1ST APRIL, 1971, TO 31ST MARCH, 1972

Order read for consideration in Committee of Supply [1st Allotted Day].

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

2.48 p.m.

The Chairman: Estimates of Expenditure of Singapore for the financial year 1st April, 1971, to 31st March, 1972, contained in Paper Cmd. 3 of 1971. I intend taking the total for each head of expenditure as it appears in the last column of the Abstract of Estimated Expenditure on pages 51 and 52 of the Paper.

I shall deal first with the heads of expenditure in respect of which amendments stand on the Order Paper Supplement.

Head 0104 -

Mr S. Ramaswamy (Potong Pasir): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 0104 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 2006.

I am moving this amendment in order to bring to the notice of this House that the toilet adjacent to the Stamp Office on the ground floor of the Supreme Court building is dirty and also smells. I understand it is being used by the public. I notice that the Government is prosecuting private firms and the public for not keeping their toilets clean. But the courts which impose a fine on these people are themselves not keeping their toilets in the building clean. They appear to be breaching the law. I wonder who will prosecute those who are responsible for maintaining this building. To remedy this situation, I suggest that the toilet be looked after by an attendant and a charge be levied if it is a public toilet.

The Minister for Law and National Development (Mr E. W. Barker): Mr Speaker, Sir, you will have noticed that a new feature in this House - whether desirable or undesirable I do not know - is the increasing interest shown by some Members in toilet attendants and toilet conditions. May 1 say at this stage that I am not in charge of the courts. There are two toilets in the Supreme Court building, one on the first floor and the other on the ground floor. These two toilets are used not only by litigants but also by numerous witnesses to cases in court and by members of the public. It is, therefore, difficult to prevent these persons from dirtying the toilets, short of employing a full-time attendant. But even an attendant will be of little use unless be follows these persons into, the toilets. I understand that the present cleaning contractor cleans these toilets twice daily, once in the morning and once in the afternoon. Arrangements have since been made to have the toilets cleaned three times a day. I hope that satisfies the Member for Potong Pasir.

Mr Ramaswamy: I think the courts will not accept this kind of excuse if it is offered by offending members of the public. However, I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $2,261,400 for Head 0104 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

Head 0107 -

Dr Augustine H. H. Tan (Whampoa): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 0107 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 2003.

I am very concerned about the drastic reduction in the provision of bursaries and other assistance for students of higher institutions by $521,500. In the Memorandum on the Estimates of Revenue and Expenditure, it is explained that this reduction is partially offset by provision for "industrial development scholarships", "scholarships, fellowships and .training courses" and "printing", though I cannot imagine how printing can substitute for bursaries! The Memorandum also mentions study loans. I would like to know, Sir, how much is being made available for study loans and the terms and conditions for the award of such loans. I would think that some provision is also necessary for special loans to students to help them support their families while they are studying. One comes across too many cases, Sir, where bright students have had to give up their studies even though they have scholarships or bursaries, because their families rely on them for financial support. I speak with some authority on the subject, Sir, because I very nearly became a casualty my. self. Fortunately, when I went to study for my Ph.D, under a fellowship, I was given an additional amount to help support my family.

Mr Speaker, Sir, at a time when our economy is booming, it would seem to me to be unwarranted to reduce expenditure on such essential things as bursaries and scholarships. We should not only be increasing the number of awards available but also actively consider new schemes to enable people from poor families to obtain better education. The handicaps to the poor students are already tremendous, if one thinks of the over-crowded living conditions and the cultural poverty of their homes, in addition to the financial hardships.

Every bit of talent that we can salvage will be an asset to Singapore. We can hold our heads proudly when we can truly say that no one is poor because of undeveloped talents or lack of opportunity. I would like to see, therefore, greater efforts being made in future years to ensure the greatest possible scope for human development. Sir, I beg to move.

The Minister of Defence (Dr Goh Keng Swee) (for the Prime Minister): Sir, there has been a change in the system of awarding bursaries since some three years ago. Until then the award of bursaries was partly based on merit - the performance of the students --and partly based on the financial circumstances of their families. The result was quite unsatisfactory because the two do not necessarily go together. The present position is to award bursaries strictly on the performance of the students, that is, on merit. The bursaries are awarded to the value of anything from $750 to $1,500 or $2,000 a year. On the other hand, we have taken into account that there may be students who are not of outstanding ability but who, nevertheless, can perform reasonably well in the universities and whose families may be in straitened circumstances. For such students we offer loans. Over the last three years. There have been something like a hundred loans offered under the scheme to the value of around $500 a year.

Whether one should take into account the putative loss of earnings to the family by reason of a student's going to the university instead of finding a job is, I think, a new principle. I do not know which country compensates families for this kind of loss of possible earnings. I doubt if there are any. I myself do not think that this is warranted under the circumstances for two reasons. First, I do not believe that in Singapore there has been a loss of brain power of high calibre by reason of the poverty of the families. The bursaries, the wide range of Colombo Plan and other scholarships to universities abroad, ensure that any outstanding students will have the best opportunities to get the most suitable form of university education. I have made a point of inquiring into the background of scholars who have returned from overseas courses on Colombo Plan or other scholarships. I have also made the point, when interviewing young administrative cadet officers and other Government personnel on their entry into the service, to inquire into their family background. It is astonishing that the vast majority, of these young men and women who have performed extremely well in the university here in Singapore came from very humble family background. For the most part, their fathers would be in occupations such' as cooks, taxi drivers or mechanics. Those with more affluent occupations would be minor contractors and Chinese medicine men. This provides strong evidence that in our society no school boy need be deprived of the highest educational opportunities because of the poverty of his family. Of course, now that we have national service and now that Higher School Certificate boys have to do two and a half years' service in the army, if the family is in straitened circumstances, one very good way of getting a university education and earning an income at the same time would be to take a regular commission, when the boy can do his degree course in the University while holding a commission as a Lieutenant or Second Lieutenant earning something like $500 or $600 a month

3.00 p.m.

Dr Augustine Tan: Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore has been first in many things and, for the future, I hope that we will dare to take first steps in new directions which other countries have not hitherto taken. But in view of the fact that there is hope for the future, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $1,523,430 for Head 0107 ordered to stand part of the Estimates. Head 0108 -

Mr N. Govindasamy (Telok Blangah): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 0108 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1028.

Sir, the estimate is for Office Boys (Supernumerary). The Concise Oxford Dictionary that I referred to gives the meaning of supernumerary as "in excess of the normal number". In the estimates for 1969-70, the number of office boys asked for under this category was one person. In the estimates for 1970-71, the request was for five supernumerary office boys. The Audit Department has also requested this year for seven supernumerary general clerical assistants. In each and every instance, a token vote of $10 has been asked for and granted up to now, last year and the year before last. Sir, it seems strange to me that year after year the number of office boys required has been progressively increased. If there is a real and increasing need for office boys, there should have been some systematic arrangement for recruiting office boys as such. I do not seriously think that there is a shortage of applicants for jobs as office boys. But if there is no real need for office boys, it is rather misleading to provide for an increasing number of supernumerary office boys under a token vote.

Sir, my question is whether it is necessary to increase the number of supernumerary office boys under a token vote and what is the real significance, if any, in such increase in number?

Mr E. W. Barker: Sir, the answer to the Member's question is national service. This is one of the side effects of national service and this token provision of $10 is merely to meet the need for the employment of office boys temporarily to replace those permanently recruited office boys who may be required to do their national service.

Mr N. Govindasamy: Sir, as I have said, the number of office boys required has increased from one to five to seven from one year to the next, and the Department is asking for only $l0. How can they ever replace these office boys who go for national service with a $10 token vote? Do they want the office boys or do they not?

Mr Barker: This is a token vote of $10. But it does not mean that all we need is one office boy. Hence the token vote. We cannot pay $10 for one office boy. That is not enough. We need much more money.

Mr N. Govindasamy: Sir, I think the point has been made and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $991,920 for Head 0108 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

Head 0109 -

Mr J. F. Conceicao: Mr Speaker, Sir,I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 0109 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1002*.

(* The same amendment also stood in the name of Mr Hwang Soo Jin.)

Sir, I would like to take this opportunity to speak on general matters pertaining to audit against this particular subhead which relates to the salary of the Deputy Auditor-General, because the Auditor-General's salary is. I think appropriately, not a subject for question by this House. The freedom that he requires for the kind of proper scrutiny that is involved in the exercise of his functions is something that the House must indeed value. I merely wish to note gladly that an increase of $153,850 under personal emoluments will be for the provision of 20 new posts to cope with additional audit, such as the People's Association audit and the Economic Development Board audit, and so on. It is highly probable that the Auditor-General is taking over the audit of these institutions as a matter of convenience. I do not know. But I would also like to express the hope that this should presage an acceptance of the principle of surveillance that the Auditor-General should exercise over the accounts of statutory institutions and other enterprises which wholly make use of public funds. It is possible that the staff requirements necessary for an extension of the functions of the Auditor-General's Department may be difficult to come by. I hope that every effort will be made to overcome any difficulties that may stand in the way of the Auditor-General's exercising his proper functions as completely and as freely as possible.

Mr Hwang Soo Jin (Jalan Kayu): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would just like to seek clarification on a small point. According to the Memorandum on the Estimates of Revenue and Expenditure. It is stated that one reason that accounts for the bigger vote required is that "the Department would like to conduct special investigation which would examine such problems as wastage and effectiveness." Sir, problems such as wastage and effectiveness, I should have thought, are already being looked after by the Organisation and Methods Branch of the Treasury and duplication of the same service surely will only result in wastage. Can the Minister please clarify?

Dr Goh Keng Swee (for the Prime Minister): The Member for Katong wants to know whether the powers of the Auditor-General should not be extended to all statutory authorities and all enterprises wholly owned by the Government. In regard to statutory authorities, it may or may not be appropriate for the Auditor-General to audit the accounts. This is usually provided for in the Ordinance establishing the particular authority.

As regards enterprises wholly owned by the Government such as the Neptune Orient Lines and Chartered Industries, they are run purely on commercial lines and I do not think that the Auditor-General can do a better job than a professional firm of auditors. The Auditor-General does not employ qualified accountants, and his job is not to see whether departments or the authority is run on proper commercial lines. His main function is to ensure that public funds are spent with proper covering approval and in accordance with procedures laid down. For instance, if a particular department spends $5 million on flowers and flower pots, it is not the business of the Auditor-General to observe that this is a waste of public funds if that particular expenditure appears in the estimates and has been approved by Members. All he has to see is that the expenditure has the covering approval in the estimates passed by Parliament and the method of purchase is in accordance with financial procedures.

In the case of a company auditor doing the accounts of Neptune Orient Lines or Chartered Industries, he has to make sure as well that expenditures are properly incurred which will increase the profitability or efficiency of the business. There are two separate concepts of auditing.

As regards the inquiry by the Member for Ulu Pandan -

An hon. Member: The Member for Jalan Kayu!

Dr Goh Keng Swee: I am sorry. He is the Member for Jalan Kayu. Sir, Parliament meets so infrequently that it is quite a task to remember which constituency belongs to which Member.

The Auditor-General will take into account waste incurred, for instance, in disposal of stores and whether the disposal of surplus stores has been done properly. He observes. He takes note whether waste is incurred in this sense.

The responsibility of the Organisation and Methods Branch is rather different. They will consider whether the staff is adequate or surplus to the requirements of a department or a Ministry. They will see whether responsibilities and duties are fairly shared among officers in the department. They look into questions like the most suitable type of equipment, typewriters, adding machines or whatever is requested by a department or Ministry. By and large, they are not concerned with waste incurred in the day-to-day accounting or day-to-day running of departments and Ministries.

Mr Conceicao: Sir, I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $1,142,730 for Head 0109 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

3.15 p.m.

Head 0201 -

Mr Ng Yeow Chong (Mountbatten): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 0201 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1041*. (*The same amendment also stood in the names of Mr S. Ramaswamy and Mr N. Govindasamy.)

Sir, in moving my amendment, I would also like to range over subhead 3011 in amendment No. (4) + which is on the same topic.

• Amendment No. (4) reads as follows:

That the sum to be allocated for Head 0201 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 3011.

Sir, the creation of an Anti-Pollution Unit is a timely and wise move. The fact that this unit is placed under the direct supervision of the Prime Minister reflects the importance of the pollution problem. This is especially so when Singapore is now undergoing a transformation through the process of industrialisation and urbanisation. Although the environmental problems in our island state have not yet reached a state of gravity, it is, of course, very logical for us to tackle the problems early if we are to avoid the environmental crises that other developed countries have to face. Sir, in this connection, Members of the House would like to know from the Prime Minister about all the necessary measures he will take to deal with the problem of pollution, and whether he will send abroad a senior official of the Anti-Pollution Unit to study the latest technique of dealing with this matter. Sir, I beg to move.

Mr N. Govindasamy: Sir, while I welcome the setting up of the Anti-Pollution Unit, I must express some dissatisfaction with the manner in which the implementation of our Anti-Pollution Campaign has been carried out this far. It is my hope that the proposed unit will help to remove the cause of my dissatisfaction. I have, however, to seek further clarification about the unit as I have noted that the sum of $164,230 has been allocated for the 17 staff in the unit. My questions are:

(1) Has this unit been set up yet? If so, where does it operate from?

(2) What are the functions of the unit?

(3) Which department will be the enforcing authority of the anti-pollution measures taken by the Government?

Today, we notice that several Ministries or departments, such as the Ministry of Health, the Police Force of the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Registry of Vehicles, and the statutory boards such as the Port of Singapore Authority are responsible for the enforcement of various anti-pollution measures. Is it possible for the Anti-Pollution Unit to be made the sole authority for the enforcement of the various anti-pollution measures?

Dr Goh Keng Swee (for the Prime Minister): Sir, the Member for Mountbatten has voiced what seems to me to be a popular misconception of the sources of pollution. He links it with industrialisation. I assume he is referring to air pollution. Possibly more than three-quarters of air pollution is caused by motorcars and motor vehicles, and even by those without smoke. We cannot eliminate this kind of pollution until motorcar manufacturers come out with an engine that does not emit so much poisonous substances into the air. As for industrial pollution, possibly the most serious would be the power stations. We use fuel oil with a very high sulphur content. It is quite an easy method to reduce air pollution in this respect, but it does mean that it will cost much more to generate electricity and we will have to charge the consumers more for their light and power.

The Member for Telok Blangah wants to know whether the Anti-Pollution Unit does exist and, if so, where it is. The unit does exist. Its office, I believe, is in the Public Works Department. Their present team of scientists of very high calibre -, all three of them - have gone abroad to study air pollution problems; one to Australia, the second to America, and the third to Europe. Their functions are not those of enforcement agencies. They have to study the problem and establish monitoring stations of which quite a number have been set up in Singapore. They will then make recommendations to the Prime Minister and advise him on measures, including legislation, and the policy best suited to our situation. Enforcement authorities will depend on the legislation. For instance, the P.W.D, will probably be called in to enforce measures connected with drains, sewers, etc. The Ministry of Health will certainly be called upon to enforce standards of hygiene and so on. The matter is still at a very preliminary stage of study and in the years to come we shall no doubt see action developing in this field.

Mr Ng Yeow Chong: The pollution caused by industrialisation is not only confined to air pollution caused by emission of smoke, etc. What about the pollution of water wastes and solid wastes? Do all these come under, the study of the Anti-Pollution Unit?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Indeed. The pollution of water wastes is a very serious subject, because we want to ensure the largest possible sources of good and clean water for our own domestic use.

Mr Ng Yeow Chong: In view of the answer given by the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr S. Ramaswamy: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 0201 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 2004.

I notice that under this subhead there was a provision of $24,000 for the year 1970-71, but that it has been reduced to $20,000 for the ensuing financial year. I wish to know whether the number of Members who are making use of these facilities has been reduced.

I shall also be obliged if the Minister can give us details of how many Members are using these facilities, and what are the languages they are learning. I understand that it is difficult to get Hokkien teachers. I wish to know whether this is true.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: The Member was kind enough to let me know what he intends to raise under this subhead, and I am therefore able to give him some details of the extent to which Members of Parliament are making use of this vote for language training. In 1968 there were 14 M.P.s. In 1969-70, the number increased to 16. This year there are 17 M.P.s studying the various languages. I regret to say that most of them are Ministers. Backbenchers do not seem to be very anxious to equip themselves with a knowledge of languages.

As regards the difficulty of getting Hokkien teachers, I do not see why this should be so. My colleague, the Minister for Science and Technology, is studying Hokkien. So are my colleagues, the Minister for Education and the Minister of State for Finance, as well as the present Minister for Finance. There are plenty of Hokkien teachers around.

Mr Ramaswamy: I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Dr Augustine H. H. Tan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 0201 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (3) of subhead 2051.

Sir, I would just like to ask why there is such a great increase in the Prime Minister's Office in expenditure on newspapers, periodicals and books. I know that the Prime Minister is a prodigious reader, but I wonder whether he can really read that much!

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Sir, the explanation will surely delight the Member for Whampoa. The reason is not that the Prime Minister is reading more books. The reason is that certain heads of departments who used to have their printing done free by the Government Printer, now have to pay for them. So we are applying principles of market mechanism to ensure that due economy is exercised in all Government departments.

Dr Augustine Tan: Sir, as an economist, I applaud that. I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The following amendment stood in the name of Mr Ng Yeow Chong -

(4) That the sum to be allocated for Head 0201 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 3011.

The Chairman: Mr Ng, amendment (4) .

Mr Ng Yeow Chong: I am not moving, Sir.

The sum of $3,141,430 for Head 0201 ordered to stand part of the Estimates. Head 0301 -

Mr Ng Yeow Chong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 0301 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1001.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in moving this amendment, I am not criticising or speaking against the Minister. Far from doing so, I am in full sympathy with him for not having a Permanent Secretary to assist him in his duties. The Minister is performing the important task of promoting science and technology and tapping the resources of scientists and technologists to help our republic in its industrialisation and development programmes. He is now already in his fourth year of office as the Minister for Science and Technology, and yet today he is still without a Permanent Secretary. The need is even more obvious and great at this juncture, especially when he is also concurrently the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Singapore. It may be construed from this state of affairs that his Ministry is a baby uncared for, or that his Ministry is discriminated against. Obviously there must be some reasons. Members of this House will, therefore, be delighted to hear from the Minister whether he will have a Permanent Secretary in future. And if not, why?

3.30 p.m.

The Minister for Science and Technology (Dr Toh Chin Chye): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am grateful to the Member for Mountbatten for his great concern for my Ministry. I just wish to correct the Member of his impression that I have been the Minister for Science and Technology for four years. The fact is that I have been the Minister for only 2 1/2 years.

The first reason why there is no Permanent Secretary for my Ministry is simply that the Establishment Branch of the Ministry of Finance has not been able to find a suitable person. The second reason, of course, is that as the Minister I am very much conscious of Parkinson's law, and therefore I do not want to create the impression that the moment we start a Ministry, we must have a Permanent Secretary. However, the Ministry of Science and Technology is being looked after by a Principal Assistant Secretary, and my recommendation to the Ministry of Finance is that since my Ministry has now shown that it has been functioning for the last 24 years and that the work is developing in volume, my Ministry would need to have at least a Deputy Secretary. I hope that satisfies the Member for Mountbatten.

Mr Ng Yeow Chong: Sir, I am satisfied with the answer given, and I hope that in the near future he will have a Permanent Secretary to assist him. I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr S. Ramaswamy: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 0301 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 3001.

Under this subhead I notice that there is a provision of $63,120 for temporary staff for the previous financial year and a provision of $47,580 for the ensuing financial year. I wish to know why temporary staff have to be employed for this Ministry. If the Ministry needs additional staff, why not employ permanent staff who are known to be loyal and are able to do a better job?

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Mr Speaker, Sir, the temporary staff as provided for in subhead 3001 are required to start the Metrication Board which has been set up recently. It is not envisaged that the Metrication Board will continue as a permanent feature in my Ministry because at some future date it will be dissolved when the major task of the Board has been performed and Singapore is well on its way towards metrication. Therefore, the staff which are now being gathered to assist the Board in its functions need only be temporary as they will not form a permanent feature of the establishment. This is the reason for listing this subhead as "Temporary Staff".

To enlighten the Member for Potong Pasir a little further, I must say that, besides the temporary staff provided for under this subhead, two members of the staff from my Ministry are also assisting the Board full-time. One is acting as Secretary to the Board, and the other is the Deputy Chairman of the Board. So the duties of the Board are well covered both by executives and by appointees to the Board itself.

The Metrication Board was formed in December 1970 with representatives from the Chambers of Commerce, the Manufacturers Association, interested Ministries such as Education and Finance, and interested bodies like S.I.S.I.R., as well as the relevant professional bodies. The Board has had several meetings and a plan has been drawn up to introduce metrication to Singapore as early as possible.

Mr Ramaswamy: Sir, I am satisfied with the explanation, and I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr N. Govindasamy: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 0301 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 3004.

Sir, I wish to seek clarification on the Popular Science Centre. During the last budget debate I said that the vote of $70,000 for the staff of the Science Centre and the vote of $1 million for the establishment of the Centre were insufficient

The Chairman: Mr Govindasamy, you are talking about the Science Centre?

Mr N. Govindasamy: Yes, Sir, as it comes under the same subhead 3004. Sir, during the last budget debate estimates for the Popular Science Centre were provided under the Ministry of Science and Technology. At the moment, the Science Centre still comes under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Science and Technology. And if I may be permitted to continue, Sir, is the Minister prepared to clarify?

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Yes.

The Chairman: You may continue, Mr Govindasamy.

Mr N. Govindasamy: Sir, the vote of $1 million in the Development Estimates for the Science Centre will not be sufficient if it is to achieve the objective for which it is set up. The Minister concurred with me and in his reply he mentioned that the proposed Popular Science Centre might eventually cost more than $5 million.

Sir, from the Memorandum on the Estimates of Revenue and Expenditure for Singapore, it appears that no provision is made for the staff and expenditure of the Popular Science Centre. Instead, a Science Centre Board has been formed and a separate provision of $201,150 is being asked for the Board under subhead 2104 of Head 1303 (Contributions and Charitable Allowances). Further, in the Development Estimates, a sum of $1750,000 is asked for as "Contributions to Science Centre Board". We are also told in the Memorandum on the Development Estimates that the proposed Science Centre is estimated to cost $9 million. Apparently from both Memoranda, the Science Centre is going to be the responsibility of the Science Centre Board. If that is the case, I wish to ask the Minister what is the relationship, if any, between the Science Centre Board and the Ministry of Science and Technology. If the Science Centre Board has been set up, can the Minister tell us who are the members of the Board? And other than the responsibility for the Popular Science Centre, has the Board any other responsibilities?

Again, Sir, as I mentioned in the last budget session, the Popular Science Centre has my fullest support.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Mr Speaker, Sir, I feel that my Ministry is partly responsible for confusing the Member for Telok Blangah by listing the vote for the Popular Science Centre under subhead 3004 of Head 0301 in the Estimates. Originally when this vote was inserted in the 1970-71 Estimates, it was intended to pay for local costs for visiting experts who would advise us on the setting up of the Science Centre. Since then two reports have been submitted by them, and I have mentioned this to Parliament. And for the 1971-72 estimates there is a $10 token vote against this subhead.

The position at this moment is that the Science Centre Board has been appointed with Mr Wee Cho Yaw as Chairman, as everybody knows, and Mr Ronald Sng as Deputy Chairman. Several other persons have also been appointed as members of the Board. Although the Board is now working independently of my Ministry, there is a representative of my Ministry on the Board. The Science Centre Board is now in the transition stage and until it has been properly built, it will continue to operate within the precincts of the National Museum and to enlist the services of the staff of the Museum.

However, when the Science Centre is open for operations, the Ministry of Science and Technology will dissolve the National Museum, and the staff thereof will be distributed between the Science Centre itself and other departments of the civil service.

At the moment, the Board is looking into the following aspects regarding the establishment of the Science Centre. First, a 16-acre site fronting Jurong Lake has been earmarked for the centre, and negotiations are going on between the Board and the Jurong Town Corporation for leasing this area.

Secondly, with regard to the building itself, the Board has been fortunate in securing assistance from the Asia Foundation which recently sent out a two-man team of architects and consultants to advise the Board on drawing up a brief for the building. It is the intention of the Board that the erection of the building will be open to competition.

Thirdly, the Board is actively looking for a suitable person for appointment as Director of the Science Centre. This is a difficult task, as we need to find a person who knows what the philosophy of the Science Centre and its purpose are.

It is true that under Head 1303, Contributions and Charitable Allowances, a sum of $201,150 has been allocated for the workings of the Science Centre Board, but part of this money will be spent on paying architects' fees and the salaries of the Director and other staff whom the Science Centre Board may feel it necessary to recruit. I hope my explanation will satisfy the Member for Telok Blangah.

Mr N. Govindasamy: Sir, I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $615,090 for Head 0301 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

3.45 p.m.

Head 0302 -

Dr Augustine H. H. Tan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 0302 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 2012.

Sir, I notice an increase of $2,000 for transport. I would like to find out from the Minister for Science and Technology why his chemists have to travel so much.

Sir, I beg to move.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Mr Speaker, Sir, the bulk of the provision for transport and travelling goes towards reimbursing transport claims made by the Assistant Inspectors of Dangerous and Hazardous Materials. These inspectors are engaged in performing statutory testing and inspection duties on tankers and ships under the provisions of the Petroleum Ordinance. Before 1968, most of these n1spections were carried out in shipyards at Keppel, Kallang and Tanjong Rhu. But since October 1969 the number of inspections performed at shipyards has increased because new shipyards are being built in the Jurong industrial estate. Also from 1969 these inspections have included the Sembawang Shipyard as well. As more shipyards are established in Singapore, there is greater need for these inspectors to travel to these places to perform their task, and because of the distance of Jurong and Sembawang the cost of travel has concurrently been raised.

In the coming year, the Chemistry Department is also playing an active role in helping industries by engaging themselves in research and development projects and consultative work for industry. Hence, the chemists have to pay visits to factories, and again their travel expenses are chargeable to the departmental vote. It is because of these many reasons that the vote of $2,800 provided for last year has been proved inadequate.

Dr Augustine Tan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Minister for his kind reply. I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $647,330 for Head 0302 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

Head 0401 -

Mr J. F. Conceicao: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 0401 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1004 (The same amendment also stood in the name of Mr Hwang Soo Jin.)

I would like to use this subhead as a convenient peg to hang an inquiry on, and that is whether there are any rules, written or understood, relating to the appearance and behaviour of our Armed Forces personnel in public when they are in uniform. To be fair, I have not heard of too many complaints of servicemen appearing unkempt and bedraggled. But I have noticed a certain carelessness in the way some servicemen dress. Are there no regulations which stipulate how they should wear their uniform, whether they are allowed to leave buttons unbuttoned, whether they have to slip their slacks into their boots, and whether they are allowed to keep their hair long? Some of them have hair cuts which the Minister for Home Affairs might consider as belonging to a category of people who are not allowed in Singapore. I hope I do not sound too petty in bringing up these domestic issues. There is no doubt about the tremendous achievements which the Ministry of Defence must be credited with in building an impressive defence establishment. I am asking such questions because I feel it is important, now that we have reached an obviously viable stage in the development of our Armed Forces, that the image of the serviceman in the eyes of the public should be that of a gentleman as well as of a dependable fighter.

This brings me to the point about the general behaviour of our servicemen and not merely their appearance. I think that sometimes in small ways the behaviour of our men in uniform leaves a little more to be desired. They cling on grimly to their seats in buses. Even when they travel in military transport, I have seen them sometimes cat-calling and wolf-whistling. They rush for buses when they should be queueing up. They rush across the road when a pedestrian crossing or an overhead bridge is only about a hundred metres away. I have come across these incidents because I pass a transport unit encampment every day when I return home.

We have read frequently of reports regarding gotong royong projects in which Armed Forces personnel are engaged in order to link their units more closely with the community. I think this is an excellent contribution, of course, but perhaps attempts should be made to see that our soldiers in the ordinary areas of contact with civilians do not behave in such a way as to rub them the wrong way.

Finally, may I refer to drivers in uniform driving civilian cars. I wish to take this opportunity to congratulate the Minister on the very fine improvement in the standard of responsibility exercised by drivers of military vehicles. But I am now talking about soldiers who drive their own cars but who happen to be in uniform. I think perhaps something should be done to see that the wearing of uniform does not make them too exuberant drivers on the road. I have noticed that there is a certain tendency in this direction.

Mr Hwang Soo Jin: Mr Speaker, Sir, I should like to take the opportunity of asking the Minister how thorough is the medical examination of recruits inducted into national service, and whether they are examined not only for their physical but also their mental fitness. I ask this question because I recently came across two individuals who were clearly mentally defective and yet they were able to pass the examination and subsequently called up for national service. [Laughter] Sir, this is no laughing matter. The families of these two individuals were put to quite considerable inconvenience. One of these two persons was in fact called up for national service on a part-time basis, and after a few training sessions he found them too difficult to follow. He did not understand what was going on, so he just absconded. I would like an assurance from the Minister that the medical examination of recruits will be more stringent so that there will be no similar repetition.

Mr Teong Eng Siong (Sembawang): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to raise two questions. We know that soldiers should always maintain good discipline so that they will leave a good impression on the people. But 1 have sometimes seen soldiers and even officers of our army appearing in public places, for example, in restaurants, coffee-shops and such other places, taking their meals. I am not sure whether there are any rules and regulations which require them to have permission to appear in public places in uniform and take their meals. I would like the Minister to clarify this point.

I have also witnessed some other unfortunate events in certain places. Some of our soldiers and officers display a rather unbecoming attitude. For example, they are sometimes arrogant. They behave as if they are in some ways different and quite apart from the ordinary people. In this respect, we have to instruct our officers and soldiers not to be arrogant and not to adopt such an attitude in public places. I would like the Minister to clarify these two points.

The Minister of Defence (Dr Goh Keng Swee): Mr Speaker, Sir, on the question by the Member for Katong on uniforms. Soldiers, whether they are in camp or outside camp must be properly dressed, and if they are not properly dressed, they have committed an offence. The trouble is that you cannot have regimental police everywhere to make sure that all offenders are brought to book.

As regards hair cuts, I think the Member is slightly exaggerating the position. We try to be as accommodating as we can, but there are limits and, we have not gone as far as other armies in the world who allow shoulder-length hair-dos.

The disorderly conduct of our servicemen mentioned by the Member for Katong and the Member for Sembawang is quite regrettable. Every flock has its black sheep. I think that, on the whole, our army maintains itself very well in public and the cases they mention are the exceptions rather than the rule.

As regards eating in public, of course, soldiers must eat in public. They are human beings. It will be a sad day if we prohibit them from eating in public.

Mr Teong Eng Siong: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, even though the number of such cases is small, we have to remedy the situation, otherwise their influence will spread and this will be even worse.

Mr Hwang Soo Jin: Sir, my question has not been answered.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Will the Member please repeat his question?

The Chairman: He was talking about mentally defective persons being conscripted.

4.00 p.m.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: No, we do not test national service boys for sanity. We assume that they are all sane. The odd case does crop up and no doubt he will be discharged. Actually the medical examination is quite thorough. They go through eye, urine, and blood tests. They are x-rayed. Height, weight, and bodily measurements are taken. They are given a dental check-up and a general medical test. But they are not tested for sanity or mental capacity. As for pilots, they have to go through certain psycho-technical and aptitude tests.

Mr Conceicao: Sir, can the Minister say whether intelligence and aptitude tests are administered to recruits who are being inducted into the army?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Only for those in technical vocations, like fitters, mechanics, radar electricians and that kind. For the infantry men, no.

Mr Conceicao: Sir, I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Cheong Yuen Chee (Toa Payoh): Mr Speaker. Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 0401 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1007.

Sir, I rise to speak in the hope of obtaining clarification of certain provisions in the National Servicemen Employment) Rules, 1970, and the National Servicemen (Employment) (Private Employers and Statutory Bodies) Order. 1970, made by the Minister of Defence in pursuance of section 11 and section 5 (1) of the National Servicemen (Employment) Act. 1970. The two instruments in question have already been gazetted and have come into operation with effect from 2nd January. 1971.

It is amply clear that the purpose of the instruments is to fulfil the assurance of the Government to provide adequate employment opportunities to national servicemen after completion of their tour of duty. No one, whether inside or outside this House who considers himself to be a true and responsible citizen of the republic, can deny that the provision of adequate employment opportunities for our young citizens who have undergone national service is the least that the republic can do by way of showing gratitude to them.

The relative novelty and wide scope of the provisions of the two instruments, however, have given rise to much misgivings and anxiety among workers who have not been national servicemen. Certain of the provisions, which I will be referring to in a little while, can do with some necessary amplification and clarification, not only in the provisions themselves but also in their underlying purpose. Until an authoritative statement is made to such effect, undue confusion and worry is bound to exist.

The first point of clarification which I am seeking is in relation to rule 7 (2) of the Rules and section 3 of the Order. Under rule 7 (2) , the Director is empowered to ref use to issue a new employment card to a registered person unless he is satisfied that there is sufficient justification to warrant a change of employment. Such a provision can in itself result in a great amount of dissatisfaction being generated among ex-national servicemen, as judgment may vary from Director to Director. It is patently desirable that the range of opinions among the various incumbents of the post of Director in the years to come is narrowed down to within ascertainable limits by Ministerial guidance or otherwise.

The importance of knowing what will constitute satisfaction to the Director can perhaps be best illustrated by this hypothetical example. A registered person may wish to have a change of employment by reason of what he considers to be in his own best interest. He intends to effect such change of employment by giving up his current job for a lower-paid position but with much better prospects. It would be tragic if he is to be prevented from changing his employment because the Director is not satisfied with his reason. It would be more tragic if eventually he is forced to resign his job out of unhappiness but after the five-year period when he is no longer entitled to any preferential treatment.

Incidentally, there does not seem to be any safeguard against the Director making an adverse decision against a registered person through becoming unduly susceptible to the persuasive charms of employers, who may be plagued by a high turnover of the labour force, if such charms are exercised in circumstances completely devoid of any suggestion of corruption or graft. It may seem that a provision for appeal by the employee concerned against a decision of the Director under Part V of the Rules may be necessary and reasonable.

To return to my point, Sir, the provision of section 3 of the Order, while seeking to assure employment opportunities for former national servicemen seems to be tantamount to an "overkill" provision in restricting the scope of all other persons for changing employment or finding alternative employment. In our dynamic society, it is inevitable and healthy that there should be a reasonable degree of turnover of labour. Moreover, employers are not averse to exercising their powers to hire and fire practically at will under our present laws. Doubts have therefore arisen whether unions can now persuade employers to re-engage workers who have been retrenched or dismissed in circumstances where no reinstatement by the Minister for Labour is possible. Theoretically, employers can apply for exemption under the Rules. But from trade union experience, I think it is more likely that the employers will use the exemption provision as an added argument against re-engagement.

The second point of clarification which I wish to seek is in relation to Part V of the Rules governing the Appeals Board. Is it the intention of the Government that the Appeals Board's decisions are not to be treated as precedents and that the decisions are relevant to and binding upon the respective employers who appear before the Board, somewhat similar to the awards of the Industrial Arbitration Court? There may be compelling arguments on the grounds of consistency, and certainly the decisions of the Appeals Board should be made to apply to other cases of a similar nature.

I am, however, more concerned with the absence of provisions for trade unions or the workers concerned to institute or to be represented at proceedings before the Board. The very fact that there is provision for the N.T.U.C, to be represented at every session of the Board indubitably indicates that the matter of exemption does not concern only the employers and the Director. Trade unions and workers are interested in the fair and equitable operation of the exemption provision in so far as it pertains to the right of a person to work. While the N.T.U.C. nominees on the Board can be expected to look after the interest of workers, it would be illogical and unreasonable to expect an N.T.U.C. nominee on the Board to do full justice to the interest of labour in any deliberation of the Board if all the facts pertaining to an application for exemption are not adduced before the Board and he does not know the facts himself. A provision, therefore, should be made for an individual trade union or worker who is more conversant with such facts to be represented before the Board either in support of or against any application for exemption.

A similar provision should also be made for an individual union or group of workers to be permitted to make an application for exemption in respect of any category or class of workers in the absence of non-availability of registered persons. As the two instruments stand at present, coupled with the employer's right to hire, as enshrined in the Industrial Relations Ordinance, if an employee in such a situation chooses to refuse to make an application for exemption or appeal against the refusal of the Director in respect of prospective employees who are ex-union members or likely to be union members, there is nothing the trade unions or the Minister for Labour can do. The end result would be that the trade union position would be further weakened in Singapore.

There are some further points that I would like to ask the Minister. What is the purpose of the two instruments? Apparently an inducement for citizens to accept national service willingly and enthusiastically and penalise those citizens who shirk or refuse or begrudge national service. If that is the case, then many citizens are being unfairly penalised. For example, (a) those in age groups not called up for national service; (b) those who are genuinely debarred from national service on grounds of medical or physical infirmity; and (c) those who are unfortunate to be female citizens.

No consideration and credit are given to persons who are not eligible for registration under the National Service (Employment) Act but who voluntarily offer their services in military, para-military and civic organisations in the republic. Such persons should also be entitled to preferential treatment if that is the policy of the Government. For their civic consciousness and devotion to their civic obligations, such persons are as deserving as, if not more than, the national servicemen of the gratitude of the republic.

Among the categories of employees expressly exempted under the Order from the ambit of the National Service (Employment) Act are managerial and executive personnel in receipt of a monthly salary of not less than $1,920. The question is, why exemption on the basis of salary and not skill? It is likely for more national servicemen to be competent to hold managerial and executive positions than to become highly skilled artisans, such as welders or mechanics. The suspicion that the two instruments are designed to cope with the problem of the high rate of turnover of labour is further strengthened, for highly skilled artisans are very much in demand and very difficult to replace. Managerial and executive personnel, unless they are technical and experienced are not all that indispensable. A further point is that fixing a limit of $1,920 will be an added argument for foreign firms to bring in expatriate personnel. Since they can only freely employ executives at such higher salary, they may as well obtain what they consider to be the real McCoys.

In enacting these two instruments, Government is restricting the right of the employer to hire. At the time of enacting the Employment Act in 1968, one of the reasons put forward by Government for the need to give employers an unfettered right to hire and fire is the urgency of maintaining a congenial atmosphere for foreign investment. A valid conclusion, therefore, is that the need for foreign investment is not so urgent, which seems probable in the light of governmental pronouncements about the spate of new employment opportunities over the next few years. Against this, despite the ostensible purpose of the two instruments, the general impression created by the absolute and blanket character of the provisions of the two instruments is that of panic and anxiety on the part of Government that it may not be able to find jobs for its national servicemen on their return to civilian life.

Another conclusion could be restriction of the employer's right to hire does not prejudice the climate for foreign investment as long as the scope for profit-making is not affected. It then seems more probable since there can be no doubt about the employers' right being drastically curtailed. In that case, where does it leave the trade union movement which unquestionably supported the Government's employment legislation in 1968 on the grounds advanced by the Government?

Lastly, Mr Speaker, Sir, the establishment of a national labour exchange will be a means, though more expensive and intricate, of achieving the purpose of the two instruments.

4.15 p.m.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Actually the reasons for the policy of why the Director should have the right to issue, or refuse to issue, employment cards to those looking for new jobs are quite simple. You have to make sure that these national servicemen, who have this special privilege of preferential employment, are people of good character, that they have not committed crimes and generally have not been slack in their work. We do not want this pool of national service registrants to deteriorate in quality and thereby affect the employability of national service reservists.

As regards the Appeals Board, may I explain that this is an appeal from employers against the decision of the Director to disallow them to employ any other source of recruitment than national servicemen, in other words, the Director will say that a certain employer can recruit only national servicemen for a particular job unless he gets exemption, and if he does not get exemption, the employer appeals to the Appeals Board. As of now, this is purely an academic issue because all requests by employers for exemption have been granted by the Director. In fact, in two months of operation, the Director has granted exemptions to no less than 14,000 cases. I do not see on what grounds individual unions have the right to request that exemption should or should not be granted in any occupation. There is no such thing as "closed shop" legislation in Singapore, and I hope there never will be. The purpose of this legislation is simple. These are your citizens who have given two and a half to three years of their lives serving as full-time soldiers in the army. It is not a very easy job to be a soldier in the army. We train them to very rigorous standards and, in recognition of their services, we give them this opportunity of preferential employment. To say that there are others who are just as patriotic and just as civic conscious and that sort of thing, that may well be so; but you tell me, how can you identify such people? Everyone will say that he is most patriotic when it comes to getting preferences, but how do you know that this person is patriotic and not that person? So the proposal of the Member is quite impractical.

The limit of $1,920 a month is a purely arbitrary limit. You have to fix a limit somewhere, without fixing it on the high side. Members must remember that national servicemen will be 20 to 21 years or thereabouts when they leave the army. It is unlikely that they will be eligible for jobs anywhere near this salary limit.

Mr Cheong Yuen Chee: Mr Speaker, Sir, in view of the Minister's reply, I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr N. Govindasamy: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 0401 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1046.

This amendment is moved in order to seek clarification from the Minister as to the general position and functions of the 30-odd police officers, ranging from subheads 1046 to 1052. These police officers are now listed as being attached to the Ministry of Defence. We have often been given to understand that there is great difficulty in recruiting sufficient and suitable personnel to man the Police Force. The Ministry of Home Affairs is now responsible for the administration of the Police Force. Can the Minister inform the House what these police officers are doing in the Ministry of Defence, which is no longer responsible for the administration of the Police Force?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: When the army was first formed five or six years ago, we had to rely on police officers to do a great deal of the staff and training work. Most of the police officers have been returned to the police force. There are still a few left. Some are in miscellaneous staff positions. These will be returned as soon as we can find replacements from regular officers, but the great bulk of policemen remaining in the Ministry of Defence are those that were transferred from the Special Branch and they are required to continue work in the Security Department of the Ministry of the Interior and Defence.

Mr N. Govindasamy: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Ng Yeow Chong: Mr Speaker, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 0401 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1053*. (*The same amendment also stood in the name of MrConceicao.)

Sir, with this amendment, I wish to seek clarification from the Minister on the purpose of setting up the Science and Management Group in the Ministry of Defence, and what its duties and functions are.

Mr Conceicao: Mr Speaker, Sir, 1 was about to ask the same question, and, in addition, perhaps what the rationale is to put the Scientific Branch and the Management Branch together under the same subhead.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: The setting up of a unit of the defence force, particularly those connected with modern weapons systems, is a highly complex undertaking. It requires expertise of many varieties. It requires very intricate co-ordinating programmes from departments of the Ministry -- Logistics, Manpower and General Staff. They have to be closely intermeshed to ensure that this particular unit is formed in various stages in time and with the minimum waste of money, manpower and stocks of equipment. Take, for instance, the Bloodhound Squadron which we are now raising. It will cost us close on $100 million when the Squadron becomes operational and we require a wide variety of skills at artisan, technician, engineer and scientific levels. It will be the main responsibility of the Science and Management Group to monitor and co-ordinate the progress in the introduction of the various types of weapons systems into the Singapore Armed Forces, such as the Bloodhound and several others. The personnel of this group consist of the ablest engineers that we have sent abroad. They all have very distinguished academic achievements in universities in Britain, Australia, America, Canada and elsewhere. Their disciplines include chemical engineering, electrical engineering, electronic engineering, civil engineering and others. In other words, we may say they are the "whiz kids" of the Ministry of the interior and Defence, and this is the work they do.

Mr Ng Yeow Chong: Sir, I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Sim Boon Woo (Changi): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 0401 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 2005.

Sir, can the Minister of Defence inform this House why no such provision was made for this subhead last year and why is it necessary to provide more than a quarter of a million dollars for employing daily-rated staff this year? Who are the prospective daily-rated staff to be employed?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Sir, these are the staff of various logistics and maintenance bases. We have bases to repair army trucks and vehicles, army signal equipment and that kind of thing. When you get national servicemen who have been trained for a few months, you get the type of manpower - what people call first echelon maintenance - that can do very simple types of maintenance. But the more complex maintenance and repair work will have to be done by artisans, mechanics and fitters with many years of experience. We find it easier to recruit these people in as civilians than to require them to join as army personnel and go through various army training courses and work under military discipline. Most of them will he fitters, mechanics, turners and workers in the vehicle repair base, electronic repair base, weapons repair base, that sort of thing.

Mr Sim Boon Woo: Mr Speaker, Sir, will the Minister consider giving priority to absorbing the skilled workers who are made redundant by the run-down of the British forces?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Most certainly, Mr Speaker, Sir. There is a great demand for skilled workers of all grades in the Singapore Armed Forces. Any civilian employee in any skilled occupation in the British services should find no difficulty in getting well-paid jobs. In fact, we have been advertising for several months over the radio and on T.V, for these people.

Mr Sim Boon Woo: Sir, in view of the Minister's explanation, I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $370,000,000 for Head 0401 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

4.30 p.m.

Head 0501 -

Mr Teong Eng Siong: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 0501 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1001.

Sir, our foreign policy has reaped very good results in recent years. We have appeared in the international arena as a non-aligned nation, and have made friends with many countries. This position is important to the survival and growth of our country. But at the same time we should also appreciate that developments in the international field keep changing all the time. Therefore, in the best interest of our own country, I think the Minister for Foreign Affairs will agree with me that we should adopt a very flexible foreign policy.

Under this broad guideline, I would like to raise two points with the Minister.

Firstly, in the new fiscal year, will the Government establish more foreign missions in order to promote friendship and better relations with other countries? Secondly, Britain's decision to sell arms to South Africa has sparked off a great controversy in the international field, particularly during the Commonwealth Heads of Government Conference held in Singapore early this year. At this conference this subject was keenly debated by many African countries. In spite of this, Britain has gone ahead with the sale of arms to South Africa. I would, therefore, like to ask the Minister what is Singapore's attitude on this matter. Have we taken any appropriate steps in this field?

The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Labour (Mr S. Rajaratnam): Mr Speaker, Sir, first of all, I thank the Member for Sembawang for suggesting that we should be flexible in our foreign policy. In fact, some people think that we are too flexible, with the result that they do not know what our stand is. This is not a bad position for a country to be in in these very difficult days.

In regard to his question whether we intend to set up more foreign missions, the policy of the Government has always been to establish a foreign mission only when there is considerable financial and political justification for it. I think the only foreign mission we might establish this year, in addition to the 13 or 14 missions that we have now will be in the Soviet Union, in view of the fact that the Soviet Union is going to be a factor in this part of the world.

I would like to assure the Member that it is possible to have friendly relations with other countries without having foreign missions. In some instances you are more likely to have less friendly relations with countries by having foreign missions there. The Member might know of this if he had read the recent history of this part of the world where foreign missions were burnt down. Therefore, it is not necessary to have foreign missions just for the sake of having friendly relations with the countries concerned. You should only have foreign missions when substantial interest is involved. In regard to the British arms sale to South Africa, of course we are opposed in principle to it because it infringes the United Nations resolution on this matter. We ourselves have condemned it especially when the arms are used for the furtherance of apartheid. But if Britain and other countries which also supply arms to South Africa are intent on supplying arms, I do not see what we can do about it except to express very strong moral opposition to their action.

Mr Teong Eng Siong: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, of course if we want to establish more foreign missions, they must he of benefit to us. There is no doubt about it. I feel the Minister should know this better than I do. He has, in fact, given this House a very satisfactory answer, and I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr J. F. Conceicao: Mr Speaker, Sir, I bee, to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 0501 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1095.

Sir, I merely wish to seek some clarification. From the Memorandum on the Estimates of Revenue and Expenditure we find that the reduction in the Special Make-up Allowance of 5239,070 has resulted from experience of past expenditure trends. I would like to know the reason for the large reduction of nearly a quarter of a million dollars; from a provision of $260,400 to $21,330 for the ensuing year. Moreover, what has been the basis of these estimates in the past?

Mr Rajaratnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Special Make-up Allowance was introduced in August last year with the object of compensating home-based officers whose wives were working in Singapore. Therefore, when they were posted overseas they lost that portion of the remuneration which their wives were enjoying. This necessitated more allocation of funds.

At the time the Special Make-up Allowance was created, we were not quite sure how much would be involved. And my Ministry, being rather cautious about these things, did what the Ministry of Finance generally disapproves of. We over-estimated the amount required by a considerable figure. We have learnt from bitter experience since the implementation of the allowance last year, and it is now possible for us to make a more accurate estimate of the amount required. Hence the provision of $21,000-odd for the ensuing year. In fact, at the moment we have only two officers drawing this Special Make-up Allowance, and this explains the drastic drop.

Mr Conceicao: I thank the Minister for his explanation, and I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Hwang Soo Jin: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 0501 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 2096.

Sir, I am just taking the opportunity of seeking some information. Will the Minister inform the House when an overseas mission will be established in Moscow, and who will be the first Ambassador?

Mr Rajaratnam: Sir, as regards when the mission will be established, I can give a fairly reassuring answer to the Member. We hope to establish it some time before June. As to who is likely to be the Ambassador, I think that must remain a top secret. It is the convention that the receiving country should first be told about who is going to be the Ambassador, because if they do reject our appointee, there will be no embarrassment caused all round. So I would suggest to the Member that some time before June he should read the newspapers very carefully, and I am quite sure the secret will be disclosed.

Mr Hwang Soo Jin: Sir, I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $11,009,840 for Head 0501 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

Head 0601 -

Mr Hwang Soo Jin: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 0601 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1002.

Sir, at the risk of being accused of playing the same old record, I would like to harp on the subject of workmen's compensation once again. During the past month the Minister of State for Labour has on at least two occasions mentioned that the benefits under the Workmen's Compensation Ordinance will be revised. May I know when and to what extent it will be revised?

I would also like to take the opportunity of asking the Minister of State for Labour when he will be introducing new sets of safety rules applicable to building construction. The number of accidents at building sites is going up, and at quite a fantastic rate too. Therefore, I think this area deserves his earliest attention.

The Minister of State for Labour (Mr Sia Kah Hui): Mr Speaker, Sir, as I have indicated before, the Workmen's Compensation Ordinance is under review. At this moment I can only say that it is in a very advanced stage of preparation, and it is very likely that a revised version will be ready for presentation at the next sitting of Parliament.

As to the increasing number of accidents at building sites, we are aware of it. In fact, the Factories Ordinance is being revised to spell out control in greater detail. The new set of Building Operations and Works and of Engineering Construction Regulations, 1971, has already been printed in draft form and when it is finally printed it will be presented to Parliament. Members will see that detailed control of building construction and engineering works is contained therein.

4.45 p.m.

Inche Abdul Aziz Karim: Sir, may I ask the Minister of State whether my information from informed sources is correct, that the workmen's compensation will be increased three to four times the present rate?

Mr Sia Kah Hui: The workmen's compensation will certainly be increased. I do not know what he meant by `informed sources". But we have not published the figures yet. As I have said earlier, a review has been made and we have definitely taken a decision on it. When it is ready, Members will be informed.

Mr Hwang Soo Jin: Since the matter has reached a very advanced stage, can we hold the Minister of State to a definite date as to when the revision will be announced?

Mr Sia Kah Hui: No, Sir. Although we have finished the paper work in the Ministry of Labour, it has still to go to the Attorney-General's Chambers for vetting and from there it will have to go to the Government Printer. I cannot say how long they will all take.

Mr Hwang Soo Jin: I think the Minister of State misunderstood my question. I asked, when would he be able to announce the revision? I did not ask when it would be implemented.

Mr Sia Kah Hui: I understood the Member's question all right. However, unless it is ready and properly printed, we are not in a position to present it to this House.

Mr Hwang Soo Jin: I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Teong Eng Siong: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 0601 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1006.

Mr Speaker, Sir, under this subhead 1 wish to talk about industrial accidents. There has been a considerable increase in the number of industrial accidents over the past one year. According to statistics released by the Ministry of Labour, the number of accidents which occurred last year was more than that in the previous year. Undoubtedly this is a grave situation which warrants proper attention. The victims and their families deserve our sympathy and help. Their welfare is at stake. We should therefore consider their plight. Many of the victims' wives have become widows and their children have become orphans. I urge the Minister for Labour to take positive and effective steps to reduce the number of industrial accidents. He should ensure that our workers are able to work in safer circumstances. However, in spite of my appeal, it is regrettable that the Ministry of Labour has not taken any steps to improve the situation and to solve the problems arising out of industrial accidents. At the very best, the Ministry has only set up some so-called committees to look into the matter superficially. They even go to the extent of organising industrial seminars just to put up a show. They have invited so-called experts to talk "hell of a lot" at such seminars and nothing else.

The Chairman: I think "hell of a lot" is unparliamentary language.

Mr J. F. Conceicao: It is the translation.

The Chairman: We will excuse the Member. Please carry on.

Mr Teong Eng Siong: (In Mandarin): If you think I have used an unparliamentary expression, I withdraw it.

What is worse is that their recommendations and proposals are very high sounding but rather impractical. In my view, the seminars are just a waste of time. They have not contributed anything that will actually solve the problem of industrial accidents. If we wish to do something about this grave situation, we must invite those who have practical experience in the industrial field to study the problems and to make recommendations for their solution. For example, we can invite factory managers, engineers or even foremen to come forward with suggestions on how to solve the problem. It is these people who know the actual situation and are capable of recommending measures to reduce the number of accidents. I am sure they will be able to contribute useful and more practical proposals than those expounded at seminars by the so-called experts.

The employers of factories should also take greater responsibility to see that the number of industrial accidents is reduced. They should ensure that over-age machinery is replaced in time in order to safeguard the lives of the workers. I remember that in the last fiscal year, during the debate on the budget, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour told this House that the greatest problem confronting the Industrial Safety Unit was the shortage of factory inspectors. The reason was that the allocation of funds was inadequate for the increased number of factory inspectors required. If that is the case, I think the problem is rather simple. When we have more factory inspectors, we will be able to increase industrial safety. We can spend a bit more. We should be prepared to allocate more funds for this purpose. We should take immediate remedial action in this field. I wish to ask the Minister whether the number of factory inspectors will be increased this year. There are more factories in Singapore now and the number of workers is ever increasing. We should, therefore, have more factory inspectors to go round to ensure that the safety measures are properly observed. They should go round and see that the factory employers themselves have proper safety measures in their factories.

I wish to draw the attention of the Minister to another point. Can he inform this I-louse why there has been an increase in the number of industrial accidents? What are the causes contributing to such accidents? Is the Ministry of Labour making any comprehensive study of the matter? If we have the reasons, and a proper study is made, we will be able to reduce the number of accidents.

Mr S. Rajaratnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I will first enlighten the Member for Sembawang. I think he has asked the right question - What are the causes for the rise in the number of industrial accidents? The first reason is the number of factories, which has increased from 3,963 in 1969 to some 4,050 in 1970. The number of machines, steam boilers and other machines involved has, therefore, correspondingly increased. So has the work of industrial employees. I think the figures I have been given indicate that there has been an increase of 22,700 industrial workers during the past year. The frequency of the rates of accidents is about the same. But the fact is that because a larger number of workers are involved, the number of accidents in the factories has tended to increase as compared with 1969. In the year before last there were 1,270 industrial accidents, and in 1970 the number was 1,525. The number of fatal accidents increased from 29 to 36. I agree with the Member for Sembawang that preventive measures can be taken by the Government. But one shortcoming in previous years was the lack of sufficient factory inspectors. However, this year the Ministry has made good this shortcoming and some 27 additional posts have been created in the Factory Inspectorate Section. These new posts, when filled, will enable the Ministry to carry out more frequent and thorough factory inspections.

The second reason for the increased number of industrial accidents is that both the employers and the workers themselves have not taken care to observe the factory safety regulations that now exist. I have forgotten the figures, but a majority of the accidents were due to the workers themselves neglecting to observe the safety rules that they were supposed to observe. As the Minister of State has just indicated, fundamental amendments are going to be made to the Factory Ordinance. The Bill is practically ready. As far as I know, it has gone to the Attorney-General and once he has vetted the legal aspects of the amended Factory Ordinance, it will come before this House. I cannot give Members the details, but the amendments will provide for stiffer fines for any infringement of the required standards of safety. The amendments will also introduce higher standards of health and welfare required to be provided by employers. Personally, I think one of the areas where high rates of accidents take place is in the construction trade, primarily because of the rapid expansion of this sector of our economy.

5.00 p.m.

The Member for Sembawang does not believe in experts. But I fortunately do, because I would rather trust experts than one who claims that he is not an expert. Anyway, a group of people - I do not know whether the Member would consider them as experts but they, I believe, do know about safety regulations - from the National Productivity Centre, the National Safety First Council, the National Trades Union Congress, the Singapore Employers' Federation, the Singapore Manufacturers' Association, the Singapore Medical Association, the Society of Occupational Medicine and the University of Singapore (Faculty of Engineering), have considered this problem and submitted a report largely at the behest of the former Minister for Finance, now the Minister of Defence. They have suggested the formation of a council of industrial safety and health. On the whole, I think, in so far as is humanly possible, their recommendations would probably halt and reduce the alarming rate of growth of industrial accidents in Singapore. These are some of the measures that the Government are taking. In the past, the problems of industrial accidents were rather neglected in the Labour Ministry's work largely because industrial expansion was rather slow and we were able to cope with these problems in a somewhat leisurely fashion. But since the last four or five years, the very rapid growth, plus the level of skills that our workers are now acquiring, makes it more imperative that greater attention and seriousness should be given to preserving the health and safety of our workers in Singapore.

Mr Teong Eng Siong: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to clarify a point. I do not treat experts with contempt. I have no such intention. If I should treat them with contempt, I would not call them experts at all. What I tried to say was that the recommendations of a seminar or a meeting should be more practical and feasible for adoption. If at the end of a seminar or a meeting, there is no follow-up and that is the end of it, then, in my view, such a meeting or seminar will be quite a waste of time.

In any case, I must thank the Minister for being very patient with me and for enumerating the number of measures that he has taken, I am satisfied with his answer. I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman: I propose to take the suspension now.

Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House.

Mr Speaker: I suspend the sitting now and shall take the Chair again at 5.35 p.m.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 5.06 p.m. until 5.35 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.35 p.m.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate in Committee of Supply resumed.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Head 0601 (contd.) -

Mr Conceicao: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head (601 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1015.

Sir, there is just one point that I would like to make in relation to the Higher Executive Officer (Employment Exchange Manager). Why is it that it sometimes takes as long as three or four years for people who have registered at the Employment Exchange to be notified of possible employment? Apart from that, I do not see any other reason why the gentleman's salary should be reduced from $15,000 to $11,000 a year.

Mr Rajaratnam: I do not know why the salary has been reduced. Probably the incumbent has not reached the appropriate scale or perhaps a new person has taken over. That notwithstanding, we are satisfied that there is no complaint..

With regard to the Member's primary question why there is a long delay in informing people who have been registered with the Employment Exchange, unless I know of~ specific examples, it might be so. But it is not generally true that there is a long delay, especially in view of the considerable shortages in various fields of skills. For example, I understand domestic servants, chauffeurs and persons with this category of skills are snapped up the moment they register. I am told that these are the categories of vacancies which are provided jobs, if not on the spot, then almost within a day or two: firemen, turners, carpenters, masons, dispatch riders, drivers, welders, fitters, pressmen, gardeners, mechanics, boilermakers and so on. But it is true that there is one category of people for whom there is delay simply because nobody wants them. These are the white-collar jobs, especially the clerical section, where there are too many registrants and too few jobs. According to the statistics provided to me, as of 31st December, 1970, there were 8,854 persons registered for white-collar jobs, while in the whole of that year only 182 such vacancies had been notified to the Exchange.

The other reason might be that very often people are offered jobs but the applicants have refused them for a variety of reasons. Some of them say that the place of work is too far from their homes, or the nature of `the work is not to their liking, or the salary offered by the employer is not enough. These people have therefore rejected offers of jobs or have told the Exchange, "Look, I am still on the register but I would like something that meets my conditions of service." Therefore, they may take that as insufficient attention being paid by the Employment Exchange to their particular needs.

Another reason might be that there Is no law to compel employers to make use of the Employment Exchange when vacancies occur in their establishments. As a result, employers prefer to find their own candidates, and not necessarily through the Employment Exchange. So since the beginning of this year, we have amended the law in regard to national servicemen.

On the whole, I would say that, as far as I can gather, if applicants have the skills and if the jobs are there, there is no delay and the people are immediately found jobs. But in the case of white-collar workers, I agree - it is a lesson that white-collar workers should take very much to heart -- that there is less demand for them. If they go to the Employment Exchange and if they are offered jobs as factory operatives, suggest very strongly that while they are still young they should take these jobs which are offered to them.

Mr Cheong Yuen Chee: Sir, it is quite often that the Employment Exchange officers accept applications for all categories of work like hospital servants, school servants, cleaners and sweepers although there are practically no such vacancies. This gives rise to ~i lot of misunderstanding between the registrants and the Employment Exchange. In most cases, these people go to their M.P.s and complain. I wonder whether it would not be desirable for the officers in the Employment Exchange to give at least some indication to people who go there for registration as to how long they have to wait for certain categories of jobs.

Mr Rajaratnam: I do not know whether that is a feasible or wise suggestion. I am quite sure that some M.P.s will get up next time and ask me why is it that somebody wanted to register for a job as an amah and the application was turned down and a week later there was a vacancy for an amah's job. We cannot plan these things. Everybody is registered. You never know. There might or might not be a job for a white-collar worker. In fact, I am not quite sure about amahs. According to my information, there is a great demand for amahs.

Mr Cheong Yuen Chee: Hospital amahs.

Mr Rajaratnam: That is one of the cushier jobs which everybody wants, besides being a school attendant or a school sweeper. These are very popular jobs. But unfortunately there are not enough schools or hospitals to accommodate them all.

5.45 p.m.

I would therefore suggest that the best thing is that the M.P, concerned should advise his constituents on the employment opportunities available in Singapore rather than that the officers in the Ministry of Labour should do this, because it would be misunderstood that they are uncooperative.

Mr Conceicao: I wish to thank the Minister and I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The following amendment stood in the name of Mr N. Govindasamy -

(4) That the sum to be allocated for Head 0601 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1039.

The Chairman: Mr N. Govindasamy, amendment (4) .

Mr N. Govindasamy: I am not moving, Sir.

Mr Ng Yeow Chong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 0601 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1101*. (*The same amendment also stood in the names of Mr Low Guan Onn, Mr Conceicao and Mr Hwang Soo Jin.)

My intention in moving this amendment is to make a little suggestion to the Minister for Labour to set up a Branch Factory Inspectorate in Jurong as the majority of our industries are located in Jurong Town. If this is done, it will facilitate the work of carrying out routine checks on factories. It will also be convenient to the factory owners who may wish to consult the Branch Factory Inspectorate from time to time on their factory problems.

Mr Low Guan Onn (River Valley): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am happy to note that in the Estimates for the fiscal year 1971-72, provisions have been made for the increase of two more Inspectors, eight more Technical Officers, and 16 Technicians to strengthen the Factory Inspectorate. This is a long overdue provision. In this connection, I wish to take this opportunity to commend the present Chief Inspector of Factories and his assistants on performing their job, under stress and strain, with dedication and loyalty. Despite the rapid increase in the number of factories, the Factory Inspectorate has not had any increase in staff for so long. Taking their professional experience into consideration, their conduct bears testimony to their selfless devotion to their work and duty and to the nation, without looking for new pastures to better their prospects. Many a man would have done so a long time ago.

Sir, I seek to clarify from the Minister the nature and duty of the Technical Officers and Technicians respectively. What kind of paper qualifications and practical experience must they have? I am also glad to hear from the Minister of State for Labour just now, in reply to the Member for Jalan Kayu, that in line with our industrial growth, the Government has, at long last, taken steps to revise the Factories Ordinance and the Workmen's Compensation Ordinance. I wish to remind the Minister that the new provisions in the Factories Ordinance should contain safety and health regulations which must be observed by both parties, that is employers as well as employees, and not a one-sided affair to apply to employers only.

Mr Conceicao: Mr Speaker, Sir, in this House yesterday, it was mentioned that in the case of industrial accidents a large measure of the fault was due to the workers themselves. May I take this opportunity of asking the Minister whether his Factory Inspectorate can bear this out with some data, that indeed a large measure of the responsibility for industrial accidents rests with the workers rather than with the employers?

Mr Sia Kah Hui: First, in answer to the Member for Mountbatten. The Factory Inspectorate at the moment have only 20 staff. Of these, a few are office boys, messengers and process notice servers, posts like that, so the establishment is very much under strength. Although there is provision for 45 staff in the Inspectorate, I am afraid at the moment there are, as I have said, only 20 staff. The Public Service Commission is still doing some recruitment exercises.

As to the qualifications required of these people, I cannot say offhand what they are for the various grades of staff, but the job of recruitment is left with the P.S.C. As soon as they can get the candidates, the Inspectorate can function. Until the Inspectorate has reached such a stage that it feels there is the need to set up a branch in Jurong, I do not think steps will be taken to that effect.

The Member for Katong talks about the cases of accidents and the responsibility involved. For 1970, out of a total of 9,682 cases, 81.14 per cent of the accidents, that is 7,856 cases, were due to the negligence of the workers. These figures are compiled from the Workmen's Compensation Claims. A total of 81.14 per cent were due to the negligence of the workers; and 271 cases, that is 2.8 per cent, could be attributed to the negligence of the employers. But there were 1,555 cases which were, I would call, real accidents, where nobody was really at fault. So you can see from these comparative figures that the workers themselves were largely to blame for the accidents.

As to safety measures, I have indicated earlier on that the new set of Building Operations and Works and of Engineering Construction Regulations, 1971, will be ready shortly, and it will be obligatory on the part of employers and employees to observe the regulations set out. Members may not be aware that the Inspectorate publishes a cyclostyled newsletter called "Safety Inspectorates" every six months. A thousand copies of this newsletter are printed and distributed free to the larger factories. Every aspect of safety is dealt with therein. I think this also contributes to the education of both management and workers.

Mr N. Govindasamy: Mr Speaker, Sir, a matter of clarification. If the statistics mentioned by the Minister of State for Labour are right - and I do not doubt his words - could the large number of accidents attributed to the negligence of the workers be due to the lack of safety devices and not the result of direct negligence? Is the Factory Inspectorate at this juncture sufficiently large to check the factories for the possibility of introducing safety devices? Perhaps the large number of accidents which the Minister has attributed to the negligence of the workers could be because of the lack of safety devices.

Mr Sia Kah Hui: No, Sir,If that is the case, the fault will lie with the employer, because it is the duty of the employer to see that safety devices are there. If they are not provided for, certainly the fault lies with the employer.

Mr Conceicao: It seems that the Minister has acknowledged that it would also be the responsibility of the Factory Inspectorate to help in the education of workers, because he has mentioned that circulars, especially that newsletter called "Safety Inspectorates", are sent out. He mentions that this constituted a form of education. This is the third time in the last few days that it has been mentioned in this House that you can educate people by sending out circulars. Will it not be possible for the Inspector of Factories to think of some more substantial devices to help in the education of workers in this respect?

Mr Sia Kah Hui: As Members are aware, there is the training within industry set up in the Ministry of Labour. As the Government Whip, some months back I arranged for Members of Parliament to visit the Ministry of Labour to see this training within industry. More than 20 Members attended the morning talk given by the training officer. There is a special room set aside for this purpose and the training officer conducts courses on the safety measures. In fact, in this year's estimates, there is provision for an assistant training officer. This assistant training officer will spend most of his time on factory safety measures. You can see that every effort is being made to create safety consciousness among the people involved.

Mr Sia Khoon Seong (Moulmein): Mr Speaker, Sir, in commenting on what the Minister of State has just said regarding the efforts of the Ministry of Labour to promote safety consciousness, I think the room where he invited the Members of Parliament, including myself, is too small to try to promote safety consciousness among the thousands of workers in Singapore. I think that room could take in only about 20 persons at a time. Such being the case, how long will the Ministry take to reach the thousands of workers? The question here is not so much the education to be given at the shop steward level, the managerial level or the representative level, as the promotion of safety consciousness at the ground level, I think that is more important than having the Factory Inspectorate operate in a small room trying to inculcate safety consciousness among the workers. I think that probably accounts for the big number of industrial accidents.

Mr Sia Kah Hui: I think the Member for Moulmein has misunderstood me. The training within industry is mainly for managerial personnel supervisors on the factory floor. As the Member says we cannot expect to train the thousands of workers on safety measures, but we only hope to reach the factory floor supervisors and the executive people in the factories so that they will be able to educate their own workers. We cannot expect the Labour Ministry to educate all the workers.

6.00 p.m.

Mr Seah Mui Kok (Bukit Ho Swee): Mr Speaker, Sir, may I suggest to the Minister of State for Labour that in order to educate the workers on the importance of prevention of accidents, it will be a good idea for the Ministry of Labour to get some good films, especially those showing how to prevent accidents and how to handle machinery safely and so on. Such film shows will impress them better. They will have a better idea of these safety measures and be more conscious of the need to prevent industrial accidents. Of course, in addition to these film shows, pamphlets or circulars on this subject will help too, but film shows are just as important.

Mr Sia Kah Hui: Sir, the Members who visited the Ministry of Labour to see training within industry were also shown some films on factory safety measures. These same films are available to any factory supervisors who, having attended a safety course in the Ministry, would like to show them to their workers. They are at liberty to borrow the equipment and the films.

Mr Conceicao: Sir, I was one of those Members who were present at the film show. If I may be permitted to make this remark, Sir, the film that I saw on safety was a very hoary one indeed! In the film, the workers were wearing baggy pants of the post-war era, and I do not know whether this film will have any impact on our more modern workers.

Mr N. Govindasamy: Sir, is the Minister of State for Labour in a position to let us know the number of employers in Singapore who have utilised the facilities provided by the Ministry, such as borrowing the films? At the same time, has the executive staff been asked to attend the courses organised by the Ministry in respect of industrial health and safety?

Mr Sia Kah Hui: Sir, offhand I cannot give the figures involved, but the training officer in the Ministry conducts courses all the time and the people concerned are invited to attend. Perhaps this debate is a good opportunity for the press to give more publicity to this health and safety course. However, I can say that facilities are available in the Ministry of Labour for those people who are concerned with factory safety, especially in the manufacturing and non-manufacturing establishments. I would ask them to make good and full use of these facilities.

As for the films, I am afraid we can only screen or lend whatever is available. Although the Member for Katong may be quite right in saying that the films were made quite some years back, the purpose of the films is to show the danger of wearing the wrong type of apparel on the factory floor, and to get across the idea that certain types of clothing, even the long hair worn by female workers in factories, could be a source of danger to themselves. I think that is the whole idea, and not so much the kind of pants a factory worker puts on today.

Mr Sia Khoon Seong: Sir, has the Minister of State any plans to mount a campaign on industrial safety as vigorously as the "Keep Singapore Clean" campaign mounted by the Ministry of Health, or the campaign to stop smoking, which is mounted by the Ministry of Culture?

Mr Sia Kah Hui: Sir, lately the N.T.U.C, has been organising many seminars and meetings on safety measures, and I think that the Member for Kallang was instrumental in calling a meeting immediately after Dr Goh had made a speech at one of the seminars. That was followed by some more meetings at the N.T.U.C., and quite a number of them were reported in the press. I think the N.T.U.C, would be the appropriate body -

Mr Rajaratnam: Pass the buck.

Mr Sia Kah Hui: -to educate the workers, in the sense that they are their leaders. The Ministry of Labour is more concerned really with labour legislation and control, and to assist wherever necessary. In this respect, as I have said, the most important thing is the new building regulations. They will help because, at the moment as the people concerned do not take the Factories Ordinance seriously, some of the items in the new regulations have been listed in great detail. I do not want to waste the time of the House by quoting some of the regulations, but I hope that Members will have a copy in their hands soon.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr L. P. Rodrigo): Mr Speaker, Sir, actually I am befuddled by all these questions asked by the Backbenchers. I too was present on the occasion when the films were shown, and I thought that the Minister of State had answered quite well all the queries raised at that time, as well as those which have been raised here this afternoon. I do also remember that on that occasion tea and cakes were served!

Mr Conceicao: Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not think that little room in the Ministry of Labour is the same as Parliament House!

Mr Sia Khoon Seong: Sir, coming back to what the Minister of State has mentioned about the N.T.U.C. taking the responsibility for courses on industrial safety, I think that is a wrong step to take. This cannot be the sole responsibility of the N.T.U.C, and, as he himself has stated, the N.T.U.C, has done its share. I would have thought that the safety and welfare of the workers should be a tripartite affair. So as the N.T.U.C, has done its part, as the Minister of State has so kindly indicated, my question is: what has the Ministry done about the whole thing?

Mr Sia Kah Hui: The Ministry of Labour will be glad to assist and to participate in any safety measures that the N.T.U.C, can think of. Anyway, in the revised Factories Ordinance, the setting up of an Advisory Council on Safety Measures is contemplated, and that will involve the workers, management, and Government - a tripartite affair, as the Member has said. We are all obviously aware that no single individual or body can really tackle this problem, as it needs the co-operation of everyone concerned, including the N.T.U.C.

Mr Ng Yeow Chong: Sir, I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Teong Eng Siong: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 0601 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1251*.

(* The same amendment also stood in the names of Messrs. Ng Yeow Chong, P. Govindaswamy, Sim Boon Woo, N. Govindasamy.)

Sir, this question of citizenship is a painful one when I talk about the way it is dealt with. Sir, you will remember that in every budget debate over the last few years this question of citizenship always came up for discussion. The reason why we are concerned with this particular subject is that we, as representatives of the people, often come in close contact with the people and therefore have talked with them about citizenship.

Citizenship is concerned with the livelihood of our people. If an applicant is not given citizenship, it will give rise to many other problems. First of all, he will not be able to get a job. Because of this, his family will suffer and his wife and children will suffer too. This is a very serious topic. I hope Members opposite will not joke about it.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I fully realise that in the last few years the Government was very strict about granting citizenship. The reason is that out country was faced with serious economic problems then and therefore we had to adopt a very strict policy and not grant citizenship readily. But I wish to say that there were some aspects of the policy which were incorrect or inappropriate. Let me take, for example, the case of a family in my constituency. The parents are citizens of Singapore. Of their five children, four were born in Singapore, and only one was born outside Singapore. In other words, in a family of seven members, six are citizens of Singapore, and one is a non-citizen. Sir, this non-citizen member of the family has reached the age when he can apply for citizenship. He has already submitted three applications to the Registry of Citizenship, but every one has been rejected. He has since submitted his application for the fourth time. This young boy normally is full of life and zeal, but because time after time his application has been rejected, he has become very dejected, depressed and pessimistic.

Sir, I think the circumstances of this case are not isolated. There are many people in similar circumstances. Therefore, we have to consider this question very seriously. If most of the members of a family are citizens, where could a non-citizen member turn to for a living? He must find a means of livelihood in Singapore so that he can settle down and have his own family. I think this question should be seriously considered by the Minister and he should instruct his department to treat such cases with sympathy and not to reject all applications.

6.15 p.m.

Another example is this. Our Minister has often said that, as more people are given citizenship, our burden becomes heavier. I quite agree with him on this point. I think some of the applicants for citizenship need not impose an added burden on the Government. For example, some traders have a monthly income of $500 to $600. Sometimes their monthly income is $300 to $400. This is sufficient for them to support their own families. There are some applicants who are hawkers and if their business is fair, their income will be considerable. They will, therefore, be in a position to support their own families. However, applicants who are in this situation have also been rejected. I think perhaps the Government has been too strict. Since these people are in a position to support their families and will not impose an added burden on the Government, why do we not approve their applications for citizenship so that they can be loyal citizens and contribute their bit to the country? On behalf of these people, I would like to ask our Minister to consider their situation sympathetically and solve their difficulties.

There is another point I wish to raise. This concerns our policy of foreign investors. What attitude do we take in granting citizenship to them? We offer them facilities to stay here because they are useful to the development of our economy. This is as it should be.

The Chairman: The Member has one minute left.

Mr Teong Eng Siong: (In Mandarin): Our Government has given these people preferential treatment. I wish to know how many of them have been granted citizenship in the last few years. How many years have they been resident in Singapore? What is the position of their investment? How much have they invested? I wish to know also how many people applied for citizenship last year.

Mr Ng Yeow Chong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am concerned about those who were born in Singapore before and during the Japanese Occupation period and whose births were not reported and registered by their parents. They had no documentary evidence and were therefore not issued with the pink laminated identity cards during the last exercise in 1966 to replace the paper identity cards. Instead they were issued with blue identity cards and were, therefore, regarded as non-citizens. Consequently, they had to make applications for registration as Singapore citizens just as those who had migrated from other countries. Unfortunately, more often than not, their applications were not given any special consideration, even if they had the birth certificates of their brothers and sisters to support their cases. Most of these people are now married and have raised their children here. Yet they are still non-citizens. There are many such cases in my constituency. I believe there are quite a lot of similar cases in other constituencies. Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to appeal to the Minister for Labour to give these people the benefit of the doubt and approve their applications for citizenship.

The Chairman: Does the Minister wish to reply to the first two speakers or does he like the others to carry on before he replies?

Mr Rajaratnam: I will wait until they have finished speaking.

Mr P. Govindaswamy (Anson): Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to bring up the chronic problem of the granting of citizenship. At last year's budget sitting, the Minister for Labour stated clearly that the granting of citizenship was a matter of privilege and not of right. He said that the criterion for the granting of citizenship was whether the applicant was going to be an asset to our country. While I fully agree with the Minister on this, I wish to point out that this principle applies more appropriately to people who have money to invest in Singapore or who have the special skills required in Singapore's growing industries. However, there are some people who do not fall within these two categories, and to refuse them citizenship would cause hardship to them, especially as they are, in fact, eligible for citizenship. In this respect, Sir, allow me to cite the case of a Singapore citizen who has died, leaving behind a widow with several children who were all born in Singapore. She has applied for citizenship. If she is not granted citizenship, it will be difficult for her to get a job. If she cannot get a job, how is she going to support her children who were born in Singapore?

Another case I wish to quote is that of a girl who was born in Malaysia. Soon after her birth, her mother died and she was brought to Singapore and taken care of by her grandfather who is a Singapore citizen. She is now 24 years old. All these years she has had her education here, and has never left Singapore even for a short holiday.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not suggesting that the Minister should open the door and allow all and sundry who wish to work in Singapore to be given citizenship. But I would like to know whether the Minister will give due consideration to deserving cases.

Mr Sim Boon Woo: Mr Speaker, Sir, the question of applications for citizenship has been brought up in this House every year, like the playing of an old record. The reason why it is being taken up every year is that citizenship is of paramount importance to everyone who has been residing in the republic for many years. Sir, this House has heard many grouses and suggestions even at today's sitting. Sir, if you will recall, in answer to Members of this House last year, that the Minister of State for Labour stated that the policy of granting citizenship would be reviewed from time to time. My question is this: can the Minister tell Members of this House what is the present policy? In his budget statement, the Minister for Finance has stated that our economy is improving, the industries are going very well, and we are short of workers. Sir, if that is the case, I wonder whether citizenship will be granted to those who really want to stay in the republic throughout all their lives and who want to be the sons of the soil in this place.

Mr N. Govindasamy: Sir, as the Member for Changi has pointed out, the Citizenship Registry and the Government's policy on citizenship came under heavy criticism during the last budget debate. In view of and subsequent to the various criticisms levelled at the Government during the last budget debate, has there been any change in the Government's policy on citizenship? From my own experience, I notice that applicants for citizenship have to wait much longer than ever before.

There has been no apparent improvement at all in the processing of applications by the Registry of Citizenship. The only improvement that can be credited to the Registry is the prompt response to an inquiry by Members of Parliament about applications which may be pending for two years or even more. The Registry, undoubtedly, is of the view that it has conscientiously discharged its duty by promptly informing us that the application is still under active consideration.

The Members who have spoken previously have mentioned particular cases. Sir, may I also point out a particular case where the prompt reply from the Registry would make all and sundry laugh, especially at the manner in which the reply was given. The parents, brothers and sisters of this applicant for citizenship are all citizens. The parents applied for minor citizenship for the person concerned when she was almost 18 years old. Next month this applicant would have become a major, that is, she would have passed 21 years of age, and when an appeal was made, because in one month's time her minor citizenship application would be invalidated because she would be 21 years old, the usual cyclostyled reply was, "Your application is under active consideration." There need not be any consideration, Sir, because in one and a half month's time the application would have become invalidated. That was the immediate reply. Nobody ever sees the appeal made on behalf of any applicant. This particular applicant is in one of the tertiary institutions receiving remission of tuition fees because her parents are citizens and because this applicant is a minor at the moment. When the next term in the university begins, she is not going to receive a remission of tuition fees because, in her own right, she becomes a major and, as a result, loses this remission. This afternoon we have heard that the number of bursaries is to be limited. Hardship cases of this nature should receive at least some consideration, or the grounds for appeal should at least be looked into. No. Sir, it was just a prompt reply from the Registry of Citizenship. That is all that happened.

6.30 p.m.

Sir, I should have thought that instead of just replying promptly, the Registry would need further reactivation. I hope the Minister can enlighten Members on the following points:

(1) What is the total number of (a) applications for citizenship received; and (b) applications approved; and (c) applications rejected during the year 1970?

(2) Is the prolongation of the processing period for citizenship applications due to a conscious and deliberate policy of the

Ministry or the inability of the Registry to cope with the volume of work?

(3) What is the longest period for citizenship applications to be considered? Is it possible to speed up the procedure for the issue of a citizenship certificate to a minor applicant who is the only non-citizen in a family of citizens?

Mr S. Ramaswamy: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am also concerned with certain categories of applicants for citizenship whose applications have been rejected. I wish to explain the categories that I have in mind. I shall explain by quoting an example. The parents, brothers and sisters of a certain applicant are all Singapore citizens by birth. This particular applicant was born in Malaysia by accident. By accident, I mean this particular applicant was born when the parents were living temporarily for three months in Kuala Lumpur because the applicant's father was transferred there for about three months only. Since then, this applicant has never been out of Singapore and has always been here, educated here and lived here.

The Minister, in replying to queries made last year, said that citizenship would not be granted to those who were a burden to Singapore. This person whom I have mentioned cannot go anywhere and will be a burden to Singapore, whether he is granted Singapore citizenship or not. I appeal to the Minister to consider this case and similar cases sympathetically. This person cannot go anywhere, cannot get any other citizenship, and his future is also affected. He cannot get employment. Where can he go?

I also wish to associate myself with the view aired by the Member for Telok Blangah that decisions on applications be made as soon as possible and the applicants be notified as quickly as possible.

Mr Sia Khoon Seong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I crave your indulgence and the indulgence of this House to relate another pathetic example of a minor citizen who, as a result of his failure to take the oath of allegiance, has had his citizenship withdrawn. I think this was unnecessary if the Registrar of Citizens had exercised some discretion in the implementation of the policy on the granting of citizenship. May I relate the ridiculous situation in which this particular person faced? He was granted minor citizenship and, in many other cases, on the certificate of the minor citizenship there is a reminder to the effect that he must take the oath of allegiance when he reaches the age of 21. But in this particular case, somehow or other, there was a clerical error or there was an omission on the part of the staff of the Registry of Citizenship, and this was not done. So there was really very good reason for the person concerned to be ignorant of the fact that he had to take the oath of allegiance when he reaches the age of 21. We must not expect every citizen to have the law at his finger-tips. At the same time, this person received a scholarship from the Teachers' Training College to be a technical teacher. He went for the teacher-training course on a Government scholarship which stipulates that only citizens can be granted that scholarship. When he applied for the scholarship, his age was 19 plus. He got the scholarship because he was a Singapore citizen. Before he completed the training, however, his citizenship was withdrawn because, when he passed the age of 21, the Registry of Citizenship discovered that he had not taken the oath of allegiance and so withdrew his minor citizenship. This person is now in a predicament. I wrote to the Ministry of Education and enquired about his position and whether he was going to continue receiving the scholarship in the Teachers' Training College. Sir, when there is a shortage of teachers these days, nobody can deny the fact that anybody who takes up teacher training, in technical education is making a contribution to the country. Up to now I have neither received a reply from the Ministry of Education nor a reply from the Ministry of Labour as to whether immediate consideration would be given to this particular case in giving him citizenship. This was a clear case of an unfortunate incident in which the person concerned should not be entirely blamed because, as I have said, in other cases there is a reminder that the person must take the oath of allegiance when he reaches the age of 21. In this particular case, the reminder was not there. This is one example in my constituency. There are many more examples to show that the Ministry of Labour is going a bit too far when they decide on citizenship applications.

Mr Rajaratnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, this is one of those items in the budget where I have to repeat what I said during the last two years. I am quite-reconciled to this ritual because I do not think I am going to convince Members of my point of view. There is no doubt that I will remain unconvinced as regards their points of view.

However, let me say that we are well aware that the rigid application of our citizenship laws does cause hardships. But there are many laws and a law is a general principle applied to specific situations and invariably there are individual cases which do not fit into the general structure. Ask any lawyer, and he will tell you that there are no other ways of formulating laws.

Sir, in the case of citizenship laws, we have to balance one principle against the other. If I may repeat what I have repeatedly said, Singapore is a small island and we have serious economic problems affecting two million people, and until we are quite convinced that we can cope with and satisfy and protect the interests of our citizens first, we are not going to open our doors to citizenship for whatever reasons (some of them are no doubt cogent) for -- I cannot give the exact figures - but probably they are in the region of 20,000 to 30,000 cases. This problem will cease to exist as the years go on, because this is a problem which resulted from our separation from Malaysia, and is one of the consequences we have to accept. The principle always is that if we grant citizenship to a non-citizen, the primary consideration must be and will be: is it in the interest of Singapore? Will he constitute a burden to Singapore? Because if you make an exception in the case of one, you must be prepared to make an exception for the others. It is an unfortunate and difficult matter. But it is a choice we have to make.

Let me say that the policy has never changed. We never said that we were going to change the policy. But in the implementation of the policy, as far as is possible, we do make adjustments and exercise discretion, but it must not infringe the basic principle that we enunciate, that the applicant for citizenship does not constitute a burden to Singapore.

I think it was the Member for Mountbatten who said that in case of doubt, give the applicant the benefit of the doubt and therefore create more citizens. We are not prepared to treat citizenship in such a light-hearted fashion where we give the benefit of the doubt to not one or two but tens of thousands.

Mr Ng Yeow Chong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I said that we give the benefit of the doubt to those cases who can support their applications with birth certificates of their brothers and sisters who are citizens.

Mr Rajaratnam: A point that has repeatedly been made is that if a person is a non-citizen, he is starving. I say that any non-citizen, and especially those who hold blue identity cards, can get work permits to work in Singapore today. Unless the man is incapable of work or cannot contribute in any way to the economic well-being of Singapore, he can get work. Therefore, to that extent, even if he is a non-citizen, he can earn a living if he is prepared to take the kind of work that is offered to him. Therefore, that point raised is not a cogent reason for opening the doors to citizenship. If it were only to a few hundred cases, we would have said, "Open the doors and change our policy." But it involves tens of thousands.

Regarding the specific cases that have been mentioned - there were so many of them - I am always loath to make judgments purely on the presentation of the case from one side. I have been a newspaper man. I know how to write stories which are factually correct but which are not true. So a case may be right, or it may be wrong. I would not like to make a pronouncement unless and until those Members who have given the instances refer them to me or to the Minister of State for Labour, and we will look into them.

6.45 p.m.

It may be that the Members are right, in which event we will give these cases consideration. It may be that most of the stories related in this House are not correct, in which case the applications will have to be rejected. A number of the cases no doubt conform to the principle of our policy, that where all members of the family are Singapore citizens but one who, for one reason or other, missed the boat but who will not be a burden to Singapore, his application will be given sympathetic consideration. The over-riding principle is whether he will be an economic burden to Singapore. If today a man is a hawker and is just able to provide for himself and his family, that does not mean that a year from now he will not constitute an economic burden to the state. But if we are convinced that this man will, on a reasonable assumption, continue to provide for himself, and all members of his family are Singapore citizens, then his case will be sympathetically considered. I know of a number of cases where favourable consideration was given to one member of the family who for one reason or other could not be a Singapore citizen.

In reply to the Member for Telok Blangah who wants to know how many applications for citizenship have been approved or rejected, I cannot say offhand, but if he will write in, we can provide the necessary statistics. May I give Members the advice that I give to members of my constituency? I get lots of people who, for one reason or other, come to see me about citizenship. I give them one very sound piece of advice which has been referred to as criticism of the Ministry. Lots of people have made applications and they get this ritualistic reply saying, "It is under active consideration." The people come to me saying, "I have been under consideration for the last two years." I tell them, "I can give you a note to the Registrar of Citizens asking him to look into your case, but the chances are that if you press him to make a decision now, he must reject it under the existing policy. The fact that it is under consideration means that if, at some future time, for a variety of reasons, we find that we can let in more non-citizens, then, if you are still under consideration, maybe you will be among those who will be able to g-et in. So if you press the Registrar to make a decision now, you do it at your own risk." Some of them never believed me and sure enough when they pressed for a reply - the officer had to make a decision - he was forced to make a decision and under existing policy it must be "no". So this is the advice I give and Members should give to their constituents, that where no decision has been made, it is best to let sleeping dogs lie and do not force the officials concerned at the moment because the policy is a clear one. But if the applicant is going to be an economic liability, the answer is no.

An hon. Member: No news is good news!

Mr Rajaratnam: Yes, no news is good news. This briefly sets out the Government policy in regard to the granting of citizenship. There has been no change in policy and we are not going to change it until we are satisfied that during the next one or two years, the British withdrawal and other factors are not going to create serious economic difficulties which will involve our citizens first. Once we are sure of that, we may be prepared to make some adjustments to our current policy in regard to citizenship.

Mr Hwang Soo Jin: Can I just make a small point? On those cases which are still under active consideration, I hope the Minister will direct the staff that whenever they are approached by members of the public, they should explain to them that there is no point in wasting their time coming back. There have been occasions where such applicants were referred by the officials to Members of Parliament. This is wasting everybody's time. It is an easy way out for a civil servant to say, "Well, if you want something to be done, go and see your M.P." This attitude is wrong basically.

Mr Rajaratnam: I will take note of what the Member says and tell the officials to say, "Well, don't see your M.P.!"

Mr Hwang Soo Jin: The policy is already very clearly laid down and surely the directive that civil servants should not pass the buck to the M.P.s should go down the line. This is wasting the time of the applicants, not just the time of the M.P.s, which is less important than that of the public.

Mr Teong Eng Siong: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have heard the explanation given by the Minister and I am prepared to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Teong Eng Siong: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 0601 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1351*. (*The same amendment also stood in the names of Messrs. S. Ramaswamym, P. Govindaswamy and Ho Kah Leong.)

Under this subhead I would like to raise some points regarding work permits. I have received a number of complaints from factory employers that their applications for work permits have been unduly delayed, in some cases, for as long as three to four months without a reply. It is my view that this delay is causing unnecessary difficulty to the factories involved.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I remember that during the budget debate last year the Minister for Labour stated that the rules relating to the applications for work permits would be relaxed to some extent. In fact today he himself has stated that non-citizens are also eligible to apply for work permits which will be given on sympathetic grounds. This is a very welcome piece of news to many people. We all know that our factories are short of workers, particularly skilled workers. Manual workers are also in acute shortage in some places. Therefore, the Work Permits Office should assist the factories involved by speedier processing of their applications for work permits and granting them quickly. The work in the Work Permits Office should be spread out. I have received many complaints from various factories about unnecessary delays. I do not know the actual reason for the delay. It is my hope that the Minister will look into the matter and find out whether there is any good reason at all for the delay. If there is, it should be explained. Does the delay mean that the relaxation of the rules in respect of work permits is being reconsidered? If not, it is probably the failure of the Government servants concerned to speed up their work. It is my hope that the Minister will supervise more closely the work of the civil servants involved so as to improve the efficiency of the Work Permits Office. In this way, it will also contribute to our industrial development.

The next query I wish to ask is this: over the past one year, how many cases of applications for work permits have been received, how many have been granted, and how many have been rejected? What are the main reasons for rejecting these applications?

Mr Ramaswamy: Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to take this opportunity to appeal to the Minister to be liberal in issuing work permits to people who work as drivers of cars or construction workers. It is a well-known fact that although construction workers are in great demand, they are not available. Now and then we hear of workers who have lost their lives in the construction field. If we enquire who the persons are, we will know that they are from Malaysia. Likewise, motor-car drivers are not at all available in Singapore now. There are hundreds of vacancies for drivers in the Government itself, but these have not been filled for years. The Minister of State for Labour is personally aware of this fact. I have also heard that in the army, there are thousands of vacancies for drivers of army vehicles. A lot of army vehicles are not being used because drivers are not available. As such, will the Government do something to relieve this shortage by liberally issuing work permits to those who can be employed as drivers and construction workers?

7.00 p.m.

Mr P. Govindaswamy: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government has often said that, in order to sustain the rapid growth of Singapore's industries and in view of the shortage of certain skilled labour, it is prepared to relax its immigration laws to allow skilled labourers to work in Singapore. I wish to seek clarification from the Minister as to what constitutes skilled labour. As an example, if a restaurant advertises for a cook, and if no suitable applicant is available, can the proprietor employ a cook from overseas?

The Chairman: Mr Ho Kah Leong? He is not here.

Mr Sia Kah Hui: Sir, to deal with the last question first. The Member for Anson talked about the specific case of a skilled cook. I should say that if there is no skilled cook available in Singapore and if he can find one somewhere else, I am sure a work permit will be given to him.

As for the Member for Potong Pasir who talked about drivers and construction workers, I think it is an exaggeration to say that there are hundreds of such vacancies in Government. I do not think there are that many. There are probably 40 or 50 vacancies in the Government service.

As for his question on construction workers, I think he has not been reading the newspapers in the last few months. If you will remember, Sir, a couple of months back there was a hue and cry from contractors regarding the shortage of construction workers. So a meeting was held between the Ministry of Labour and the Singapore Contractors' Association to simplify the procedure of applying for and issuing of work permits, and this was implemented. I should, therefore, imagine that there has been no difficulty so far.

Mr Ramaswamy: On a point of clarification, Sir.

The Chairman: If the Minister of State will give way.

Mr Sia Kah Hui: Yes, Sir.

Mr Ramaswamy: Sir, I am aware of this fact. But apparently construction workers are still not available.

Mr Sia Kah Hui: Sir, if construction workers are not available, that has nothing to do with the Work Permits Office. It only issues work permits when contractors can find the workers. We do not find workers for them. The Member for Potong Pasir must not confuse the issue. In fact, I can say that up to the end of February this year. 243 contractors had submitted block applications for work permits. And -at this moment I think there are 5,527 non-citizen construction workers being employed by the contractors. So you can see how quickly applications for work permits are dealt with.

The Member for Sembawang talked about factories having to wait three or four months before they could get work permits for their workers. This is rather surprising to me. But if he will give me the particular instances in writing, I can assure him that I will look into them. I just cannot see any reason for applications to be hanging around in the office for three or four months.

He also asked for figures relating to the number of applications approved, rejected, and so on. I am afraid I cannot give them to him now, but if he will put the question in a separate item of business, I shall be glad to answer him.

Mr Ramaswamy: Sir, I have not yet got an answer to my question whether the Government will be liberal in issuing work permits to drivers.

Mr Sia Kah Hui: Sir, for any category of workers that are in short supply, work permits will be given.

Mr Cheong Yuen Chee: Sir, I think the Minister of State for Labour has missed one very important point. There are two procedures for processing an application for a work permit. If the applicant is a holder of a Singapore blue identity card, he goes through the usual process and his application is dealt with expeditiously. But for those who come from Malaysia or elsewhere, in addition to submitting applications to the Work Permits Office, they also have to submit applications to the Immigration Department for visit passes. I believe this is where the delay is caused.

Mr Sia Kah Hui: Sir, I am afraid I cannot speak for the Immigration Department. But as far as the Work Permits Office is concerned, we deal with the applications in the normal way. And for those people who are resident outside Singapore, their cases must, of course, be referred to the Immigration Department.

Mr Cheong Yuen Chee: Mr Speaker, Sir, since the forms for the application of a work permit as well as for a visa are issued, by the Work Permits Office, surely there must be some liaison between these two departments.

Mr Sia Kah Hui: Normally if a type of skilled labour is in very short supply, temporary permission to work can be given by the Work Permits Office. But until the Immigration Department gives the clearance, of course the worker will only be given temporary permission to work, but not a proper work permit. A proper work permit for six months, a year, or for stated periods will only be issued when the whole administrative process has been completed.

Mr Teong Eng Siong: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister of State has given me a satisfactory answer, and I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Conceicao: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 0601 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 2004.

I merely want to seek information regarding these claims under the Workmen's Compensation Ordinance. Am I right in presuming that this provision is for claims against the Ministry of Labour? If so, can the Minister let us know how many claims were made during the last financial year, what was the extent of these claims, and how serious were the injuries caused? Further, can the Minister inform me whether the proportion of responsibility for the fault either resting with the workers or with the management is the same as that outlined by his Minister of State?

Mr Rajaratnam: Sir, the Member for Katong is correct in assuming that the vote of $27,000 under this subhead is in respect of claims against various Government departments. I am not quite sure whether I can give any details of the nature of these accidents or who was at fault, because I do not have the data with me. But I can say that altogether some 36 claims were made against various Government departments and about $31,000 was paid as compensation.

I would also like to take this opportunity to enlighten the House on the question of the revision of the Workmen's Compensation Ordinance which was raised earlier. The revision is almost completely processed, and is just waiting for certain formalities. It is the intention of the Government to revise the compensation upward by roughly three times the present amount. For example, in the case of an injured worker below 40 years of age, the present maximum lump sum compensation of $7,200 will, I think, be raised to well over $21,000. So if Government employees continue to get involved in accidents, the provision of $27,000 may be much more at the next budget session.

Mr Conceicao: Mr Speaker, Sir, to follow up, may I ask the Minister whether his Ministry is responsible for all claims for accidents that occur in the various departments of the Government? If that is so, then perhaps the Ministry of Labour should take steps to ensure that there are maximum safety conditions of work in the various Government departments so as to minimise the possibility of accidents. In this way we might not have to pay so much compensation later on.

Mr Rajaratnam: Sir, as far as I can gather, compensation is paid out of this vote. It seems to me that the accidents are not particularly serious. The amounts of claims vary between $100 and $200. Except for one claim of $6,000, the others are small amounts. I suppose the standards of precaution in Government departments are considerably higher than those found elsewhere.

Mr Conceicao: Sir, may I thank the Minister, and beg leave to withdraw?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Conceicao: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 0601 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 2009.

Sir, we have talked about Training. Within-Industry, but perhaps the Minister for Labour or his Minister of State can enlighten us on what this vote of $1,500 is for.

Mr Sia Kah Hui: Sir, T.W.I., or Training-Within-Industry, is a scheme organised by the Ministry of Labour to render service to industry, commerce, and the Government departments concerned. Its aim is to increase efficiency through effective supervision training. This point has been touched on by the Member for Katong some months back. The provision asked for is to get an assistant. In fact, as I have said earlier on, an Assistant Training Officer will be appointed.

Mr Conceicao: This provision that I am talking about comes under O.C.A.R., and not Personal Emoluments.

Mr Sia Kah Hui: This O.C.A.R, vote is to meet incidental expenses. For example, we may need to hand out cyclostyled material.

The Minister for Communications (Mr Yong Nyuk Lin): Coffee and cakes!

Mr Sia Kah Hui: There is also a need for stationery, training equipment accessories, duplicating materials such as stencils, ink, and items like that. That is why the amount is not large.

Mr Conceicao: Mr Speaker, Sir, going back to the occasion of the visit to the Ministry of Labour which the Minister of State has touched on earlier, I think I can say that those who went there were impressed indeed by the service provided, apart from the film that I referred to. May I ask if this excellent service is being adequately distributed among industry, and, if not, could it be spread out a little bit more than it is at present?

7.15 p.m.

Mr Sia Kah Hui: I think enough publicity is being given at present through the training facilities provided by the Ministry. The various employer agencies do make use of these training facilities. When the courses are organised, all the people concerned are informed in advance and they send their people to attend them.

Mr Conceicao: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Conceicao: I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 0601 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 2013.

Again, I am seeking information regarding the scheme which requires cases of industrial diseases to be reported. Apparently, payment is being made for such reports. However, the-vote is only $10. Presumably we do not know the number of reports which will come in. Can I be enlightened a little further on this matter?

Mr Rajaratnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, under the Factories Ordinance, every registered medical practitioner who is called to visit a patient who, in his opinion, may be suffering from any industrial disease is required to report to the Chief Inspector of Factories. He must state the particulars about the ailment which the patient is suffering from. He is entitled to a fee of $5 for each notice, payable from public funds. Since the number of these reports cannot be projected, we have only a token sum of $10. If we do not have enough funds, as was the case last year when there were 13 such notices of industrial diseases, we can find the money elsewhere. We have just put in a token amount here so that we can vary it as the circumstances demand.

Mr Conceicao: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Hwang Soo Jin: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 0601 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 2016.

This is an item on rehabilitation and retraining of disabled persons. The amount allocated under this subhead has been reduced from $9,500 to $8,000. I do hope that this is not an indication by the Minister that he is placing less importance on the rehabilitation and retraining of disabled persons.

Sir, in view of the greater number of industrial accidents, it is fair to presume that the number of disabled persons will increase from year to year. As I see it, there is a need to increase the facilities for the rehabilitation and retraining of disabled persons. However, in view of the very small provision of $8,000, I do not really see what kind of facilities can be offered. I should appreciate it if the Minister could give some information on the facilities at present available in his Ministry.

Mr Sia Kah Hui: I think the Minister for Social Affairs has earlier on answered his question and he has given some details regarding this particular item. Therefore, I do not wish to repeat it again. The reason for fixing the sum at $8,000 this year is that last year we spent about $4,800 of the provision. This is only the allowance given to disabled persons and not the cost of training facilities. These disabled persons are sent to various factories or establishments which give them the training. We only give them a monthly subsistence allowance, that is, money for transport and other expenses. The sum involved in each particular case is not very big.

Mr Hwang Soo Jin: Sir, I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The following amendment stood in the name of Mr Conceicao -

That the sum to be allocated for Head 0601 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 3001.

Mr Conceicao: As a result of a previous misunderstanding of the purpose of this vote, I am not moving.

The sum of $2,354,320 for Head 0601 ordered to stand part of the Estimates. Head 0701 -

Mr Hwang Soo Jin: Mr Speaker. Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 0701 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1001.

Sir, I merely wish to take the opportunity of asking the Minister about the implementation of the Wilson Bus Study. I believe the Minister has publicly announced that he has accepted this report in principle. I do not know whether he will follow strictly the recommendations contained therein, or whether there will be a subsequent revision. As the report stands at the moment, it looks as if the people in my constituency are going to be left with much less bus services than they have at present. For instance, route numbers 5 and 6, which I think are known to the Minister, will be withdrawn and the total number of buses in service will also be substantially reduced.

Another matter which I would ask the Minister to consider is that the minimum fare for school children should remain at five cents and not ten cents.

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to answer the Member for Jalan Kayu in respect of the implementation of the Wilson Bus Study. It was clearly stated that the recommendations were accepted in principle, with or without amendments. The basic principles have been accepted. There will be re-routing and re-allocating of the 120-odd bus routes which before were operated by 11 bus companies but which will be re-allocated to four bus companies. The implementation date has been fixed for 11th April, which is only about three weeks from now.

In all cases of reorganisation, one must anticipate difficulties during the transitional period. A massive operation like this is bound to create certain difficulties. It must not be assumed that the previous routes allocated were ideal routes. They were put up before the Omnibus Services Licensing Authority for approval. But under the new Bus Services Licensing Authority Act, which was passed in this House recently and which is now in operation, it is the Bus Services Licensing Authority which decides on the routes. It may happen that there will be alterations to the bus routes that used to run from Jalan Kayu to various parts of Singapore. I can only plead that the bus users try to accept the changes and allow a period of six months for the system to work. The newly constituted Bus Services Licensing Authority will look into all the difficulties that may be encountered and amendments may have to be made. I think it is only fair that some time should pass before a proper study can be made and the implications felt before further changes can be made. If we go round the city, we can see that new bus poles have been erected. The number is not small. As many as 2,500 poles will be erected along the main routes of Singapore. We cannot be chopping and changing the routes with every request made for consideration. We have officially stated that all the requests will be considered in due time. But the 130 routes which have already been approved for the four bus companies will go into operation on Sunday, 11th April.

As regards the suggestion by the Member for Jalan Kayu to continue with the minimum fare of five cents for school children, I am afraid that he has stressed only one aspect of the new bus fare structure and has forgotten completely the reductions in bus fares where they are applicable to long distances. In the past, 10 bus companies were entitled to charge a maximum fare of 80 cents. This has been reduced to 50 cents. And we have the usual silent majority! When there is a benefit, nobody talks about it. But when a five-cent minimum rate is raised to 10 cents, everybody talks about it. The five-cent rate is only applicable for the first mile for school children when travelling in S.T.C, buses today.

7.30 p.m.

As regards the 10 other companies. It is five cents for the first two miles and it goes right up to 40 cents. But when we want to introduce a flat rate of 10 cents, Members pick on the increase of five cents and say that there has been a very heavy increase in bus fares. For adults, the minimum fare being charged by the S.T.C, is 10 cents. But, of course, the Chinese bus companies are charging five cents for the first mile. I am afraid this minimum fare of five cents is not strictly correct, but even if it is correct -

Mr Hwang Soo Jin: Mr Speaker, Sir, my point is that the minimum of five cents should be applicable to school children and not to adults.

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: Sir, I am glad to say that there has been no change in the bus fare structure for the last 20 years. When one thinks about the increase in prices, not only of commodities but other things - I think there is practically nothing that has not increased in price over the last 20 years - if we think along those lines, then an increase of five cents should be, if not well received, then at least with understanding. Besides, if we are to ask for a better and improved bus service, surely we will have to accept a slight increase in bus fares, although, unfortunately, the increase may affect school children.

We should also take into consideration the fact that nothing is for free in Singapore. There is always a price to be paid for the service that we get. The best example is water. It is raining outside this House at this moment. The water is free. It comes from the sky in torrents. But the water from the sky has to be collected in reservoirs which cost millions of dollars to build. The water has to be purified. Pipes have to be laid and again they cost millions of dollars. Even free water has to be paid for. So I regret to say that, despite some agitation, the bus fare structure has been decided and will come into operation in three weeks' time.

Mr Hwang Soo Jin: Sir, I thank the Minister for the explanation and beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $418,720 for Head 0701 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

Head 0703 -

Mr S. Ramaswamy: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 0703 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1171.

Sir, subhead 1171 refers to airport hostesses. Whenever I go to Paya Lebar Airport, I listen to the Tamil announcements of arrivals and departures made by airport hostesses employed by the Civil Aviation Department, and I begin to wonder whether the announcements are, in fact, made in the Tamil language, as it does not sound Tamil. Airport hostesses proficient in Tamil should be employed because the airport is a place where foreigners arrive and when they listen to these announcements, they might think that our airport hostesses are not qualified in languages or that our Government is employing incompetent people to these posts.

Mr P. Govindaswamy: Mr Speaker, Sir, I also wanted to raise this matter which has already been raised by the Member for Potong Pasir. We went to the airport several times but we could not understand the announcements in the Tamil language. They are not properly made and the Tamil-speaking people at the airport find it difficult to understand them. Therefore, the Minister should instruct the Civil Aviation Department that, before recruiting any Tamil announcer, applicants should be tested in fluency in Tamil. I hope the Minister can look into this matter because we have received several complaints about this.

Mr Teong Eng Siong rose -

The Chairman: Mr Teong, are you going to speak in the Tamil language?

Mr Teong Eng Siong: (In Mandarin): Sir, I have something to add to what the two Members have mentioned. Recently, I found that the airport hostesses made announcements in only two languages - Malay and English. It seems Tamil and Chinese were omitted. I hope the Minister can look into this matter.

Another matter is that in the plane only Malay and English are used. I feel that it is rather inconvenient to the passengers because some of them may not understand English or Malay. In the past, announcements were made not only in the four official languages but also in the various Chinese dialects. But nowadays this is no longer the practice. I hope the Minister can also look into this matter.

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am glad to notice the great interest taken by Members of this House in our airport hostesses and their activities. I am afraid I am in no position to judge whether the Tamil which is spoken by the Tamil-speaking airport hostesses is correct. I accept the verdict of the two Members on this score. But may I say that airport hostesses are supposed to have the qualifications of a School Certificate and they have to pass a voice test conducted by our Broadcasting Department. At least three of them are supposed to be able to converse in English, Malay and Tamil. In view of the criticisms that have been levelled by the two Members, I will have to request the Tamil Division of the Broadcasting -Department to interview them and see whether they are up to the mark, or request that in future they should conduct a very stringent voice test so that what they speak is intelligible Tamil and not unintelligible Tamil. I just cannot make out whether it is Tamil or not Tamil. These are the requirements and I can only ask the parties that are supposed to be responsible for the test to pay due attention to this question.

The Member for Sembawang says that, in his view, announcements at the airport seem to be made only in English and Malay and not in Chinese. There again- I beg to differ. According to our records, there are at least eight of the airport hostesses who are supposed to be conversant in Chinese, English and Malay. It may be that at the time the Member was at the airport, the plane that arrived was probably a B.O.A.C, or a Qantas plane' and therefore the airport hostess used English. But if it were a China Airlines aircraft that came in, it was likely that the airport hostess on duty might have used Mandarin. I think it would be difficult to use Hokkien, Cantonese or other Chinese dialect. One of the official languages is Mandarin and I think we will have to stick to that. We do what we can. I do not think we should use other Chinese dialects in our airport.

Mr Teong Eng Siong: (In Mandarin): Sir, perhaps the Minister can implement the policy of using the four official languages in the airport. In recruiting airport hostesses, the Civil Aviation Department should see to it that they can speak the four official languages fluently. The Minister has said that eight of the airport hostesses can speak at least three official languages. If that is the case, they should meet the requirements of our people.

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: Mr Speaker, Sir, we will try.

Mr Ramaswamy: Sir, I am satisfied with the reply given by the Minister. Before I withdraw my amendment, I wish to explain to the Minister why the Tamil announcements made by the airport hostesses do not sound like Tamil. They may have Senior Cambridge and paper qualifications for the Tamil language, but their pronunciation may not sound Tamil. However, I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $9,035,280 for Head 0703 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

7.45 p.m.

Head 0705 -

Mr Teong Eng Siong: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 0705 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1001*. (*The same amendment also stood in the names of Messrs. P. Govindaswamy and N. Govindasamy.)

The vote is about the expenditure for the Postmaster-General. In the past our postal service had a good reputation because it was efficient. Mails were delivered quite fast. Normally when a letter was sent, it could be received the following day. But recently I have received complaints regarding delays in delivery of letters. I personally also have this experience. Sometimes it would take two or three days before I received a letter. Even a letter sent by Parliament was received after three days. Therefore, this does not speak well for the postal services. I understand that as the population increases, the volume of mails also increased. However, we have to maintain the efficiency of our postal services. Maybe we need to increase the number of staff. This can be a solution. If a letter is delayed too long, especially when it is urgent, it may cause a great deal of trouble. I hope the Minister can take steps to remedy this abnormal situation.

The second point I would like to raise is about the wrong delivery of letters. For instance, a letter was addressed to "A", but it was delivered to "B". Even I myself have had this sort of experience. Letters were wrongly delivered. This will also affect people in certain ways, because if a person has not received his letter there may be some delay or inconvenience at his end. I hope in this respect the Postmaster-General and his senior officers will supervise the staff under them and build up a more efficient postal service.

Mr P. Govindaswamy: Mr Speaker, Sir, a very long time ago I raised the question of our postal services, and again I am going to speak about the postmen and postal clerks.

In the past the Postal Department of our republic appeared to be an efficient department but from recent complaints in the newspapers about delayed delivery of mails, this does not appear to be so. I understand the postmen are heavily overloaded and are under pressure. In spite of the assurance from the Minister for Finance in his budget statement that there will be an increase of 19 postmen for the current year, I still feel that this increase is inadequate, because there has been a significant increase in our population. Many places in our republic have inadequate postmen to deliver the mail. I will be happy if the Minister accepts my suggestion and set up a committee to investigate the postmen's grievances. I have raised this question many times but the problems are still the same.

It is also noted that apart from the delivery of ordinary letters the postmen are also responsible for the delivery of registered letters and parcels. However, at times when the heavily-loaded parcels are too bulky to be carried on the bicycle, it will be appreciated if the Minister will advise the Postal Department to arrange for such heavy mails to be delivered by postal vans.

Another point which I would like to bring to the attention of the Minister is the insufficient number of bicycles in our Postal Department. There seems to be no replacement of bicycles whenever there is a break-down. In order to cope with the current shortage of bicycles in the Postal Department, I would suggest that it purchase more locally-assembled bicycles instead of buying them from foreign countries.

The next point is the motor-cycle service. This service in our postal department is used only to make distant deliveries. However, it is my opinion and belief that if more motor-cycles are used for delivery of mails, there will be less complaints from the general public because the mails will be delivered faster.

I was told that some postmen are not only working beyond their official duties, but are also pressed by their immediate superiors. At the last Parliamentary sitting I put a question to the Minister regarding this problem. I had a reply from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Communications saying that no such problem existed. Therefore I would ask the Minister for Communications to form a committee to investigate what is happening in the Postal Department. May I know if the Minister will look into and regularise the conditions of service of the postmen. It is known that many postmen left their jobs because of this. How did they leave? They absented themselves.

Another point I would like the Minister to reply to is that I notice the post of Chief Inspector of Postmen has been left vacant for the past two years. If the Minister cannot get a suitable candidate for this post, he can get whoever is suitable from another grade. Why let the post be vacant? The incumbent is acting all the time.

Finally, Sir, I notice in the Estimates that there are increases in Postal Clerical Assistant appointments and a reduction in the number of Postal Clerks, Timescale, in the Postal Department. I presume all Government offices will in future reduce and eventually abolish the Timescale clerks. That is the reason why they have increased the number of Clerical Assistant posts now. I personally feel that more Postal Higher Clerical Officer posts should be created in order to enhance the future prospects of the Clerical Assistants in the Postal Department. Personally, I observe that the recruiting of Postal Clerks, Timescale, is very scarce. I think the Minister should go through this more carefully. I do not want to speak again about the postal services at the next budget sitting!

Mr N. Govindasamy: Mr Speaker, Sir, recently there has been much criticism, as the Member for Sembawang has pointed out, in the papers as well by persons whom I personally know, about the slowness of our postal services. There were cases where the delivery of local letters took more than two days. A lapse of two or even more days between posting and delivery is not uncommon.

The Member for Anson, my namesake, talks about buying more bicycles to make postal deliveries. I notice under "Other Charges, Special Expenditure", the Ministry has asked for more money to buy bicycles. I am just wondering if the Minister will consider buying scooters instead of bicycles in keeping with the times so that there will be more expeditious delivery of mails.

This year, as the Memorandum on the Estimates of Revenue and Expenditure of Singapore points out, the provision has been increased by 10.3 per cent. The amount asked for is to fill 98 posts, comprising 35 Postal Clerical Assistants, 49 postmen and 14 supernumerary posts, to accommodate replacements of staff enlisted for national service. The memorandum goes on to state that it "is expected that with these additional posts, the accumulated staff shortage in the Postal Services will be remedied." The increase in the staff requested for this year is only in replacement of vacant positions. I wonder if the small increase in staff requested by the Minister will improve our postal services.

I am also told that the turnover of postmen and other postal employees has been very high in the past two years or so. Is the Department taking any steps to arrest the turnover of postmen, for example, through resignations, so that we will not be recruiting new postmen all the time? New postmen means training, familiarisation with the work, etc. This will not improve our postal services.

It has also been announced that the Post Office Savings Bank will become a corporation soon. As a result, 39 officers from the Post Office Savings Bank will revert to the postal services proper. Will the Minister confirm that all the employees who are now engaged in the Post Office Savings Bank work will be absorbed into the postal services proper when the Post Office Savings Bank becomes a corporation? Although the Postal Clerks and the Junior Postal Clerks are recruited into the Government service as General Clerical Officers and Clerical Assistants, once, they are posted to the Post Office they virtually remain in the Post Office until their retirement or death. If there are requests from the clerks in the postal offices for transfer to other departments of the civil service, will the Government entertain such requests? At one time the postal services used to be considered a closed service, but recently we have noticed that senior civil servants from other departments have been transferred to senior posts in the Postal Department. Can the officers in the Postal Department also similarly be transferred out of the postal services into other departments if they request such transfers?

8.00 p.m.

The Chairman: I think the Minister can reply tomorrow. Order. Moment of interruption.

Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House.

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply has made progress on the Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 1st April, 1971, to 31st March, 1972, and ask leave to sit again tomorrow.

Mr Speaker: So be it.