03-13

Order read for consideration in Committee of Supply [5th Allotted day].

Head T (cont.) - Resumption of Debate on Question [12th March, 2001], "That the total sum to be allocated for Head T of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100." - [Mr Hawazi Daipi]. Question again proposed.

Head T - Ministry of Manpower. Dr Lee Boon Yang.

Sir, yesterday, just before the moment of interruption, Mr Low Thia Khiang raised several supplementary queries. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to respond to him. He asked what is the scale of the problem of the older workers. Overall, we have about 330,000 workers who are aged 40 and above and who also have less than secondary education. So this is the group that we are focusing on - older, lower-educated workers. The unemployment rate for this group of older and lower-educated workers is about 3%, which is close to the resident unemployment rate of 3.4%. But the fact that their unemployment rate is lower than the resident unemployment rate of 3.4% is no cause for comfort actually, because this is the group that is, in fact, vulnerable as the economy continues to restructure. At this age, with their low skills, if they should lose their jobs, they face increasing difficulty getting re-employed. As at the end of last year, as I mentioned yesterday, about 40,000 people had undergone training under the Skills Redevelopment Programme. The Member said that he thought only about 23% of them are the older workers. I would like to point out that, out of these 40,000 people who have undergone SRP training, about 30% are aged 40 and above. But this, again, is also not representative because, in fact, the group of workers who are aged 40 and above represents about 45% of the resident workforce. So they are, in effect, under-represented in the SRP training. The Member finally asked whether we are satisfied with the response of older workers to our call to go for skills upgrading. The answer is no. We want to see more of them coming forward to undergo skills training and retraining, so that they can be better prepared for the changes that are waiting for us, ie, the changes that are bound to come. That is why the Government has allocated more resources for manpower development. In our programmes - whether it is the Skills Redevelopment Programme, National Skills Recognition System or under the new programmes that we will introduce as part of the Lifelong Learning Endowment Fund - we will focus on programmes and activities that will enable more of the lower-skilled and older workers to upgrade their skills so that they can be better prepared for the new economy.

Sir, may I have your permission to seek one clarification?

One last question. We are running out of time.

Sir, I would like to know from the Minister whether or not enough efforts have been put into reaching this group of workers to take up the skills training or re-employment opportunities.

Sir, we are putting a tremendous amount of resources into this area of upgrading the skills of the older workers. We work very closely with the trade unions and the employers to ensure that the older group of workers is well informed of the various skills upgrading opportunities available to it. But I would also reiterate that we will continue to put in more effort, and we need more effort, to reach out to this group. We also need the support of community groups to help us to spread the message that skills upgrading is important, in order to cope with the changes in the economy.

Sir, I would like to speak on the issue of foreign workers. Sir, I empathise with, and support, the Minister for Manpower when he said yesterday that Singapore needs to welcome foreign talent even while we search for more and better ways of enhancing the employability of our workers. Let me state at the outset that I support the existing foreign talent and foreign worker policies. We need these guest workers in order to enlarge the economic pie for our people as we are short of workers to enjoy sustained economic growth. I maintain, however, that in some sectors and industries, the Ministry should encourage more companies to redesign job functions so that our older workers can take advantage of the available jobs, instead of taking the easy way out by bringing in foreign workers, especially after our own workers have gained new skills that may be relevant to our companies in Singapore. Sir, having said that, foreign workers form a section of our working population whom we sometimes forget, even though we see and interact with them on a daily basis. They clean our neighbourhoods, and work on our factory floors and construction sites. In fact, about 100,000 households host them as domestic helpers, who cook and wash for our families and mind our children. For the contribution that they have made to our prosperity and well-being, we must, as a society, take care of the welfare of foreign workers, who now form about 1/4 of our workforce. Sir, as a union official, I would say that my views on this matter have largely been shaped by the social mission of the labour movement, which is led by NTUC, in taking care of the welfare of workers here, both local and foreign. While the majority of employers treat the foreign workers well, unfortunately, there remains a small minority of employers and employment agencies who mistreat and abuse their foreign employees, through physical abuse, breach of previously agreed terms and conditions, and the lack of proper basic amenities like housing. Foreign workers must be protected against such errant employers and employment agencies. Singapore is a civilised nation where morality and the rule of law prevail. We have a responsibility to defend the poor and the helpless amongst us. Sir, the report published yesterday by the newspaper, Today, brings to light some of the problems that foreign workers in Singapore face. Entitled "Exploiting the Weak", it brings to mind the problems that unsuspecting foreign workers may face when they come to Singapore. It is true that some of these abuses and mistreatment may have started right in their home country but, all the same, Sir, we must ensure that those in Singapore who abuse and mistreat the foreign workers should be taken to task. I would like to ask the Minister about disputes involving foreign workers and action taken on employers who had mistreated their workers in the past one year at least, whether there has been a large increase in the number of complaints against employers and employment agencies. Sir, I am aware that MOM has proper channels for foreign workers seeking redress against abuses. I have also read in the press that penalties against abusive employers and errant employment agencies have been stiffened. These measures are laudable. But I would like to put the issue into a sharper focus by suggesting to the Ministry of Manpower that the law should discriminate clearly the instances where the foreign worker may have unknowingly broken the law. The law must be unambiguous against offenders. The law should also take into consideration that foreign workers who, for instance, overstay may have done so because their passports were kept by their employment agencies or their employers. In these instances, the law must also punish the employers or the employment agencies that are responsible for leaving the foreign workers stranded. Foreign domestic workers, in particular, may be at the mercy of employment agencies that find opportunities to levy exorbitant fees on these foreign workers. I acknowledge that some of the cheating could have been committed in their home country, even before the foreign worker set foot on our soil. However, the Ministry of Manpower should monitor this matter closely, because the recruitment fees are levied on them when they first take up a new assignment in Singapore. In addition, if they change employers, or are repatriated to their own countries, they could be asked to pay unreasonably high administrative charges to the employment agencies. Yes, we can say this is a case of "willing buyers and willing sellers" of services here, but the Ministry should conduct regular checks on maid agencies which charge prospective employers a low fee and then pass the cost of recruitment to the maids who may not get their full salary. In fact, they may get even as little as $10 for as long as six months, because they have to repay the fee to the agency through the employer. Sir, in this light, may I request the Ministry of Manpower for an update of the measures taken to ensure the protection of foreign domestic workers in particular, and work permit holders in general. I understand that MOM has, as of 1998, required employment agencies to attend a training course at the Singapore Polytechnic before giving them approval to recruit foreign workers. May I request the Manpower Minister for his views on the usefulness of such a course and whether it has produced the desired results. Can the Minister consider subsidising the training of maids here?

Mr Hawazi, can I ask you to shorten your speech? We are running very far behind time and I intend to drop the "guillotine" on this Head strictly at 1.28 pm, regardless of whether there are any Members who wish to speak, in order that we can proceed to the other amendments.

Sir, let me just conclude by saying that there is a large number of foreign workers in the construction industry. I would like to ask the Minister whether we have peculiar problems in the industry that we should address.

Sir, there are industries that are highly reliant on unskilled foreign workers. Many Singaporeans complain that because of the importation of cheap labour, they have been displaced by these lower-paid foreign workers. My residents in Kampong Glam constituency are also frustrated with the congregation of foreign workers in the HDB housing estates at Beach Road and Rowell Court. These unskilled foreign workers bring with them bad social habits and behaviour. Sir, employers must be asked to upgrade their operations to reduce reliance on unskilled foreign workers. The foreign worker levy is one useful tool, but we must also ask employers to provide better accommodation and other welfare amenities. I would like to ask the Minister for Manpower what steps are taken to reduce the reliance on unskilled foreign workers, to provide the opportunities for Singaporean workers, without compromising and affecting the ability of our factories and the manufacturing service sectors to meet the manpower needs of the economy. Another category of foreign workers are the maids. I am concerned with the declining quality of the maids coming from far away provinces, and what steps are taken to improve their quality and training. Is it possible now to allow management corporations in condominiums to be employers of maids so that they can be better utilised? 12.45 pm

Sir, in addition to the points made earlier, I would like to ask the Minister to review the way in which foreign workers are brought in. The present system of using agents is exploitative because workers come in, with promises and hopes, and they sold their property, borrowed huge sums of money to come in, just to get out of the poverty trap. The agents make money by bringing the workers in, so the more workers they bring in, the more money they make and, therefore, they try to bring in workers, even illegally. This is treating people like a commodity as with other goods and services, which is not appropriate with the civilised nature of our society. Can we work out ways to by-pass agents, or at least make it difficult for agents to profiteer from treating humans as a commodity? Just a few days ago, I heard that there are big companies which are allocated foreign workers and when they do not have work, they send them to other people and collect money, or just to ask them to do their work. And sometimes, when their work permits expire, the workers do not know about it because they do not have their passports with them and they are considered illegal immigrants, if they are caught, and the other employers are also in trouble. So we need to tighten up this allocation arrangement. I see that generally the living conditions of our foreign workers have improved. When you go to construction sites, their housing conditions have improved. Quite a number of employers have also improved their housing conditions, which are positive. But there are also many workers here who do not know of their rights and responsibilities, including those on employment pass. They come here on contracts, and when their terms and salaries are changed, they cannot do very much. And foreign workers earning above a certain salary have difficulties in getting a redress. Maybe we should also try to apply ourselves to solve this problem. Just as we were able to reduce the accident rate of foreign workers in construction sites, I am sure if we put in the effort, there would be results. I would also like the Minister to review the way foreign workers are sent back. Nowadays, it is very easy. Somebody just has to cancel the work permit and the worker goes back. On a number of times, we read that they protest because they said they have not been paid their wages, that are due to them. Could we have a better check and balance so that, at least, the employers do not exploit them and send them away and save money? The final point that I would like to make is that I am very happy that the Minister, in his reply yesterday, said that he would be making sure that the number of foreign workers coming in would be controlled so as not to deprive our workers of jobs. This is particularly necessary when we have such a high number of unskilled older workers. I think we should make sure that our local wages are not depressed and our terms and conditions of employment are not lessened.

Sir, with globalisation and rapid economic reform, the Ministry of Manpower should help industries that are heavily dependent on foreign workers to reduce its dependency by raising productivity, and encourage these industries to adopt innovative methods to redesign and re-engineer the work processes. We will have to import more foreign workers if we do not restructure our work processes and redesign our jobs fast. Today, the number of foreign workers in Singapore is very large. We have about 500,000 foreign workers, including 140,000 foreign domestic maids. We should substantively reduce our dependence on foreign workers. I would like to know what plans does the Ministry have to facilitate job redesign and re-engineering and how the Manpower Development Assistance Scheme (MDAS) can support such initiatives and how the Man-Year-Entitlement (MYE) system has helped address the issue of foreign workers in the construction sector. Has it helped to redress the issue of employers taking advantage of our foreign workers, ie, to stop the illegal employment practices and abuses in the construction sector? Would the Ministry consider shortening the time-frame in tightening the MYE further? The Ministry should also review the present work permit allocations system, such as changing the existing sectoral approach and re-classifying the foreign workers' needs and entitlement of the various industries by their job requirements. Sir, may I move on to the next cut?

Yes.

(In Mandarin): Sir, according to statistics, we have more than 900,000 families in Singapore employing a total of more than 140,000 foreign maids. There is a necessity for us to seriously look into this matter. Since there are so many foreign maids in Singapore, what kind of social influence would they assert on our society? Just like our highway system, I do not think we should fully depend on the ERP to control our traffic flow. I think MOM should also have some effective measures to check this dependency on foreign workers and not depend entirely on the mechanism of the foreign workers levy to check our people's dependency on foreign workers. I think we should also review the foreign workers levy. This is very important because the foreign workers levy serves the purpose of balancing our workforce in Singapore, so that the cost of employing foreign workers is not too far below from the cost of employing local workers. Otherwise, we would not be able to prevent the employers from employing these cheaper foreign workers, and at the same time exert pressure on the wages of our local workers. When we relax the levy on foreign workers, the employers do not share the savings with their workers. I understand that most workers are given just $30 to $40 extra by their employers. As a result, there is a big difference of a few hundred dollars between the wages of the local skilled workers and those of the foreign skilled workers. I hope that something could be done about this matter so that, on one hand, the welfare of the foreign workers could be looked into, and on the other hand, the difference in wages between the local workers and foreign workers will not be widened.

Sir, last November, the Minister said that he shall review the foreign workers and foreign domestic maids levies, depending on the economic climate this year. By the generous give-away and the cut on tax rate, the Government, has, in fact, signalled that there may be an economic downturn this year. So, it is also not wrong for the Minister to think likewise and cut the levy rates. The current levy rates for workers range from $30-$470 per month. The levy for maids stands at $345 per month. These rates are a burden on the SMEs and on the housewives. There has been much talk of our SMEs finding it tough to do business, partly due to the high fees and levies imposed by the Government. The Minister should review the workers levy and see whether he can reduce them to help our SMEs tide over this lull period. As for the working mothers, the Minister without Portfolio said that they enjoy double tax reliefs, which can be offset by domestic maid levy. But, unfortunately, this relief is not enjoyed by single fathers, and I believe, also single mothers. Sir, there shall be a surplus and I do not see why the Government is not in a position to reduce these levies. Sir, in particular, the maid levy is a hardship for working mothers. Many working mothers go out to work, not out of choice, but are forced to do so because of the high cost of living. They have to work to supplement the household income, otherwise, they cannot make ends meet. Sir, I would also ask the Minister to review whether tax relief on maid levy can be given to single working mothers.

Sir, since there is really not much time left, I would have to be very brief in my reply. They have raised so many questions and I may not be able to deal with all the points that were raised in the short time that I have available. If they do not get an answer directly, they can always raise it again on another occasion. If it is a Question for Oral Answer, I would certainly try to give them a fuller answer. Mr Hawazi basically supports the foreign worker policy, but asked whether we can do more to get employers to redesign their jobs so that more of these jobs can be given to Singaporeans and cut down on the dependency. Essentially, the point was also made by Mr Loh Meng See. Yesterday, I have already explained what we are trying to do to encourage employers to look more closely into improving their business model, redesigning their jobs, so that they can tap on a pool of Singaporeans who are available for these jobs, rather than just turn to foreign workers as a first option. Mr Loh asked what can the Manpower Development Assistance Scheme do to facilitate such job redesigns. The answer is that we can do quite a lot, because with MDAS, we can help industries that want to carry out re-engineering and job redesign, and therefore requiring a different type of workers, to have the workers trained for their new jobs. MDAS can come in and assist such industries with its training. For instance, in the cleaning industry, commercial cleaning companies have come together to form a Centre for Cleaning Technology. It is located at the Bukit Merah Skills Development Centre and we are training several hundred workers who are doing jobs in the cleaning industry. We would continue to expand the intake of workers for such training so that they can go out and do a better job, and be more productive workers. Our experience with some of these workers who have already been through the training courses is that they have been able to do a better job and, in fact, many of them have been promoted in their companies to do a higher level job. We certainly would do more, in terms of job redesign, in order to ensure that foreign workers are not the only solution to companies that require this category of workers. Mr Hawazi and several other Members also said that we must take care of the foreign workers who are in our midst. We have, today, nearly 500,000 foreign workers on work permits here in Singapore. I agree with him that they are here to do a job, they contribute to our economy. We Singaporeans, whether as an employer of a foreign domestic worker or a company that employs hundreds or thousands of foreign workers, have to be responsible and we have to look after the welfare, housing, accommodation and all the other needs of the foreign workers while they are here. We take a very serious view of employers who, for whatever reasons, mistreat their foreign workers. Basically, all foreign workers, like local workers, are protected under the Employment Act. Those employers who are abusive or exploitative face action under the Employment Act, or under some other laws. For instance, in the case of foreign domestic workers, who are not covered by the Employment Act, the Penal Code was amended in May 1998 to enhance the penalty by one and a half times against employers who commit offences against their foreign domestic workers. Employers who mistreat their foreign workers in the economic sector, for instance, face sanctions from my Ministry once such abuses are detected, for example, refusal to pay salaries to the foreign workers, a point that Mr Thomas mentioned. My Ministry will certainly be able to step in to help them. We have a Foreign Workers Unit in the Labour Relations Department that will help foreign workers to resolve any disputes that they have with employers. Mr Hawazi asked whether these disputes have actually gone up or not. We receive, on average, about 400 complaints or so a month from the foreign workers that are present in Singapore. By and large, we have been able to resolve most of these complaints. The numbers have gone up over the years simply because the base of foreign workers in Singapore is increasing. But I would not say that they have gone up drastically. 1.00 pm On the question of overstaying when employers retain the foreign worker's passport and the foreign worker unknowingly commits an offence of overstaying, my colleague, the Minister for Home Affairs, had reiterated last week that no employer has the right to retain a foreign worker's passport. In fact, employers should not do so. And there is no reason why foreign workers unknowingly overstay, because they know the terms of their work permit that were granted to them. They know that they should not stay beyond the validity of their work permit. And if the employer cancels the work permit, they would be kept informed by the employer, because no employer will just cancel the work permit and deliberately keep it a secret from the foreign worker. The reason is that once the work permit is cancelled, the employer has an obligation to repatriate the foreign worker, failing which he will face forfeiture of the security bond, which is $5,000, if he does not successfully repatriate the foreign worker after cancelling the work permit. So you will find that the measures that are put in place, in fact, help to expedite the repatriation of the foreign worker, and also provide a reasonable protection for the foreign worker. It prevents employers from abandoning their foreign worker by willy-nilly just cancelling the work permit and not informing the foreign worker. They have a very short window, after the work permit has been cancelled, to repatriate the worker and to produce evidence of the repatriation, so that the security bond can be cancelled. Mr Thomas Thomas made the point that some of our employment agents are exploitative. They just bring in the foreign workers and collect the money from them. Can we bypass the employment agents? We have to understand the role of the employment agents. They serve as an intermediary. There are people in Singapore who want to employ foreign workers, whether it is a company or an employer of a domestic worker. How do they go about getting the kind of person that they want and where from? It is very difficult for many employers, especially if we talk about employers of domestic workers, on their own to recruit a foreign worker. Some people have been able to do this, because they have contacts and friends overseas and so on and so forth. But for the vast majority, they would not know where to start on their own. So they go to an agent. The agent actually fulfills a useful role as an intermediary to bring foreign workers into Singapore. However, we are aware that some agents may not abide by all the rules and regulations that are imposed on them. We monitor their operations closely, so that in case we detect any violation, we will certainly act against them. Under the Employment Agents Act, we can revoke their licence, even forfeit the security deposit that they have placed with us if we detect evidence that they have acted against the interest of the employer in Singapore, or acted against the interest of the foreign workers whom they have brought in. Mr Thomas also made the point that some foreign workers come in and work under certain terms and conditions, including those who come here on employment passes, and they should be better informed. If they come in on specific terms of employment and if they feel that the employer had somehow changed those terms and conditions of employment, they can always turn to my Ministry for assistance. We offer the services of the special Foreign Workers Unit to help workers who face such difficulties. And I said earlier on, we deal with about 400-odd appeals a month, and if there are any such workers who feel that their employer is trying to take advantage of them by changing the terms and conditions of employment, we will be very pleased to assist them. Sir, I think I have responded to Mr Loh Meng See's point just now about getting employers to redesign jobs to make sure that we do not become overly dependent. As for the Member for Kampong Glam, he feels his residents' unhappiness with the congregation of the foreign workers in various parts of Kampong Glam. I agree with him that this is a problem. That is why we are trying to manage the number of foreign workers in Singapore. We use a variety of measures. Several Members have spoken about the foreign workers levy. That is one of the key measures that we have in hand to moderate the demand for foreign workers. Without the foreign workers levy, we will have a greater number of foreign workers here in Singapore. The demand is almost insatiable, in a sense, because today we have more than 140,000 foreign domestic workers. And without the foreign workers levy, for instance, we are going to have a higher number because the income level of Singaporeans has continued to go up, notwithstanding the economic crisis. In fact, during the economic downturn in 1998, the number of foreign domestic workers continued to increase by about 5% over the year, although the increase was at a slower rate compared to previous years. So we use a mixture of dependency ceiling and foreign workers levy to regulate and to control the demand for foreign workers. Several Members have, in fact, spoken about the accommodation for foreign workers. I think this would be mainly the foreign workers in the economic sectors, such as those in the construction industry and the manufacturing sector. For those who are in the households of their employer, the foreign domestic workers, of course, are provided with accommodation in the homes of the employer. Accommodation is therefore not a problem. But for those in the economic sectors, one of the undertakings of the employer, when they bring in the foreign worker, is to provide suitable accommodation. And we have a certain standard about the kind of accommodation which must be provided on the worksite, for instance, so that foreign construction workers are entitled to reasonable housing standards if they are placed in worksites. Alternatively, the employers will have to provide rented accommodation. And there are also rules about how many people you can put in rented accommodation, whether it is in a room, house or apartment. The Building Control Authority will regularly check if there are employers who are abusing this provision and overcrowding their foreign workers. They will also check the worksite housing provided for the construction workers to ensure that this complies with all the sanitary and other environmental requirements. Nevertheless, we will continue to study this issue, because having more than 500,000 foreign workers in our midst is a tremendous challenge, in terms of accommodating them. While some foreign workers are accommodated on the worksite, increasingly, worksites are organised in such a way that it is very difficult to accommodate them. So they have to look for off-site accommodation. My Ministry is working closely with the Ministry of National Development to identify more areas of land which can be set aside for housing foreign workers. And we are encouraging the private sector to come forward to invest in such short-term housing for foreign workers. This will provide much better accommodation. Already, some companies have invested and developed such dormitory housing. There are several of these scattered around the island, and they are available to employers who want to place their workers in such dormitory housing. Several Members have asked about the foreign workers levy. As I have explained, it is a key feature of our foreign workers policy to use the levy as a means of regulating the demand. We will continue to use the foreign workers levy to regulate the demand. In the case of the point raised by Mr Yeo Guat Kwang on the two-tier foreign workers levy - the skilled workers on a lower levy at $30 and a higher levy for the unskilled workers - we will continue to use this in order to encourage more employers to recruit skilled workers who can do a bigger and better job; therefore, resulting in a lower demand for actual number of foreign workers. We will leave it to the employers when they employ skilled workers on the lower levy to set their wages for the skilled workers. It is a policy of Government that we do not interfere in the labour market to determine wages. Wages are on a "willing buyer, willing seller" basis, and we leave the setting of wages, both for local and foreign workers to market forces to determine. However, our experience is that, in fact, the skilled foreign workers generally do receive a higher salary than the unskilled foreign workers. So the lower levy therefore has resulted in employers paying their skilled workers a higher wage, which is in line with what we have in mind. Mr Yeo also asked whether we can review the sectoral approach in locating the foreign workers. The answer is yes, we do that. From time to time, we do make adjustment to our overall sectoral approach for allocating foreign workers to accommodate the special needs of certain industries. For instance, now that we are promoting the construction industry to use more off-site fabrication, we will be looking at how we can assist those who are undertaking such off-site fabrication work to have access to foreign workers. We have also looked at the process in the petrochemical and pharmaceutical plants - these are the process engineering companies - to see how we can better manage the pool of foreign workers in this industry. We have allowed them to use the workers who are doing process construction work to also carry out process maintenance because, essentially, they are workers with the same set of skills. So instead of having two different sets of workers, one to do construction and the other to do maintenance under manufacturing, we have merged the two schemes, so that the petrochemical plant can depend on just the same group of foreign workers to do both construction and maintenance. In this way, we are responding and we will continue to look at the needs of other sectors that warrant special adjustment. If Members look at it in this way that there is an overall framework to regulate foreign workers, both using dependency ceiling and levy, then I hope they understand why the levy remains an important tool to moderate the demand. And in the case of the foreign domestic workers, the demand has continued to go up, notwithstanding the economic downturn. Over the years, we have increased the number of foreign domestic workers dramatically. We started out with hardly any in 1978. Today, we have more than 140,000 of them. I believe that we will continue to have to use the levy as a mechanism to regulate the demand. And as I have said recently on a number of occasions, the foreign workers levy, including the foreign domestic workers levy, will be reviewed later this year, after we have a better feel of how the economy is responding to the changes around us. Last but not least, I think Mr Loh Meng See mentioned the point about allowing management corporations of condominiums, for instance, to recruit foreign domestic workers. I think we have discussed this issue before, whether we can allow commercial companies to recruit women from the neighbouring countries and to deploy them to work as domestic workers in the homes of Singaporeans. There are several issues here. We have considered this idea on a number of occasions, whether or not we should allow such services to be offered. But there are problems like, for instance, who will be held accountable for housing this additional group of foreign workers, and the propensity for abuse when you allow employers, employment agencies or a company to recruit large numbers of these foreign women to come to Singapore to do this kind of work. On balance, we decided that we should retain our present arrangement whereby the women from the neighbouring countries who do this domestic work are assigned to a specific household where they are provided accommodation. We can hold the employer responsible and we can ensure that the foreign domestic worker's welfare is not jeopardised. Sir, I think I have covered most of the points. 1.15 pm

Sir, according to the Yearbook of Statistics 2000, in 1999 our workforce was about 1.9 million, but CPF contributors were only 1.22 million. There is a difference of 760,000 people, which even after deducting foreigners and foreign workers, we will end with a few hundred thousand Singaporeans not contributing to CPF. In fact, in the December 2000 Manpower News, it says 3.35% of workers in private sector establishments are under contract for service, which means they do not contribute to CPF. CPF is the main safety net in Singapore. Not being a member of CPF means these people may have difficulty with old age funds, medical care, home ownership, education of children, and the other things that Central Provident Fund covers. These are important things. I would like to ask the Minister how the Ministry is going about to try and get more people to be brought in as CPF members. The other point is this. If we look at the demography of Singaporeans, more of us are getting older, that part of the baby boomers are retiring which is a large number, and they will draw out CPF funds, but the people coming in may be less. Will this result in a net outflow of funds from CPF? And if more CPF funds are coming out than going in, what would be the consequence of this negative cash flow for CPF? Another point I would like to say is that many of us CPF members are investing in the stock market. Most of these investments are challenging and very interesting, but not all of them made money. But when you lose money with CPF savings, you are actually eating into your old age security and safety net. While, on the other hand, investment has risks, I think we should still help our members to make wise decisions and also give them information on this. Finally, we should also review the social safety net, because CPF has got its limitations. We keep hearing that in the new economy, workers will have to change jobs more often, which means they lose their jobs more often, and the law says that if you work less than three years, you are not entitled to retrenchment benefits. But even if you are, there are companies which do not pay retrenchment benefits. So if people lose their jobs in between jobs, we do not have adequate social safety measures for them. I would like to ask the Ministry whether it could also look into providing more comprehensive and wider coverage of the social safety net.

Mr Chiam, there are about 10 minutes left on this amendment.

Sir, before I begin, can I ask a clarification from the Minister? He says that there are 500,000 foreign workers. Does that number include the 140,000 domestic maids?

Yes.

So 500,000 is the total. Therefore, the total number of foreign workers in Singapore is only about 500,000. Sir, I have got a cut on restoration of CPF. The Asian crisis hit Singapore in July 1997. The Government formed a Committee to recommend cost-cutting measures. Among the cost-cutting measures recommended was a 10 percentage cut in the employer's component of the workers' CPF. This is a very drastic measure to take. The Government sought this route to save the economy of the nation. The workers sacrificed their wages. As a result, costs were lowered and this made it possible for the economy to pick up and also for the country to achieve a 9.9% growth last year. I think the workers want to know how much in total they have sacrificed in terms of their wages, and how much of the profits made by the industrial sector are as a result of their sacrifices made, and how much of those profits made by businesses have gone to the Government in terms of taxes. Sir, the workers' movement must surely deserve some kind of a reward for their excellent work they have done to persuade the workers to accept a huge 10 percentage cut in their CPF. I would like to ask the Government to give, as a reward, a one-time grant to the labour movement in appreciation of the sacrifices of the workers to help the Singapore economy to pick up during the last two years of recession. The grant could be a one-time grant and be used for training the workers, in addition to what has already been given. The full restoration of CPF has still not been implemented. The restoration has only reached 16 percentage points of the employer's component of CPF. I hope the full restoration to the 20% CPF can be done quickly. Can the Minister perhaps give an indication of when this can be done?

Sir, Mr Thomas Thomas raised several questions on the CPF. He asked what would be the impact of the negative cash flow - fewer contributors, as part of the ageing population. Let me say that there is no cause for alarm. Over the last five years, the Central Provident Fund has experienced positive cash flow, although the net inflow has been dropping. It has been dropping not because of a crisis or because of losses. In fact, the Central Provident Fund system is fully funded by the members themselves. It is a system where the payout for the members, when they reach 55, is drawn from all the savings that they have been setting aside during their working life. So there is really no cross-generation subsidy or overlap. Today's retirees or senior citizens, when they reach age 55 and draw on their CPF, are actually drawing on the savings that they put aside and not drawing on somebody else's accumulated savings. Hence, there is no need to be concerned even if CPF Board should show a decline in the net fund inflow. Another reason why the net fund inflow is declining is that the population is ageing and, as Mr Thomas pointed out, there are now more older workers, and also because the Government has liberalised the use of CPF. So members can now withdraw nearly all of their CPF savings to invest, whether it is purchasing shares or investing in insurance policies or some other forms of investment. We must therefore expect a higher rate of withdrawal from CPF, unlike in the past where all the CPF money could not be withdrawn until you reach age 55. Today, even before age 55, the member is able to withdraw the money not just for housing or medical needs, but also for their investments. Hence, I would like to reiterate that although the net fund inflow has been declining, there is no cause for alarm. It is not a sign of impending crisis or inability of the Central Provident Fund Board to meet its obligations, but rather a reflection of the ageing workforce and also the restructuring of the CPF system, with more investment options for the members. Mr Thomas also expressed concern whether the social security net is adequate or not. I think we have used the CPF as a very effective mechanism to ensure that our workers are prepared for any sudden economic downturn, not only just by way of adjusting the CPF contribution rate but also ensuring that there are savings for the rainy days. We will continue to use the CPF as a principal means of social safety net by encouraging workers to save as much as they can when they are in employment. Of course, the most important thing here is to ensure that the workers stay employed and keep our unemployment rate low, so that nearly all Singaporeans can have jobs if they want. The fact that we are discussing about foreign workers - there are more than 500,000 foreign workers in Singapore and even if you discount the 140,000 foreign domestic workers, you have 360,000 foreign workers in the economic sector - means there are jobs aplenty for Singaporeans if they want to take on these jobs. I think creating employment is the best social safety net as it ensures that all Singaporeans who are able to work have the skills for the job are able to make a positive contribution to the economy. That is much more important than considering other options. With regard to CPF investments, yes, some CPF members have lost money; others have also gained. By liberalising the CPF system, we have encouraged members to make their own investment decision. In the process, some would make bad decisions, but they have to accept the cost for making such bad decisions. We believe that over time, prudent investments will enable more CPF members to enhance their old age savings, and that this is something that has got to be acquired. People have to learn how to manage their savings, whether it is their own cash savings or their CPF savings. The Board itself will provide more information to CPF members so that they can be better informed with regard to investing their savings. Mr Chiam asked whether we are giving adequate recognition to the workers' movement ---

Order. It is 1.28 pm, "guillotine" time on this amendment. Mr Hawazi.

Sir, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Can you give me some time?

I am sorry. I have stated earlier that "guillotine" time is 1.28 pm. I intend to stick by it.

I want to ask one more question Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. (2). We have exactly 12 minutes for this discussion. Dr Lily Neo.

Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head T of the Main Estimates be reduced by $10 in respect of Code TA 1500 Sir, many of our old HDB flats have been upgraded to ensure that they do not degenerate into an unsightly dilapidated state. Old private estates deteriorate as well and they should be similarly upgraded. I am heartened therefore when the Ministry of National Development on 17th October 2000 released its Estate Upgrading Programme (EUP) and had chosen five private estates as the first batch for this programme. However, such EUP only applies to public areas and does not cover "works on private land and facilities, including common areas and properties of condominiums and private apartments". Going further and having these old condominiums and private apartments upgraded as well would be even better for the estates. Whilst the private owners themselves are expected to bear the expenses for this, I feel that the onerous burden for such payments should be facilitated. 1.30 pm Currently, owners whose HDB homes are owner-occupied and who are below 55 years of age can withdraw their CPF savings in the Ordinary Account to pay for the upgrading. As an MP who has many residents who are private condominium owners, I hear their frequent calls for the use of available CPF savings to offset the costs of upgrading their property. Dwellers in the private estates feel that they should be given the same kind of privileges and be allowed to use their CPF savings to upgrade their homes. Many of my residents have argued that, similar to upgrading of HDB flats, upgrading of their apartments is a form of asset enhancement, as the value of their flats will be enhanced. Furthermore, upgrading would allow them to enjoy the better quality of life enjoyed by their cousins in upgrading HDB homes. Sir, this is a pressing problem and is especially so for some of the older developments which are in a very sad state of disrepair. It is quite difficult, indeed, to garner enough support from their residents to carry out any major upgrading project, especially when it involves substantial expenditure. Allowing the use of available CPF funds will certainly reduce the awesome burden of any outright payments for the upgrading. This is even more significant for owners of the older condominiums who are elderly or retired and may not be able to afford to contribute the thousands of dollars involved. I beseech the Minister for Manpower to look into the above issue.

Sir, during last year's budget, the Minister of State, Mr Othman Eusofe, told us that his Ministry is in consultation with NTUC, SNEF and other agencies on the ratification of ILO Conventions. I would like to ask him on the progress of these consultations. I hope the Government will ratify the ILO Conventions as in the Declaration of Fundamental Principles and Rights of Workers as soon as possible. Delay in ratifying will convey the impression that there is an abuse of labour, and it is blatant and widespread here, which is not true. Delay will therefore affect our image and would attract unwarranted attention.

Sir, let me reiterate that the primary objective of the CPF is to provide for the members' old age. We have always not allowed the use of CPF savings for upgrading or renovating properties, whether it is HDB flats or otherwise. An exception was made for the nation-wide HDB Main Upgrading Programme because this is basically a Government initiated programme to rejuvenate old public housing estates and also to enhance the assets of citizens. Because the cost of upgrading is much larger than the payments made by the home owners themselves in the course of the Main Upgrading Programme, the home owners receive a sizeable subsidy from the Government. Hence, it is unlikely that the upgraded flats' market value will fall below to a point where they are unable to recover what they have invested through their CPF. In the case of the privately initiated refurbishment or upgrading, whether it is HDB or private residential estates, such as condominiums, the owner has to bear the full cost of such renovation or refurbishment. Therefore, if we allow them to withdraw from their CPF, you will find that the amount to be withdrawn is going to be much larger than what is required for the share of the Main Upgrading Programme. Furthermore, it will also be very difficult to regulate the frequency of upgrading and renovation as well as to spell out exactly the conditions under which CPF can be used for such upgrading. So we are concerned that the liberal use of CPF savings for flat upgrading, or renovating private residential properties, will result in premature withdrawal of a member's old age savings. Furthermore, I also want to point out that people living in a private housing estate are generally in the upper income bracket. On the other hand, CPF contributions have got a cap. No CPF contributions are required for that portion of the salary above $6,000. Only the portion below $6,000 attracts CPF contributions. Therefore, those people who are earning more than $6,000 per month should have more personal savings apart from what is already saved in the CPF accounts. Their CPF savings will also represent a smaller proportion of their total savings available to them. So it is therefore not unreasonable to expect those living in private properties who want to carry out home renovations to do so with their personal savings, rather than to tap on their CPF savings. The Member also mentioned that some of these are older people living in private properties, condominiums and landed properties, and some of them may well be retirees. Let me point out that if they are retirees, they would have withdrawn most of their CPF from age 55 onwards, and if they have invested the CPF, or if they have put them aside carefully, then certainly they would have sufficient funds left to renovate or upgrade their properties. Anyway, they would have very little CPF left in their CPF accounts, except for the Minimum Sum. That would not be of much help even if we allow the retirees to use the money to upgrade their properties. Mr Thomas asked about ratification of ILO Conventions. Let me point out that we have ratified two of the eight core conventions. These are the Convention 98 on the Right to Organise a Collective Bargaining and Convention 29 on Forced Labour. Last year, we announced that we will ratify Convention 182 on the Worst Form of Child Labour. We have no problem complying with this latest of the core Conventions on the Worst Form of Child Labour and we will proceed to ratify this Convention in June this year at the International Labour Conference. We will ratify ILO Conventions taking into consideration our economic circumstances and national interest. I would also like to point out to the Members that not all ILO Conventions are ratified by every member state. For example, the United States has to-date ratified only 13 Conventions, including only two out of the eight core Conventions. We have ratified 20 Conventions, including two of the eight core Conventions. So in comparison, we are not doing too badly. And the point that he made about the impression that the workers are being oppressed in Singapore is a totally wrong and unfounded impression. We will continue to study the ILO Conventions and seek to ratify those that do not conflict with our national and workers' interests. When we do so, we will consult the National Trades Union Congress and also the Singapore National Employers' Federation.

Sir, may I have your indulgence to make a clarification from you?

You have 1 1/2 minutes left.

Am I allowed to clarify?

Yes.

Sir, I note that you have applied the "guillotine" time on the first amendment on the Ministry of Manpower to allow the remaining amendments to be moved on. Whereas, in yesterday's debate on PMO, you did not apply the "guillotine" time on the first amendment, resulting in the remaining two amendments not being moved. I would like to ask the Chair the principle that he would apply or the discretion that he would exercise on the "guillotine" time for each amendment.

Mr Low, we are not discussing my rulings. Are you questioning my rulings? If you are questioning my rulings, there is a procedure to challenge my rulings. If not, I suggest we spend the time discussing the Ministry's Head.

Sir, I am not challenging your rulings. I am just wondering why it is applied in such a way.

I have already informed Members on the principles on which I allocated the time earlier on when I made the announcement at the commencement of the Committee of Supply. You were not present in the House then. I suggest you check the Hansard so that you can understand how I conduct these proceedings. I am also surprised by your query because you have been a Member of this House for many years and you do not seem to understand how the Committee of Supply is conducted. Dr Neo.

I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. (3), Mr Chng Hee Kok is not here. Amendment No. (4), Mr Thomas. We have 10 minutes.

Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head T of the Main Estimates be reduced by $10 in respect of Code TD 1500. The Trade Unions Act needs to be reviewed in order to strengthen tripartism and also to strengthen the trade union movement. I see unions are recognised as an effective body and have contributed to our economic and social developments. There is urgency in reviewing this for a few reasons. There is now the Singapore Business Federation in place, with compulsory membership for certain types of employers and companies, which would strengthen the employers' leg of tripartism which is good and proper. There are arguments which have been heard. I buy those arguments. But we also have to use the same arguments for labour movement because the unions are in a very peculiar situation. The union does not have the right to organise all classes of workers. They only can take workers who have a contract of service, not contract for service. But even then, there are categories of workers to be exempted. We are not allowed to organise. The other point is that the union is the only organisation that renders its service for free. Yesterday, during the debate on the Ministry of Finance, we were told that social responsibility also includes the charging of fees for services rendered. But for unions, when we negotiate collective agreements or NWC recommendations, a large number of workers benefit from it, a lot of employers benefit, but no fee is charged. So there is a big problem of free riders. I am not suggesting we have a closed-shop principle because that violates the freedom of association, but we can still look at the laws to see whether we could have an agency fee basis that those who benefit from it pay something for it. In that sense, it would be fairer. There are other provisions of the Trade Unions Act which are restrictive and which actually make it difficult for unions to work. Rather than go through all the arguments and provisions here, I would suggest that we have a national committee to look at it and see how we could strengthen tripartism by strengthening the trade unions movement and other associated laws in order that workers will have a greater say and influence. If left alone, even in the normal course of events of employers versus the workers, employers have greater influence. It is with the assistance of Government, the rules and framework that there is a balance of power. So we should really look at the laws to make sure that these things are strengthened so that we could get on with the business of making Singapore more prosperous and a better place for everyone, including companies which want to make more money and workers who want to have a better life.

Sir, first, let me take the portion of the question on the amendment to the Trade Unions Act. Mr Thomas has suggested that the union rules be liberalised to make it easier for unions to operate. Let me just mention that the Trade Unions Act was indeed reviewed last year and amendments were made in consultation with the National Trades Union Congress and the Singapore National Employers' Federation. 1.45 pm Sir, these amendments will give greater flexibility to the unions in their decision-making process, and also in the way they use the union funds. In fact, union administration has been made easier with the introduction of information technology and, subject to the provisions, unions are free to alter their union rules, with the approval of their members. Since the amendments to the Trade Unions Act were introduced only recently in December last year, at this stage, we do not see a need to further review the Trade Unions Act. On his point about tripartism, I agree that tripartite cooperation among the Government, the employers and trade unions over the last three decades, has played a critical role in maintaining industrial harmony and in bringing in significant benefits to the economy, the employers and the workers. It helped to generate a national consensus on important employment and industrial relations issues, helped to formulate collective responses to deal with the economic crisis, and therefore, it has become a strong competitive advantage for us, particularly as a choice location for investments resulting in economic growth. Mr Thomas Thomas spoke about the formation of the Singapore Business Federation (SBF) which represents a wide spectrum of employers, both the MNCs and the local companies, and his concern that this may affect the existing tripartite relationship among the three local partners. Employers' interests will continue to be represented at various tripartite bodies, including the National Wages Council. And, with more resources and better coordination, the Singapore Business Federation will, in fact, be in a better position to strengthen the tripartitie nexus and bring about economic growth, better jobs, as well as an enhancement of our workers' welfare. That the bigger businesses will have to contribute to the SBF will not mean that big businesses will dominate our tripartite forums. We will always seek a balance to ensure that the interests of employees in the big or small companies are met. Mr Thomas Thomas proposed that a fee be levied on workers who are non-union members, before they could enjoy the same terms and benefits as provided in the collective agreement. I do not think that this is appropriate. The imposition of such a fee will be tantamount to coercing workers to join the trade unions, and this would run contrary to the principle of freedom of association. I think it is also tantamount to forcing employers to pay their non-unionised workers less than union members. While they are not union members, they may well be doing the same job as union members. So it is unfair to compel employers to pay them less before they have opted to join the union or pay the agency fees. Currently, the majority of collective agreements already contain provisions prohibiting non-union members from enjoying more favourable benefits than those in the collective agreement. In other words, employers cannot pay better benefits to non-unionised workers. I think this is reasonable. It also ensures that employers cannot undermine the efforts of the unions by offering non-unionised members better terms and conditions of employment. I think this provision, already in place, places the trade unions in a good position to take advantage of the wide variety of social benefits which they can offer to promote union membership. I believe that there are many benefits, apart from better protection in employment, that workers would miss out if they do not choose to join the unions. Trade unions should, therefore, leverage on these benefits as an incentive to encourage more workers to join them, instead of imposing a fee as a means to increase their membership. This sounds like paying a membership fee without the full benefits of membership. So, in my view, it is a regressive step and, therefore, I do not think that we should support this proposal for an agency fee, as I do not think it serves the interests of the labour movement in the long run.

Sir, I would just like to make the point that I find it a bit of a contradiction that when it comes to employers and businesses, it is all right to impose a levy, but when it comes to workers' organisations, it is not so. With those comments, Sir, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. (5), Mr Chay Wai Chuen.

Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head T of the Main Estimates be reduced by $10 in respect of Code TG 1000. Sir, I have spoken on this topic on several occasions before, and this matter has also been a topic of concern raised by the Auditor-General in his earlier report. I have come across many instances when workmen involved in workplace accidents have had to wait for more than a year in order for them to get the insurance company to pay the money due to them. Currently, I have two such meet-the-people session cases. These workers have had to be hospitalised and be away from work. Their family income is affected and they incur all kinds of penalties by the Town Council and HDB for arrears. These are not cases where there is any dispute that compensation is due, or over the amount. The workman suffers injury and he is waiting and waiting to be paid. Can the Minister cut short any bureaucratic logjams that have happened so often? I also notice that usually the cases get settled quite fast after I raised them in the Committee of Supply, but it happens again and again.

Sir, workmen compensation claims are divided into temporary incapacity (TI), permanent incapacity (PI) and fatal cases. Sir, in the year 2000, the average time taken to assess TI, PI and fatal cases is two, nine and six months, respectively. The permanent incapacity cases take a longer time to process as they require medical reports as a basis to determine the amount of compensation payable. Medical reports usually take four to six months to be completed, as the assessing doctor has to be satisfied that the incapacity suffered by the workman has stabilised and no further improvement or deterioration is likely. In some cases, medical assessments have taken more than a year. This is mainly because of the seriousness of the injuries. The length of time taken depends also on the speed of recovery of the workman, and this is something not within the Ministry's control. It is entirely in the hands of medical professionals. Mr Chay mentioned that he has brought up some cases on permanent incapacity. One involves the case of a welder who sustained serious arm injury during an accident at work on 29th July 1999. His permanent incapacity was only assessed by his doctor in December 2000, more than 16 months after the accident. However, while his permanent incapacity was being assessed, he was paid temporary incapacity compensation for the period he was on medical leave. This is up to a maximum of one year. His case has since been settled and he has received his compensation amounting to $22,050 on 7th March this year. The other case involves a stevedore who sustained a serious leg injury at work on 1st January 1999. His doctor only confirmed the permanent disability suffered by him in August 2000, ie, 20 months after the accident. This case is complicated by the fact that the employer is uninsured and has denied that the injured workman is his direct employee. So this case will have to be set before the Labour Court for a determination, and hearing has been set for 26th April this year. Prosecution will be taken against the employer, if it is found that the injured worker is indeed his employee and he has failed to insure his workmen under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Sir, my Ministry understands the concern that injured workers and their families may suffer hardship while waiting for their claims to be assessed. However, I would like to inform the House that whilst waiting for his permanent incapacity to be confirmed, an injured workman is entitled to temporary incapacity compensation as provided for under the Workmen's Compensation Act. For this, he is entitled to full earnings up to 14 days, if granted outpatient sick leave, and up to another 60 days, if granted hospitalisation leave, giving a total of a maximum of 74 days altogether. And, if he still needs medical leave beyond this period, he would be entitled to 2/3 of his wages up to one year, from the date of the accident. This means that he will have some compensation paid to him while waiting for his case to be settled. These payments would help to alleviate the financial burden of injured workers, pending the final outcome of their cases. In cases where workmen are unable to secure the TI compensation or where the medical leave exceeds one year, we normally help by referring the case to the MCDS for financial assistance. Sir, my Ministry has been making conscious efforts to expedite the settlement of claims and to ensure that payments of compensation are made within the legally stipulated deadlines. A system to monitor all payments of compensation for fatal and PI claims, and to issue demand letters and reminders where payments are not made, was implemented in June 1998. Sir, we will continue to explore initiatives to further expedite the assessment and payment of claims. Recent initiatives undertaken by the Ministry include the redevelopment of the work injury compensation system. Sir, this system will be ready by the year 2002, and will help to expedite claims by automating processes as far as possible. In February 2001, the Ministry launched a training programme to educate employers on their responsibilities under the Workmen's Compensation Act, ie, to insure their workmen and to report the accidents on time. Sir, we are also reviewing the Act to put in place measures and penalties to deter practices which delay the settlement of claims.

Sir, I wish to thank the Minister for his reply, and beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. (6), Mr Chay.

Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head T of the Main Estimates be reduced by $10 in respect of Code TM 1000. Sir, the Minister for Finance has announced that we will be spending $30 million on the Manpower Development Assistance Scheme this year to help everyone in the workforce upgrade their skills and knowledge. Essentially, this is a co-funding scheme for skills redevelopment training, life-long learning and strategic conversion. I will stick to skills redevelopment. To redevelop our workers' skills, they have to undergo some course or programme at some stage, at our ITE, presently at Bukit Merah. They will also have to make an application, then they will have to go and look for some surrogate employers to get funding from CDC or NTUC for approval. These programmes will be modular and recognised towards the skills set for skills recognition. As this is something that is going to be life-long, can we not get the Skills Redevelopment Programme Centre to be a one-stop centre that is visibly present in all the heartlands, bearing in mind that the larger workforce that we are targeting at would have to apply, and we need time to process and also we need to minimise the inconvenience to them? These application centres could be widely permeated at the community level so that members of the community would know of its ready availability and its ease of application. It should be as easy as signing up for a course at the CC. Apart from these skills redevelopment application centres that I have mentioned, the training centres can, of course, be differently located because they need specialised equipment. With the visible presence of these SRP centres, we can reinforce this life-long learning culture in the community, serving its purpose of life-long skills redevelopment and retraining. 2.00 pm

Sir, Mr Chay has highlighted the need for training opportunities and also to make them easily accessible, and he suggested the establishment of a one-stop facility, especially at the community level, to help workers get training. We also share his concern. In fact, we have set up, in last July, a one-stop career centre and the centre aims to help individuals to make better employment and training decisions, and also to help offer employment assistance and coaching services to those who require help in securing employment. To make it more convenient, we are developing a Career Associate Network with like-minded organisations, such as self-help groups and the community bodies, to set up similar facilities at other locations. The Bukit Merah Skills Development Centre is an old ITE centre. It is now open and we will open similar centres in other locations and work together with community clubs, community centres, as well as Residents Committees, to bring actual training courses further down the community level, particularly, as he mentioned, SRP training. In fact, during the last economic downturn, we worked with Community Development Councils and the NTUC to make available job assistance and also organised employment facilitation events at the community level, and this includes ensuring that workers have opportunities to attend SRP training. The concern is not so much on the existence of these facilities. This has been addressed in the earlier part of the debate, but how we change mindsets, particularly of our older workers and of employers and how to get them to bring themselves to make better use of facilities that are available. This requires the help, not only of the employers and the unions, but I think, the general community. We need to get the message down that whatever employment they are in, it requires them to upgrade their skills and education. This mindset change, this psychological change, is very necessary. While we will provide and expand on these facilities with the $200 million MDAS fund, we will continue to make it more readily available for them to make use of all the facilities, community centres, IT centres and expand them as best as we can. At the end of it, we must get the workers, particularly the older workers, to make use of these training facilities that are available and to make better use of the opportunities to be trained. I think this is the only way whereby they can continue to remain employable and also enjoy better careers and better jobs.

Sir, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Dr Lee Boon Yang rose ---

Dr Lee, on what point are you rising? We have finished with all the amendments.

Sir, we have not come to the end of this Head. Can I take two minutes, with your indulgence, to respond to a point raised by Mr Chiam?

Dr Lee, I have just alerted Mr Low Thia Khiang to the fact that he does not seem to understand how the Committee of Supply functions. I am surprised you are making a request to speak on a question that has been withdrawn.

I understand that the Head is up to 2.08 pm.

I am sorry I have to turn down your request. The sum of $121,848,740 for Head T ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $62,300,900 for Head T ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.

Yes, we have saved some time. But as Members are aware, the time we have saved passes on to the next Head. Head O - Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Amendment No. (1), Dr Ong. I just like to remind you that you merely have a three-minute advantage, not that much. Head O -

Sir, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head O of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100. Sir, from time to time, some of our neighbours have criticised Singapore for all kinds of things we have done or not done, eg, for not doing more in economic assistance and, for doing too much in maximising our position as the financial and communications hub for the region. For being the "little red dot" on the one hand, and on the other, of being the over dominant port. Sir, let it be known that Singapore has the interests of the region at heart. We cannot relocate and shift out of the region. We are here, for better or for worse, we are all part and parcel of the region. If the region prospers, we will also prosper. It is, therefore, in our interest that our neighbours prosper. It is a win-win situation. Our motto, therefore, is "Prosper thy neighbour". An important issue is the distribution and balance of power in the region. This is of key strategic concern to all the countries. There is consensus that in the post Cold War era, the strategic situation is not bipolar. There are two perspectives on this. One is that of an emerging multi-polarity, with the United States, China, Japan, Russia and India as players. In theory, China, Russia and others could form a coalition to balance the US-Japan alliance, should the latter grow too domineering. The other perspective is an American pre-eminence, which is the present trend, but one that is not accepted readily by China, India and Russia. There is, therefore, this tension which is manifested in the various diplomatic offensives in recent years, particularly by China and India, and more recently, by Russia, and the debate over the National Missile Defence (NMD). Across the horizon, all notice that China is emerging as a great power, and the Americans are increasingly viewing Beijing as a strategic rival. Japan appears to be slowly, but surely, shedding its post-war inhibitions to play a larger role in the Asia Pacific region. Sir, what is the likely impact on Southeast Asia if all these great powers were to assert themselves? In Asia and Pacific, therefore, we will be affected one way or the other by any changes in this triangular relationship of the United States, China and Japan. In fact, China recently increased its defence expenditure by nearly 18%. The US expressed its concern, and said it would continue to sell weapons to Taiwan. How will China conduct its trade and foreign relations after its entry into the World Trade Organisation? The answer to this question would surely affect the power configuration in the region. Sir, we now have a new Republican President in the White House. Will President George W Bush and his team be more sympathetic to Taiwan and be more critical of the human rights situation in China? Will the US continue to be engaged in the region, maintain its military presence and fly the flag, and thereby play a role in the balance of power in the region? The Southeast Asian region is beset with economic problems and traumatized by internal upheavals. Governments come and go swiftly, and in some parts, no one is sure who is in power. Singapore is in danger, or in the unenviable position, of being the good house in a bad neighbourhood. The Control Risks Group, which assesses a country's security and political risks, reports that: "Singapore's economy and much of its prosperity is dependent on it serving as a haven between the increasingly turbulent region. While the Singapore Government can manage the internal implications of this paradox, it can do little to alter the powerful political and social forces affecting such key neighbours as Indonesia and, to a lesser extent, Malaysia." The challenge for Singapore then is to balance the needs of foreign investors seeking a secure base in the region, while maintaining good relations with often difficult neighbours. Sir, Singapore is an oasis of peace and stability, but some neighbours are still reeling from the after-shock of the Asian economic crisis. The Chinese character for crisis, "wei chi", projects danger as well as opportunity. There are elements of opportunity of hope in the midst of danger. How can Singapore then minimise the impact of danger and maximise that of opportunity for progress? This is not dissimilar to the English proverb that every dark cloud has a silver lining. These axioms from both East and West are perhaps helpful or instructive when we view the regional turbulence swirling around us. In this regard, I would like to ask the Minister for his strategic overview and assessment of the problems and prospects in our region. I hope the Minister can give us a forecast of likely political storms, and tell us if there is any chance of sunshine or rainbow breaking out in the region in the coming years. I know that it is difficult to forecast the political weather. Political turbulence, by its very nature, is very unpredictable. It would be helpful, however, if the Minister can give us his assessment of the political weather and chart out for us the rocks and the shallow waters. How can Singapore sail through potentially dangerous waters? What can we do as a nation to promote peace, stability and security in our region? Further, how can we share and educate Singaporeans on the dangers and pitfalls in the region, without alarming the public and the investors? Sir, ASEAN has featured prominently these last 30 years in matters of peace and stability in Southeast Asia. However, since the financial crisis, questions have been raised about ASEAN's very future. The frequent leadership changes in the ASEAN countries, and the rapid admission of new members into ASEAN, have prompted analysts around the world to doubt whether ASEAN itself will be able to act cohesively, and expeditiously. The domestic political stability and political transition in Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand and, to some extent, Malaysia, have cast a shadow over the prestige, clout and capability of ASEAN and its ability to maintain regional stability and play a positive role in the international arena. Has ASEAN become too large with 10 members, though some may say it is perfect 10? The question is: is it increasingly difficult for ASEAN to speak with one voice in the world forum? ASEAN has been a useful vehicle for the countries in the region and it is imperative for all the 10 ASEAN countries to ensure that it remains so. The challenge is, therefore, on how to reinvent and reinvigorate ASEAN, so that it can play new roles in the new millennium, forge unity amongst member countries and work towards the promotion of peace, stability and economic progress in the region. I wish, in particular, to ask the Minister for his assessment on the outcome of the ASEAN Informal Summit held in Singapore recently and the recent ASEAN-EC meeting, as well as his comments on the ASEAN+3 formula, ie, ASEAN plus China, Japan and South Korea, whether ASEAN+3 will take off and become a platform for action in the future. My next question is: has political uncertainty impaired the ASEAN Regional Forum, the only multilateral platform in Asia-Pacific, to address security issues? Has the ARF been able to move beyond confidence-building to preventive diplomacy in its role? Is there still a role for the ARF to address the security issues and the problems of regional hotspots in the Asia-Pacific region?

Sir, many of the ASEAN members are still recovering from the 1997 economic crisis. There is still great disparity in social, economic and political developments in the various ASEAN countries. There is even a perception amongst observers that ASEAN lacks dynamism and unity of purpose because of members' internal problems and priorities. In addition, it has become clear that Northeast Asia has become the new centre for foreign direct investments. With China's entry into the World Trade Organisation, we can see a bigger pool of investments from Southeast Asia. Sir, I would like to ask the Minister for an update on the state of affairs within ASEAN. In particular, I would like to ask the Minister on how ASEAN is coordinating to attract foreign direct investments to the region. 2.15 pm Sir, I would also like to ask the Minister on the prospects for the ASEAN+3 process developing into some kind of an East Asia summit. In particular, I would like to ask the Minister whether ASEAN would lose its identity in such an East Asian summit where it can be overwhelmed by the larger East Asian countries.

Sir, in the late 1990s, we found an ASEAN vastly different in spirit from the ASEAN of the early 1990s. In the early 1990s, ASEAN was held up as the next best example of regional cooperation, next to the EU. It was confident, bold, innovative and taking active steps to strengthen its regional cooperation and cohesiveness. One such example was the formation of the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) in 1994, which sought to be the forum for regional security cooperation and activity. The early 1990s saw a period of high growth rates for all ASEAN countries, and there was a feeling of euphoria, and ASEAN was respected. The economic crisis of 1997/1998 and its lingering effects on many individual ASEAN countries would appear to have dented the unity of ASEAN states, as political and economic instability has forced each member state to become more involved in their internal affairs, at the expense of regional cooperation. Instead of coming together, the economic crisis seemed to have pushed ASEAN states apart, and they are focusing on their own internal problems. Sir, could the Minister give us his views on the state of cohesiveness and unity currently within ASEAN? This is a critical time for ASEAN with the inclusion of four new member states in the last five years, especially since these new member states are also economically under developed. How have the older ASEAN states been able to help these new members to integrate? Can the Minister comment on how ASEAN can prevent a two-tier split into the economically more developed regional members of ASEAN on the one hand, and the economically less developed new members on the other?

Sir, I thank Dr Ong Chit Chung, Chairman of the GPC, Mr Ravindran and Mr Hawazi for their comments. I will first touch on Dr Ong Chit Chung's points about the overview of the strategic situation in our region. He is right when he says that there have been very dramatic changes in the regional landscape. The South East Asian region is going through very troubled and uncertain times. North Asia, as some Members pointed out, is proving to be more attractive to investors. There is a new administration in the United States. There are old flashpoints such as the unresolved disputes in South China Sea and the cross strait relations, which have not disappeared. And we have also seen inter-ethnic tensions in various places in the region. As I was listening to the debate in the past few days on MTI as well as the Ministry of Defence, there were certain recurring themes by both the Members and the Ministers who replied. The recurring theme was precisely about the uncertain strategic situation we find ourselves in. And now again, in MFA, this point is raised. What does it show? I think it shows that the regional backdrop is relevant, not just one aspect of Singapore's development, it affects many facets of Singapore - economic, security and defence, as well as foreign policy. We are affected by the external environment and circumstances, many of which are beyond our control. Dr Ong Chit Chung asked me to forecast the political weather. How I wish we had a crystal ball! There are so many developments in countries around us, the outcomes of which are uncertain, but the outcomes of which will certainly affect us, to a lesser or greater degree. All I can say is that we have to be alert to the external developments and in various facets of our policies, we have to be agile and nimble in making adjustments. Members rightly pointed out that the region in South East Asia is going through a very difficult period. Even as we speak now, today, ASEAN's largest member, Indonesia, is grappling with serious domestic, political and economic problems. With recent changes in government, the Philippines and Thailand have also seen the emergence of new leaders as well as Foreign Ministers. With all these uncertainties, political and economic problems taking place, foreign investor confidence has yet to return to the region. But I would say, in reply to those who spoke about ASEAN, Singapore is committed to ASEAN, and we will work with others to overcome the present difficulties, to keep ASEAN on track in important projects, such as AFTA. At the fourth informal summit in Singapore, there was an agreement amongst the leaders, but also amongst the ASEAN+3, to cooperate towards integration of ASEAN. I will come to this in a moment. Within our limited resources, Singapore tries to play the role of a catalyst in ASEAN's recovery, and we do this through various projects, such as the initiative for ASEAN integration, the e-ASEAN initiative to help all of ASEAN engage in the new economy. Nearer home to Singapore, we are witnessing political changes in both our neighbouring countries. As I said, Indonesia is undergoing a difficult political transition in the face of economic, social, religious and ethnic problems. Such pressures have caused Indonesian leaders sometimes to lash out against us from time to time. But Members will note that we have not reacted emotionally. We have put out measured factual statements setting out our position on the facts. We have to take a long-term view of our relations with Indonesia, and we will continue to approach relations in a calm and measured manner. In Malaysia, we are also witnessing political changes, and as Malaysia deals with its domestic challenges, Members would have also noted the series of ups and downs in our relations with them in the past year. Notwithstanding these events, the leaders of both sides have maintained close and frequent contacts and have been able to put such issues behind us quickly in favour of moving ahead in our bilateral relations. With both Indonesia and Malaysia, despite occasional differences, which are unavoidable because they are close neighbours, let me say that we will continue to build on our relations on the basis of sovereign equality, and we will cooperate wherever possible towards mutual benefit. I have noted what Dr Ong Chit Chung said and I agree with him that it must be on the basis of prosper-thy-neighbour. And indeed we believe that such contribution can contribute towards lifting our region from its current uncertainties. Dr Ong Chit Chung pointed out that North East Asia is showing good signs of economic growth and healthy recovery from the economic crisis. The tensions in the Korean Peninsula have been easing in the past year. Not surprisingly, therefore, foreign investors are more attracted to North East Asia than South East Asia, and this is precisely what I have flagged to my colleagues in the ASEAN Foreign Ministers' meeting, that we have to take note and we have to get our act together in ASEAN. China's impending entry into the WTO will also present challenges and opportunities for countries in this region. Let me add also that India is also rising as an economic force with their centres of excellence in the field of information technology. Dr Ong Chit Chung mentioned the United States administration. Their key foreign policy directions have yet to be revealed, but it appears that they will remain engaged and committed in Asia. US policy in Asia, I completely agree with Dr Ong Chit Chung, will affect the existing triangular relationship between the US, China and Japan, a relationship which underpins the strategic situation in the Asia-Pacific. So we have to monitor this closely. Sir, these then are some of the matters in the radar screen, so to speak. With all these changes and uncertainties taking place in this region, what can we do in these uncertain times? I think there is no point in wringing our hands and lamenting on the problems in the region. So during this interregnum in ASEAN, I believe we have to be forward looking and to work with like-minded countries in ASEAN as well as some of our dialogue partners to keep ASEAN on track, and we have to prepare for the day when the region recovers. I think we have to take a twin track approach, what Dr Ong Chit Chung referred to as a balancing approach. In other words, while we take a long-term view of our commitment to ASEAN, we also have to press ahead in reaching out to other key countries and economies in the world. Being a small country in an increasingly globalised world, we have no choice but to engage global markets to make the world our hinterland. This is not new and has been our approach for a long time. I would say, together, these two facets make up the twin track approach in our foreign policy. ASEAN is of primary importance, but of equal significance is our need to reach out and engage with the rest of the world. Let me say that Singapore's FTA negotiations with Australia, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand and the United States can be said to come under this other part of our twin track approach. Dr Ong Chit Chung made an interesting point when he said that it is important for our people to be knowledgeable about what is happening in the region. I completely agree with him. Why do I agree with him? Because of the external situation we find ourselves in, and it will definitely affect Singapore. I think Singaporeans, as a community, ought to take an interest in what is happening beyond our shores, especially in our immediate region. And if Singaporeans at large are well acquainted with the issues in our region and have a realistic view of developments, I believe they will be better equipped to deal with any developments that take place. Sir, let me turn to the various comments made about ASEAN. I would start, first, by recounting why is it that many commentators and writers dubbed ASEAN, some years ago, as one of the most successful regional groupings in the world. I think there were two reasons. First members of ASEAN were doing well economically. Some were dubbed as the "tigers" or rising economies in Asia. Secondly, most of the countries were experiencing periods of political stability. With the regional crisis, things have changed. Countries are experiencing both political and economic uncertainties and instability. So if you ask me now, I think it will be misleading to paint any rosy picture for ASEAN. In fact, at last year's ASEAN Foreign Ministerial Meeting, Singapore made a speech which was described aptly as a wake-up call for ASEAN. But, at the same time, I would caution against taking an unduly pessimistic view of ASEAN. We have to view matters in historical perspective. And when we look back at the initial years after ASEAN was founded, there were many pundits who predicted that ASEAN would not last more than a few years. They described ASEAN as being a group of so disparate countries, so divergent, that we were the "Balkans of Asia". But we have lasted, developed and evolved into the organisation that we are now. 2.30 pm ASEAN continues to remain a resilient organisation. It has nurtured certain habits of cooperation. There are some good institutions in ASEAN beyond the meetings of the Foreign Ministers. There are the meetings of the Finance, Economic and Environment Ministers. Through this network of meetings between Ministers and officials, there has been over the years a certain camaraderie, understanding and working relationship between ASEAN leaders and officials. I think the ASEAN meetings are also important for this interaction. We agreed last year that we should cut down as much as possible the pomp, the ceremonial part of ASEAN, and move into a more business-like functional mode. Therefore, we have held retreats, sometimes without officials. And we have also agreed that in between the annual Foreign Ministers' meeting, there will be a meeting of Ministers in Retreat, and this will be held sometime soon. I will repeat that Singapore will work with others in ASEAN during this interregnum. During this interregnum, what is essential is to keep the organisation together. It is important because there are many new leaders, many new Foreign Ministers, who have emerged in ASEAN, and we have to stay on track on important initiatives like AFTA. Members asked about the recent informal summit which we hosted in Singapore. I think that it was a very useful meeting, coming as it did, during this uncertain period. The leaders set clear directions by making ASEAN integration their priority. Another point that was emphasised just now was on how do we avoid a two-tier ASEAN. Working closely to integrate our 10 markets and making our economy more competitive will certainly help reduce the gap within ASEAN and make ourselves more cohesive. There was agreement that those who are better off should help the less developed in ASEAN. As far as Singapore is concerned, we are fully committed to working with ASEAN to assist the CLMV countries (Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar and Vietnam). In this regard, the leaders agreed on an important project called the "Initiative for ASEAN Integration". To catalyse this initiative, Singapore proposed a package of proposals on human resource development, education and IT. The leaders also signed the e-ASEAN framework agreement as ASEAN's clear response to the global information revolution. Prime Minister Goh argued that e-ASEAN would transform ASEAN into one seamless and borderless market, instead of 10 fragmented markets. I shall not go too great into the details of the Initiative for ASEAN Integration. But let me say that the package of proposals announced by the Prime Minister at the informal summit is made up of two parts: skills development and educational development, which will stretch over a five-year period involving $59.5 million. It involves, firstly, skills development training institutes being established in Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar and Vietnam. Secondly, a five-year package of IT "Train-the-Trainers" courses for these countries. Thirdly, an Education "Train-the- Trainers" Programme, focusing on teacher and trainer development. Fourthly, doubling the number of Singapore scholarships under the Singapore Cooperation Programme from 30 to 60 per academic year. Finally, they are also planning student exchange programmes at both secondary school and youth levels. Another aspect of ASEAN touched on by Members is ARF. I would say that the ARF remains a very important forum for discussing security-related issues in South-east Asia and ASEAN. This is driven by ASEAN because every ARF is chaired by ASEAN. What are the prospects for ARF's development? From Singapore's point of view, we want to nudge ASEAN and other countries to move the ARF faster towards preventive diplomacy. In other words, move from the stage of confidence-building measures to preventive diplomacy. But we also have to be cognisant of the fact that we must do so at a pace comfortable to other members of the ARF. So we will with others see how we can get a consensus to advance from confidence-building measures to preventive diplomacy. Dr Ong Chit Chung asked about ASEAN-European Union meeting. As you know, this meeting was stalled for some time. It was to be held in Europe. There was a problem because the Europeans, due to the common policy on Myanmar, declined to give a visa to the Foreign Minister of Myanmar. ASEAN, of course, would not allow itself to be divided and turned up there without Myanmar. So there was an impasse. There were discussions which led to this formula, leading to the ASEAN and EU Foreign Ministers' Meeting in Vientiane. The meeting proceeded with all the ASEAN Foreign Ministers being there, including Myanmar. Our approach to the EU was that if they had a problem with Myanmar, if they had a foreign policy about Myanmar, by all means, engage Myanmar, but do not let that derail or jeopardise the long-standing ASEAN-EU relationship. I believe this call struck a resonance with many members, as a result of which, after the ASEAN-EU meeting in Vientiane, they have agreed that the next meeting will be held in Europe. On the ASEAN+3 process, it has been going on for some time. In other words, it is held back-to-back with the Summit, where ASEAN leaders meet with Japan, China and Korea, separately as well as collectively. Members asked whether this would lead, in future, to closer cooperation between ASEAN and the plus-three countries. I would say, yes, it is already happening, and these meetings that we have annually symbolise the close cooperation between ASEAN and the plus-three countries. With each country (Japan, China or Korea), sitting down with ASEAN, we review many projects for collaboration and cooperation. The idea of an East Asian Summit, of course, merits consideration in the longer term. In principle, I think it is a good idea, but our preference is for a gradual approach. Because, as Mr Ravindran mentioned, there are some ASEAN countries who are concerned about the plus-three process becoming an East Asian Summit too quickly. We need to address this and build up comfort level in the process, both within ASEAN and among the plus-three countries. It is not just a question as to whether it will diminish ASEAN's relevance and role in East Asia. But for the plus-three process and the summit to take place, ASEAN, first, will have to establish itself again and get its act together.

Sir, Singapore and Malaysia are close neighbours. Some say too close for comfort. But we cannot escape the proximity imposed by geography nor alter our historical past. Willy-nilly, we have to live as neighbours, as best as we can be. Singapore-Malaysia relations have been characterised as two neighbours living in semi-detached houses, but separated by a common wall, as the Malaysian Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Badawi puts it. Or as Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong amplifies, it is like living in two semi-detached houses located within a condominium estate and sharing common facilities, with common responsibility as well. In such a setting, the neighbours get together to socialise and build up friendship and get to understand and appreciate each other better. Admittedly, relationship between Singapore and Malaysia has its ups and downs. The bottomline is that it is in the interest of both countries to work together to resolve any difficulty and build up our common ground and understanding. All can be winners together. It can be a win-win situation for both. In a recent visit to Singapore, the Malaysian Deputy Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Badawi said, "Singapore and Malaysia should improve our trade relations, to prosper together and ensure peace in the region." In this context, we learn with great interest that Singapore and Malaysia are continuing the negotiation on the package of outstanding issues between the two countries, and Singapore has agreed to extend the 10th February 2001 deadline for the relocation of the Malayan Railway station in Tanjong Pagar. In a recent interview with the press, Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong said that "we have given our proposal to Malaysia and we have informal feedback that they are responding to the proposal." I therefore wish to ask the Minister on the progress and outcome of such negotiations, and when does he expect the negotiations to be concluded.

Sir, the recent visit by the Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia to Singapore has created a sense of optimism that the bilateral relationship between our two countries has turned around for the better. At the end of the visit, the Malaysian DPM also indicated that outstanding bilateral issues could be resolved with some urgency. However, no deadline has been disclosed for the resolution of the outstanding bilateral issues by both sides. I would like to ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs to give an update on the state of bilateral relations with Malaysia and also whether any deadline has been set for the resolution of these outstanding issues.

Sir, the points that I wanted to raise on the bilateral agreement with the Malaysians have already been addressed by Dr Ong Chit Chung and Mr Ravindran. I would just like to ask the Minister to provide the House with an update on the recent Malaysian government's proposal to construct an underground railway tunnel under the Johor Straits from Johor Baru to Singapore, and on to the Kranji MRT station. Could the Minister give us an update on the Government's response to the Malaysian proposal? 2.45 pm

The relationship between Singapore and Malaysia has its ups and downs. With the recent visit of the Malaysia's Deputy Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Badawi, to Singapore, the relationship between the two countries has taken a notch up. I am certain that with more visits of officials of one country to the other, the relationship between Singapore and Malaysia can be better improved. So far, we can see that the visits are only made by the very top officials of one country to the other. The Senior Minister visited Malaysia last year and this year, the Malaysian Deputy Prime Minister reciprocated the visit to Singapore. Sir, there are seven MPs who are speaking on this amendment on Singapore and Malaysia relations and I am certain that all the points that I shall be speaking on this amendment shall be covered by the other speakers. So I shall only use this opportunity to make one proposal to advance the cause of Singapore-Malaysia relations. I would like to propose that our Government approach the Malaysian counterparts to arrange on a regular basis, say, annually, friendly visits and friendly games between the officials of the Government institutions, departments and statutory boards and Members of Parliament of the two countries. This proposal is nothing new. Amongst the lawyers, lawyers and judges of our two countries have already had regular annual friendly games for many years. Our Members of Parliament had, in fact, several years ago, as I remember, friendly games meet with Members of the Malaysian Parliament. I do not know why that friendly games meet was not continued. I hope that it shall be revived. Sir, I also heard just now that the ASEAN Ministers often hold retreats. I think the more meetings would only augur for the better. If too many meets are not practical, I would certainly suggest that the meeting of Members of Parliament between the two countries be revived.

Sir, the subject of our relations with Malaysia is often discussed and debated in this Parliament. In the short time as a Member of this House, I have witnessed the many high points and low points in our relations with Malaysia. Whatever it is, I recognise that the destinies of the two countries are intertwined. We have close physical proximity with each other and we have a common cultural heritage. The reality is that we cannot choose to walk away but to learn to live with one another. I notice that our relationship with Malaysia in recent months has once again been on the upswing. This is evidenced by the exchanges of visits by Ministers on both sides of the Causeway. Like my colleagues before me, Sir, I would like to ask the Minister to give us an update on the relationship with Malaysia, and if we are in any way closer to resolving the outstanding bilateral issues between us.

Since my colleagues have already asked many of the issues that I want to raise, I would just like to focus on the importance of good relations between Singapore and Malaysia and how we should not allow the bilateral issues to affect our common good and common interest. When Deputy Prime Minister, Abdullah Badawi, came to Singapore and requested that the deadline of the relocation of the CIQ as well as the POA on redevelopment of land used by KTM be extended, we agreed. But I did not recall that we have set a new deadline for the resolution of the issues. I do not think we can negotiate all these issues forever. Is there a timeframe that we are working on?

Sir, there are two dimensions of Singapore-Malaysia relations. One is at the official level between governments which, I think, is very close and strong. But I would like to touch on the other dimension which is a personal level between people to people which, I think, is somewhat more complex and problematic. And this is because of the perception gap that exists between what we think Malaysians think of us which can be very vastly different from what Malaysians really think of us. This applies to some other countries in the region as well. It is precisely because of that, relations with Malaysia can be quite unpredictable because, more often than not, it depends on the domestic political climate and environment. Therefore, the forging of people to people relationship between the two countries must be adopted as the most sustainable strategy for us. Here, we have a number of problems. One is how do we progress in our relationship, one from a state where we share many common things together, our historical heritage, our culture, our way of life, to one where increasingly these common factors will diminish as we become very different people and evolve our own way of life, sometimes conflicting but in competition with our neighbours. Then can our relations with Malaysia, and maybe the region in general, be strengthened precisely because of our differences? Would the erosion of these common factors indicate, like many have interpreted, as a deterioration of our relationship? Many would like to view Singaporeans as being more Western and Asian, being legalistic, not warm, too sensitive and too serious. But the answer is that, precisely, we have no other choice because we are what we are. But we have to do more so that Singapore, our values and our way of life become better understood by our neighbours. And this should be done at all levels. For example, we need to enhance efforts through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and through its diplomatic missions, who can play a key role to really reflect our way of life and our values. Two, we also need to do more to learn and understand about our neighbours, learn about their culture, appreciate their way of life, their customs and tradition. More of our people should learn and speak the language of our neighbours. For example, some simple suggestions. We can issue guides to our citizens about simple dos and don'ts when they travel to the region which could create a lot of goodwill and good image for our people as they travel abroad because people do complain about Singaporeans when we travel abroad. Here, I want to give a simple experience I had. It did not happen in Malaysia, but, recently, in Chiang Mai. I was there. I was at a night market and I observed a Singapore family trying to bargain with the handicraft stall vendor. And unaware to the Singaporean, he was making bad remarks about the poor quality of the product that he intended to buy. He was about to walk away from the stall thinking that, by doing so, he would get a much better discount, but all this while, not realising the vendor was extremely displeased with his behaviour. I do not think that the Singaporean couple really understood what it meant. And I wonder what the vendor thinks of Singaporeans because these scenes are played day in, day out at Chiang Mai night market. Sir, my wish really is that the Foreign Ministry should make the forging of good relations, understanding of our neighbours, the personal responsibility of every citizen because we have an important role to project our way of life and values to the people in the region.

I propose to take the tea break now. Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House.

Order. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 3.15 pm. Sitting accordingly suspended at 2.54 pm until 3.15 pm. Sitting resumed at 3.15 pm

Debate in Committee of Supply resumed.

Head O (cont.) -

Sir, I wish to thank the Members who spoke on our relations with Malaysia. I recall that at the last Committee of Supply debate one year ago, I then described our bilateral relations as being in a "holding pattern". Since then, Members would know that there have been several developments in our bilateral relations with Malaysia. I would say that, on the whole, the atmospherics of bilateral relations have improved since the Senior Minister's visit to Kuala Lumpur in August last year. Malaysian Foreign Minister, Datuk Syed Hamid, had described the visit as an opportunity for strengthening relations. This improved atmosphere, in turn, paved the way for increased bilateral contacts between leaders and parliamentarians on both sides. Yes, there was a hiccup over Malaysian reactions to Prime Minister Goh's speech on the position of Malays in Singapore, but it did not change the overall tone of the improving relationship. The recent visit by Malaysia's Deputy Prime Minister, Datuk Abdullah Badawi, to Singapore in February, at Prime Minister Goh's invitation, also helped to improve the relationship. Deputy Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi's delegation comprised several Cabinet Ministers and Chief Ministers. In fact, he and his delegation met many of our leaders, including the Prime Minister, Senior Minister, Deputy Prime Minister BG Lee Hsien Loong, Deputy Prime Minister Dr Tony Tan, and several of our younger leaders and parliamentarians. The visit succeeded in throwing up several ideas for bilateral cooperation. For example, both sides agreed on the need to develop contact points that will involve Malaysians and Singaporeans of various groups, eg, youth groups, student groups, parliamentarians, as well as business people, so as to bring Singaporeans and Malaysians together on an informal basis for greater interactions. I will come back to this later when responding to Mr Chiam's remarks. Deputy Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi and Prime Minister Goh also discussed the package of outstanding bilateral issues. Members would have read that Malaysia had requested to move its railway station from Tanjong Pagar to Kranji. We have, in principle, agreed to the request, and the details would have to be sorted out. In connection with this, we have also, in principle, agreed to the construction of a tunnel between Johor and Kranji. Both sides stressed the need to settle the issues in the package as soon as possible, so that we could put them behind us and move relations further forward. On this question of package, Dr Ong Chit Chung and several other MPs asked what is the progress and whether I saw any prospect of any agreement being reached. Dr Ong Chit Chung recalled that the Prime Minister said in a press interview that Singapore had given our proposals to Malaysia and he had informal feedback that Malaysia was responding to the proposals. I wish to say, Sir, that we have indeed received a reply from Dr Mahathir to the Senior Minister. This reply, dated 21st February, was received by my Ministry on 7th March. As we received it only a week ago, we are still studying it. Our preliminary study shows that there are variations on some points between Dr Mahathir's reply and Senior Minister's understanding with Dr Mahathir during his visit to Kuala Lumpur on 15th August last year. At first blush, the differences do not appear that great. However, on water, we have to study the proposed price at which we purchase water from Malaysia under a new agreement that will cover the period 2011 and 2061, and, next, for the period after 2061, when the Johor River Water Agreement ends. Another matter is the mix of treated and raw water, although the volume or quantum will remain the same, as at present. These are matters that need to be resolved and put into a form of words in an agreement before we can finally put outstanding matters behind us. Sir, I would say that after all these years since 1997, there is now some forward movement on the bilateral package that can hopefully be finalised in the coming months through the same give-and-take on both sides that have got us closer to a settlement. Having said that, let me stress that apart from the supply of water, there are also other outstanding items that need to be settled at the same time, such as the reinstatement of airspace arrangements for RSAF flights, the location of Malaysian CIQ, the development of MRA lands and CPF monies of Malaysians. These have to be agreed as a package. Both sides should, therefore, strive to conclude the deal as soon as possible. Mr Ravindran asked whether any deadline has been set with regard to the POA. I think it is worthwhile recalling, Sir, that under the 1990 POA, both governments agreed that the KTMB railway station would be vacated and moved from Tanjong Pagar to Bukit Timah in the first instance, and then to Woodlands within five years when the MRT station reaches Woodlands New Town, which it did on 10th February 1996. In June 1997, the Prime Minister informed this House of his proposal for a framework of cooperation between Singapore and Malaysia to get around the impasse over the POA. Prime Minister Goh said he was prepared to vary the terms of the POA within a framework of wider cooperation between the two countries, in other words, on-going bilateral package negotiations. So, in answer to Mr Ravindran, this is precisely what is happening. We are discussing the water and other issues in connection with the POA. When the Malaysians move to Kranji, of course it will be a variation, but this must be done in the context of the other issues to be resolved. In other words, it is a total package. Our Prime Minister informed Deputy Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi that Singapore agrees to the request to move the station to Kranji. He was prepared to extend the POA deadline so as to allow more time to sort out details. But, of course, there has to be a finality to the process. And since the Malaysians said they need more time, we have agreed. Deputy Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi himself said, and I quote, "Both sides will work on an urgent basis and will try as hard as possible to come to an agreement." And I have just referred to the latest development, Dr Mahathir's letter to Senior Minister. Mr Hawazi, in that regard, asked whether we have not given a new deadline, it cannot go on forever, and so on. I would respond by saying that both sides are keen to resolve the package of bilateral issues as soon as possible so that we can put these issues behind us. Although there is no specific timeframe which we have set, I wish to assure this House that there is a sense of urgency on both sides. Both sides want to resolve these issues as soon as possible. This is a step forward. I would say, therefore, let us take things one step at a time, and Members, I am sure, know the Singapore Government's firm position on the legal nature of the obligations under the POA. We have made that clear in this House as well as to the Malaysians. Mr Charles Chong asked about the underground tunnel proposal. As I mentioned just now, we have, in principle, agreed to the idea of the tunnel proposal. But, naturally, there are many technical details to be ironed out, which we are awaiting and, therefore, I am not able to go into the details at this stage. On bilateral relations generally, Mr Zulkifli and Mr Chiam made certain suggestions. Mr Zulkifli gave certain proposals and ideas, which I take as increasing greater understanding between the peoples of neighbouring countries as well as other countries in the region. Some of his ideas, I am sure, can be taken up by the various agencies, such as his idea of do's and don'ts. We can ask the Tourist Promotion Board to look into it. I would say offhand that his ideas are well intentioned and we will have a look at them. But the main point I want to make is that Members ought not view the development of good relations between Singapore and other countries as the sole preserve or duty of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs or any other particular Ministry, or of the Government. I have always held the view that the betterment of relations and the promotion of goodwill between Singapore and other countries partly depends on government-to-government interactions, but very much also depends on people-to-people relations and interactions, and it is in that context that I move on to what Mr Chiam said. Mr Chiam has made some equally well-intentioned suggestions. I welcome his suggestions. Like Mr Zulkifli, he has emphasised people-to-people contacts. It is consistent with what I have said. I also agree with him that if there are to be visits between Malaysia, Singapore and other countries, it should not be just confined to the top leaders. He is absolutely right. But let me assure him that with regard to Malaysia, for instance, these contacts have actually been beyond Government. For example, apart from the Bench and Bar Games, I know that the universities have had regular contacts. In fact, at the last Games in Malaysia, the university contingent, I believe, was led by our President in his capacity as Chancellor of the National University of Singapore. There are also many other interactions between our professional and uniformed services, eg, the Police, the Armed Forces, and the Foreign Ministry to Foreign Ministry Games. I believe MINDEF has games with its counterparts. The civil services also have their games. So, I agree with him. This is going on. Obviously, we should explore various other ways of enhancing these contacts. And this is precisely what Prime Minister Goh and Deputy Prime Minister Badawi discussed when they emphasised the idea of developing points of contact. So we would certainly want to go in that direction. I also agree with him that we should promote further interactions between our Members of Parliament and their backbenchers, and I heard recently that there were to be some golf games between our backbenchers and their MPs, and we would strongly encourage that. I know we have a backbenchers' club and the Singapore Parliamentary Society. Whether through this vehicle or even informally outside this channel, I would encourage Members to meet. So whether it is between the civil services, professional organisations, non-governmental organisations, the totality of it supplements the formal government-to-government bilateral contacts. In fact, the informal contacts and people-to-people relationship sometimes may be equally important because they are not saddled with bureaucracy and forms of protocol, they can speak more frankly and more informal contacts. I would therefore welcome the suggestions in the spirit in which it was given, not only for Malaysia, but also other countries in the region. 3.30 pm

Sir, I would like to thank the Minister for his reply on Malaysia-Singapore relations and am glad that progress is being made. Sir, we move on to Indonesia. Indonesia is our big neighbour to the south. Standard and Poor's, the financial agency, citing political unrest, has cut the long-term rating for Indonesia to negative. This downgrading reflects the increasingly uncertain socio-political situation in Indonesia and has negative implications on the economic performance of the country. The rupiah has also fallen to 10,000 to the US dollar, hitting a 29-month low. There are separatist movements in Aceh and Irian Jaya, and in Kalimantan, the Dayaks have massacred hundreds of Madurese. Law and order is breaking down in some parts, and there could be problems of refugees fleeing and seeking safe havens elsewhere. With such developments in Indonesia, Singapore has to be watchful and has to keep track of all these events. The golden days of Singapore-Indonesia relations, in retrospect, were when President Suharto was in power in Indonesia. Then we had President Habibie, who called us the "little red dot". We thought we would fare much better with President Abdurrahman Wahid, but it was not to be. There were also twists and turns. Sir, despite this, are there new areas in which the two countries can cooperate to our mutual benefit? Are there potential problems we are likely to encounter in the coming years? We wish Indonesia every success in its economic restructuring, and hope that Singapore and Indonesia can work closely together to our mutual benefit.

Sir, Indonesia continues to be compounded by a myriad of economic, social and political problems. The implementation of regional autonomy had meant that many decisions would be made locally at the regional level. The situation in Indonesia is precarious and volatile. I would like to ask the Minister, in the light of all these circumstances: (a) What is the state of our relations with Indonesia; (b) What is the usage of all the financial assistance packages that we have so far offered to Indonesia; and (c) What is the impact of regional autonomy within Indonesia and how Singapore intends to position itself to deal with many of the regional governments near us, like Riau province, South Sumatra province and Jambi province?

Sir, our relations with Indonesia have gone through several phases from the time of our independence up to now. On the whole, our past relations with Indonesia were close, warm and friendly. In marked contrast, we have seen, in the last three years, two Presidents of Indonesia personally attacking Singapore and questioning our attitude and perceived unhelpfulness towards Indonesia. Although relations seem to have been smoothened out with the recent launching of the multi-million dollar gas project between the two countries, not surprisingly, the November episode has left a bad taste. On the whole, I would say that I agree with the Minister and support the position of the Minister in stressing that we should take a long-term view in our relations with Indonesia. Can the Minister update us on the current state of relations with Indonesia and the developments there? An Indonesia, that is strife-full, as it is now, is not good for the region, and not good for us. An Indonesia that is broken up must be worse. From interactions with the residents and fellow Singaporeans, I get the sense that Singaporeans want to know about the prospect of our largest neighbouring country remaining united. What is the view of the Minister in this matter?

Sir, in my reference to the strategic situation, I said that Indonesia is still grappling with serious political, economic and social challenges. New power centres have emerged in Indonesia's political landscape. The Indonesian Parliament (DPR) has assumed a more assertive check and balance role on the government. Furthermore, problems of security and stability have not abated. Last Christmas eve, there were bomb blasts in major cities in Indonesia. Members must have read of all the reports of the serious problems of killings in Kalimantan. Now, these political and security developments, together with the Indonesian government's differences with the IMF, do affect economic recovery and investor confidence. Feedback from investors is that they will continue to adopt a wait-and-see attitude until they are comfortable with the political and security situation in Indonesia. The Indonesian government has to deal also with the evolving relationship between Jakarta and the provinces. One challenge is to manage the implementation of the regional autonomy laws, something that Mr Ravindran alluded to. This is a complex exercise and would have implications on the shape and future of government structure. Members asked about the state of our bilateral relations. I think Members know that our relations with Indonesia have seen a rough patch recently. They would have noted the allegations that President Abdurrahman Wahid made against Singapore last November and, as I have said, we reacted by putting up factual statements in a measured manner to point out the inaccuracies of these allegations. We set their record straight. On bilateral relations, our position is clear. We have always valued our relations with Indonesia. The fundamentals of that relationship, built up over 30 years of friendship and close cooperation, are strong. However, there will be ups and downs along the way. We have to take a long-term view of relations between Singapore and Indonesia and we should therefore be prepared to ride out any difficulties as they come along in this bilateral relationship. At the same time, we must keep ourselves open to opportunities for cooperation with Indonesia. Therefore, our approach is to work for mutually beneficial ties in the long-term, on the basis that we are sovereign equals. Indonesia is strategically important, not only to Singapore, but also to the region and ASEAN, a point that several Members have made this afternoon. Naturally, we hope that the situation in Indonesia will improve quickly. But please remember that Singapore is a small country, with limited resources. On our own, we cannot help Indonesia overcome its economic problems. What we can do is to play a catalytic role. Our economic assistance to Indonesia, something that Mr Ravindran mentioned, has to be seen in this framework. We hope that it might encourage other foreign investors to follow Singapore's lead and invest there. I should mention the recently concluded Asamera gas deal, worth US$8 billion over 22 years. It is one example of our long-term commitment to cooperating with Indonesia. The fact that President Wahid came personally to Singapore to witness the First Gas ceremony - and that was after his outburst - is a recognition of such mutually beneficial projects of cooperation. Only last month, we signed another agreement to purchase gas from Sumatra worth US$7 billion over 20 years. Other developments include Senior Minister's recent visit to Jakarta to attend a meeting of President Wahid's International Advisory Panel. He did so on the basis that Singapore-Indonesia relations must be kept steady, whatever temporary upsets there may be. Minister George Yeo also visited South Sumatra and Riau provinces last month to explore economic opportunities there. That again is relevant to what Mr Ravindran talked about in cooperating with provinces. As for what Mr Ravindran specifically asked for about regional autonomy, let me say that regional autonomy was introduced in Indonesia by law only on 1st January 2001. The rules and laws governing regional autonomy are still not clear. The central government and the provincial authorities are in the process, I believe, of fine-tuning this process, so as to ensure an effective and efficient system of regional autonomy. I think it will take some time. From our perspective, I would say that the conduct of diplomatic relations, as in the case of other countries, is with the central government in Jakarta. Any steps that we take to establish links with the provinces will be within this broader framework of bilateral relations with Indonesia. Of course, with regional autonomy, we can expect more Singapore businessmen to explore business opportunities in the region and to deal directly with the provincial authorities. Riau will be especially attractive to our businessmen because of the region's proximity to Singapore and the already extensive links which many of our private sector has in that area. In anticipation of the increase in Singapore's interests in the Riaus, we have recently decided to open a Consulate and Trade Office in Pekanbaru. Our Consulate in Pekanbaru will also provide consular services to a growing number of Singaporeans visiting the Riau provinces.

Sir, despite an unfortunate blemish in our records that took place nearly 60 years ago, Singapore-Japan ties have always been characterised by warm and friendly exchanges, both at the level of the political leadership and on a people-to-people basis. The good relationship between the two countries is perhaps helped by the common elements that exist between them. To begin with, both countries lack natural resources and are, therefore, almost totally dependent on trade with the outside world to meet its requirements. In this regard, freedom of navigation through the Malacca Straits is of vital strategic importance, not only for us, but for Japan as well. The two countries are also caught up by the potentially explosive nature of politics in their respective regions. In the case of Northeast Asia, Japan is concerned with the way the two Koreas settle their long-standing differences and is hoping that war would not be the solution of choice for the unification of the two countries. On the other hand, in Singapore, small as it may be for us, we are an oasis in the region, troubled by the internal strife and differences. More importantly, Singapore could potentially be caught up with the struggle for control in the Spratly Islands. In Southeast Asia, Japan has important reasons for staying engaged. First, Japanese investment in Southeast Asia has been rather substantial. In Singapore, the Japanese investment alone for year 1999 was $1.179 billion, as opposed to $708.2 million in 1990. Secondly, the Malacca Straits is of strategic importance to Japan, as it provides a means by which trade between the East and West is facilitated. I believe, Sir, that the bulk of Japanese oil imports passes through the Straits of Malacca. It is, therefore, in Japan's interest that Southeast Asia remains stable in the long run. Singapore and Japan can be effective partners in promoting peace and stability in the region. The on-going discussions between Japan and Singapore in respect of a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) is something that many watchers are interested in. At the core of the FTA is the underlying belief that free trade between the two countries would serve their respective economic interest. This can be a model for the other countries in ASEAN as well, contrary to what others may think that the FTA with Japan is a back-door entry to AFTA. Indeed, the Singapore-Japan FTA, if adopted by the other countries in the region, may serve to provide a new platform for economic growth and, in the long run, form the basis of stability in the region. I would, therefore, like to ask the Minister to give us an update on the on-going discussions with Japan on the FTA and whether or not there are obstacles, if any, that will affect negotiations, and if the FTA can be signed by the end of the year. 3.45 pm

Sir, I rise to speak on relations with Australia and New Zealand. If I may, I would like to place in the context of much of the foregoing conversation. Obviously, our focus is on ASEAN and our immediate neighbours. And as we look across the Asia Pacific, we look more at America and to North East Asia in the ASEAN+3. But I believe that relations with Australia and New Zealand do require emphasis. This is not to say that we have bad ties. In fact, we have good ties with these two countries. But I would encourage the Ministry not to over focus on our problems and forget our friends. We have a multi-Ministerial exchange with Australia, and we have already concluded a bilateral free trade agreement with New Zealand, and both these countries are part of the Five Power Defence Arrangements (FPDA). They are ASEAN dialogue partners too. But, lately, there have been some concerns. There was an attempt for consideration to link the ASEAN Free Trade Agreement to the Australia-New Zealand CER. However, this was rebuffed by some ASEAN members, not Singapore, but we were unable to change the minds of some others. I think that we on our part must do what we can to strengthen and deepen our ties with these two countries. My first suggestion is that we should build on the foundation of good inter-governmental ties, to include ties outside of the government, such as universities, think tanks, youth and sports. We should deepen the interaction between our two societies. Second, beyond deepening, we should also widen the circle. Sir, Singapore sometimes takes a lead in inter-regional discussions, such as the East Asia-Latin America Forum, which the Minister will go to in March. On this occasion, we will include Australia and New Zealand with the so-called East Asian lot. And I think this is an important step to try and include them with as many people as possible. Other things can be done too when we work to integrate the new ASEAN members. Perhaps Singapore, working as a catalyst, can work with Australia and New Zealand to give assistance to some of these new members. Or as DPM Tony Tan said, in the debate on the Ministry of Defence, that if we want to contribute to peace-keeping training, we should do so with Australia and New Zealand, and other like-minded countries in ASEAN and in North East Asia. My third suggestion relates to the ASEAN+3 process. Clearly, Sir, this is an important process. North East Asia are important partners. But I think creative efforts should be made to link this to Australia and New Zealand. They do not have to become part of the ASEAN+3 process, but they have to be part of what I would call "variable geometry", the way of looking at the whole region into various sub-groups which can overlap at times. I think this is very important because the functionality of our economics and security and our interdependence is linked to Australia and New Zealand. And I also believe that the inclusion of Australia and New Zealand in some of these different groupings would better recognise them as part of the region, and rescue and save us from any hint that ASEAN+3 is basically a form of racism, in that we are all non-white somehow. And I think that this idea of variable geometry is an important one. The Minister, in his earlier remarks, referred to the two track approach. Perhaps we are talking about the same thing. In this, we look at ASEAN, ASEAN+3, APEC, more broadly, but then we come back to a network of other relationships. I would like to close these three suggestions just on a very simple point, Sir. This is that as we are pursuing so many different tracks or this variable geometry, I must wonder whether the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has sufficient resources. This keeps people very busy. From the budget, I see that the Ministry is relatively small. And I want the Minister to consider whether more resources will be needed. I think many Singaporeans, at the ordinary level, do not fully appreciate the importance of the work that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs does. I think the crisis has shown us however that relations and security and good comity between nations are important.

Sir, I agree with Mr Sin Boon Ann that Japan is a very important country to the region. Indeed, Japan has played a crucial role in industrialising the region in the past 30-plus years. It is a major trading partner and major investor in the region, bringing with it capital, technology and employment. Although it is faced with economic difficulties in recent years, Japan is likely to recover in the longer term. Japan will continue to play a significant role in the development of regional cooperation, as it has done in the past. Last year, Japan announced a US$15 billion package to help narrow the global digital divide, focusing on Asia. At the ASEAN+3 informal summit in Singapore, the "Mori e-Action" was launched to bridge the developmental gap between the newer and older ASEAN members. Singapore is currently working closely with Japan to implement these projects. Our relations with Japan are excellent. Japan is important to us, both economically and strategically. Japan has been Singapore's third largest trading partner in the past three years. Our trade volume increased from S$40.5 billion in 1998 to S$57.9 billion last year. Singapore has put in much effort to engage Japan in the region. Bilaterally, in the past three years, several bilateral initiatives were launched with Japan to create institutional links between our two countries. These initiatives include the annual MFA-Gaimusho Dialogue; the Japan-Singapore Partnership Programme 21 for third country technical cooperation; the Diplomat Exchange Programme; the Japan-Singapore Symposium; the SIF's Raffles Programme for visits by top Japanese bureaucrats; the Japan-Singapore Business Council; the Japan-Singapore Parliamentary Friendship League; and the Japan-Singapore Action Agenda Committee. The wide range of linkages together with trade, investment and tourism helps to promote people-to-people contact. We also work closely with Japan in regional and international fora, such as the ARF, APEC and the UN. As a major trading partner and investor in the region, Japan has a large stake in the well-being of the region. In the last few years, we have seen the efforts Japan put in to help the region recover from the Asian financial crisis. Japan was the main contributor to rescue packages to the region, through the US$30 billion Miyazawa Plan. Japan has consulted closely with regional countries as events unfolded, so as to assess developments and coordinate policies. On the specific point of freedom of navigation in the Straits of Malacca, our position is clear on this particular issue. The route through the Straits of Malacca and Singapore is the shortest sea lane between East and West. It is also the most cost efficient and preferred sea lane. Most of East Asia's oil imports from the Middle East pass through these Straits. It is therefore in the interest of not only Singapore and Japan but also the global community to ensure that freedom of passage through the Straits of Malacca and Singapore is preserved. Singapore will continue to work closely with Japan and other countries to ensure the freedom of navigation. Mr Sin referred to the free trade agreement negotiation with Japan. A major boost in our relations was when Prime Minister Goh and Prime Minister Mori agreed last October to launch the Japan-Singapore Economic Agreement for a New Age Partnership (JSEPA) in January 2001, and conclude the Agreement no later than 31 December 2001. There have been two preparatory meetings and a formal round of negotiations so far. Progress has been good. I hope the JSEPA will help engage Japan and anchor its interest in the region in the long run. This will benefit Singapore and ASEAN. At the time when Europe and Americas are increasingly moving towards closer economic integration and market liberalisation within their regions, Asia should not be left behind as a result. Asia should push for further economic integration. The JSEPA is a step in the direction. The agreement, once concluded, will further strengthen our economic linkages and promote bilateral trade and business. The inclusion of new-age elements like ICT would also open new platforms for economic activities. On the whole, the JSEPA will provide ample opportunities for our peoples at all levels to interact with and know each other better. This will contribute to the widening and deepening of our bilateral relations. Let me now turn to Mr Simon Tay's points on relations with Australia and New Zealand. As he said, Singapore has excellent relations with both Australia and New Zealand, with long standing cooperation in diplomacy, defence, trade and education and also in multi-lateral fora such as the ARF, APEC and the Commonwealth. We are members of the Five Power Defence Arrangements, and Australia and New Zealand provide training facilities for our SAF. Regular bilateral leadership exchanges have further reaffirmed our close ties. Several bilateral initiatives were launched in recent years to strengthen these ties at all levels. Among the new initiatives, the most important ones are perhaps free trade agreements. Our decision to enter into bilateral FTAs with Australia and New Zealand is taken with the interest of the region in mind. We hope that Singapore's FTAs with Australia and New Zealand will act as a catalyst to the AFTA-CER-CEP, and greater economic integration between the two regions. This will best serve our overall interest and an enlarged integrated region will greatly increase business and investment opportunities in the region, and also boost investors' confidence. First, Australia-Singapore Free Trade Agreement. Prime Minister Goh and Prime Minister John Howard jointly agreed to launch negotiations for the Australia-Singapore FTA in November 2000 on the site of the Brunei APEC Economic Leaders' Meeting. Two way bilateral trade in goods and services was more than A$13 billion last year. The proposed FTA serves to further build on the strong and expanding economic partnership between the two economies. Strategically, the Australia-Singapore FTA acts as a catalyst to APEC's integration and the realisation of the Bogor goals of free and open trade and investments across the Pacific in the next decade. Second, the agreement between New Zealand and Singapore on closer economic partnership was signed by Prime Minister Goh and Prime Minister Helen Clark in Singapore on 14th November last year, after about a year of negotiations. The agreement came into effect on 1st January 2001. The ANZ SCEP is a comprehensive agreement covering trade in goods and services, investment and Government procurement, among others. The agreement provides certainty and predictability for Singapore businesses and investors. The agreement will open up considerable opportunity for our business community. Trade Ministers from both sides will meet every two years to review and expand on the commitments under the agreement. A general review of the agreement will be conducted in 2005. 4.00 pm In addition to the two trade agreements, or FTAs, we have the Singapore-Australia Joint Ministerial Committee. The Joint Committee is a rather unique initiative evolving from the Singapore-Australia New Partnership announced in 1996. The Joint Economic Committee which meets every two years is led by the Foreign Ministers and includes two other Ministers in charge of trade and defence from each side. Australia will host the third SAJMC meeting this year. The joint meeting, which has met twice since 1996, serves to further strengthen relations and set concrete direction to realise the new partnership between Singapore and Australia. Let me now turn to some specific suggestions by Mr Simon Tay. Firstly, strengthening ties outside governments. I agree with him. In fact, there are strong ties between universities, think-tanks and NGOs between Singapore and Australia, and New Zealand. Let me add, as far as Australia is concerned, we have a Young Business Ambassador Programme as an example. With New Zealand, we have a Work Attachment Programme. In other words, Singapore also has extensive non-government links with both Australia and New Zealand. People to people linkages are thick and there are several bilateral projects. I have just named a few examples. Secondly, assistance to new ASEAN member countries. Singapore has worked closely with Australia and New Zealand to assist new ASEAN member countries. Both Australia and New Zealand are constructive and active participants in the ARF and ASEAN Post-Ministerial Conferences. Australia and New Zealand have also indicated interest in working with Singapore on projects relating to the initiative for ASEAN integration such as on IT, so as to help breach the environmental gap between newer and older ASEAN countries. Thirdly, I believe that Mr Simon Tay referred to links with ASEAN+3. Let me say that we do not preclude any such flexibility. Indeed, APEC is an established forum linking Australia and New Zealand with ASEAN and East Asia. Australia indeed was instrumental in fostering the creation of APEC and hosted the first APEC Ministerial Meeting in Canberra in 1989. APEC remains the only forum which brings together both sides of the Pacific each year, leaders from 21 economies from ASEAN, North East Asia, North America, South America, Australia and New Zealand. They meet together informally to discuss economic and other important issues.

Sir, I do believe, in the case of Singapore, that small is beautiful. Notwithstanding our minuscule size, Singapore has clinched a seat in the United Nations Security Council. I am glad that our hopes and dreams over the last few years have been realised. I would like to ask what is the agenda of Singapore in the UN Security Council. What are our roles and priorities in the UN Security Council? To what extent will Singapore, as a representative, be able to reflect the security concerns of ASEAN and our region? Have we channelled more resources, including manpower, to our UN mission in New York, so that it can function even more effectively in the Security Council? Singapore has participated in UN peace-keeping missions since 1989. We had sent small contingents to UNIKOM in Kuwait and UNTAC in Cambodia. We have done well. The latest is the UN-sanctioned INTERFET mission in East Timor, where we have sent medical and logistical support teams. May I ask the Minister whether Singapore intends to increase the scope and quality of our participation in UN peace-keeping missions in the future, when opportunities present themselves?

Sir, we were voted into the membership of the UN Security Council in October 1999. Election to the membership of the Council is indeed an honour for us and at the same time, it is a milestone that indicates that we have matured as a member of the international community. As Council member, we have additional responsibilities to shoulder. I have no doubt that we will shoulder and discharge our responsibilities with distinction. It has been more than a year since we assumed membership of the Council. No doubt, many events have taken place since. I note that in recent times, the UN Security Council has been forced to play an increasingly active role in managing the trouble spots in the world. In particular, I note that there has been an increasing number of peace-keeping missions and mediation of violent disputes by the UN. I would like to ask the Minister to give us, first, an update as to the lessons we have learned as a member of the UN Security Council, and secondly, the kind of role we are expected to play in the international community following our tenure as a member of the Council.

Sir, I thank Members who have spoken on the Security Council. We were elected to the Security Council by a good margin, 168 out of 173 votes. Actually we have only been on the Security Council for three months, not, as Mr Sin Boon Ann said, more than a year. On the very day we assumed the membership of the Security Council, because of the system of alphabetical rotation, we also became President of the Council for the month of January. As Foreign Minister, I chaired some of the meetings held during the month in New York. What are the lessons? I think that so far, although it is only three months that have passed, it has been both educational, instructive but also humbling - humbling because I think it reminds us that we are a small country. The fact that we are on the Security Council has not changed it, and we will still be a small country after we step down from the Council. Dr Ong Chit Chung asked what is our agenda for this Security Council. Actually, the agenda is set by the turbulent world events that will occur during these two years when we are on the Security Council. This means that our team in New York and our team in headquarters, MFA, have to be well informed, including on many issues which previously might not have been major items in our radar scope but these are major items for many countries and they come up in the Security Council, and positions have to be taken. Still on the lessons learned during this short period of three months, I think it is clear to us that the influence of the permanent members of the Security Council (what they refer to as the P5 countries) weighs heavily on nearly every issue of the Security Council. This is not only due to their big power status or their veto power but, in addition, their global reach to the control and use of international media and access to information around the world, particularly in conflict situations. Most P5 countries consult each other quite closely and try to forge a common position. And they are able to do this for a number of issues, but in some issues they have differences. The recent air strike against Iraq and the no-fly zones are examples where Russia and China took a strong position against the United States and United Kingdom, and France expressed rather strong reservations. Having said that the P5 exerts a tremendous role in the Security Council, does this mean that elected members in the Council, who are elected only for two years, like Singapore, have no role to play? I do not think so. An elected member can bring to the Council certain perspectives of a small country or a different perspective of a country from a different region. Let me give one example, and that is, when we became President of the Security Council, like all presidencies, we were expected to organise a debate along a theme. We had to think of a theme, suggest it to the other members of the Council, who of course have to agree. And Singapore proposed that the theme for the Security Council debate under our presidency should be on the role of troop contributing countries in peace-keeping operations. This was agreed to by both the P5 and the other elected members or the non-permanent members. We chose that theme because there is a real concern in peace-keeping operations that the Security Council takes a decision to establish peace-keeping operation in any particular conflict situation. Nobody else can take the decision. It is the Security Council, under the Charter. The Security Council takes the decision, then the Secretary-General invites countries called Troop Contributing Countries (TCCs) to provide contingents, and the PKO is launched. But the grievance of many TCCs is that after the PKO is launched, there is very little consultation with them, there is very little feedback obtained from them, and sometimes the mandates of the PKOs are changed by the Security Council without consultation with countries who have ground forces in that conflict situation, and sometimes, they say, to the detriment of the safety and well-being of their soldiers. So there has been this disconnect between the Security Council, the Secretariat and the Troop Contributing Countries, and we thought it is good to have a session where all the members of the Security Council, plus the TCCs, can speak. And we had this debate and I think, with some humility, the consensus was that it was a very good idea, it was a good debate, and it was not just a rhetoric, as at the end of the day the Security Council decided to establish a Working Group on Peace-keeping. This working group will look further into the proposals that were raised at the open debate and see how they can be implemented. So I just cite that as one example of how a non-permanent member can play a constructive role. If there are other areas in which Singapore during its term in two years can similarly aid debate and discussion on such matters, we will be happy to do so. As for Dr Ong Chit Chung's question whether, now that we are in the Security Council, we would increase the participation in the number of PKOs and would our quality of participation change or increase, I would say that the answer to this question will have to be delinked from our membership in the Security Council. This is a point that I have made many times, but I have to say it again. The fact that we are in the Security Council does not mean that suddenly we must participate in a flurry of activities, whether in peace-keeping, whether in giving aid, triple our aid or double our aid, or whether we should set up more diplomatic missions just because we are in the Security Council. 4.15 pm We take a longer term view in our foreign policy. So the answer to the question whether we support peace-keeping operations is, yes. As a responsible member of the Security Council and the UN, it is in our interest to show support for well thought-out peace-keeping operations of the United Nations. Can we participate? The answer is that we have participated in some 10 peace-keeping operations since 1991, and 72 members of our Armed Forces and Police are presently serving in three peace-keeping missions, and DPM Tony Tan mentioned this. Will we participate in more peace-keeping operations? This is something that the Government, particularly, MINDEF and MHA, will certainly consider. It must depend, first, on the nature of the peace-keeping operation and the situation in which it is conceived. Second, obviously, it must also depend on the resources available, both MINDEF and MHA. But beyond that, I am not, at the moment, able to give any commitment as to which new PKOs we will participate. I thank Members for their very supportive comments about Singapore's participation as a member of the Security Council. I take it as a very challenging task for Singapore and this is probably once in a blue moon kind of situation. We will do our best to live up to the expectations of not only Singaporeans but other countries who have voted us in. As to his comments and question on resources, yes, we have sent extra officers from MFA and also personnel from the Ministry of Defence to augment our team in the UN during this two-year period. They are doing an excellent job in working together with MFA headquarters and other agencies.

Sir, I rise to ask the Ministry to consider a review of major human rights treaties and to consider Singapore's accession. Sir, Singapore aims to be a democratic society based on justice and equality. That is part of our pledge. Our judicial system is highly rated. Some Government leaders have from time to time spoken on Asian values and how an Asian approach to human rights might defer from Western values. They have however acknowledged that some human rights are universal, such as the protection against slavery or against genocide.

4.20 pm Today, Singapore has acceded to three human rights treaties. They are the Convention for the Elimination/Protection against Genocide, Convention on the Rights of the Child and Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. First, I would like to ask the Minister what the experience has been in undertaking these Conventions. Second, Sir, I would like to encourage the Government to change laws and policies to give these Conventions full effect. We have generally done so whenever we have taken on an international commitment, for example, WTO commitments. We changed our intellectual property laws to keep in touch with the trade-related property regime under WTO. Similarly, Sir, it concerns me that we have not fully acceded to some of the things required by the Convention against Genocide. In particular, Article 5 of the Genocide Convention requires that genocide be made a crime under Singapore law. Clearly, Sir, murder is a crime in Singapore. But that is not the same crime as genocide and it is not clear today whether Singapore courts would enforce the international crime of genocide. I use that simply as an example. I would like us, having signed these treaties, to ensure that all our laws and policies comply. The second point, Sir, is that having signed on to these treaties, I would encourage the Ministry to make Singapore citizens and civil society groups more aware and have a better understanding of these Conventions. Some are somehow under the impression that we do not observe human rights conventions at all and this clearly should be changed. As I said at the start, we generally have a good human rights record and should help our citizens understand it. My third and final point, Sir, is that I hope our Government would seriously consider other major human rights treaties and consider acceding to them in future. Two examples that come to my mind are the International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and, secondly, the Convention against Torture. On the first, particularly on eliminating racial discrimination, that is something Singapore should be proud of and should aim to set world standard. And we should consider joining in the international community's effort in upholding these human rights.

Sir, may I know how much time we have under this amendment?

About 10 minutes for the whole amendment.

Thank you. Sir, Mr Simon Tay made three points. First, whether we can sign international human rights treaties. He noted that we have signed some treaties. I take it he is really arguing that there are other treaties which we should sign and he has asked what is our state of review of this. Secondly, he has made the point that, when we do sign and accede to the conventions, we should also expeditiously enact legislation to implement those treaties. Third, he made the point about publicising the relevant policies under the treaty. Let me take each of these points. On his first point, yes, we do systematically review the various international conventions and treaties, including the human rights treaties, because they are not the only treaties. There are many other treaties. And we have a mechanism involving several Ministries which will review these treaties. When we can accede to the treaty, we do so but only after a very careful examination of the situation. By that, I mean it is not that we do not want to accede to the treaty. But our approach is that, when we adhere to an international treaty, we want to be sure that we will be able to implement the provisions faithfully, or put it the other way, we do not want to be accused, after we have become a state party, that we are in breach of the provisions. Therefore, before we take the decision, we consult all our agencies. Are we able to implement this treaty? And only when we conclude that we will be able to do so, then we proceed. And we are party to several of the human rights conventions, like Genocide Convention, Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, Convention of the Rights of the Child, like Optional protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children and armed conflicts which was signed during the Millennium Summit last year. We are currently also reviewing the Convention that he referred to, that is, the International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination to see whether we can sign that and become a party to it. The next point he made was, when we become a party to a treaty, we must enact legislation to implement it, a proposition which I do not disagree. It must follow that when you adhere to a treaty, if the treaty requires that legislation to be enacted, you must enact the legislation because the general principle in international law is that you cannot cite inadequacy of your law as an excuse for failure to fulfill your international obligations. Having said that, let me say that we make it a point to ensure that we do not fail in that international obligation. So if there is an obligation to enact legislation, we will do so. But if there is no obligation to enact, and if it is a discretionary position, then we will examine whether our other body of laws, our legal framework, enables us to comply with the international convention without enacting specific legislation. He referred specifically to the Genocide Convention as an example where we had not really carried out our obligations. I am the Minister for Law but I must be guided by the legal experts and all legal experts in the Attorney-General's Chambers actually advise us that there is no mandatory obligation to enact specific delegated legislation for the Genocide Convention. But having said that, we are in any case looking at drafts of legislation which we will include in the Penal Code during a broader review of the Penal Code legislation. But because we have been advised that there is no immediate obligation to enact the legislation, we are not treating it with pressing urgency. And some time later, when we have the next round of amendments to the Penal Code, we will see whether we should include provisions of the Genocide Convention. Finally, his point about publicity. Yes, when we have important new conventions which we have acceded to, we make it a point to have publicity. A good example is when we became a party to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, an Inter-Ministerial Committee, chaired by Ministry of Community Development and Sports, had overseen implementation of our obligations, but also they had various activities - forums, workshops, and so on - with individuals, interest groups, NGOs, to raise awareness about the obligations and policies under the Convention. I take his point that we should do this with every major convention. And in reply, I do not disagree with him. But this is being done, and if it can be improved, I shall welcome suggestions on this matter. I believe I have touched on his main points. Sir, in case we are cut off by the guillotine under Amendment No. (1), I hope that those who did not have satisfaction of replies to the remaining items would feel free to file a question and we will be happy to answer later.

I intend to end the discussion on this amendment at 4.44 pm. Mr Charles Chong. 4.30 pm

Sir, in the immediate aftermath of the recent earthquake in India, our Government responded promptly with US$50,000 worth of emergency supplies to the victims of the earthquake. This humanitarian act was given prominent coverage in both our print and broadcast media. It was, therefore, a rude shock to subsequently read the criticisms of a Straits Times reader, who pointed out that the Singapore Government's contribution was paltry. Was our Government indeed parsimonious in extending aid to a friend in need? While Singapore has demonstrated its sincerity to lend a helping hand by responding instantly to the crisis, how much we contribute would obviously affect our international image as a donor. Others are likely to compare the sum given by the Singapore Government to the country's financial resources. In other words, our willingness to donate versus our ability to donate. Little wonder that the Straits Times reader concluded that the sum of US$50,000 was paltry, relative to our budget surpluses and national reserves. The fact that another S$4 million was raised in nearly three weeks from Singaporeans, who responded generously to the donation drives by the various organisations, appeared to further diminish the impact of the initial contribution from the Government. Could the Minister elaborate on the Government's policy with regard to granting aid to disaster-struck less-developed countries? What criteria do we use in deciding the quantum of assistance to be given to countries in need?

Sir, I share the sentiments expressed by my colleague that many Singaporeans thought that our Government's contribution of US$50,000 to the recent disaster in India could have been better. However, I note that our Government has also been helpful in providing assistance in other forms as well to other countries, and these programmes are not often publicised. It is unfortunate that the issue of our contribution to the disaster relief effort in India is now firmly etched in the minds of the people. I would like to take this opportunity to ask the Minister, therefore, to clarify whether our Government considers our aid contribution to be reasonable and whether this is in keeping with what the other countries are contributing and, secondly, to give us an explanation as to our policy of providing foreign aid to the other countries.

Sir, I am glad to hear earlier in the debate from the Minister that Singapore has been active in extending technical cooperation and technical assistance to other developing countries. We have shown that even though we are small, we have a constructive role to play in helping fellow developing countries to develop more quickly. As a member of the international community, Singapore has benefited in the early years of its development from the benevolence of more developed countries not only in terms of funding but also with expert advice and financial aid. Without these, we would not have been able to overcome the obstacles of a young nation dependent on mainly entrepot trade. In our parents' generation, when Singapore was just starting out, they had to look after those in need at home first, at the same time that our leaders were fulfilling basic social needs of housing and creating jobs for our population. Our children's generation has grown up in an era of affluence where these basic societal needs have been more than met. Singapore, therefore, has a responsibility to assist those less fortunate and less developed than we are. When I read and heard about the response of our people and Government to the disasters and crises around the region, and sometimes even beyond as in the case of Turkey, I am assured and heartened that our society is progressing in the right direction. However, Singapore is a small country, small in size and its resources are limited compared to more developed countries. Because of these, I would like to urge that we focus on those disasters and crises in which we can respond quickly and in a manner that is sufficient to make a significant contribution. To spread our resources too widely would only serve to invite undeserved criticisms that our contributions are not enough. Sir, with that, may I ask the Minister to clarify the aims and objectives of Singapore's humanitarian assistance.

Sir, I have listened with interest Members' comments and concerns about Singapore's training programmes for foreign countries and our contributions to specific natural disasters abroad. Whether we are doing too little or paltry, or not enough, depends on one's perspective. Our perspective is that as a member of the international community, we will have to play our part in assisting other countries. That is for sure. But we have to remember that at the end of the day, we are a small country. Singapore is not in the big league of major donor countries. We do not pretend to be a major donor, nor do we aspire to be one. Our focus in helping fellow countries has always been on giving tangible assistance and not simple monetary disbursements. When we look at what Singapore is doing to assist countries, I would ask Members first to look at the technical assistance and training that we provide in the Singapore Cooperation Programme (SCP). Singapore's major contributions to foreign assistance rest in our Technical Cooperation Programme. Because we ourselves benefited from such assistance in our early days, we believe that the way to help developing countries meaningfully is through the development of their human resources. The Singapore Cooperation Programme, for example, in FY1999, the SCP trained 3,145 officials from 110 countries. In FY2000, which is not yet complete, trainees so far number 3,293 from 94 countries. That works out to an average of 274 participants and 16 training courses per month. The total expenditure for FY1999 was $17.5 million and, for FY2000, expenditure to date is $14.6 million. I wish to ask Members to pause and reflect on these figures. For Singapore to train over 3,000 foreign officials each year is no mean feat. Since 1992, the SCP has trained over 15,000 officials from 138 countries. The number is even larger if you add what other Singapore agencies, beyond MFA, do. In FY1999, for example, when we add the expenditure by other Government Ministries and agencies which shared their data with MFA, the cumulative number of foreigners trained in Singapore stood at 6,160 from over 110 developing countries. The total training cost was S$41 million. I believe that when we add these efforts up, Members would agree that Singapore is doing its fair share in rendering foreign assistance to other developing countries. Sir, I would like next to turn to the comments by Members on Singapore's contributions to humanitarian assistance. Singapore renders humanitarian assistance to affected countries in various forms, including financial contributions, the provision of rations and equipment and, where time and travel arrangements permit, rescue and medical teams. In 1999 and 2000, for instance, Singapore dispensed over $12 million in humanitarian assistance to Indonesia alone. This includes supplies of rice and medicine. Singapore was also the first country to offer disaster relief to victims of the earthquake in Bengkulu, Sumatra, in June 2000. In response to a request by the Indonesian Government, Singapore sent a 20-member SAF medical team to Bengkulu, together with emergency medical supplies and tents worth S$50,000. An SAF doctor was also despatched to help the UN Disaster Assessment and Coordination Mission to Bengkulu. In the year 2000, Singapore contributed to seven humanitarian assistance efforts in Cambodia, twice in Vietnam, Laos, Mozambique, Zimbabwe and Botswana, amounting to over $200,000. In 1999, five contributions to Mozambique, Kosovo, twice in Indonesia, and Turkey, amounted to $765,600 - again, not a mean sum. After the earthquake in Gujarat, as referred to by Members just now, the RSAF airlifted a planeload of emergency supplies worth about $87,000 as an immediate response. This was followed by another $34,000 in medical supplies despatched by the RSN, which also helped to ferry 17 tons of food, clothing and medicine donated by Singaporeans to the earthquake-stricken area. These efforts were further supplemented by the Singapore Red Cross and other charitable or community-based organisations, which have since raised over $4 million in donations for the victims of the earthquake. Sir, having said that, it is worth emphasising that the amount or type of humanitarian assistance given by the Singapore Government is not intended to match the scale of the disaster. Rather, it is a show of moral support and a gesture of sympathy to the affected country. Through such efforts, we hope to catalyse further contributions and support from all Singaporeans to agencies such as the Red Cross or other community-based groups. Sir, we do appreciate Mr Sin's and Mr Chong's points that such assistance from Singapore could be better presented to the public and to the international community, so that there is greater awareness of the total efforts put in by Singapore. They are correct in pointing out that, ultimately, it is the totality of humanitarian assistance by all Singaporeans, both Government and community contributions, that is appreciated by the affected country. Singaporeans have always contributed generously during disasters, and we should recognise and acknowledge such generosity. Finally, I wish to reassure Members that as we gain more experience in such events, MFA will continue to review and improve not only the way in which we despatch humanitarian assistance, but also the way in which we package and present it to the world at large.

Sir, first, a point of clarification. When I earlier talked about our agenda at the UN Security Council, I did not mean the formal meeting agenda, but what we set out to achieve and what we set out to do. In any case, we want to thank the Ministers and the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for their very comprehensive answers, and I am confident that our foreign relations are in good hands. On that note, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. (2), Mr Simon Tay.

Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head O of the Main Estimates be reduced by $10 in respect of Code OA 1500. I have heard the Minister about the efforts to assist and integrate newer ASEAN member states in his earlier reply on ASEAN. I accept that there are limits to what we can do and that we are best placed to serve as a catalyst. But I think that we should really be trying to do more. If I remember the answer correctly, the number of scholarships to be given to the new ASEAN members is 60. Sir, I think there is a place for highly specialised elite scholarships, eg, the Lee Kuan Yew Exchange Fellowship for ASEAN is a good one. But, more broadly, there is a need to reach out more deeply to help these newer members integrate and upgrade themselves. I would put it that 60 may be too few. We should be aiming, within our capacity, to be serving somewhat like a Fulbright Exchange Programme, through which many people have benefited. So, over time, many people would have come to Singapore, gained from studying here, and gone back with both skills and good memories of Singapore, particularly when the National University of Singapore has an enrolment of about, if I remember correctly, 16,000. In this sense, 60 is perhaps too few, considering how much capacity we have, not just with this university, but with three universities now on line. Sir, may I take the next cut?

Please do so.

Sir, the next cut relates to the future of ASEAN+3 and ASEAN itself. We have heard in this House and outside, many have emphasised, that Northeast Asia has come up dramatically, and that is true. Of course, Northeast Asian countries have always been the bigger economies since China's opening. The relativity has shifted, but those three up north have always been bigger. There are many good reasons to engage Northeast Asia and I think we are doing the right thing with ASEAN+3. However, Sir, I think there are two main dangers that I hope the Ministry will address. The first is that ASEAN+3 should not be an exclusive and closed group. It should not be a bloc which is self-confining. The USA and other partners remain important to the Asia Pacific and, while increasing our cooperation with Northeast Asia, we should not ignore these other ties. Secondly, Singapore should avoid the danger of neglecting ASEAN or of being perceived as doing so. So, I would ask the Minister to share his thinking about how to balance these different needs of strengthening ASEAN, ASEAN+3, and the broader Asia-Pacific framework. 4.45 pm

Mr Charles Chong is not speaking. Mr Ravindran.

Myanmar has been dealt with differently by two opposing groups of countries and regional groupings. On the one hand, we have ASEAN, China, Japan, etc, who hope that constructive engagement would democratise and bring about change in Myanmar progressively. On the other hand, we have states that are using the stick approach and advocate liberal democracy at a quicker pace of change for Myanmar, eg, the European Union and the United States. I would like to ask the Minister for an update as to whether Singapore's and ASEAN's approach to Myanmar has bore fruit and also whether Myanmar, as an issue, has held back relations between ASEAN and the European Union.

Sir, to some extent, the questions raised by Mr Simon Tay were fully covered by me in the fuller responses that I have given on the amendments raised by Members in the first part of our debate on Foreign Affairs. What I would do is to recapitulate the key points which I have made. First, Mr Simon Tay wishes to underscore the importance of assisting other countries in ASEAN. I have mentioned earlier that this was a concern that Singapore expressed at the ASEAN Informal Summit and Prime Minister Goh made this a central point at the summit when we spoke about the need for integration. When we talk about the need for integration, we are trying to prevent an ASEAN divide between the founding countries, or those who are better off, and Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos and Myanmar, on the other hand. The leaders took note of the need to avoid a two-tier ASEAN. All the proposals that came out from that Informal Summit were with this concern uppermost in the minds of the leaders. If you look at Singapore's contributions to the discussions at the summit, it was not just rhetoric. Prime Minister Goh proposed, and the leaders accepted, some concrete ideas to advance this process of ASEAN integration. Singapore's proposals include, as I said this afternoon, the establishment of Skills Development Training institutes in the four countries. It would involve training of trainers, consultants, researchers in areas such as trade development, export promotion, human resource development and IT. Secondly, a five-year package of IT "Train-the-Trainers" courses for each of these countries. In fact, we have offered 10 IT "Train-the-Trainers" courses for this year. Thirdly, it also involves an education "Train-the-Trainers" programme which would focus on teacher and trainer development and that would focus on teaching skills and resources which would spearhead economic and social developments in Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar and Vietnam. We accept 60 vocational, polytechnic and university lecturers annually from these countries who will be attached to our local institutions. In addition to that, the Singapore scholarships that we have under our cooperation programme, which my colleague, Senior Parliamentary Secretary has outlined earlier, would be doubled from 30 to 60 per academic year. I go back to the point that my colleague, Mr Zainul Abidin made. If you view this as too little, not enough, we have to do what we can, but within the limits of our resources. That does not just include individual resources. It also includes what our institutes can cope with. These are not figures to be sniffed at and they are appreciated by the countries in the region. And where we lack the expertise, what we do is to team up with other countries or other agencies, because part of our Singapore Cooperation Programme involves third country training agreements, which we have with other countries, as well as with international organisations, whether it is the UNDP, WTO, World Bank and so on. And sometimes, jointly we run the programme. That enables us to pool resources and perhaps also share expenditure. On his remarks concerning ASEAN+3, here again, I have to recapitulate my fuller answer earlier, and that is, ASEAN must work within several areas of networking. ASEAN plays a role in ARF. We have played a role and will continue to play a role in ASEAN-EU dialogue to engage the Europeans. Then, we have the Asia-Europe Meeting. Some members of ASEAN are involved in APEC and we have some newer initiatives like the East Asia-Latin America Forum. It is in this context that you have to view the ASEAN+3. It is one of many ways of engaging different countries and different regions. The rationale for ASEAN+3 is, as the Member himself said, for Southeast Asia to engage with Northeast Asia. How this process will go, I am not sure, but it is a process that is important because ASEAN has to engage China, Japan and Korea, both in economic cooperation as well as involve them in discussions on matters of security-related issues in Asia. He has made an important point which I fully agree with, and that is, when we participate, all our driving forces in these different circles of engagement with other countries, Singapore's approach is that this cannot be totally closed shop and totally non-inclusive processes. We must be prepared to have an open mind and to welcome others who express an interest. That has been Singapore's approach and it is this approach, for example, that we will continue to adopt, whether it is ARF, where Singapore argued and advocated the participation of India, we supported North Korea and Mongolia's participation. At the same time, it is not something that Singapore can impose its will on others, whose views and positions are necessary to forge a consensus. Behind the scene, we would argue for an open and inclusive process, but it may have to be gradual. This relates to a point that Mr Simon Tay made in an earlier intervention about our approach to Australia and New Zealand which, because of time, we have not had an opportunity to reply. But that is an approach which we believe in, that Australia and New Zealand are countries which ought to be brought into closer interaction and participation in various discussions and forums, whether economic, political or security dialogues in our region. That is the kind of thinking which led us to propose that Australia and New Zealand should be in the East Asia-Latin America Forum. Here again, if there are reservations and voices to the contrary, we will continue to work behind the scene to persuade those whose agreement and consent are necessary. On Myanmar, in response to Mr Ravindran, I would say that Singapore is not a country that has the habit of standing on the roof-top, making a big pronouncement on another country's internal development. But we do, in our own quiet way, from time to time, make known our views, and suggestions to our colleagues in Myanmar, as to how they can help themselves meet some of the criticisms which they face in international forums. This is part of constructive diplomacy. I would say that the other ASEAN Foreign Ministers and I have had useful discussions with our Myanmar counterpart. This is different from their approaches of some of the Western countries. I do not wish to criticise the approach of any other country. Different approaches may be useful in this regard, but you would have noticed that there have been some recent positive developments in Myanmar. It is encouraging to see both the Myanmar government and the opposition engaging in a dialogue. All we can do is to wish them well in this on-going process. I believe that it does show, to some extent, that ASEAN's quiet policy of constructive engagement may be bearing fruit, although I do not think we should take entire credit for it. There have been other parties who have been involved in this process such as the Special Representative of the United Nations' Secretary-General. On the ASEAN-EU dialogue, and whether Myanmar has been a problem, I would not say that it is Myanmar which has been a problem. If I may elaborate a bit on what I said earlier. It was because the European Union took a stand, and it is a stand which they could not reverse without consensus, that so long as they had the policy, they would not be able to have a meeting in Europe of Foreign Ministers from both sides when the Foreign Minister of Myanmar attends. They had taken a decision that they would not give a visa. Our approach was that we do not dictate to them what their policy should be on Myanmar. But whatever their policy on Myanmar, why should they jeopardise and derail our long-standing dialogue process which ASEAN and EU have had as a group-to-group position? After a postponement of the ASEAN-EU meeting, which was supposed to have taken place in Berlin, and therefore there was an impasse, we had quiet diplomacy between the European and the ASEAN side and we, therefore, made a breakthrough by having the ASEAN-EU Meeting in Vientiane. My suggestion to the European Minister was: it is far better to have the Myanmar Foreign Minister present there, ask him whatever questions you want to ask and let him reply. That is exactly what took place in Vientiane. That dialogue took place, whether the EU were persuaded or not by explanations of the Myanmar Foreign Minister, I do not know. But we were about to get on with other aspects of ASEAN-EU dialogue relationship, which is very important. It is one of the oldest dialogue relationships ASEAN has with other countries. Having said that, let me round up by saying that when you talk about ASEAN playing a role in all these different dialogue processes, ultimately, ASEAN must show that it is making serious efforts to get its economic and other acts together so that some of the shine and lustre which have lost will come back. For other countries, other dialogue partners or other organisations, when they deal with ASEAN, they would like to know whether ASEAN is a credible organisation: has it gained stability and some of the dynamism which it was associated before the financial crisis and before many of the countries were beset by political and economic problems? It is critical that ASEAN gets its acts together. Only then, these dialogue relationships can be taken seriously by all parties.

Sir, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $196,936,200 for Head O ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $76,249,000 for Head O ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head U -

Head U - Ministry of National Development. Amendment No. (1), Dr Teo. 5.00 pm

Sir, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head U of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100. Sir, concept plans are long-term plans to determine the land use of Singapore. In formulating a concept plan, it is important that long-term planning parameters are adopted so as to meet the desired outcomes. Singapore is a land scarce country. The planning of land use plays a vital role in determining the kind of society and the environment in which we will live in. I understand that it may be difficult to forecast the future. We must, nevertheless, adopt a practical and flexible approach when drafting our new concept plan. It must be forward looking and have provisions to inject flexibility to meet changing demands of our society. The concept plan must also adopt a longer time-frame, maybe 30 years, to enable both businesses and individuals to plan for their future. I understand that URA has formed two focus groups to gather feedback on the proposed Concept Plan 21. In addition, I would like to highlight the following concerns which I hope the Minister can clarify: (a) What are the long-term planning parameters adopted when the Concept Plan 21 was drafted? Can the URA explain to the general public how these parameters have been derived? (b) What are the projected figures for population growth, foreign manpower, and immigration over the next 10, 20 or 30 years? (c) What is the long-term mix of public and private housing? (d) How do we provide adequate "green lungs" in our high-density and high rise built environment? (e) How do we reduce the effects of warming in our built environment, and address environmental concerns such as air, water, solid waste, chemical and noise pollution? (f) Can we relocate our military airports to offshore islands so as to free up valuable land as well as lower noise levels? (g) What are the developmental provisions made to support future lifestyles of Singaporeans which include more pro-family living?

Sir, prior to the development and finalisation of the Concept Plan, the URA had convened two focus groups to act as focal points for ideas and feedback for a wide cross-section of the population. This is commendable as URA and everyone involved have benefitted from the experience. I would like to add my views on three issues. My first point is that Singapore is an island state with limited land resources. We are a city and a country all rolled into one. Therefore, in planning for our nation, we have to meet a number of critical needs - housing, industries, airports, harbour, military training, reservoirs, nature reserves, just to name a few. We need to consider carefully what we need to have physically within the geographical limits of Singapore, and what we can access outside Singapore. I feel that for some non-essential items, we should look beyond Singapore's physical land mass. For example, we can look to our neighbouring countries - Johor, Batam and Bintan, to supply the space for more golf courses and theme parks. Some expert studies have concluded that for such a small population, we are over saturated with theme parks. I am sure land used for the Tang Dynasty Village and the Sentosa Asian Village can be put to better use. As for golf, it is simply not justifiable for more courses to be built within our national boundaries, as there are already so many courses in neighbouring Johor. Golfers now complain about the inconvenience of driving to Johor, but I think this problem can be solved. When the Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia, Mr Abdullah Badawi, visited us last month, he mentioned plans for a smart card system for frequent travellers between Singapore and Johor, to ease the congestion and waiting time at the checkpoints. With the easing of travel controls to Malaysia, I believe that it can be quite an attractive alternative to golfing in Singapore. Because of the abundance of land, Malaysia offers more recreational activities to Singaporeans at a lower cost. Malaysian green fees, for example, are only half or a third of that of Singapore's, and club memberships are only a fraction. My second point is about the density of our housing. Although the planning scenario is to accommodate 5.5 million persons in year X, ie, sometime in the future, it seems that in the present areas under development, our planners are already planning and building to cater for an overall density corresponding to a population of 5.5 million people. For example, in Sengkang and Punggol new towns, HDB is packing the flats very densely and tightly in a small area. They build many flats within a limited specific area, and leave huge tracts of land untouched and undeveloped. This principle is also adopted by the Focus Group on Land Allocation in formulating its recommendations. In its report, it is said that "given limited land, future development should start with looking at already developed areas. All areas that are presently sub-optimally used should be identified. Land development agencies should aggressively initiate programmes to upgrade and redevelop such areas to higher intensity before proceeding to open new areas for development." Sir, the argument seems to be that we have to pack the flats more densely so as to leave other areas to build more flats in future in anticipation of the time when we have 5.5 million people. The fear is that if we build less "densely" now, we will not be able to accommodate all the 5.5 million people in time to come. The result of this has been that HDB estates are more crowded now. There is less space in between blocks of flats, and dwelling units are smaller. People suffer being more tightly packed while we wait for the balance of 1.5 million people to arrive in Singapore. I cannot agree with this approach. On one border of my constituency, I have a large piece of vacant undeveloped land. It benefits the relatively small number of residents whose flats face this so-called wilderness by offering them an unobstructed view of greenery. Even then, I think only the higher floor residents get the chance to appreciate the lovely view. Lower floor residents certainly do not appreciate the bites they get from mosquitoes bred in that vacant land. Such a valuable piece of land, yet it is not put to good use. Only recently, one section of the land was open for mountain biking. Otherwise, it was off limits to the public. Sir, I would like to suggest an alternative principle. Instead of building so compactly, let us be a little bit more "extravagant". We have not reached 5.5 million yet, and we do not have to cram everybody in now. There are two reasons why I say this. First, we must not have the mindset that just because we erect buildings on a piece of land to a certain gross plot ratio (GPR), we cannot increase the GPR in subsequent years. It is not as rigid as that. Market forces can be put to work. For instance, when the URA revised the plot ratio and DGP, developers and property owners jumped in, and older apartment blocks were sold en bloc for redevelopment. Some of these buildings sold en bloc were less than 15 years old. For public housing estates, I am sure the HDB will carry out quite a bit of redevelopment under the Selective En Bloc Redevelopment Scheme (SERS) in the next 30-40 years. Secondly, if we build buildings with more reserved sites in between now, these spaces can be filled in later years. For example, Tampines Neighbourhood 4, in recent years, a park, an old folks home and a church centre have been built on reserved sites. Buildings can be clustered together but with open spaces in between. Residents do not mind being a little crammed provided there are open spaces, parks and playgrounds for them and their family to go to relax and enjoy. I believe with a combination of clustering buildings and nearby open spaces in between, residents will understand the constraints of building close-knit structures. But if we cram everybody without nearby open spaces, I think this makes everyday living that much more stressful. My third point is that we have to be careful in providing for mixed use developments and in having residential units in the vicinity of commercial areas. I agree with the Focus Group that more housing should be provided in the central area to rejuvenate it. But let us learn from the experience of Lucky Plaza. This building is situated along the popular Orchard Road, near Mount Elizabeth Hospital. It has a podium of commercial shops and a tower block of residential units. Humans being human, and commercial space being more valuable than residential space, what happens is that the apartments in the tower block are often used as offices, warehouses to store goods for the shops below and as hostels for long-term patients of the hospital. This is undesirable living environment. Who wants to live in an apartment with a warehouse on one side, a hostel on the other, and an office opposite? Such a situation does occur in a number of multi-purpose mixed-use developments, and measures should be taken to prevent them from being more widespread.

Sir, first, I would like to commend the Minister for his initiative to develop the Concept Plan using a bottoms up approach, where professionals to grassroots leaders have had the opportunity to air their aspirations, opinions and suggestions on how to shape Singapore's physical and living environment. While I agree with the number of recommendations of both focus groups, I would like to nevertheless comment on several areas. First, housing space. One recommendation is to increase the gross plot ratio to up to 8 for housing in downtown, and they call it Manhattan style. At the same time, it is recommended that the gross floor area per person should also be increased, despite the fact that household size in Singapore has reduced from 4 to 3. The experience of Hong Kong is that while they have increased their gross plot ratio significantly in public and sandwich housing, the gross floor area per person is indeed very much smaller than the present Singapore public housing. Sir, I am not sure if the gross plot ratio should be increased to 8 in downtown and to 3.65 for State land outside the central area. While this will optimise land use, on the other hand, it will create other problems like huge traffic congestions in these areas. Sir, I would like to seek the Minister's response to this recommendation on gross plot ratio. Sir, the focus group has also recommended that we maintain only 7% of low density housing up to 18% medium density housing. Given young Singaporeans' aspirations to own a condominium or a landed property, I wonder whether the 7% for low density housing needs to be increased to, say, 10% over the medium term of the next 10-15 years. I also would like to ask the Minister what percentage of the population he expects to live in public housing in the medium term. Sir, next on the work space. The Government seems to have often approached public housing building programmes very much from a supply point of view, rather than from a demand point of view. If more attention is paid to this, I am sure many in the workforce will find it convenient to stay near where they work and find many other conveniences. Sir, the focus group has asked for more housing, particularly public housing, to be built in areas with employment opportunities, especially in the central area and the west region. I think the Government must seriously look into this, as this will have a big impact on the working population so that they can reduce their commuting time to and from work, and there will be an overall reduction in traffic congestions as well as they would be able to save money and their transport cost. 5.15 pm Sir, the 1991 Concept Plan has recommended the decentralisation of commercial centres. The focus group has however asked for a review of the number of locations of regional centres. I call for a reduction in the number of these locations of regional centres. Many of us in this House are aware of the problems faced by our HDB retail shops. Neighbourhood centres and bigger shopping retail outlets compete with the HDB retail shops and target the same customers who are limited by the size of the regional neighbourhood. I think it is very urgent that the Government looks into this. Thirdly, I would talk about green space. There has been much public debate in the media especially on whether there should be more parks or more golf courses built. Sir, my response is that we should carefully evaluate the need for both of these demands. Personally, although I am an avid golfer, I feel that we should not build any more golf courses in Singapore as the demands increase in future. Because these demands, as Mr Ong Kian Min has pointed out, can be met from cheaper golf courses in our neighbouring countries. As for parks, we should recognise that many of our parks are under-utilised. For example, I understand from the MP looking after the Jurong area that the Japanese and the Chinese Gardens are grossly under-utilised. Therefore, the provision of 0.8 hectares per thousand persons must be carefully evaluated and reviewed so that precious land can be used for housing or industrial use. Lastly, on the other focus group. It has focused on identity and has made a strong case for preserving our heritage and developing a distinctive identity. In this regard, I would like to just point out that we must try and find ways to reduce the social divide of residents living in our HDB estates. Unwittingly, we may have developed a class system in our HDB estates. We often categorise different households by 1-room, 2-room, 3-room, 4-room or 5-roomers. We have entrenched this by using this to hand out goodies during budgets and for off-budget measures. People do not like this branding. I hope that, as part of this Concept Plan review, the Minister will look into this matter, which is a stigma amongst many lower and middle-income Singaporeans.

I would like to join my colleagues in commending the Ministry for its Concept Plan 21 initiative. The Ministry has been successful in getting wide-ranging views and suggestions from all segments of society through its two focus groups and the public forum organised. The discussions and debates have been so comprehensive that we would be hard put to offer new ideas today. What I am going to say today would be more an expression of my views and preferences. I think we all agree that we have to better intensify the use of land for housing, commercial and industrial needs, if we want to support a larger population. The density of plot ratio we can go up to will depend on the height and other constraints. I would like to make a special call for greater density in the prime housing areas, especially within the CBD. We should build higher so that more of our younger population can live in the prime areas and help to bring more life and vibrancy to the city. We should have more residential developments mixed with commercial developments so that our downtown would not be dead at night, as has happened in Shenton Way, Raffles Place and the Marina area. The Marina area is less so because of the hotels and restaurants we have in the area. This move would help to better utilise the facilities and other infrastructure in downtown built at great expense. It would help to boost the retail and restaurant sectors of our economy that currently is still too much centred around Orchard Road area at night. Orchard Road area is so successful, in my view, because of the high number of high-rise condominiums in the surrounding areas of Cairnhill, River Valley, Orchard Boulevard, Stevens Road, and so on. In Marina South where we are planning a new downtown, I hope the Government will have enough high-rise residential developments mixed with commercial ones to bring life there at night, so as to bring greater value to these properties built on land reclaimed at great expense. The next issue which has been brought up by my colleague, Dr Teo, is regarding the possible relocation of one of the airports to the southern islands. I support his call. I think if we need to reclaim land to join the islands, if necessary, we should try to do so. This would free up a lot of land for other uses on the mainland. Has the Government considered leasing on a long-term basis some small islands from our neighbours for industrial and recreational uses? That is something that I hope the Government can look into. Building to high density will obviously bring about greater congestion on our roads. We should try and promote more walking and cycling, especially in the new downtown areas, with more connecting paths and walkways. Some of these can be built underground or overhead. Walkways for pedestrians should be covered, if possible. Island-wide, we should build more cycling paths to connect all parks in the island. This would help to promote a healthier lifestyle too. Netherlands is an excellent example for us to follow in this respect. In reviewing the Concept Plan, like, for example, in 1991, I would like to ask the Minister whether we have reduced plot ratios in certain areas downwards. If so, have we ascertained how the reduction in plot areas has impacted the owners of such land financially? Do we compensate them in the same way that we ask for development charges for raising plot ratios? For Concept Plan 21, do we anticipate that we might need to reduce plot ratios in some areas? If so, would the Government compensate those owners affected?

Sir, it was my privilege to serve as one of the co-chairs of the two focus groups to the Concept Plan that the members before me have mentioned. I, first, want to start by commending the Ministry for listening to people. Some of you may recollect that I engaged the Minister and questioned his Ministry about consultation over the issue of the National Library building. And he took us up on that and he created a structure that tried to reach out to both grassroots as well as to experts. Of the many points raised by the two reports, I want to only share my hopes on one, and this is on the issue of conservation of nature and built heritage. Sir, the greenery and conserved buildings are sometimes viewed as marginal interests only, and the belief is that there are only a few Singaporeans who are interested in. However, I think the Concept Plan Focus Group challenged us to see its connection to - the vital question of Singaporeans' identity which is debated many times. Clearly, they found that it is not so that these issues are marginal. Rather, both grassroots leaders, professionals and all those we spoke to were unanimous in supporting the conservation of both nature and built heritage. Public feedback has been largely supportive. I was quite surprised to hear that even avid golfers, like Mr Sinnakaruppan, say that they were supportive of the idea that there should be no more golf courses. Why? Not because suddenly they become anti-golf, but because there is a recognition that our built national heritage makes Singapore distinctive and anchors our self-identity and belonging to this place. Our Garden City concept, the fact that we are an island, all this appeals to both citizens as well as foreigners who visit, work and stay here. Obviously, we have to make the choices of what we conserve. So many of the speakers before me have emphasised other needs too. We cannot conserve everything. I think Singaporeans, as a whole, have a good sense to recognise there are trade-offs that are going to be necessary over time between conservation and economic development. But almost all felt that more can and should be conserved. Not just the famous national heritage like the Padang, Istana, the Old Parliament Building, but also regional landmarks in different areas of Singapore, and everyday places where people congregate to eat, work and play. Not just colonial buildings, but also aspects of post-World World II Singapore. But, Sir, I think that we need to think more about how we conserve, because conservation is not a question of freezing things and time. It is not a museum idea. We should allow sensitive redevelopment while ensuring the cultures and lifestyles are considered alongside urban design. Katong was picked up as an example by the group of an area of living interest and innovative re-use can also be encouraged. As we see the change of life along Waterloo Street, I am not sure you can eat Indian rojak there anymore, but art groups flourish there and life has come back. Similarly, on a slightly higher scale, you have the Far East Square and the hotel at Fullerton. Diversity and uniqueness, in a sense, Sir, should be strongly encouraged for the Concept Plan. For this, both environmental and social impact should be assessed carefully before decisions are made. This brings me to my most important point, which I hope the Ministry will consider. Who will conserve? Who will assess? Who will take part in the process? At present, Sir, decisions are made almost solely by Government. I mention these focus groups because they are one of the first structured steps in involving citizens more. I hope the Ministry will continue to involve citizens in these issues. More than that, a very strong suggestion by the groups was for a Heritage Conservation Trust. It is hoped that a new entity will be created that improves transparency, increases accountability and involves the public more in development planning, and that this Trust should stand both independent and equal to the relevant Government agencies. I hope the Minister will share his response to this suggestion, as well as to many of the issues raised here in the House and in the report.

Sir, as far as I know, most of our golf courses are sited in the catchment area or under flight path. These are areas which are not suitable for housing. So if we need one more such course, especially for our NSmen, and if such land is available, why not? Let me focus on one of the focus groups' recommendations. One of the groups in its report states that the group in formulating its recommendations took into account optimised infrastructure. It says, and I quote: "There has been heavy investment in infrastructure such as expressways, MRT and utility installations. The level of intensity of development in the areas served by these installations should be raised to be commensurate with their carrying capacity and respective capital investment." I think this is a sound principle. The completion of the North-East MRT line very soon and the planned development of several other lines and LRT will drastically change the landscape as well as impact on the land use along this line. I think it is very timely that the old Concept Plan should be reviewed, and also the Development Guide Plans. This new infrastructure development has certainly rendered certain DGPs outdated. A case in point is the DGP for Serangoon area. Under this particular DGP gazetted several years ago, one particular area next to the Lorong Lew Lian HDB housing estate, on one side of Upper Serangoon Road was designated as low rise housing, despite the fact that there are existing two 10-storey private apartments called the Jade Tower. This particular area is now less than 200 metres from the Serangoon MRT Station. On the other side of the road, however, the three-storey Farrer Heights CC was asked to move because it has got a very low plot ratio. The low plot ratio allowed for this area is such that the two existing blocks of 10-storey private apartments have to actually go down to four storeys, if they were to be redeveloped. 5.30 pm This sounds contradictory and inconsistent. We know for a fact that many of the landed properties adjoining the various MRT stations of the North-East line were actually acquired and big sums of money paid to the owners. The worst thing about this DGP is that it gives no incentive for owners of the two blocks I mentioned, for example, which are about 20 years old to redevelop. So there is no incentive for them to redevelop. I would therefore like to take this opportunity to urge the Minister to review and revise this particular DGP and, perhaps, other similar DGPs with a view to revise the plot ratio upwards so as to provide adequate incentives for them to be redeveloped.

Sir, land use planning is actually a sophisticated piece of work which is done by urban planners. For example, when an airport is being built, one makes sure that in the nearby areas, residential housing is not constructed, or if buildings are constructed, high-rise buildings are not constructed because it may pose noise hazards to the residents who may subsequently occupy the place. For example, one does not locate housing next to a reservoir because we do not want the water to be polluted. But being in the Jurong area, I was surprised that, despite this land use planning guidelines, Jurong West Neighbourhood 6, which is a HDB housing estate, was built in the first place on the path of a RSAF airbase. Not only was this housing estate built, but the housing estate was built with very high rise blocks so much so that, as I have stated in this House before, some of my residents can actually see the faces of the pilots. So I would like to ask the Minister how come there was such an urban planning usage whereby a housing estate was built on the aircraft flight path in the first place. The second issue I would like to raise here is pertinent because the Minister himself is the FAS Chairman. I would like to ask the Minister what is the norm for planning sports facilities in HDB estates. Because one of the sad facts about today's HDB estates is the lack of sports facilities in the housing estates. At most one sees in a precinct is a basketball court or a sepak takraw court. And I am one of those who believe that if we want to integrate and bond people at the local level, which is at the precinct or constituency level, we must provide sports facilities because people will come down and participate. They will make friends and that will lead to the creation of bonding at the local level. What I have noticed is that, in my constituency, whenever there is a vacant piece of land, I will tell my grassroots leaders to put up a goal post and let us see what is the response. And I notice that, on weekends, people will naturally come and play games. This is the way we create friendship and bonding at the local ground level. Here, I would like to ask the Minister whether he could seriously consider what is the land use planning norms in each of the constituencies as far as sports facilities are concerned. I notice that whenever I ask civil servants where do the residents go, they said if you want bigger facilities, you can go to the stadium. But actually the stadiums are not quite located in the best locations. We cannot expect the residents to go to the stadium to use facilities on a daily or weekend basis. In any event, what I have heard is that there are complaints that there are not enough facilities even in the stadiums. People have told me that those who want to play badminton have to queue up on Monday morning and within half an hour, all the facilities are booked. Similarly, if those who want to play football, they do not want to go to a stadium where there are inadequate facilities. So I would like to ask the Minister, when reconsidering the land use planning, whether we can see how we can develop better sports facilities at the constituency or even precinct level.

Government is the largest land owner in Singapore. It controls the supply of land and housing through its land sales programme, zoning and plot ratios. It estimates the demand for land and puts up land for sale accordingly. It determines the price indirectly and can decide whether to award or not to award the tenders, depending on the price. In cases when tender prices were considered below market value, tenders were not awarded. My question to the Minister is: how does the URA decide what the market prices should be? Is it not the slate of latest tender prices reflective of the latest market price unless there is collusion among the tenderers? When the bids are high, sometimes even twice the expected market value, the Government always awards the sale. However, when the bids are low, the Government sometimes withholds the award of sale. By so doing, the supply of land to the private developers will be curtailed and the prices of land will be controlled. This is unlike the sale of COEs, when COEs have been sold for even as low as $1. I am not suggesting that land be sold for as low as $1. We can all become property developers then. What I want to ask really and to generate some discussion on is why should there be a difference in the two assets put up for sale by the Government. Both are assets with market values and they can be financed by the banks and other financial institutions. I would like the Minister to comment on this.

Sir, first of all, let me respond to all the Members who have spoken on the Concept Plan Review. Sir, the Concept Plan is an important document, as Dr Teo Ho Pin has mentioned just now. It determines our physical landscape and it guides the way we wish to live, work and play in the decades ahead. The first Concept Plan was prepared in 1971 by UN experts. The emphasis then was on basic housing and, out of that 1971 plan, arose the building of HDB flats around the central catchment area. This sets the tone and the framework for the development of housing estates in Singapore. In 1981 and 1991, the plan was reviewed. So every 10 years, there is a review and this time, the emphasis shifted from basic housing and basic infrastructure to enhancing the quality of life. The 2001 review seeks to update the plan taking into account the changing needs and aspirations of our people, both quantitative as well as qualitative. The Concept Plan is not just about creating a world-class city. It is about building a home for Singaporeans, a home we can be proud to call our own, a home to bring up family. And this is why it was important to involve the public in the preparation of the Concept Plan. First of all, if this is going to be a blueprint for our home, then all of us who have a stake here ought to have a say in how we want this place to develop. And second, the more we are involved in the planning, we are better informed and aware of the constraints we face and the tradeoffs needed to make this place, this little red dot, comfortable and livable for us. To reach out to as many people as possible from different walks of life, URA formed two focus groups. In addition, URA opened up many feedback channels, such as Internet, through public forums, letters to the press, telephone calls, and so on, in order to draw in as much views and ideas as possible. Sir, I must say that I was greatly encouraged by the response to our efforts in the volumes of suggestions received as well as in the depth and the breadth of these suggestions. I would like to acknowledge, in particular, the hard work and dedication of the focus group members, ably led by their Chairman, Assoc. Prof. Vivian Balakrishnan, Mr Tham Tuck Cheong, Mr Philip Ng and Mr Simon Tay and all those whom they co-opted into their discussions. The public consultation process has been of great value to our planners. It has given them plenty of food for thought. It has also given them a better feel of the Singaporean pulse, about how strongly people feel about issues, such as conservation and identity. On the other hand, I am told that many focus group members emerged from the discussions with a better appreciation of our constraints and competing needs in planning for the future. I believe this has been a most valuable experience for all involved. Two focus groups, one on land allocation, and the other one on identity, submitted their final reports to my Ministry last month. URA and the relevant Government agencies are now studying in detail the focus groups' findings as well as the public feedback received. They will give these suggestions serious consideration and, where possible, incorporate them into the draft Concept Plan. Let me now present some of our preliminary thinking on the key findings of the focus groups and address the issues raised by several Members on the Concept Plan. Sir, the starting point for the Concept Plan is population size. For this review, a multi-agency study group which included URA, of course, and HDB, the Department of Statistics, MTI, Ministry of Manpower, Ministry of Health, proposed a population figure of 5.5 million as a planning parameter. Let me emphasise that this figure is not a population target. It is not a target that the Government will set out to achieve or has to achieve. It is a projection based on foreseeable trends in economic growth, fertility rates, migration rates, etc. It is a reasonable assumption upon which to base our physical development over the next 40 to 50 years. 40 to 50 years is a very long time. Projections may be wrong. In fact, when we did the 1991 Concept Plan, we were looking at a population figure of 4 million. But, nevertheless, this is a best estimate of what a population figure could be in 40 to 50 years' time. And we will have a rough idea in 10 years, when the next review of the plan is carried out, whether we are on the right track. So, in the meantime, we make use of this figure of 5.5 million. We asked our planners what if we have a 5.5 million population? How should we cater to our future social and economic needs, given the constraints that we face, particularly in terms of land? 5.45 pm The first question we need to consider, when talking about a larger population, is how do we balance competing land needs. The focus group on land allocation looked at land for major uses like housing, industries and recreational space. One suggestion was to increase the average plot ratio for high-density housing, from a figure of 2.5 today, to an average of 3.

65. What does "3.65" mean? Just to give a rough idea: this means that housing estates could be as dense as some of the newer estates that we see today, such as Sengkang. Of course, the older estates like Bedok, Toa Payoh and Ang Mo Kio have a much lower plot ratio. The question is: would this more crowded environment be acceptable to our people? Mr Ong Kian Min, in fact, expressed his reservations that this is indeed the right way to go. But from the focus group's consultations with the public, it appears that Singaporeans are prepared to accept such higher densities. We will need to study whether the average plot ratios proposed, like 3.65, can in fact be achieved, given some of the constraints that we face, eg, height constraints from flight paths, etc. But I think it makes sense to have higher density housing developments, especially in areas near MRT stations, so that more people can enjoy the convenience of the MRT. In areas where there are height constraints, more flexible guidelines can be considered to achieve the higher density and, in the process, also to encourage more innovative housing forms. I agree with Mr Ong that there is really no need to increase our housing density overnight, as it were. It can be done in tandem with population growth. The Concept Plan, as I said, is a long-range plan, and it is prepared for a scenario 40 to 50 years down the road, which is a long time. So it is likely that the increase in housing density will be incremental and will be realised only over a period of time. Mr Lew Syn Pau spoke about more intensive housing density in the CBD and in the new downtown. In his words, this would make sure that the downtown would not be dead at night. The focus group has a similar proposal to have more residential developments in the central area. It has suggested high-rise Manhattan-style housing, with a high average plot ratio of 8, compared to the average plot ratio of 5 that the planners had previously studied. This is physically possible, because the new downtown is not subject to the severe height constraints that other areas are. But, as Members have also pointed out, planners have to consider the implications of such dense developments if we apply it across the board, such as social and environmental impact, traffic congestion and so on. I want to stress that whatever the final adopted average plot ratio, our planners will ensure that high-rise housing means good quality housing, with enough green relief, communal space, amenities, good estate layouts, building designs and so on, all to make sure that we have quality housing for our people. I turn now to some comments made about HDB estates. Indeed, some HDB flat applicants have told us that they would like their new homes in existing areas, because this would allow them to live closer to their families and also to enjoy some of the established amenities there. This is in fact the problem with some of our new estates, because we are rolling out the facilities as the residents move in. And where there is a problem of timing or coordination of these amenities, inconveniences arise, and some Members of this House have raised these issues here. The focus groups have also commented that the continuous creation of new HDB towns and the resulting outflow of younger residents and upgraders have resulted in people losing a sense of identification with the towns, and one suggestion was to build new higher density housing in established housing estates. I think these proposals make good sense, both economically and socially. Economically, because we can capitalise on existing infrastructure. For example, if we were to increase the capacity and density in some of the older estates where infrastructure is already established, then not only would it be more convenient for those residents who move in, we would not need to spend large sums of money to open up new towns. And, socially, we can benefit because building within the existing new towns means that people would be able to live nearer their families and, as a result, foster closer family and community ties. Sir, Dr Teo Ho Pin and Mr Sinnakaruppan touched on the issue of housing mix, in terms of density of housing as well as ownership, ie, whether it is private or public. I want to say here that we would like to maintain a variety of housing types, ie, low, medium as well as high-rise housing, to make sure that Singaporeans continue to have choices in the type of housing that they want to live in. The focus group proposed a mix of 8% low, 15% medium and 77% high-density housing. This is close to the density mix today. But the percentage of high-density housing would be higher than the 70% proposed in the 1991 Concept Plan. A higher proportion of high-density housing is logical, if we are talking about intensifying the use of housing land. Last year, when I spoke in this House, I said that for planning purposes, we would adopt a 75%:25% public-private housing mix. This mix was guided by what we thought would be a sustainable public housing programme, as well as to meet the aspirations of Singaporeans for private housing. In 1990, the public-private mix was 86% public and 14% private. In our effort to meet the aspirations of Singaporeans to own private housing, the Government has been steadily releasing sales sites for private housing development and, at the end of last year, the housing mix stood at 81% public and 19% private. In other words, more households now live in private housing. In the medium to long term, we intend to stick to a 75:25 public-private housing mix as a planning parameter. However, we will monitor closely the housing aspirations of Singaporeans and adjust accordingly. Sir, I just want to touch on the issue of industries and commerce at this stage, for completeness. The focus group recommended that we also increase the plot ratio for commercial and industrial land. For commercial land, this is not a problem, so long as the necessary infrastructure, like transport and utilities, is able to support such increases. But for industrial land, the dilemma is that many high value-added industries, such as chemicals and life sciences, need low-rise and more sprawling facilities. They cannot be accommodated in multi-storey industrial developments. We have to continue to attract these industries to our shores because they bring tremendous economic spin-offs. So we must find room for them somehow, or our economy will suffer. For such industries which cannot go high-rise, the focus group recommended using the airspace above these industries so as to optimise the land. This is a novel suggestion and we will study it carefully. For selected sites, eg, those nearer MRT stations, intensification to the focus group's recommended GPR of 2.5, or even higher, could be achievable. Mr Sinnakaruppan asked how we could balance housing with workplaces, in order to make sure that people do not have to commute and therefore reduce traffic congestion. The focus group made a similar point about creating a better geographical balance between resident and worker population. What we will try to do is to build more homes near major employment areas, like the central area and the western region. Similarly, we will safeguard land for commercial and suitable industrial developments in different regions near to population centres. URA is adopting this approach in preparing the Concept Plan, in order to reduce commuting and bring jobs closer to homes. On the issue of parks and open spaces, which Mr Sinnakaruppan also brought up, the focus group supports the planners' target standard of 0.8 hectares per 1,000 persons, which is an increase from the current provision of 0.67 hectares per 1,000 persons. On the ground, these figures do not mean very much. What most people are concerned about is whether there is a park near to their home where they can go to relax and exercise. So we should try to focus on quality rather than quantity, and provide more quality parks and green spaces which would be accessible to more people. Parts of the central catchment which are not currently accessible, could be opened to the public. Where we can, we will integrate nature areas with parks and recreational facilities. While we cannot keep all the nature areas identified by the focus group, we will try to keep them for as long as they are not required for development. In particular, we will take note of the unique qualities of Pulau Ubin and the special place it holds in the hearts of many Singaporeans. Some members of the public have asked why can we not have even more green spaces and parks? Can we not keep more nature areas? This is a question of trade-offs. If we choose to increase the land provided for parks, open spaces and nature areas substantially, it just means that we will have less land for housing, industries and businesses, or housing will become even more dense and some industries may have to be squeezed out. Mr Lew Syn Pau advocated having more cycling parks connected around the island, to promote cycling for health and to reduce traffic congestion. In case Mr Lew is not aware, cycling tracks have been incorporated into our park connectors. These park connectors are actually intended for recreational purposes, but there is no reason why they cannot be used also as a means of getting from place to place. These park connectors link major parks, nature areas, population centres, as well as coastal areas into one very easily accessible green network. So far, 16 stretches of park connectors have been built, and 18 more will be built over the next four years. Sir, one issue which has received particular attention during the focus group's discussions and, indeed, amongst Members of this House as well, is the issue of golf courses. Sir, here I must declare my interest that I am also a golfer, albeit a very lousy one. The focus group recommended that there be no more new golf courses. This has received the support of even avid golfers like Mr Sinnakaruppan, although other equally avid golfers in this House have stood up to champion the cause of certain groups of golfers. I will come to that later. The planners have explained that most of our golf courses are located in constrained areas, as Mr Goh rightly pointed out - land within catchment areas or land directly under flight paths. So what else do you do with the land? But some people have argued that we can actually use the land for parks, why use it for golf courses? Sir, I understand these sentiments. I must point out, however, that the Concept Plan must cater to the different recreational needs of many Singaporeans. Golf is one such form of recreation which is in heavy demand. For example, the SAFRA Country Club at Tanah Merah has some 10,000 members, 8,000 of them play regularly on its golf courses, and an additional 3,000 non-members use its courses, bringing the number of golfers at Tanah Merah SAFRA alone to some 11,000. I believe the reason why the SAFRA golf courses are crowded is because membership fees are cheaper than other courses. The issue, therefore, is not just about the number of golf courses, but whether we can have golf courses that are more accessible to the public. 6.00 pm Mr Ong Kian Min suggested that Singaporeans make use of golf courses in our neighbouring countries instead. Indeed, many Singaporeans have purchased golf memberships in Johor, Batam, Bintan and they do play there regularly. Singapore companies have also invested in golf courses there. This is certainly a win-win situation for Singapore as well as for our neighbours, and it should be encouraged. To a certain extent, this would lessen the need for more golf courses here. But where we can, we should provide facilities on our home turf for Singaporeans to indulge in what is a sport of choice for many. We will consider the focus group's recommendation not to provide any more private golf courses. However, we should not rule out providing additional public golf courses on sites which cannot put to more valuable use. Recently, RECORD III recommended that a new golf course for NSmen should be developed to recognise the important role that they play in total defence. This golf course would cater to NSmen members of all the reservists associations, in other words, SAFRA, CDANS and SPANS. Since there is an NSman in virtually every Singaporean household, and since golf is a sport that is growing in popularity among NSmen, I believe this is a recommendation which deserves our support. Within our land constraints, we should try to provide a wide array of facilities for Singaporeans to indulge in the sporting or recreational activities of their choice. In particular, we should recognise the special role and contribution of our NSmen. This is important if Singapore is to be an attractive place to live and work in, and also to fight for. Sir, some participants at the public forums suggested that land set aside for golf courses need not be used exclusively for golf. This is an attractive idea. NParks will explore whether we can open up some nature areas and waterbodies in the vicinity of golf courses for public recreation purposes. I must caution, however, that this must be implemented with care. We have got to make sure that it is safe for non-golfers and also the interests of golfers are taken care of. Dr Teo Ho Pin has raised some points concerning the environment. He asked whether environmental concerns would be addressed in the Concept Plan. Let me clarify that the Concept Plan is not just the product or the work of URA alone. It is a combined effort of a large number of agencies and Ministries, working together on many technical issues. These agencies provide inputs to URA, guide them in allocating land, not only for housing, factories, roads and so on, but also for utilities infrastructure, such as waste disposal and treatment. At the same time, they also advise on how to minimise the environmental impact from adverse land uses. I just would like to inform Dr Teo that in the process of drawing up the Concept Plan, other plans, such as the Green Plan, which is coordinated by the Ministry of the Environment, are taken into consideration. I believe Dr Teo also touched on the issue of over-heating of our environment. In preparing the Concept Plan, NParks, URA and HDB have worked together to identify and safeguard areas of open space and parks with greenery and trees to mitigate the over-heating effect. BCA, HDB and NParks are also embarking on a research programme on urban heat islands in Singapore. This is a matter in which Dr Teo has particular interest. This study will include a study on roof-top gardens, together with the NUS Centre for Total Building Performance. Let me now turn to the issue of identity and development. The focus groups, as well as several Singaporeans, have expressed the need to conserve more of our buildings, places and natural features which they feel can help in retaining our identity. Mr Simon Tay spoke passionately on this issue just now. It is indeed heartening that more Singaporeans feel strongly enough for our home to want to preserve our social memories and in doing so, strengthen our sense of belonging. It was not too long ago that we did not care what our city looks like. It was even further back in time when conservation of our built heritage was a luxury and of lower priority. This was when we had to set out to solve critical issues of housing shortages and how to earn a living in a newly independent Singapore. Times have changed. With basic housing and infrastructure in place, with economic growth and rising affluence, we can now turn our attention to issues such as conservation, identity and shared memories. But we must not get carried away. As rightly pointed out by Mr Simon Tay, we cannot simply conserve everything. We need to carefully consider what to retain, how to retain and how much to retain, while ensuring better use of land. The process of selection and evaluation has to be vigorous. This is to ensure that while deserving buildings and places would be conserved, we would still have enough land to meet the needs of our future generations. Nevertheless, when drawing up future plans for our city, our planners should consciously identify the buildings, features, places, which give the area its identity. We should find ways to integrate these so called "identity markers" into new developments. We should also look into how we can safeguard the interest and factor in the views of the various stakeholders, the owners, the residents and the users. These are not easy issues to settle. They call for a fine judgement, coupled with an ability to balance competing demands. The focus group on identity has proposed a heritage conservation trust to help Government to make these decisions. This is a suggestion we are seriously considering. The relevant Government agencies will study it further to see whether and how this concept can work in our local context. Sir, in view of the limited time, I have only touched on some of the key issues raised so far on the Concept Plan. URA and the relevant Government agencies will continue to study and consider all the other suggestions and feedback from Members of this House, the focus groups and the public. The Concept Plan is still on the drawing board. URA will work towards exhibiting the draft plan to the public by the end of April. It will hold a public dialogue on the draft plan to gather more views before the plan is finalised. The preliminary conclusion, based on the work done so far, is that as far as the physical development of Singapore is concerned, we should be able to look forward to a comfortable life even if our population reaches 5.5 million. There would be homes for all, industries to sustain economic growth and also room for our children to enjoy the simple pleasures of life. Sir, let me now move on to address some of the Members' specific questions on land use and the Government land sales programme and a few other issues. Mr Goh Choon Kang and Mr Lew Syn Pau asked about changes to the plot ratio of land, in particular, Mr Goh asked about intensification of certain specific sites near MRT stations. I would like to say here that when URA determines the plot ratios for different sites in the masterplan, factors such as height constraints, planning intention, character of the area and proximity to transport nodes are taken into consideration. Where a site is surrounded by high-intensity uses and is close to transport nodes, like the MRT stations, a higher gross plot ratio (GPR) may be prescribed to optimise the use of land. But if the site is next to an existing landed housing estate, a lower gross plot ratio may still be prescribed in order to safeguard the amenity and the low-rise character of the existing landed housing estates. The Concept Plan maps out the broad direction in land use for Singapore. It does not look into specific plots and specific plot ratios. This is done only with the Masterplan as distinct from the Concept Plan. The next review of the Masterplan will take place in the year 2003, when we will take into account the feedback, such as those from Mr Goh on specific sites. Mr Lew asked a specific question about whether plot ratios would be reduced and if so, whether owners would be compensated for the reduction. I wish to inform him that any existing plot ratio, which has been approved, will be honoured, subject to prevailing height control for the area, even if the plot ratio is beyond that prescribed by the Masterplan for that site. Under the circumstances, the issue of compensation is irrelevant because there would be no loss to the owners. Mr Ravindran asked why the Jurong West housing estate was built under the RSAF flight path. I believe he also raised the same question in this House a few days ago when the Ministry of Defence's estimates were debated. Let me say that in land scarce Singapore, we need to do a balancing act. We have to balance various land uses, such as housing, schools, airports, etc, within this limited land area. And when you do a balancing act, inevitably, you have to compromise between these various uses. However, that does not mean to say that we totally ignore the dis-amenities caused by different uses. There are guidelines in place that are prescribed to limit the impact of nuisances, such as noise nuisance, smell nuisance, pollution, etc, by the various land uses. In the case of Jurong West, let me assure him that the location of the housing area satisfies the guidelines set by the Pollution Control Department on noise levels, within which housing may be permitted. I understand that MINDEF is taking steps to reduce the noise nuisance from RSAF flights where possible, but it is not realistic to expect that the residents in the estate can enjoy the peace and quiet that other residents in other parts of Singapore are able to enjoy. If we were, for example, to specify that no housing estates be built under flight paths, today there would be very few housing estates in Singapore. Mr Lew asked about the setting of reserve prices for sale sites and whether in so doing, the Government is interfering in the market. He asked how URA decides what the market price is and why the Government could not just leave it to the market to decide prices, and just award it to the highest price irrespective. Let me say here that the Government does not arbitrarily set any so-called "reserve price". The reserve price is set according to Chief Valuer's assessed market value for the site and this value takes into account evidence from recent property transactions and other relevant indicators of market sentiment. As a prudent land owner, and as a custodian of the State's reserves, the Government has the responsibility to ensure that it obtains fair value in the disposal of State land, and the reserve price provides an objective basis to guide the award of tender for State land. To allow for some variations in market opinion from the Chief Valuer's estimates, the highest standard for a site is accepted so long as it is not less than 85% of the Chief Valuer's assessed market value. The Member did say that he is not suggesting that land would be sold in Singapore for $1. I think that is precisely the point: should we sell land at a price which is ridiculously low or far below what is considered, at least by the Chief Valuer, to be the fair market value at that point in time? I would like to emphasise that this policy of selling land is not intended to prop up or to lead property prices. The Government is committed to a steady land release strategy to make available land for development. It is up to the developers to decide to tender and at what price based on their own reading of market demand. I stress again that it is not prudent for Government to accept any tender just because it happens to be the highest tender in that particular exercise. 6.15 pm Finally, Mr Ong Kian Min spoke about the abuse of mixed use developments, and he cited a specific case of Lucky Plaza. Sir, we are actually trying to introduce more mixed use into our estates. For example, last June, URA actually relaxed the guidelines for industry, warehouse and business park zones to allow more mixed use, eg, e-businesses and dot-com companies to set up offices within these zones. I understand Mr Ong's concerns about such abuse. This, inevitably, takes place when owners try to take advantage of the system for their own benefit, at the expense of the convenience and amenity of others. There is always this group of people who are very quick to try and arbitrage the system. But this is the risk that we have to take. If it is a major loophole, we will have to plug it. If not, then we just have to depend on enforcement from time to time. But we cannot just stand still and do nothing, and not to take into account the changing circumstances, just because there is a possibility of abuse. Sir, I believe I have addressed most of the concerns.

Sir, I requested for additional sports facilities at the local precinct level.

I am sorry. In so far as the provision of sports facilities is concerned in housing estates, I do sympathise with the Member's view that there should be more sports facilities. Indeed, there are sports facilities being provided in the Concept Plan on a total basis. But on an estate by estate basis, there may be instances where there is a shortage of such facilities. One of the things that the URA is looking into, together with other relevant Ministries, is, for example, the question of shared use. If we could find a way to use existing facilities in the housing estates which are under utilised, eg, the school fields, we could actually increase the number of such fields available for our residents to use. Another possibility, of course, is to make use of some of the existing open spaces, and here I think we would have to again contend with this issue of conflicting demands. By this, I mean that if we were to open up, say, some of the open spaces to children for playing ball games, inevitably, there will be complaints about noise, nuisance and so on. Of course, these are not insurmountable problems, but I just wish to point out such problems will arise. Having said all that, of course, I think the point that the Member made is well taken, that we should look into how we can provide more such facilities. And I will support any such moves to increase the number of facilities and I will refer his request to my colleague, the Minister for Community Development and Sports, to take up with the other agencies.

Sir, the primary purpose of building HDB neighbourhood shops and hawker stalls is to provide convenient shopping for HDB residents. But these shopkeepers and hawkers are now facing an uphill task to survive in their businesses. What has caused this situation? The following are some of the problems faced by them: (i) There is an oversupply of shops in the neighbourhood area; (ii) There is inadequate control of tenant mix in some areas, leading to duplication of services and insufficient complementary shops; (iii) The rental rates are too high, and too much multiple subletting has been allowed. This has drastically reduced the price competitiveness of their goods and services. Sir, I would like to recommend three measures for HDB to consider in making neighbourhood shops and hawker centres more viable. (1) Lower rental cost and property tax. HDB should review its policy of determining rental rates. We should adopt the practice of private developers who use fixed and variable rental rates to help their tenants to build up their businesses. We should also consider lowering or removing property tax, especially for hawker stalls. (2) Control tenant mix. HDB must control tenant mix as in private development. This will ensure fair competition and viability for their businesses. A good tenant mix will provide a wider range of services. HDB should also ensure that ATMs, post offices, banks, clinics and childcare or family service centres are present to complement the shops and hawker stalls. We must not allow the change of use from retail shops to offices. (3) Upgrade business practices. We must encourage all HDB shopowners and hawker stallholderss to upgrade their operations to increase productivity and competitiveness. As an incentive, HDB should consider providing rental rebates or property tax rebates for shops or stalls which have successfully upgraded their operations.

(In Mandarin): Sir, the recent economic recovery and the slowdown of the US economy led us to face uncertainties in our economy. Many retailers, shopkeepers and stallholders in HDB estates do not enjoy the benefit from our economic recovery. All that they feel is that they have bad business, mounting costs and turnover is lower. They are full of complaints and grievances. At the moment, the retailers and hawkers find that the cost is almost unbearable. Although the present situation is not so serious, the moment the US economy gets worse and sends a greater impact on Asia, the situation can be very serious. I hope the Minister can seriously consider the following suggestions: Firstly, those who have already bought their shops on a 99-year lease, we should allow them to reduce the lease from the current 99 years to either 30 or 60 years. Then the surplus money could be refunded to the shopowners, so as to lighten their burden. Secondly, as Dr Teo has mentioned that there are too many shops in the older housing estates, HDB should buy back the shops from those operators who are not able to sustain their business. They may have a problem of sustaining their business, but because they have already bought the shops, they have to pay their instalments to the banks. They are in great financial difficulties. So, if it is possible, HDB should buy back the shops. Thirdly, I would suggest that the Government lower the rentals and the service charges for the shops in the HDB estates. For those who are having MUP, the shopowners do not have much benefit because they have to pay a high amount of renovation or upgrading charges, unlike the residents who only pay 20-40%. I hope the Government will allow them to enjoy the upgrading, but without having to pay so much money. If we insist on their paying so much, there will be a greater burden for them. Fourthly, make some refinancing arrangement with the bank to lower the monthly instalments payable by the shopkeepers. As business is bad, they have great difficulties paying the high instalments and high interest every month. Apart from those who have bought the shops, some of the retailers are actually renting the shops from the HDB. They have difficulties. I have three proposals. First, HDB should consider lowering the rentals and service charges. Because some of the shops are not doing well and they cannot afford to pay the high rentals. Second, the number of shops in HDB estates should be smaller, whether they are purchased or leased. If there are too many shops, it is very hard for the businesses to survive. If they can reduce the number of shops in the estates or to pay some kind of compensation to buy back the shops, the recovered shops can be turned into void decks, and there will be more space for grassroots activities. Next, consider reducing the floor area of the neighbourhood shops. Some of these shophouses have floor areas of 60, 90 or 120 square metres, but they only need 30 square metres. If they can reduce the size of the shops, the rentals will be correspondingly reduced, and this will be a help to them. As regards hawker stallholders, they have two problems. Firstly, for these people, the Government can consider lowering the rentals of their stalls, especially in the case of the stalls which were originally tendered. When the contracts expire, the rentals are adjusted upwards. In some cases, the tendered rental was already very high, yet you adjust it further upwards. It would be unreasonably high and almost impossible for the stallholder to carry on with his business. Secondly, I can see that some hawkers are doing a roaring trade. They live in big houses and drive Mercedes cars. If they are good in their trade and want to expand their stall space, they should be allowed to take over the vacant stalls nearby, so that they can expand their business. For these people, if there is more space for them to operate, they will be able to do better business. So we should not restrict them to just one or two stalls, but let them rent as many stalls as they wish, so long as there are vacancies and they can afford them. Sir, I hope these proposals will be considered by the Minister.

For the benefit of all those who want to speak later on, please make your speeches short.

Sir, if one were to look around the housing estates, it is a no brainer to conclude that there is an over supply of shops in some areas where human traffic is low and business is poor, and an under supply of shops in other areas, because they are popular. People flock there and retailers do a roaring trade. The reason for this is simple. HDB decides on a new town from the top down. From the planner's point of view, which at times can be quite academic in nature, it is like there is an open field where you want to design and build a footpath for people to use. You can build one, but people may choose not to use it, because it is not convenient. Or you can wait for the people to carve a natural path through the grass and then pave it and make it into a footpath. When HDB designates a particular area to house the neighbourhood shops, there is no guarantee that it will successfully develop into a popular and attractive place that residents want to visit. Many factors are involved and consumers' preferences are fickle and hard to determine. Bus services, car park, accessibility, tenant mix and many other factors affect the success of the neighbourhood centres. The plans may look good on paper but actual implementation may produce a very different result. Of course, there is no denying that the planners can do a lot more to ensure success. For example, if you put a critical number of shops together, integrate them with the bus interchange and MRT station, like Tampines regional centre, the chances are that it will become a success. But other fringe neighbourhood centres are not so fortunate. As a result, many shopkeepers in fringe areas are not faring well. For these areas, there must be a mechanism for the excess to be cut down. Retailers who have rented shops from the HDB should have the option to voluntarily surrender their lease for compensation. 6.30 pm Sir, on the other side of the same problem of determining the optimal number of shops for any particular area is that there are many new housing estates, like my constituency, Pasir Ris GRC, with very few retail outlets in some precincts. These shops are few and far between, making it difficult for residents to get their necessities. To tackle these two problems - too many shops in some areas and too few in other areas - we need to find a right balance and the right tenant mix in between. There is a need to rethink and revamp the retail scene in the housing estates in the light of the changes in our shopping and buying habits. One of the reasons why our neighbourhood shops are not doing so well is the change in people's buying habits. People buy the bulk of what they need from the large supermarkets and shopping malls. People also prefer to wait for the right occasion to buy an item that they do not need urgently. For example, if you want to buy an expensive watch, you would rather make a special trip to a popular shopping mall than buy it from a neighbourhood shop. In these smaller neighbourhood shops, people are looking for things that they need urgently. This is the success behind the 7-Eleven stores. The 7-Eleven stores provide us with a model that has been proven to be highly successful, despite high rentals and business overheads. People do not mind paying more for the convenience of getting items they need quickly and conveniently. These stores are popular in many countries, including Japan and Hong Kong. They have become entrenched in the local community. As an essential piece in the infrastructure, people in these countries are even thinking of using them to offer other services, such as paying utilities bills, withdrawing money, buying stamps and posting letters. I would like to urge HDB to consider facilitating the development of such a network of convenience stores in our housing estates. If retailers were to upgrade their offering of goods and services, I dare say that they would find themselves more relevant in serving the needs of the local community, and more people and more businesses flowing through their shops. Contrary to what many people believe, opening a retail shop is not an easy matter. In my constituency, I have a neighbourhood centre. The shops there have been sold and most of them are rented out by the private owners who are now landlords. I speak to the shopkeepers there from time to time. But it is difficult to keep track because they come and go so quickly, some within months. Some of the aspiring retailers are first-timers taking the plunge. They complain to me that business is so quiet that they do not make enough to pay their rent. When I told them that perhaps they were paying too high a rent, they told me that they were inexperienced and did not know. Some of them were retired civil servants, ex-army officers and company executives. Some left good-paying jobs to go into the retail business. Some had been retrenched and decided to use their savings and retrenchment benefits to start out on their own. Being new to the trade and not familiar with the neighbourhood, they had decided to rent the shop without doing much feasibility study or ground research. They had agreed to pay a very high rent which cannot be sustained by the low pedestrian traffic and poor business. Many had to close shop after a few months. One would think that the next guy to come along would be wiser. But that is not the case. There is always some other guy with equally limited business savvy who wants to give it a shot and pay the same high rent for the shop. To alleviate the situation and as its contribution to Retail 21, I believe the HDB should do more in advising and guiding people who want to open retail shops in HDB estates. I would like to urge HDB to offer some form of business consultancy or business intelligence service through its network of branch offices, where a prospective tenant can get some assistance and guidance in assessing the local business environment and the proper trade mix for that area.

I am still not getting the cooperation of Members to cut short their speeches. I am asking one more time for cooperation for the benefit of all the other speakers.

Sir, you shall have my cooperation. I will make my speech brief.

Thank you.

Sir, there have been many calls today, and in the past in this House, for assistance for HDB retail shops. Many of these HDB shop retailers, majority of them, have been suffering in silence for the past few years. Because of the increased competition from big retailers in the nearby estates, as well as the changing shopping habits of Singaporeans, you will find that their pleas have become louder. Today, if you look at the topic, there are 11 MPs who are going to speak on this topic, although I notice that none of the Opposition MPs have thought that it is important enough for them to bring this up. I would like to ask specifically the Minister what his Ministry intends to do on the over-supply of shopkeepers in HDB estates. I would like to also ask how far the PSB's retail scheme will go to train and retrain retailers who may not be proficient in English and whether there will be programmes in other languages, so that they can be trained and retrained to help them seek a new livelihood. Sir, I would like to also ask whether the Government will be prepared to compensate existing tenants if they decide to call it quits, not just to compensate them but whether the Government will also buy back these shops at market price. And I believe that they will sell it at market price but the Government can consider offering an attractive ex-gratia payment, so that shopowners can pursue a new livelihood. Or, alternatively, would the Government allow the conversion of the 99-year old lease to a 30-year old lease at market price plus offering an ex-gratia payment which is attractive enough, so that many of these retailers can tide through the difficult period?

It is getting better now.

Sir, I will be even shorter. I would like the Minister, in reviewing his policies for HDB shops, consider the fact that just cutting away the excess capacity, doing away with the shops or relocating them, might not necessarily be the best way, in my view. One of the better ways would be to reduce rentals, as mentioned by my colleague, Dr Teo. That could be lowered so that tenants could still continue to do their business and be profitable. These neighbourhood shops, the mom and pop shops - the hairdresser, the food centre, the stationery shop, and whatever - can help to keep our cost of living down. Perhaps more flexible use of shops will allow the business activity to go on. Taking back the shops and compensating them $40,000, or whatever, may appeal to some aged tenants but not to many others who may have to depend on their business to survive, as mentioned by another colleague just now. So, what are they to do after that? They move to another location and they pay higher cost of operation with higher rentals for more popular areas, where they have to move or give up their shops. Can these people be suitably retrained after that? What happens to those aged residents or low-income residents who stay in HDB flats who need easy access to shops, instead of travelling by buses and trains to the retail centre? Where the shops can form a complex so that among them they can organise themselves and together with HDB, form some kind of differentiation or mix of trade, then they can attract customers which will keep the neighbourhood busy. For example, I have suggested some years ago in this House for MND to consider allowing shopkeepers to spruce up old housing estate shops, like the two-storey shops in Tanglin Halt, for their unique 1960's HDB conservation flavour on a 30-year old lease. Of course, at that time when I made the proposal, it was rejected. This policy can now allow for more flexibility of use. We have to be a bit wary. There are externality effects of retail activity. If some shops are permanently closed and kept vacant, then it would affect the business activity of the nearby shops. Those who want to carry on the business will be affected. There will also be no potential for redevelopment and better use of land, unless all the shops are vacated. Meanwhile, the life for everyone is made worse for the remaining shopkeepers and residents.

I shall be short, Sir. (In Mandarin): Sir, I have moved an adjournment motion in this House to highlight the difficulties our HDB shop retailers face now. I would like to repeat my call for the Ministry of National Development to consider helping them out with the following measures (I would like to declare that I am running my clinic from an HDB tenanted shop): (1) Allowing splitting of the shops into smaller shops to co-exist with other types of businesses; (2) Granting easier "change of use" of their shops; (3) Resettling some retailers to other places that have better need of their kind of trade; (4) Relocating shops in poor locations and poor market conditions to better business areas; (5) Having the option of selling their shops back to the HDB without losing too much; (6) Lowering HDB rentals; (7) Reducing and restructuring HDB shops, not only in terms of new supply but also in consideration of existing ones; and (8) Regrouping HDB shops to form "commercial streets" of distinctive features. Sir, I hope that the Minister for National Development will consider my proposals favourably.

Sir, I was going to talk about the ABCs of HDB shop retailers and hawkers. But I have now got to shorten my speech. I cannot go all the way to "Z". I will just stop at "F". "A" is for accolades. I think we have to praise our shopkeepers, retailers and hawkers for keeping the cost of living down. They have helped us, we must help them. "B" is for business mix. I must join in the call to make the business mix more intelligent and acceptable. We cannot have people survive if there are five grocers in a row and three barber shops next to each other. "C" is change of use. HDB can be more flexible in allowing change of use, especially for sales. People want to sell their shops but they are then subject to change of use. And if HDB says no, the sale is off. For shopkeepers who then have to stay in the shops, they want to diversify. They want to put up something else, besides groceries. HDB again says no, you cannot. This is only a grocer's shop. You cannot have a florist next to it. So change of use is important but "D" - Diversification is helpful. "E" - for those who want to exit, I think we should have compensation programmes to allow them to exit with a small little sum, maybe for the rest of their lives. They have been successful in bringing up their children and sent them to universities. Now these children do not want to go back to the shop. So let them have a sum to retire in happiness and enjoy the rest of their lives. "F" - when you diversify, sometimes they may not want to leave, they want to have their shop floors strengthened, because upstairs is no longer a place for them to sleep. They want to store their goods up there, but HDB says, "No, you can't because the floor is too weak." Therefore, if these shopkeepers are willing to strengthen their floors, let them do so. For new shops, I would ask HDB to perhaps build stronger floors so that other uses can be made of these shops. Sir, all these things would then help to give our shopkeepers, for those who are entrepreneurial, a new lease of life and for those who are not entrepreneurial, to exit nicely. The same thing would go for hawkers. If the hawkers want to exit, there should be a nice little sum for them to exit because nobody wants to sell fish anymore, and their children do not want to sell vegetables anymore.

I think we can stop slightly early as a bonus for cooperation. Thereupon Mr Deputy Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply has made further progress on the Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 2001/2002, and ask leave to sit again tomorrow.

So be it.

Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn." - [Mr Mah Bow Tan]. Adjourned accordingly at Fifteen minutes to Seven o'clock pm.