Hansard, 2004-04-20

Under the provisions of clause 2(d) of Article 46 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, the following Members have been granted permission to be or to remain absent from sittings of Parliament (or any Committee of Parliament to which they have been appointed) for the periods stated: Name From (2004) To (2004) Mr Arthur Fong 20 Apr 23 Apr Mr David T E Lim 20 Apr 20 Apr Mr Davinder Singh 20 Apr 20 Apr Mr Gan Kim Yong 20 Apr 23 Apr Ms Indranee Rajah 20 Apr 20 Apr Mr K Shanmugam 20 Apr 28 May Mr R Ravindran 20 Apr 20 Apr Mr Charles Chong 21 Apr 22 Apr Mr Lee Yock Suan 26 Apr 29 Apr

ABDULLAH TARMUGI Speaker Parliament of Singapore

1. Mdm Halimah Yacob asked the Minister for Community Development and Sports arising from a recent media report that suicides among females aged 15 to 24 in Singapore is the fourth highest in the world (a) what measures are in place

to help teenage girls and young women in distress; (b) is there multi-ministry co-operation on this problem; and (c) will his Ministry conduct a study to identify the causes so that more focused and targeted early intervention measures can be put in place to identify and assist the females at risk.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the loss of young lives to suicide, be they male or female, is heart-wrenching. Often, bereaved family and friends question if the tragedy could have been avoided.

Based on data we have, there were 20 suicides among female residents aged between 15 and 24 years in 2002. This is equivalent to 9.5 per 100,000 residents. Although this is four cases more than in 2001, we cannot yet conclude that there is a rising trend in suicide. From the World Health Organisation's 1999 and 2000 data on selected countries, our suicide rate for female residents aged 15 to 24 years was about the same as that in Asian countries, such as South Korea, Japan and Hong Kong.

Sir, we believe that the prevention of suicide requires the vigilance and cooperation of everyone - family, friends, colleagues, teachers and others. Where appropriate, offer a listening ear and be understanding. Encourage him or her to get help, or help to arrange for a counsellor who can provide professional help.

Sir, let me give some examples of preventive programmes by the community and by the Government. In the community, services are available to help those who are in distress. The Family Service Centres located in the heartlands provide counselling services for anyone who needs help or who is suicidal. The

Samaritans of Singapore (SOS) has a 24-hour crisis hotline 1800-221-4444. Other helplines include those by the Care Corner Mandarin Counselling Centre and Family Service Centres, and their numbers are given out through radio programmes and talks. Those who have psychiatric disorders or depression or are prone to suicide can receive medically appropriate help at the Institute of Mental Health. Those who are bereaved due to suicide often need much support, and those affected can attend a support group called "The Healing Bridge" run by the Samaritans of Singapore.

The annual Suicide Prevention Week by SOS is a commendable community effort to increase understanding of suicidal thoughts and the avenues for help. Last year, the event was supported by my Ministry and the Southeast CDC. The annual event is aimed at bringing prevention messages to the community, so that everyone can be alert to early signs of depression and refer those affected for help.

Sir, some of the efforts are targeted at the young. For example, SOS has implemented an Email Befriending Service to complement their hotline as more young people are now using the Internet. Children can call the Tinklefriend helpline run by Singapore Children's Society. At the IMH, the Child Guidance Clinic and Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry provide services for children and adolescents with emotional problems. Recently, my Ministry and the Ministry of Education jointly developed a resource booklet entitled "Children at Risk - A Handbook for Teachers". This handbook informs teachers on how to identify at-risk students and the appropriate interventions. My Ministry is also expanding the STEP-UP programme which enhances the capacity of VWOs in the delivery of school-based social work. This programme, which complements MOE's existing pastoral care system, strengthens

our students' emotional resilience and helps parents and teachers better manage and support our students. MCDS will also work with youth agencies and SOS to enhance programmes and capability to support suicidal youths who are out of school.

Sir, the possible reasons for suicides are multi-faceted. Local academics and researchers found that the reasons leading to suicide among young people included interpersonal relationship problems and conflicts, stresses resulting from school or work, financial pressures and mental illness. My Ministry and the other relevant agencies will continue to study the trends and profile of persons who commit suicide and the reasons for suicide. As we have done in the past, we will share pertinent findings with the agencies involved in the prevention and intervention efforts so that all of us can enhance our programmes and services where appropriate.

Sir, I want to thank the Minister for giving us the information, but it seems to me that although the programmes which the Minister has mentioned are programmes which are currently in place, the suicide rate among females aged 15 to 24 continues to be high. Are there any new intervention programmes that the Ministry can think of? For instance, the intervention programme mentioned between MCDS and MOE on children at risk may not necessarily target the specific group we are concerned, ie, those between 15 and 24. Obviously, MCDS, when working with MOE, colleges, polytechnics, secondary schools and universities may have to target the women in these areas. My question is: are there other programmes that the Ministry is thinking of and, specifically, will the Ministry be able to conduct a survey to identify what are the causes, so that we can have more targeted assistance programmes for them?

Sir, I agree with the Member that we should be targeted, and that is why I have announced in Parliament that we are launching a new programme called "STEP-UP". "STEP-UP" is a programme where we will enhance the capability of VWOs for doing school-based social work, and this will include not only the secondary schools, but also the ITEs and junior colleges. So, we will try and reach out to the entire spectrum of the youth sector. I also mentioned in my reply that we will work with youth agencies and SOS for school children who are out of school, so that we can also target them.

With regard to the study, we are continuously looking at the data to understand further what were the causes. I have mentioned earlier in my reply that there had been some research done by local academics. Very often, it is very difficult for us to identify the causes because, unless the deceased leaves a note behind or there is some information gathered from the coroner's report, it is a mix of guesswork and speculation to understand what is actually going on. But there is enough evidence, not only from local but also from studies abroad, to show that there are some factors that we can point to, and I have mentioned that in my reply. But as to exactly what are immediate causes, I think it would be difficult for us to point to one particular factor. But having said that, Sir, the approach that we have taken in regard to the young people is a 4-pronged one.

First, we try to equip our young with coping skills. So, we have embarked on programmes with MOE. MOE itself has a pastoral care programme. In fact, it has also ramped up some of the programmes to provide expertise in school to deal with children who may have problems.

Second, apart from coping skills, we also go into early detection, where we

work with frontline agencies. I have mentioned the example of the handbook with school teachers. We have trained Family Service Centre staff, professional service staff, and even the police have been involved in picking up some skills that they can use in order to identify suicidal tendencies among the clients that they come across.

Third, we have public education programmes where we work with SOS and other agencies.

The fourth approach is, of course, to provide treatment at the Child Guidance Clinic at IMH and other Government agencies.

This is the 4-pronged approach that we have taken. But we understand the concern of the Member and will continue to study the data to find how best we can tackle this problem.

Sir, may I ask the Minister whether more efforts can be made to raise public awareness on suicidal tendencies, since about 80% of those who committed suicide have expressed their intentions to their family members and friends before their acts? The best preventive measure is to have family members and friends referring all potential cases for early treatment or help before it is too late. Therefore, how would the Minister facilitate this?

Sir, I agree with the Member that the role of the immediate support system is important, ie, family members, friends, etc, who may know of colleagues who may have suicidal tendencies to step in to offer them help. In fact, we run a lot of public education programmes. For example, the Suicide Prevention Week run by SOS is meant to raise the awareness of the public not only about the causes

but also the opportunities available. They can call the Family Service Centres. The numbers are readily available. I mentioned about Tinklefriend which is run by the Singapore Children's Society. The Samaritans of Singapore (SOS) runs a 24-hour crisis hotline. So, if anybody comes across a person, colleague or friend who may have such suicidal tendencies, he or she can call SOS and SOS can help the person with suicidal tendencies to deal with their problems. The Singapore Association of Mental Health also offers such services.

The best avenue would always be to go down to the nearest Family Service Centre in the heartlands, because we have trained the frontline staff at the various agencies to deal with these problems so that they can assist the person in terms of walking him through to find a solution to his problem.

Sir, the age band of 15 to 24 is quite a broad one and, if the figures were to show the number of young female working adults involved, it will probably constitute a larger proportion. If this were so, could the efforts that we are all doing not also be channelled into the workplace, and that a new public education programme in the workplaces be mounted with the cooperation of the employers, and to include suicide prevention as well? In this context, of course it is not just the females; it is also the male workers. So, too are the older workers and mothers under stress. We should not underestimate the importance of stress at the workplace and unrealistic expectations, as well as the uncertainties of the New Economy as contributory factors.

Sir, I agree entirely with the Member that we should also look at workplaces. I do not have an immediate breakdown of the data as to whether there is a tilt towards

working women or with females who are still studying. But I will take the Member's suggestion and work with the agencies as to whether we can work with the workplaces to spread the message of suicide prevention.

2. Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong asked the Acting Minister for Education (a) how will our university enrolment be increased by more than 15,000 students when our university cohort participation rate reaches 25% by 2010; (b) how many of the 15,000 students will be resident students, versus international students; and (c) whether tuition grants given to international students can be reduced so that more funds can be allocated to assist Singapore students going to university.

Acting Minister for Education): Mr Speaker, Sir, with a 21% university cohort participation rate, the undergraduate enrolment at our three universities, ie, NUS, NTU and SMU, is about 39,000 for the academic year 2003. By 2010, the cohort participation rate will be increased to 25%, and this will give a projected undergraduate enrolment of more than 54,000, an increase of about 15,000 students. This significant increase by 2010 is also due to the bigger Dragon-year cohort of 1988 who will enter university from 2007 for the female cohorts, to be followed in 2009 by the male cohorts.

Currently, foreign students constitute up to 20% of each intake in NUS and NTU. Assuming the same foreign student ratio in 2010, about 3,000 of the additional 15,000 students would be foreigners.

Mr Steve Chia has asked about tuition grants for international students. Presently, foreign students pay 10% more in tuition fees than local students. As

part of MOE's review of the University Autonomy, Governance and Funding framework, we will be reviewing how much local and foreign students should pay for their university education in Singapore.

3. Mr Yeo Guat Kwang asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether genetically-modified (GM) food has adverse effect on human health; and (b) what is Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority of Singapore's position on such food.

he Minister for National Development): Mr Speaker, Sir, this issue of the safety of genetically-modified (GM) foods has been extensively reviewed by numerous scientific organisations at the international level. The consensus so far is that GM foods are safe to eat.

Nonetheless, GM foods must be individually assessed on their safety for human consumption. The GM foods traded commercially on the international market have all passed rigorous pre-market risk assessments before gaining approval and are allowed into the food supply. The safety record has been excellent.

No adverse health effects have been reported in the general population of the countries where the GM foods are consumed.

In Singapore, our Genetic Modification Advisory Committee sets the guidelines for the import, release and use of GM products here. At the international level, Codex Alimentarius Commission - this is an international reference body for food standards - develops the guidelines for assessing the safety of food derived from genetically-modified organisms. AVA

follows both sets of guidelines in assessing and approving GM foods for consumption in Singapore.

The GM foods currently available in our market include corn, soyabean and canola oil. AVA has assessed that they satisfy the guidelines and accepted them as safe for consumption.

AVA is now developing its own laboratory-testing capabilities to independently test new GM foods that may become commercially available in the future.

Sir, is there a requirement for manufacturers to label their food if it is genetically-modified so that when consumers purchase it, they know that they are buying genetically-modified products?

This is an issue which is currently being considered internationally. AVA is working with other countries on the Codex Alimentarius Commission to arrive at internationally accepted norms for the labelling of GM food. The Committee is currently studying various aspects of this and will arrive at a comprehensive decision. Once that decision is made, Singapore's decision will follow in due course, taking into account the developments, both on the technical as well as on the regulatory front internationally.

4. Dr Warren Lee asked the Minister for National Development (a) if he will state the effectiveness of Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority's efforts in catching stray dogs; (b) whether it is true that the Agency officers' efforts are severely

hampered by the stray dogs hiding away whenever the dog-catcher's vans arrive; and (c) can some assurance be given that packs of stray dogs frequenting land that has been cleared for development and adjoining newly built flats in Sembawang New Town will be effectively caught and prevented from menacing residents in the area.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the AVA's team of dog catchers routinely scout various potential sites around the island, for instance, vacant land, industrial estates and residential areas, for stray dogs. In addition, upon receiving reports, the officers will survey the area and the vicinity where the stray dogs are reportedly seen. This is done in the day and at night, to establish the dogs' tracks and resting sites. The strays are caught using a lasso. Baited trap-door cages are also used for feral dogs and those that shy away from people. I am sure that Members will understand that it may take several days or even up to a month to trap the more elusive ones. On average, AVA receives over 2,700 feedback on dog nuisance a year. AVA is able to resolve 97% of the cases within five days.

Catching of stray dogs is not an easy task. The strays are often wary of people and keep a distance from strangers. They often hide out in thick under-growth or semi-forested areas, and appear mostly in the night. In spite of these difficulties, AVA manages to impound over 4,000 dogs annually.

AVA has received feedback from residents of Sembawang New Town about stray dogs at the vacant land mentioned by Dr Lee. Although these dogs are very elusive, so far, AVA has succeeded in impounding five of them. I would like to assure Dr Lee that AVA will continue to intensify its efforts to

impound the remaining stray dogs in the area.

I would also like to inform the House that AVA is stepping up its public education efforts on responsible pet ownership so as to minimise the abandonment of pets and thereby, the consequential stray animals problem.

The following Question stood in the name of Mdm Cynthia Phua -

5. To ask the Minister for National Development what is the Government's policy with regard to budget hotels, which seem to have mushroomed all over the island for the purpose of promoting tourism but which could also breed prostitution and other undesirable activities.

Mdm Cynthia Phua is not here. Ms Braema Mathi.

[Pursuant to Standing Order No. 21(3), a Written Answer* is reproduced in the Appendix.]

* Cols. 2903-2904

6. Ms Braema Mathiaparanam asked the Acting Minister for Manpower if he will explain (a) how the provisional accreditation scheme will work and contribute to the overall objective of raising the service standards of agencies dealing with foreign domestic workers; (b) how effective the accreditation scheme will be as only a third of the 600 firms have signed up; and (c) what assurance is there that those on the scheme will not pack up after a year, leaving behind sub-standard service delivery.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the

Ministry of Manpower announced two years ago, that from June 2004 onwards, all Employment Agencies, or EAs, who place foreign domestic workers will need to be accredited before their licences can be renewed. This was to increase professionalism within the industry.

There has been steady progress since the announcement. Two bodies - CASETRUST from CASE and the Association of Employment Agencies (Singapore) - presently administer the accreditation scheme. As at mid-April 2004, we have 82 accredited EAs, with 118 in the process of accreditation. These Employment Agencies handle about 73% of the foreign domestic workers being placed out. More Employment Agencies are expected to become accredited when they need to renew their licences.

However, we have also received requests from some Employment Agencies. These are mainly the smaller ones, who have asked for more time and assistance. In consultation with the two accreditation bodies, my Ministry has introduced the provisional accreditation scheme to help these Employment Agencies transit to full accreditation.

Could I ask the Minister the answer to part (c) of the Question, please? What assurance is there that once the firms come under the provisional scheme, they may just pack up, leaving some employers and domestic workers in the lurch over their contracts under the provisional scheme?

Sir, the Member has suggested that there is some connection being on the provisional accreditation scheme. I am not quite certain what she means or why the provisional accreditation scheme has anything to do with the Employment Agencies, or the Employment Agencies reneging on their contracts. The accreditation scheme was meant to increase professionalism. The

risk of either employers or employees reneging on their contracts should be seen as a separate aspect. What we are trying to do is to raise the level of standard so that there is a clear understanding. When these Employment Agencies place foreign domestic workers, there should be conditions stipulated in the contracts. We also try to move upstream these Employment Agencies to look at some of the issues and well-being of these foreign domestic workers after they have been placed out. This would be an on-going movement.

But I suppose that any time that the foreign domestic workers join their employers, there can be problems. We would try to reduce this upfront, but it is a little bit unreasonable to ask anyone to assure that Employment Agencies can guarantee that there will be no problems after that.

7. Ms Braema Mathiaparanam asked the Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts what is the rationale for wanting to use the Express stream as a criterion to admit aspiring students into the Arts School.

Sir, my Ministry has accepted the recommendations of the Committee on the Specialised Arts School and we are now studying the details of setting up the School, including the admission criteria.

The Committee on the Specialised Arts School had envisioned the Arts School to provide a curriculum that would

integrate arts learning with the learning of other academic subjects, to ensure the holistic development of its students who are 13 to 18 years old. In the Committee's study of overseas arts schools, it had observed that non-Arts subjects were not of a lower standard than that in mainstream schools. In fact, the Arts enrich the general education of the students and vice versa. The result is that such schools often provide excellent education in both the Arts and other subjects. The Committee proposed that the students of the Arts School would graduate at the end of six years with an IB Diploma. The curriculum in the final two years would be focused on the IB Diploma programme, and the first four years could be structured around the IB Middle-years programme, the GCE 'O' levels or an equivalent. The reference to the Express stream, quoted in the media reports, was made in this context. The demands of the Arts School's curriculum, at least in the first four years, would be equivalent to that of the Express Stream.

The Committee recommended that admission should be based on merit, and emphasis should be given to the artistic potential of the applicants. The proposed selection process should be through auditions, portfolio assessments or entrance examinations. The Committee also recommended that, in addition to artistic potential, students should demonstrate basic academic achievements.

I agree with the Committee's recommendation that entry requirements should include both artistic talent and academic achievement. I believe that the arts training of our young talents should not be at the expense of overall academic training. In fact, arts training and academic learning should be integrated and should reinforce each other. My Ministry will consult the various stakeholders, including teachers, students, parents and arts practitioners, to

establish the entry requirements. We will take into consideration the possibility that there may be students with high artistic potential but are weaker academically. We do not want such students to lose the opportunity to enter the Arts School. For example, if we come across an exceptional youngster like Abigail Sin, but without her academic achievements, the School will certainly strive to accommodate such talent with the clear potential to succeed as a musician. The general approach is to ensure that the Arts School is not perceived as a school for those who cannot do well in other schools.

I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for his answer. But I am still not so convinced about this aspect of the GCE 'O' levels because Normal (Academic) students are equally capable of getting two GCE 'O' levels. In such cases, the Senior Parliamentary Secretary mentioned about portfolios. If the portfolio is of a higher quality than the academic achievements of the child, what then will be the position of the selection committee?

Sir, the comparison between the Express stream and the Normal (Academic) stream with a minimum of two GCE 'O' levels is the minimal point. But again, this is the basic consideration that is required before a person is allowed to apply.

Talking about the portfolios, it is a factor to be considered. Some students may not be very bright academically, especially in Mathematics and Science, but in other areas, they are quite strong. But it must be tempered with a balanced academic capability. In other words, a minimum standard will ensure that the Arts School will not be a school for those who could not do well in the academic field because, ultimately, when they qualify later, they could either be professionals, ie, lawyers or doctors, after

pursuing their studies with very deep-rooted feelings and passion for the arts and vice versa. Those who are very strongly inclined towards arts are capable of switching over to find jobs in other fields or professions if they do not succeed in that field. In other words, the Arts School provides the option for them to go to either academic professional line later or in pursuing their passion in arts.

): Sir, I would like to ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary that, given that other normal secondary schools will also be developing niche areas, and that it could be in the arts, how then would the proposed Arts School be differentiated from these other schools, which may choose to develop arts as their niche area?

My second question is: what are the plans to synergise or complement the Arts School with the existing SIA-LaSalle and NAFA arts institutions?

Sir, the setting up of the Arts School will not in any way affect the current emphasis given in the ordinary secondary schools

for the learning of the arts. The Ministry of Education will make sure that the Arts School could be seen as an additional input into how normal secondary schools could model their arts learning lessons by comparing what is being taught in the Arts School.

As to how do we synergise the Arts School with the existing institutions, such as the SIA-LaSalle College of the Arts and the Nanyang Academy of Fine Arts (NAFA), the SIA-LaSalle College and NAFA's intake is offered to those students who have gone through the normal secondary school - GCE 'O' level - and they have tied up with a number of foreign institutions to offer some degree courses. Whereas the Arts School will prepare its students for the Ivy League, in

other words, graduates of the Arts School can proceed to not only other institutions of higher learning, but those which are top in the world. In other words, while the permeability of the Arts School students at the secondary level within the first four years is such that they are allowed to go back to the secondary school, those who continue with the Ivy League institutions will have their own paths. This means that they will not be going to LaSalle or NAFA, because the curriculum of LaSalle and NAFA is quite different compared to the Arts School, in the sense that it will prepare its students both in terms of academic as well as the arts component of the curriculum, whereas the curriculum of LaSalle and NAFA is very heavy towards the practising arts.

Sir, could the Senior Parliamentary Secretary comment on the recent media reports which stated that the fees to be charged by the Arts School are about $500 per month? Is this already determined? If so, could the Ministry look into making the fees more affordable for children from poorer homes, so that they are not excluded although they may have the talent?

Sir, according to early estimates, the School is estimated to cost about $80 million and the annual operating expenditure would be about $18 million. With this amount of investment and operating cost, there must be some comparable input from the shared users.

Some people have been talking about the possibility of the fees to be around $500. The question is whether this is too high and whether this would deny those from the lower-income group from benefiting from the scheme. On our part, MITA has carefully considered the proposed fees before deciding on the

appropriate level. The School is actually for young Singaporeans who have the passion and talent for the arts, regardless of their family background. The School will have to fix its school fees taking into consideration the School's sustainability and the parents' affordability.

Why is it so expensive? Sir, we are having an annual intake of about 200 students only for such an excellent facility. We will have better teacher-student ratio, giving ample space for personal tuition with inter-personal kind of coaching. The school will also cater for the performing arts, visual arts, music, apart from the academic component. And we have to draw in staff with expertise in various areas. Sir, all these are not cheap. We also have to provide the facilities - the dance studios, the performance spaces, music studios, musical instruments, etc.

Sir, while we want to ensure that the School is sustainable, we will not deny the poor from joining the School. If we have poor students who are very talented and have tremendous passion in arts, I think there will be enough scholarships offered to ensure that they have equal opportunity to join the Arts School.

Sir, could I just ask whether the current emphasis on academic curriculum would be applicable if we have very talented children from the special schools, and remembering here the very special arts programme, mime performance, etc? The second question is: have there been studies done on our current talented people and what is their background where academic qualifications in terms of 'O' levels, etc, are concerned? Because the Arts School is a very good programme.

Sir, I think I have, more or less, touched on the question of talented people, but I would like to focus on the studies carried out on the

percentage of talented people, whether they are more inclined towards the Express or Normal Stream. I think the Committee will also conduct studies in this area. In general, it is always perceived that those who are inclined in sports and arts are less capable in the academic field. This is the perception. It could arise because of the motivation found among the students. But studies in other countries have shown that those who are good academically are also capable to perform in sports as well as in the arts. Yes, we will look into this area to make sure that the School will be able to bring in talented people if they are academically inclined or strong, as well as those who are talented but not so academically inclined. In other words, I want to assure Members that the School will cater to their needs to meet this objective. But I think, ultimately, the market will decide whether graduates of this School will find a higher level of entry point to their job opportunities or end up becoming nightclub music players or poor artistes.

8. Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether it is true that National Servicemen are being deployed at construction sites to serve their National Service duty.

Sir, there are currently 74 full-time National Servicemen in the Construction Brigade of the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF). The numbers have declined significantly. No SCDF NSF has been posted to the Construction Brigade since November 2002.

The SCDF's mission is to save lives and property. In an emergency or war-

time situation, this includes fire fighting, rescue and assisting agencies, such as the Housing and Development Board, in providing essential services and repairing damaged buildings.

To fulfill this role, the SCDF needs trained manpower. The regular SCDF staffing would not be sufficient in an emergency situation. National Servicemen, both full-time and operationally-ready, are trained in the various vocations to supplement the SCDF regulars in performing these tasks. One of the vocations of the SCDF full-time National Servicemen is that of Technician specialising in Construction. These NSFs, trained in construction skills, form the SCDF Construction Brigade. During peace-time, these NSFs, on top of their rescue and construction skills training, are deployed to construction sites to give them practical experience in handling actual construction work.

Sir, are the parents of the NSmen serving in the construction sites counselled as to why their sons are posted to construction sites for National Service training, because some parents are not happy about it?

Sir, there have been no problems so far. As I have said, the numbers have declined. But in terms of where they are posted to, many parents would not be happy about where their sons are posted to, whether it is to the Construction Brigade or other vocations. I think we should leave it to the SCDF to decide, based on set criteria, who to post to the various vocations.

9. Dr Warren Lee asked the Minister for Transport if he will assure the House that the long "Bendy-Buses" used in Singapore are safe and at low risk of catching fire, given that the media have

reported that two such buses have caught fire in Singapore since January 2001 and three such vehicles have caught fire in the UK in the last three months.

Mr Speaker Sir, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) has confirmed that the model of Bendy buses used in Singapore differs significantly in design and specifications from the model of the three buses that caught fire in London recently.

Tibs first introduced the Bendy buses in 1996. Since then, there were two fire incidents involving such buses here; one in September 2000 and the other in December last year. Investigations conducted by a fire investigation expert from Germany revealed that both incidents were caused by isolated technical faults, and were not due to design problems.

Since the incidents, the bus operator has tightened its maintenance programme to prevent future occurrences. To further enhance the fire safety of Bendy buses, the operator is also currently in the process of installing automatic fire extinguishing systems in the engine compartments of the Bendy buses.

LTA will continue to work with the bus operator and introduce additional measures, if necessary, to ensure the safety of commuters.

10. Dr Warren Lee asked the Minister for the Environment (a) if he will give an update on the dust and soot situation affecting residents of Sembawang New Town in the vicinity of Sembawang

Shipyard; (b) whether the National Environment Agency's monitoring efforts have led to any conclusion about the health risks arising from such airborne dust and pollutants; and (c) can something be done to reduce the level of such soot and dust.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in the past few months, the National Environment Agency (NEA) has received several complaints from some residents living in Sembawang New Town in the vicinity of Admiralty Link about black dust deposited in their flats.

Investigation conducted by NEA showed that the black dust is generated by grit blasting of ships at Sembawang Shipyard and the dust is carried towards the HDB flats by the north-easterly wind during the north-east monsoon from October to March. The black dust comprises mainly iron and copper particles, and is no more harmful than other particles in the air if present in small quantities.

NEA had monitored the dust level in the air at the HDB blocks in Admiralty Link and found it to be within international standards. The dust level there therefore does not pose a health risk to the residents. NEA conveyed these findings to the grassroots adviser and leaders in March this year.

The black dust, however, posed a nuisance to the residents. Hence, Sembawang Shipyard has on its part taken measures to reduce dust emissions from its operations. Sembawang Shipyard has installed a water curtain system to wash down dust emissions during blasting of ships. It has also installed a strong suction system to remove dust deposited on the ground of the blasting area. These measures have helped to reduce the level of dust in the air blown to the surrounding area.

Sembawang Shipyard has also installed two air samplers at the boundary of its premises to monitor dust emission from its blasting operations. This has enabled the shipyard to take prompt actions in the event that dust emission exceeds the acceptable level.

Sir, in short, I would like to assure Dr Warren Lee that the dust level in the air in Admiralty Link is within international standards and it does not pose a health risk to the residents there.

Sir, I thank the Minister for the Environment for a clear explanation on the measures taken to reduce the dust problem. However, my residents have also pointed out that one problem is from the engine emissions of ships in the shipyard. Would the Minister care to comment?

Sir, from the investigation conducted by the NEA, the black dust referred to by the residents is the size of about 40 microns; we call this PM40. These particles are relatively big and heavy. They are not likely to be emitted by the engines. But I thank Dr Warren Lee for his feedback. I will ask NEA to look into this further even though I do not think that this big and heavy black dust comes from engine emissions.

Order for Second Reading read.

2.15 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The Bill will amend the Economic Expansion Incentives (Relief from Income Tax) Act, or the EEI Act in short. It will

give legislative effect to three tax changes which were announced in the 2003 Budget Statement, refine the Pioneer Incentive, as well as remove and merge several existing tax incentives. It will also make some consequential amendments to the EEI Act.

I will now describe each of the proposed amendments in turn.

Integrated Industrial Capital Allowance Incentive

The first tax change is the introduction of the Integrated Industrial Capital Allowance, or the IICA in short. Currently, capital allowances are granted only on plant or machinery that is used in a company's own trade or business in Singapore. We recognise that there is a growing trend for corporate groups to base their headquarters, marketing and other high value-added activities in Singapore, and have their regional subsidiaries perform other activities like manufacturing. To accommodate this business model, the IICA allows Singapore companies to claim capital allowance on equipment such as plant and machinery that is used by their wholly-owned subsidiaries outside Singapore.

The IICA will offer a seamless tax regime for companies that have manufacturing activities in the region, and encourage them to base their headquarter functions in Singapore, even as they internationalise and tap new markets.

Clause 23 of the Bill inserts a new Part XIIID in the EEI Act, comprising sections 97ZA to 97ZE, to give legislative effect to the IICA.

R&D and IP Management Hub Scheme

The second tax change is the introduction of the Research and Development and Intellectual Property Management Hub Scheme, or R&D and IP

Management Hub Scheme in short. The objective is to increase the amount of funds for R&D activities conducted in or controlled from Singapore. These R&D activities will generate a healthy pipeline of intellectual property for commercialisation, contribute to a vibrant IP hub in Singapore and create economic value for our companies.

Under this scheme, an approved Singapore-based company is granted tax exemption for a period of five years for foreign-sourced royalties and interest income that are received in Singapore and channelled to R&D activities. At least 20% of the foreign-sourced income remitted to Singapore must be expended on R&D activities conducted in Singapore, and all the resulting intellectual property of these R&D projects shall be owned and commercialised in Singapore by the approved company.

The scheme encourages companies to fund and conduct their R&D activities in Singapore, as well as manage and exploit the IP rights here. This creates a sustainable cycle that reinforces both IP management and R&D activities in Singapore.

Clause 24 of the Bill inserts a new Part XIIIE in the EEI Act, comprising sections 97ZF to 97ZJ, to give legislative effect to the R&D and IP Management Hub Scheme.

Overseas Investment Incentive

The third tax change is the revision to the Overseas Investment Incentive, or the OII in short. Currently, the OII allows an approved Singapore company to deduct losses arising from the sale of shares or liquidation of an approved overseas investment against its income. The criteria for the scheme are stringent, given that the Government in effect underwrites

part of the investment. This has resulted in low take-up and approval rates.

To enhance the relevance of the OII and encourage more companies to expand overseas, the scheme has now been revised to allow an eligible holding company to defer its tax payments (arising from its profitable operations in Singapore) for two years, if its approved overseas investment incurs operating losses during the first three years of the investment. The deferred payment is proportionate to the Singapore tax impact of the overseas losses. This helps to provide temporary cash-flow relief when overseas ventures incur initial losses.

Clause 25 of the Bill inserts a new Part XIIIF in the EEI Act, comprising sections 97ZK to 97ZO, to give legislative effect to the revised OII.

Refinements to the Pioneer Incentive

I will now touch on the proposed refinements to the Pioneer Incentive to provide greater flexibility in the award of this incentive, as follows:

Firstly, to allow Pioneer Incentives to be awarded for a period of less than five years and up to a period of 10 years;

Secondly, to allow pioneer companies to undertake non-pioneer activities without prior approval of the Minister; and

Thirdly, to delegate the authority from the Minister to the Comptroller of Income Tax to adjust the profit margin criterion of non-pioneer trade downwards in certain circumstances.

These changes are reflected in clauses 3 to 5 of the Bill.

Repeal of tax incentives

Next, it is proposed that two obsolete tax incentives be scrapped, while seven

overlapping incentives be streamlined and combined with other schemes. Thus, a total of nine tax incentives will be repealed. There are only a small number of existing companies on these schemes and they will be allowed to complete their current incentive period.

Clauses 8, 13, 17 and 21 of the Bill amend the EEI Act to provide for these changes.

Consequential amendments

Finally, as a result of the various changes to the tax incentives, consequential amendments will be made to the relevant sections of the EEI Act. These amendments provide for the following:

Firstly, deletion of the definition of terms relating to the discontinued tax incentives (ie, clauses 2, 10, 12, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20 and 28 of the Bill); and

Secondly, allowing tax incentives awarded before the new amendments to continue to have effect (ie, clause 29 of the Bill).

Consequential amendments will also be made to the EEI Act arising from changes to the Income Tax Act. These are to provide for the removal of the tax treatment that deems certain dividends as interest and expanding the definition of "concessionary income" under the provisions governing investment allowances. Clauses 6, 11, 18 and 22 of the Bill amend the relevant sections of the EEI Act to provide for these changes.

Conclusion

Mr Speaker, Sir, in summary, the above EEI Act amendments will enhance and streamline our tax incentive regime, make Singapore a more attractive investment destination, and encourage

more Singapore-based companies to expand overseas.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Dr Vivian Balakrishnan].

Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The Bill seeks to amend the Singapore Totalisator Board Act so that the Board may acquire Singapore Pools Pte Ltd from Temasek Holdings.

At present, the Government grants Singapore Pools, a company under Temasek Holdings, the right to conduct 4D, Toto, Singapore Sweep and football betting. The Singapore Totalisator Board, on the other hand, operates 4D and betting on horse races. Both Singapore Pools and the Totalisator Board each separately manage the donation of the surpluses that they generate from their gaming operations.

The Ministry of Finance proposes to have the Totalisator Board acquire Singapore Pools, with the Board then holding the right to operate all legalised gaming activities in Singapore.

There will be no change to the donation outreach and commitments arising from the Totalisator Board's acquisition of Singapore Pools. The Totalisator Board will honour all of Singapore Pools' ongoing donation commitments. In fact, the merger will bring together the donation approaches of both organisations for more holistic results. The Board will employ both a "wholesale" and "retail" approach towards disbursements of donations. For the "wholesale" approach, the Board will work with partner organisations, such as our universities, the National Medical Research Council, the Singapore Symphony Orchestra and our community centres, to disburse donations towards strategic areas, such as the promotion of education, health, the arts and community development. The Totalisator Board will at the same time take a "retail" approach to disburse donations directly to smaller organisations and individuals serving unmet needs within the community.

Singapore Pools will become an operating company under the Totalisator Board. It will continue to conduct 4D, Toto, Singapore Sweep and football betting operations on behalf of the Totalisator Board. The Turf Club, on the other hand, will stop operating 4D. It will instead concentrate on horse racing and totalisator operations.

Let me now turn to the main provisions of the Bill.

First, the Bill will allow the Totalisator Board to conduct football betting operations and all lotteries. At present, the Singapore Totalisator Board Act allows the Totalisator Board to carry out only 4D and totalisator operations in relation to horse racing, but not other lotteries or football betting. Clause 4(1) of the Bill allows the Board to operate any

gaming or betting activities as prescribed by the Minister for Finance.

Second, the Totalisator Board Act currently only allows the Board to form companies but not to acquire companies. Clause 5(1) of the Bill provides the Board with the power to acquire companies as well. This will enable the Board to acquire Singapore Pools.

Third, clause 6 of the Bill will expand the size of the Board of Directors from a maximum of seven members to 12 members, including the Chairman. This will enable the Board to better carry out its new functions.

Finally, I would like to propose consequential amendments to the Betting Act. The Betting Act, as it now stands, allows the Minister for Home Affairs to exempt only racing clubs or associations from the Act. The consequential amendments to the Betting Act will give the Minister for Home Affairs the power to exempt persons and organisations other than the Singapore Turf Club from the Act. This will allow the Totalisator Board and its operating agents which carry out legalised gaming to be exempted from the provisions of the Betting Act.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Sir, when Singapore Tote Board acquires Singapore Pools as its subsidiary from Temasek Holdings, it will bring all gaming and betting operations in Singapore under a single entity. This should be lauded for the efficiency gains arising from the streamlining of operations.

Gaming taxes are major contributions to public funds. Yet, even after generous payouts to winning bets, and accounting for the 12% betting taxes imposed, plus operating costs, Tote Board and Pools still

have sizeable pools of funds that over the years have been distributed for many worthy causes.

These include the construction of The Esplanade through a mechanism of public finance, famously described by a very senior ex-civil servant as "ingenious", the granting of computer loans to students and the promotion of sports, arts and culture. According to the Tote Board's Annual Report

presented to Parliament in August 2003, $113 million was given in the last financial year in donations to education, health, culture and arts and community projects. I understand that these are the sectors which the Tote Board has traditionally supported.

Singapore Pools has, on the other hand, mainly donated to causes in the areas of sports, charity and community service. The beneficiaries include charities under the banner of the National Council of Social Services, Community Chest, NKF, Kidney Dialysis Foundation, Singapore Red Cross Society, Home Nursing Foundation, National Council Against Drug Abuse, Singapore Hospice Council and Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Since its inception in 1968, Singapore Pools has contributed more than $1 billion to such causes. And in the fiscal year 2001 and 2002, Singapore Pools' community funding amounted to $147 million.

The task of allocating these substantial funds rests with the two respective boards. Under the new regime envisaged in the Amendment Bill, the Tote Board will be enlarged to 12 members, including the Chairman, in order to oversee the larger scope of operations and more sizeable pool of money.

Sir, with the impending transfer of Singapore Pools to the Tote Board, I understand that there is disquiet in some quarters, especially among the beneficiaries of Singapore Pools, particularly the smaller organisations that funding for their causes may be adversely affected.

Sir, they are concerned that with the transfer, there could be a change in donation policy to the detriment of the smaller recipients, much like what is construed to be the fate of some smaller customers after the DBS-POSB bank merger.

Sir, I note that the MOF, through its press release in February 2004, has sought to give some reassurance to the beneficiaries that, even after the transfer, all operations of the Tote Board, Singapore Turb Club and Singapore Pools will continue as usual. Specifically, donations that Singapore Pools has agreed to make will not be affected by the transfer of the company to the Tote Board.

Sir, I also note that the Minister has reiterated this point earlier. Nonetheless, I would like to ask the Minister again to reassure these beneficiaries, for which Singapore Pools' donation forms an essential lifeline, that the Tote Board will continue to donate its excess funds to worthy causes, which must surely include the charities which help the intellectually disabled, the dependent elderly, the homeless, children in care, the needy and the disadvantaged.

Further, Sir, while the Tote Board is audited and the members are honourable and successful individuals appointed by the Minister for Finance, there is no means for the public to know if the allocation goes to the most needy or worthiest causes during any one financial year. Sir, I would like an insight into how the Board actually decides on its distribution policy. Is there, for example, the equivalent of a health care "means test" that we have heard so much about? This could help to allay concerns, particularly of the smaller charities that they may be nudged out of the competition for limited charity dollars as a result of their lower public profile. Is there also a reserves policy evaluated by

the Board, a question especially pertinent in the light of the issues raised by the recent NKF episode?

Further, with efficiency gains accruing from integration, I would like to ask the Minister if the merged entity would provide every greater support for causes in the sports, arts, culture, charity, community and so on, and not just simply rationalise the combined network.

Sir, beyond this, I am tempted to engage in the delicious speculation that the bringing of the Singapore Pools under the Tote Board is a precursor to the Government eventually operating or, at least, taking a stake in the much-discussed proposed casino itself, should the decision be made to proceed with the project.

Sir, I am happy to leave this as a hunch that requires no direct answer from the Minister. But I venture to add that, if this is indeed the intention, then it could well address some of the public concerns voiced over the moral and social consequences of having a casino in Singapore, even if it is physically offshore. However, a lingering concern here would then be if the Tote Board has the necessary expertise to pursue this project properly and effectively.

Sir, with this, I support the amendments.

Mr Speaker, I heard from Dr Amy Khor that, since its inception of Singapore Pools in 1968, it had contributed more than a billion dollars from its surpluses to the development of arts, sports and community projects. Two of its most notable contributions being the $409 million over seven years for the Esplanade project and the $375 million over five years towards Sporting Singapore. It has

also directly and indirectly contributed and supported many sports and National Sports Associations.

Over the years, Singapore Pools has become a strong supporter and partner of sports development in Singapore. Without the funding of Singapore Pools, it would not have been possible for the Singapore Sports Council and the National Sports Associations to implement many of their plans, and sports in Singapore would not be where it is today. Singapore and Singaporeans would have been poorer for it.

With the funding of the Singapore Pools, the hard work put in by our National Sports Associations and the dedication and sacrifices of our athletes, we are now seeing more and more outstanding performances and international successes from our athletes in many sports, such as table tennis, badminton, sailing, bowling, swimming, just to mention a few of them. The most recent case being Ronald Susilo winning the Japan Open Badminton Championship, a five star event and critical match before the Olympic games in Athens in August this year.

Singapore Pools has also been a true supporter of the Singapore National Olympic Council, funding the participation of athletes for the various SEA Games, Asian Games, Commonwealth Games and the Olympic Games. It has also generously supported the cash award for our medal winners at these major games. The cash award serves both as a recognition and motivation to our athletes.

Sir, I cannot over emphasise the importance of funding provided by the Singapore Pools to sports. I hope that the Singapore Pools, or the Tote Board in this case, will continue to serve the social objectives and especially support of sports after the Singapore Pools has been acquired by the Totalisator Board. In fact,

I believe that the acquisition of the Singapore Pools by the Totalisator Board would create synergy and therefore more surpluses, and in which case, I would like to do a Oliver Twist and ask for more, ie, more funding for sports.

I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, first, I would like to thank both Members for their support of this Bill. And I would also like to reiterate what I said earlier that there would be no change in the donation outreach and commitments arising from this merger of the Totalisator Board and the Singapore Pools.

What we are trying to achieve in this exercise is, first, to make the operations more efficient because there is some overlap in the 4D operations by the Singapore Tote Board and the 4D operations by the Singapore Pools. So by combining these two, I think we will run a better and more efficient operation. Second, we want to achieve a holistic approach to the donation of the surpluses even though in the past, we had segmentised the areas by which the Singapore Tote Board would support the other areas where the Singapore Pools would support. Even though we segmentised them, there is still some overlap, particularly in the charitable and community development sectors. With this merger, the Board can take an overall view and allocate the funds more efficiently and more optimally to areas worthy of their support.

When the merger takes place, I can assure Members that the priorities currently given by both entities will remain and this rationalisation or holistic approach would be taken over a longer timeframe. In particular, I would like to assure the smaller charities that they will not be left out. They will continue to be strongly supported by the Tote Board and also the sporting community. Last year,

for example, the overall sporting community received something to the tune of $120 million from the Singapore Pools. This is a very significant amount. I am sure the Tote Board will continue to support the sporting community in Singapore.

Let me just explain, as Dr Amy Khor asked, how the Board intends to allocate its funds. As I explained in my speech, the Board does so through a wholesale approach as well as a retail approach. By wholesale approach, what I mean is that they allocate a sizeable quantum to an overall agency, say, for example, the National Medical Research Council and then allow the National Medical Research Council to sub-allocate the funds to the research projects that are most worthy. This is because the Tote Board does not see itself having the capability to differentiate the medical research projects and, therefore, they work through an intermediary agency, like the NMRC. Similarly, for the sports community, they adopt both the wholesale and the retail approach. They fund the Singapore sporting funds. They also fund individual National Sports Associations. So they do both on a wholesale approach through the bigger organisations as well as a retail approach through the individual organisations.

For the charity and community development, the Board would have to take a more retail approach rather than a wholesale approach. And this, the Singapore Pools has done so in the past and intends to adopt this same aproach. For example, last year, there were more than 1,000 applications from all the small organisations. The Singapore Pools would have to evaluate these and make its judgement on who to support. Of course, they cannot support all 1,000 applications. What they do is they form small sub-committees with expertise in the various areas, whether it is community development, charity or

sports, which would then evaluate these proposals and allocate the donations accordingly.

Dr Amy Khor asked whether this merger is a precursor to the Tote Board operating the casino. She does not want to speculate and she does not expect an answer from me. So I shall leave it at that. But my own personal view is that the casino ought to be run by a private operator. So I think the Tote Board would be running the current operations and there is no intention, for the time being, to expand its operations. Whether we have a casino or not, it is still subject to evaluation by the Ministry of Trade and Industry. So I think we just have to wait six or nine months for that study to be completed before letting our imagination run wild.

Let me, again, reassure all beneficiaries of the Singapore Tote Board and the Singapore Pools that they will continue to be supported by this new merged entity.

May I seek clarification from the Minister? Sir, I wonder whether the Minister will tell us what is the general principle which the Tote Board will apply to prioritise applications for donation. The second clarification is whether the Tote Board or the Singapore Pools in the past had ever made any donation to the PAP or PCF.

Basically, the Tote Board and the Singapore Pools, as a combined entity, would donate about $300 million a year. So this is quite a significant sum. And they approach this donation by first making general allocations to the various areas which they are supporting, for example, the arts, health, education, sports, charity and community. So there are general allocations out of the $300 million, and

where are the areas that they would support. And having made these general allocations by the various sectors, they either go through an intermediary, as I said just now, which is the wholesale approach, say, for example, in health. If they want to support, say, $10 million in health research, their approach is to go through the National Medical Research Council rather than inviting research applications and then making a decision. So they go through the intermediary.

For the charity, the community development and the sports, they work through both the wholesale and the retail approach. The wholesale approach would be through

Community Chest, National Council of Social Services, etc, and retail by inviting direct applications, and then they will make an evaluation. To make this evaluation, they set up small committees of people who are in that sector, eg, people in the charity sector and the various community services sector. These people would know what are the applications coming from the area, and they will be able to make an informed judgement which are the areas they want to support.

The Singapore Totalisator Board and Singapore Pools have never supported the PAP financially, because this is a political party and donations of their surpluses do not go to any political parties. PCF is a community development organisation with very worthy causes, whether it is health screening or charity causes or the education of young children. And if it has sensible projects, it can put them up for consideration by the Singapore Totalisator Board and Singapore Pools, just like any other VWOs.

Sir, a further clarification. It seems that PCF has put up some proposals for consideration for donation. My question is whether or not any application has been supported by

Singapore Pools or the Singapore Totalisator Board.

Sir, let me clarify. I do not know the details of whether the PCF has put up any applications or whether they have been approved. I am just speaking from first principles. PCF is a charitable foundation and there is no reason why any charitable foundation, whether it is PCF or any other foundation, is not allowed to put up any applications to Singapore Pools or the Singapore Totalisator Board. But, clearly, the PAP, as a political party, will not find any support from the Singapore Totalisator Board or Singapore Pools, and the PAP will not put up applications to them. But there is no reason for PCF not to put up. But whether they put up or not, or whether they have received or not, I do not have the data with me and I cannot answer that question.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Mr Lim Hng Kiang].

Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read.

Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Singapore enjoys a peaceful and productive industrial climate that is the envy of many nations. We have not had a strike since 1986. The state of our industrial relations is a key competitive advantage that attracts investments and businesses into Singapore. Our unions,

principally led by the NTUC, and employer organisations, together with the Government, are equal social partners in the spirit of tripartism that work together for the common good and prosperity of this country.

But particularly because we have had industrial peace for so long, some may mistakenly take these relations for granted, and assume that this state of affairs is the natural order of things. Nothing could be further from the truth. We have achieved industrial harmony not by change, but by choice, hard work and constant tending to the ground. All three social partners interact constantly and often accommodate the other partners' concerns to achieve the greater good.

We did not inherit these virtuous conditions. Indeed, industrial relations in Singapore in the 1950s and early 60s were adversarial and confrontational. Frequent work stoppages, a lack of discipline and teamwork resulted in a poor investment climate, economic stagnation, high unemployment and social unrest. When independence was thrust upon us in 1965, and faced with dire economic conditions aggravated by the withdrawal of the British forces, the crucial challenge then was to move away from the adversarial labour-management relations to a cooperative one, and to develop a disciplined, motivated and productive workforce as part of the national effort to create a favourable environment for investment.

To achieve this objective, the existing legal framework was overhauled by introducing a rational framework for collective bargaining, conciliation and arbitration of industrial disputes, and also by establishing basic employment terms for employees. More importantly, the three social partners, ie, the employers, trade unions and the Government, realised that, for the industrialisation programme to succeed, confrontation had to be replaced by cooperation and collaboration.

They, therefore, decided to adopt a tripartite partnership approach, with the Government as a facilitator, to bring about labour-management cooperation. A new spirit of tripartism unique to Singapore was thus born. This provided a consultative platform for industrial relations issues to be addressed and resolved amicably, and laid the foundation for the development of a disciplined and productive workforce.

This special bond between the three partners spurred growth, created job and raised standards of living for all. We should vigorously guard this framework and be alert to practices that can, over time, if left unchecked, undermine our labour relations.

It is with this caveat that I put to the House today the Trade Unions (Amendment) Bill. While amending this Act, let me reiterate the Government's commitment to preserve the rights of workers and the unions that represent them to voice their concerns, bargain collectively and to seek redress. This Bill seeks to amend the Trade Unions Act to confer on the officers of a trade union and any other persons appointed by the trade union to represent its members in collective bargaining the authority to bind all the members by the collective agreement reached through negotiation with the management without the need for ratification by the members.

Let me elaborate on our reasons for proposing this amendment.

The ratification clause exists only in the constitution of one union in Singapore - the Airlines Pilots Association of Singapore (Alpa-S). In 1999, Alpa-S was restructuring to accommodate members from subsidiaries of SIA, such as Silkair. Alpa-S took the opportunity to introduce a clause into its constitution which required

collective agreements (CAs) to be ratified by members. Ostensibly, through this check mechanism, members could, by their approval, affirm that their interests had been protected at the conclusion of the CAs and endorse the leadership of the negotiating team that negotiated this collective agreement. But, in practice, members' interests have not been safeguarded, as thereafter protracted and futile negotiations worsened relations between union and management, to the detriment of all. In some instances, negotiating positions had progressively hardened and precipitated deadlocks, as the Executive Council (Ex-Co) sought ratification from the members.

For example, in 2001, the collective agreement between Alpa-S and SIA management could only be concluded after 27 months of tedious negotiations. Even after this, the in-principle agreement between Alpa-S and the SIA management was short-lived, as it was overwhelmingly rejected by the Alpa-S membership during an EGM to ratify the agreement. This case was eventually referred to the Industrial Arbitration Court (IAC) and subsequently settled out of court. Both management and union must share the blame for this unproductive exercise. But the point is this: that the interests of both union members and the company suffered from these cycles of acrimony aggravated by the ratification clause. Last year, a wage cut was proposed by the management after SIA suffered losses due to the impact of the Iraqi war and the SARS outbreak. The dispute between the two parties was settled after the case had been referred to the IAC and mediation by MOM. But even after the Alpa-S members had ratified the agreement, 55% of their members subsequently voted out the President and his negotiating team for the agreement. Again, the ratification provision did not serve its original purpose of securing a mandate for the Ex-Co from union members because, as this case illustrated, members could, even after

ratifying an agreement, change their minds and their leaders subsequently.

Other unions have been able to adequately protect and reflect their members' interests without this onerous stipulation. Unions affiliated to NTUC, which represents 99% of all unionised workers, vest the mandate in their Ex-Co to negotiate and commit to an agreement with the management. Doing so does not in any way compromise the membership's interest, as the Ex-Co is fully accountable to their membership and the decisions they make during negotiations. The Ex-Co is duty-bound to act responsibly in the interests of their membership, failing which the membership still retains the constitutional powers to vote the Ex-Co out through the AGM.

Similar provisions on the representation rights of trade union officers are found in the labour laws of other countries. Let me just quote one. For example, Article 6 of Japan's Trade Union Act delineates the authority of a trade union to negotiate as follows:

"Representatives of a trade union or those to whom the authority has been delegated by the trade union shall have the authority to negotiate with the employer or the employer's organisations on behalf of the trade union or the members of the trade union with respect to conclusion of a collective agreement and other matters."

The Bill will, therefore, facilitate a more efficient process of collective bargaining and will not compromise or diminish the rights of unions and members in collective bargaining. Presently, only Alpa-S will be affected by this change, and the amendment will also override any future rule or resolution by a trade union which requires agreements to be ratified by union members.

Sir, I do not want to give the wrong impression that this amendment alone will

improve relations within the union or their relationship with management, be it in SIA or elsewhere. The ratification clause is one of many aggravating factors, and this change is necessary. But management continues to bear the responsibility for restoring, building and nurturing the relationship between them and their employees. Leaders and members of unions, however, can accelerate productive outcomes with positive attitudes.

In this regard, the tripartite partners, comprising the employers, unions and the Government, have formulated a Code of Industrial Relations Practice. This Code is to promote and guide both employers and trade unions to conduct industrial relations and deal with labour-management relations in a responsible and constructive manner for the benefit of the company and its workers. I am pleased to present the Code for Members' information, which I now ask the Clerk of Parliament to distribute. [Copies of Code distributed to hon. Members.]

Again, this Code is unique to Singapore

and it reflects that special bond, the spirit of tripartism which I spoke about earlier.

In conclusion, I would like to emphasise that the harmonious industrial relations in Singapore are essential for economic growth and social stability. It is important that Government guides the framework for industrial relations so that it supports the development of harmonious relations. This includes being vigilant and taking action to prevent practices that are contrary to this objective.

There are many jobs and livelihoods at stake if industrial harmony is undermined. But the Government cannot, through changing laws alone, improve labour-management relations. This must be built

by management, employees and their unions, company by company.

Let me close by calling on the management, employees and unions to continue to foster strong partnerships based on mutual trust and purpose.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this amendment inserts a new section 30A to say that the officers of a union will be allowed to conclude collective agreements with employers without seeking ratification from the members. Any provision to the contrary in the union's rules will be void. This is, in effect, giving elected union membership a blanket authority during the term of their office to act on behalf of members without the need to face the consequences of their action until the end of their term of office.

The rationale behind some unions requiring their officers to come back to them for confirmation of collective terms is to avoid situations where the officers get carried away and agree to terms not acceptable by the majority of the union members. It also serves as an effective deterrent against union leaders acting on their own interpretation of what is in the best interest of their members without consultation and confirmation from members as to what they think is their best interest.

To me, obtaining members' ratification of terms of collective agreements is a superior process and a better safeguard for union members. It is also in line with the spirit of democracy of which accountability of leaders is the hallmark. Accountability does not merely lie at the end of one's term of office nor at

elections. True accountability means acting in accordance with the mandate given by the members and being answerable to members for actions taken. If we believe and trust the wisdom of the people, it should be up to each union to decide what kind of rules they want. The officers are chosen by the union members and it is up to the members to decide how much power to give them. If the union's rules provide that the negotiating officers cannot conclude terms of agreement or collective agreements unless the members confirm the terms, then why should the Government impose this blanket condition on all the unions by way of legislation?

Having said that, this amendment does not surprise me. It reflects the typical mindset and the response of the PAP Government. This is the response to the robust democratic process of the Alpa-S union, which needed the attention of the Senior Minister to finish his unfinished business. In Singapore, rarely do we see such incidents of organised labour movement openly pressurising their management to secure the best deal for their members and replacing their leadership to demand accountability. I suppose with this amendment, the unfinished business is done. I am quite sure similar episodes will not have a chance to take place again. This is the typical response of the PAP Government. If they cannot control you or is unable to persuade you to act according to their wishes, they will outlaw you or cripple you by legislation. A legitimate act could become a criminal act overnight. A robust organisation could become subdued and submissive. Welcome to Singapore!

The PAP Government is able to do this because Parliament, which makes laws, is the territory of the PAP. Some people say that the only law in Singapore is PAP law. Others say that under the PAP Government, there is no rule of law, only ruled by law! Why is it that after nearly

40 years of nation-building, there is political apathy among Singaporeans? Why is it that our pledge "to build a democratic society", sounds hollow, with our people being passive in upholding the principle and the spirit of democracy and fearful, even ignorant of their democratic rights? The answer, I believe, lies in legislation like this. This is the Singapore story untold.

Sir, I oppose this amendment.

Sir, I rise in support of this Bill. In practical terms, this amendment will have little impact on the 63 unions affiliated to NTUC. Among our unions, the Executive Committee, as the duly elected body of the workers through secret ballot, can negotiate on behalf of their members and enter into binding collective agreements with employers.

There are about 1,200 collective agreements registered with the Industrial Arbitration Court. Every year, about 300 of these collective agreements are renegotiated by our affiliates with no difficulty whatsoever.

Sir, this provision, found in the constitution of our unions, empowering the Executive Committee to negotiate a collective agreement without the need for ratification by members, is voluntarily adopted and is not the result of any statutory requirement. Although the existing arrangement has worked satisfactorily for us, we are supportive of the move to enshrine what is already a widespread practice into our law as this will provide greater clarity and certainty in the conduct of industrial relations and minimise potential disputes due to the increased complexities of the workplace today. Nevertheless, Sir, there are some concerns that have been expressed over this amendment which I would like to highlight here and seek a response from the Minister.

Sir, some people, like Mr Low Thia Khiang, a few moments ago, have expressed the concern that this amendment represents a step backwards and is not in the interest of workers. The issue is whether this amendment will deny individual members the right to have a final say on their pay package. Some see ratification by members as an important safeguard which will be removed with this amendment, as the Executive Committee will now no longer be accountable to their own members over such an important issue as their salaries and terms and conditions of employment. To some extent, in my view, this concern may be overstated as ultimately, members still wield the power over the Executive Committee to act in their interest. They can, for instance, refuse to re-elect an Executive Committee that has negotiated a collective agreement against their interest. And there is, of course, nothing to stop them from throwing out an Executive Committee mid-stream that has negotiated a collective agreement which they feel is not in their interest.

Democratically, Sir, unhappy members can also vote with their feet and leave the union. These factors will, in my view, act as a natural constraint on the unions' Executive Committees who would, themselves, be affected by the collective agreement that they negotiated for their members to act in their members' best interest. Sir, nevertheless, the Minister's clarification on this point whether the amendment would indeed be detrimental to workers' interest is important, bearing in mind that this is a restriction that will now be mandated, instead of being voluntarily adopted by unions. In the latter event, one could still argue that members, when approving the voluntary system of non-ratification, have the final say on how they should be consulted.

Secondly, Sir, there are also concerns expressed that this amendment is one-

sided. While the amendment prevents union members from overriding the collective agreements negotiated by the Executive Committee, there is no corresponding obligation imposed on employers so that the board of directors or the shareholders of a company can override a decision made by the management or disagree with the collective agreement that has been negotiated with the union. It is a fact that there are employers who drag their feet, resort to delaying tactics and who send representatives to the bargaining table without any mandate to settle with the union.

So, Sir, in the absence of any provision imposing a similar statutory obligation on the employer, could the Minister tell us what steps the Ministry will take to impose similar obligations on employers to negotiate in good faith and to respect workers' and trade unions' rights during collective bargaining? Would this amendment, Sir, amount to a situation where unions are now required to negotiate with one hand tied behind their back, but employers have both hands free?

Sir, thirdly, there are many who feel that this amendment alone is not sufficient and will not, by itself, result in good industrial relations. The law can provide a useful framework for unions and management to deal with each other in a rational and orderly manner. But, Sir, in today's context, one requires much more than just a civilised manner of dealing with each other. What is needed is a collaborative relationship built on trust and confidence, a sharing of mutually agreed goals, strong communication and fair and transparent rules. No law, however, Sir, can mandate all these nor is it something that can be built overnight.

Sir, our experience shows that where there is a high level of trust, it is much

easier for companies to implement change and workers are more receptive to wage freeze, wage cuts or even retrenchments. Where there is a low level of trust, Sir, restructuring becomes more bumpy and acrimonious. I am therefore happy that there is now a Code on Industrial Relations to codify some of the key guiding principles and ensure strong partnership between management and unions.

However, Sir, for this Code to be truly meaningful, it must have the support and endorsement of the top leadership in the company and be implemented at every level of management. So I would like to ask the Minister what steps will be taken to strongly promote this Code among companies. One suggestion I would like to make is for the Ministry, together with the Singapore National Employers Federation and the NTUC, to organise a series of workshops and seminars on this Code so that everyone understands the part they have to play.

Sir, in this highly competitive world that we live in, infrastructures, systems and technologies can be easily duplicated if countries have the means to do so. What makes us different from many countries is our strong tripartism and good labour-management relations at the enterprise level. Sir, in order to preserve this edge, it is important that we continue to invest sufficient time, effort and resources in this partnership.

On this note, Sir, I support the Bill.

Sir, how critical is it for leaders to have mandate to deal on behalf of their members, as a clear mandate allows different partners in a negotiation to resolve issues in a harmonious way for the mutual benefit of both partners concerned? These are important questions. We need to reflect on our past experience to see what has happened in the past in many of the affiliated unions in

NTUC. Here, I wish to share my own experiences.

Sir, in 1985/1986, we went through a severe economic recession. At that point of time, I was a leader with the then PUB Daily-Rated Employees Union. We had to take tough decisions. One of it was to accept a wage freeze and to forgo the mid-year bonus for these low-income workers. The union leadership had to take a decision, and we took a decision which was, no doubt, tough and unpopular.

With that and other tough measures introduced, such as the CPF cut, the Singapore economy rebounded and a lot of progress took place. The PUB Daily-Rated Employees Union in 1989 negotiated a collective agreement on behalf of its members. Through that collective agreement, workers managed to enjoy a pay increase of between 18%-21%. All that came about because a very strong harmonious industrial relation existed. We were able to take tough decisions, and we had the mandate to take tough decisions. This was one of the examples we went through.

Then, in the 1990s, we wanted to take away this daily-rated concept because it was a misnomer of our colonial days. The union discussed this issue with its Executive Council and we decided that we could not do it by wage increase alone and we needed to address a more fundamental issue of helping the workers to go through training, whereby they could adapt to the new technological changes taking place in the market.

To do that, we had to take some very tough decisions. At that point of time, this group of workers was working from 7.00 am to 2.50 pm and thereafter, they did a second job. So any training programme or any change in their working hours to attend a training programme will become very disruptive.But then the

collective benefit of all the employees and their long-term benefits have to be taken into account. So, we decided to discuss this with the management, and the management too had a strong mandate. The director had a very strong mandate from the management and he understood the problem. He knew that was the right direction, and he was able to convince his senior management.

From 1992 to 1997, about 1,800 daily-rated workers were trained and retrained. After which, they were able to acquire monthly rated positions, which were more secure jobs, and they were also able to enjoy higher wages. If they had not gone through the changes and attended the training programmes, today, they would be earning between $1,000 and $1,400. But by accepting the changes and accepting the union leaders' decision, today, they are able to enjoy salaries of between $2,000 and $2,700, and this is a hefty increase.

All this was possible because the union leaders had the mandate. In my own experience, since 1979, I have negotiated over 20 collective agreements, and went through nine elections. If the workers' interests have not been taken into account, that would not have been possible. The union constitution provides sufficient provisions for the whole executive council to be removed by the ordinary members. And we have to make sure that we are close enough to our members, close enough to even listen to their pulse, and this is important for a union leader. We have to hear views and feedback. But at the end of the day, we have to make decisions. And to make decisions, we need a mandate.

So, this amendment, I believe, is long overdue. In fact, it should not have taken such a long time to amend this law. But at the same time, some other concerns

have been raised. One of the concerns has been highlighted by Mdm Halimah. As far as union leaders are concerned, they have a clear mandate. What about management?

Lately, we notice that some employers are more concerned with shareholders' interest. Their primary concern is on shareholders' interest, not so much for the other stakeholders, especially the workers. So, they are not giving a clear mandate to human resource heads to negotiate with the unions, and this has caused a lot of disruption in the workplaces.

The Acting Minister has circulated a Code of Industrial Relations Practices. But this is just a piece of document. You just sign and then you keep it in your file. It does not serve anybody's interest. You must make sure that it is put into real practice. Because by issuing this statement, tomorrow, everything is not going to change. Those reluctant employers must change their attitude, and must give a clear mandate to their human resource director to negotiate. If they do not have a mandate, then there is no point in blaming the unions or the union leaders. So, this is very crucial for harmonious industrial relations.

We have decades of industrial harmony and peace, and we have enjoyed prosperity and growth. On the average, we have enjoyed about 5% wage growth since the NWC started in 1972. All this could not have been possible without cooperation and clear mandate. But, going forward, with a very competitive environment, we see a lot of difficulties arising. On this, the Manpower Ministry has to give its Conciliation Officers more powers, so that they can take to task employers or their representatives who are not showing the kind of support that they should give to good industrial

relations practices. It is not just by signing papers, because this is not a legal document. And if it is not a legal document, employers will just talk about it and after that, they will forget about it. I think we should not allow that to happen. If we are sure about the amendment, make sure that it is balanced - the interests of the workers are taken care of and, at the same time, the employers' interests are also taken care of. But the employers must also exercise their responsibility and give a proper mandate.

Sir, in conclusion, I just wish to state that in my view, a leader without a mandate is similar to a body without a head. On that note, I support the Bill.

Sir, I am really concerned with the amendment in the Trade Unions (Amendment) Bill and do not support the passing of this amendment. Just imagine a worker called Mr Flying Pilot. Without joining any union, Mr Flying Pilot makes his own decision on the terms of employment with his company. Yet, after joining a trade union, his power to decide on his own terms of employment with the company has been replaced by a collective agreement, something that is negotiated and agreed upon on his behalf without his participation, agreement nor ratification. This is no good. How can a person who joins a union have his employment rights legally restricted? People who join unions want to have a voice, an outlet for them, to improve their rights, their lives, their work environment and be more effective when negotiating with the management for fairer wages. If this voice is being crippled by law, what is the point of them joining a union any more?

Instead of being reassured that the union will protect Mr Flying Pilot's earnings and livelihood, he may have sleepless nights wondering and worrying

whether the union officials had accepted an unsatisfactory collective agreement with a difficult and not responsive management. He has no choice but to worry unnecessarily because there is no cause for redress for him once the law is passed. This amendment adds insecurity, uncertainty and stress to union members, and should not be passed at all. However, as said by Mr Low Thia Khiang earlier, with the complete dominance of Government Members in this House, I am most assured that this amendment will be passed through easily. Therefore, I can only advise our Singaporean workers to seriously think twice if they want to renew their union membership or join any unions in Singapore in future.

Sir, let me thank Members for their responses.

I was very heartened with Mr Nithiah Nandan's heartfelt recounts of how he was able to secure a mandate and leadership. In his capacity, he had negotiated 20 collective agreements and re-elected nine times. Even in some unions, with this ratification clause, there have been more leadership changes than collective agreements bargained.

Mr Nithiah Nandan said that leaders without mandate are like a body without a head. It invoked images of thrashing headless bodies around! And, indeed, in some circumstances, it was, as I related to Members how in the last negotiations in 2001, after a tedious exercise of 27 months, even with in-principle agreements, it was overthrown by the membership.

Mr Nithiah Nandan's account is certainly more enlightening than Mr Low Thia Khiang's diatribe against what he calls "the oppression and how we have crippled rights". But is this so? What rights have we deprived from this amendment? Have we deprived workers of the right to bargain collectively? No.

Have we deprived them of the right to organise? No. Have we deprived them of a right, if they feel that their interests have not been protected, to change the leadership? Not at all. They can call, as Mdm Halimah has said, an EGM to change the leadership. Have we deprived them of the right to seek recourse or a decision by the Industrial Arbitration Court? And the answer is again no. So, Mr Low hypes the effects of this amendment, and this amendment only seeks to facilitate the collective bargaining process, which I have recounted, this clause has not effected.

Mr Low Thia Khiang and Mr Steve Chia speak much about protecting workers' rights, and that this amendment will increase the insecurity of workers. In the last few months, we have put out in broad print the challenges of the aviation industry. It seems to me that they have ignored completely all the challenges, and only made political points. Which is the greater insecurity? That of individual unions demanding their own personal share to the detriment of the company? And when the company suffers and divisions go under and workers are unemployed, will Mr Steve Chia and Mr Low Thia Khiang say, "Well, there you are, but your rights have been protected. You are out of a job, but never mind!"

Mr Steve Chia makes a plea to Singaporeans not to join unions. I would ask him to look at the membership numbers from the NTUC which represents 99.5%. Locally, the numbers have gone up. And if you compare it internationally, the numbers and the union memberships have grown from strength to strength. What does that tell us? It tells us, as Mr Nithiah Nandan has said, that Singapore workers are much more enlightened. They look at the overall effects. They see what the Government says. They see what the union membership say and can deliver, and they are willing to trust that leadership to deliver what was promised -

not quick remarks, not grand sounding aspects, not chest thumping, what Mr Low Thia Khiang refers to as superior processes of democracy. In other words, go on the streets, demand your rights, never mind the overall picture, never mind the ability of the companies to survive, never mind the economic competitiveness of your nation. I think that our workers and our citizens are much smarter than them.

Mdm Halimah asked what safeguard do we have to make sure that employers do not abuse this. First, I would say that employers do not have a rule requiring them to seek ratification of negotiated collective agreements. But I also take the point that there may be instances where employers, for whatever reason, do not come to a conclusion or lengthen out the process. And I would advise such employees who have such employers, as both parties now have the ability, to make ex parte applications to the IAC or to approach MOM for conciliation. The Ministry of Manpower would advise the employer not to cause undue delay in negotiations and help the two parties reach an agreement within a reasonable timeframe.

Mr Nithiah Nandan says, give more powers to my conciliation officers. I think we have been doing OK, looking at the number of collective agreements and the number of cases that we have had to settle. But I take their point - Mr Nandan and Mdm Halimah - that the Code of Industrial Relations Practice that was circulated today is a piece of paper. They are quite right, but it is a valuable piece of paper. Very few countries, if you read the contents, are able to arrive at these enlightened principles, to have it signed by union, Government and employers. That starting point should not be underestimated. It is unique. I have travelled widely. I have consulted

employer organisations, as I have visited trade union leaders. We are the exception to the rule. It is an important starting point. It is a valuable platform. Yes, we will roll out this series of seminars, as Mdm Halimah has suggested, to bring on board more employers and more union leaders. It is certainly not a piece of paper to be filed away.

Sir, let me conclude by saying that this amendment does not in any way deprive or diminish the rights of workers or the unions that represent them.

But it does seek to facilitate the collective bargaining, and this is an important rational framework for us to conclude collective agreements so that workers and management know that there is a limited time framework to which their rights can be negotiated, failing which there is recourse to either MOM for conciliation or the IAC as a final arbiter. This serves to give a framework which gives predictability, sensibility and profit for all.

Sir, may I seek clarification from the Minister?

Yes.

Sir, the Minister asked what has this amendment deprived the workers. I would like to ask him: does this amendment not deprive the right of workers to decide how much authority they want to give to their leaders to negotiate collective agreements? And the Minister also quoted Mr Nithiah Nandan's speech that a leader without mandate is a body without a head, floating around. But having a wrong mandate, which is not accountable, you may find a situation where you have the head floating around without the body.

Sir, this amendment does not in any way reduce the ability of the members who are dissatisfied with the leadership to remove them. That is a fundamental point. They can call an AGM

and remove the leaders at any time, even after this amendment. So, in that way, their rights are not deprived at all.

Mr Low Thia Khiang asked: does this reduce the mandate for leaders? But this ratification clause, as I have illustrated, in no way assures a mandate. Because looking at the exercise last year where the wage cuts from SARS were negotiated by the Ex-Co and ratified by the members, a few months later, even before the removal of the thermal scanners, the members changed their minds and removed their leaders. So, what assurance was that given to leaders? This clause has neither helped members nor their leaders. It does not deprive the members of their right to change and elect new leaders. That is fundamental. But it does facilitate the collective bargaining process. As I said, this is not the only factor which aggravates labour-management relations, and we should not pretend that amending this Act will suddenly improve relations. As Mdm Halimah says, there is a lot to be done and we will continue in this process. This is a necessary change, but it is a first step of many steps that we must help unions and their leaders who have trouble to restore, to build and to reach a situation where the mandate is strong enough for them to believe their members, for the leaders to believe the management, and for the management to take the leaders into confidence about where the company is headed, and for all to thrive and benefit.

Sir, I would like to ask the Minister this issue about getting members' views before a collective agreement is signed. With this amendment, does it mean that the Executive Committee cannot get their members' views and inputs before they sign the collective agreement? Does this amendment preclude them from doing so?

Sir, since coming to this House, I have been very impressed

with Mdm Halimah's incisiveness, and I am sure she asks the question for me to reiterate the point, and the answer is, of course, no. And she herself knows, which is the modus operandi for NTUC, they practise a pre-mandate. The Executive Committee consults their members way beforehand and asks, what can they do, what should they arrive at, which is a sensible thing to do. It no way deprives the leaders of asking their members: "What is it that we can do? And what is it you will accept?" But the ratification clause, in practice, was that it created a dynamic where there was brinkmanship. Sometimes, there was a power play; sometimes, the leaders use the excuse to say, "Well, I can't conclude because the members might not agree." And this has created a negotiation, a dynamic that precipitated that lock. Because at each successive cycle, the stakes got higher, until both sides were locked and you could not come to an agreement. Therefore, that is why you have 27 months of negotiations. This is one of the factors.

I wonder why is there a need for the Government to come in to legislate in order to outlaw similar provisions passed by union members. The union members may decide whether or not they want to give full power to their leaders for negotiation or they may want to decide that, all right, after negotiation, their leaders come back to consult the members. Of course, I think there is nothing to prevent the union leaders, after negotiating the collective agreement, to consult the members. But the onus is on the union leaders. If there is a resolution passed by the unions, it will be mandatory for the leaders, after negotiating the agreement before signing it, to come back to consult the members. So the members' interest is in a way protected. At least, the members know what is the final agreement which they are going to conclude. Does he agree with that?

Sir, I mentioned in my preamble that because we have industrial peace for so long, some may mistakenly believe that this is a natural order of things - that the industrial relation that we have is a natural order of things. Mr Low Thia Khiang asked why is it necessary for the Government to intervene. I have said that the three social partners interact constantly. This is not a static picture of harmonious relationship because it is so. It is because we have constantly tended to the ground. And why we have intervened is because this ratification clause, as I have amply shown, precipitates or worsens labour-management relations. In fact, for them to get the clause into their constitution, they had to ask the Registrar of Trade Unions' permission, and we allowed it. But through these years, they have shown, and we have observed, that it does not help them. So just as we have the powers to say yes for a clause to be included, we only allowed the clause because ostensibly they said this protects members' interest and facilitates labour-management relations. But when the clause has not been shown to serve its orginal purpose and, indeed, worsens relations, I think it would be remiss of the Government not to intervene.

Why do we not just allow them to, as Mr Low says, for the Ex-Co to go back to the membership for the reasons that I have illustrated? But removing this clause does not deprive the members from having the final say on their leadership. The point is that many other unions - in fact, this is the only union which has this ratification clause - have been able to function and achieve collective agreements, and protect their members' interest without the need for this ratification. If Mr Low wants to know how it is done, I suggest he consult my NTUC counterparts in this House. Some of the examples that have been cited are that they practise a pre-mandate. In other words, they ask the members beforehand what positions are agreeable. That is a fruitful and productive way of doing.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Dr Ng Eng Hen].

Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Resolved,

That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed. - [Mr Mah Bow Tan].

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty

Minutes to Four o'clock pm

to a date to be fixed.

asked the Minister for National Development what is the Government's policy with regard to budget hotels, which seem to have mushroomed all over the island for the purpose of promoting tourism but which could also breed prostitution and other undesirable activities.

The current policy for hotels and boarding houses is to allow them in locations zoned Hotel or Commercial. Within sites with mixed use zoning, such as Commercial/Residential and Residential with 1st-storey Commercial, hotels and boarding houses are allowed on a case-by-case basis taking into consideration the compatibility of boarding houses with the existing uses in the location.

The development of backpacker hostels and budget hotels is to meet the needs of the changing profile of our visitors. With the advent of budget travel and growth in value-conscious markets such as China and India, Singapore Tourism Board (STB) anticipates an increase in demand for such accommodation.

The primary objective of Government's policy regarding budget hotel is to cater to the needs of budget travelers, while ensuring that boarding houses would not create adverse impact on the amenity of the area. To minimise the possibility of these boarding houses breeding undesirable activities, URA works closely with the Police (Anti-Vice Branch). Police would also monitor areas where vice activities are prevalent and, if necessary, conduct surprise checks on these hotels and boarding houses to flush out these undesirable activities within them.

The Hotel Licensing Board and STB also inspect the budget hotels to ensure minimum standards are met. This is taken into consideration during the yearly licence renewal exercise.