MAIN AND DEVELOPMENT ESTIMATES OF SINGAPORE FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1ST APRIL, 1978 TO 31ST MARCH, 1979

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

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

2.40 p.m.

Head S (cont.) -

Resumption of Debate on Question [17th March, 1978],

"That the sum to be allocated for Head S be reduced by $10 in respect of item 1210 of Subhead Code SE-01 of the Main Estimates." - [Mr Sia Khoon Seong].

Question again proposed

The Minister for Home Affairs and Education (Mr Chua Sian Chin): Sir, before the House rose on Friday, 17th March, I was still replying to the Member for Anson.

I remember I stopped at the point of his complaint that the traffic enforcement officers did not extend courtesy and consideration when enforcing the law. I believe, Sir, the Member for Anson has a tendency to exaggerate. The enforcement officers of the Traffic Police have been constantly reminded to extend care, courtesy and consideration in enforcing the law. Any complaint against enforcers for lack of discretion, courtesy and common sense in the application of the law is duly investigated into and those found guilty are taken to task. Very often, Sir, these complaints are groundless as shown by some facts and figures which I would like to state here. During last year, a total of 25 complaints were made against Traffic Police personnel. Of these, only five complaints were sustained and action was taken against these five persons.

The Member for Anson also did state that any person could impersonate a Police Officer and issue traffic summonses. Sir, this really tops the example of his propensity to exaggerate. May I assure him that nobody, except the Police and other authorised personnel, can issue summonses. However, anyone can make a report either by writing to the Traffic Police or personally going to a Police station. Action against the driver will only be taken after the report has been fully investigated and found to be correct. 2.45 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the next point concerns the issue of summons to the wrong person. The strict procedure that we have makes it rather remote for summonses to be issued to the wrong persons. When a traffic offence is committed, the police officers spotting it will take down the particulars of the vehicle, such as the make of the vehicle, its colour and registration number. These particulars are then checked with the records at the Registry of Vehicles before a summons is issued to the registered owner. Invariably the notice is served on the owner for particulars of the driver if the owner himself was not driving the car. There is always the possibility that the owner was not driving his vehicle at the time of the offence but somebody else was. The onus is on the owner to show that he did not commit the offence. In the case cited by the Member, the absence of the owner from Singapore does not necessarily mean that his vehicle was not used by someone else. I think the police should be commended for obviously giving this owner the benefit of the doubt when it decided not to pursue the matter.

The Member has also alleged that the traffic enforcement officers have failed to use their discretion to lot off offenders who have not used the pedestrian crossings unintentionally. The Pedestrian Crossing Rules came into force on 1st July, 1977 after one month of intensive campaigning. But penalties were not imposed until 1st September, 1977, that is, after a further three months of intensive campaigning. Between 1st July and 1st September we had a massive campaign to educate the pedestrians. Therefore, there is no reason for the people to continue to flout the Pedestrian Crossing Rules. It is only by vigorous enforcement of recalcitrant offenders that jaywalking can be reduced.

To indicate how effective the Pedestrian Crossing Rules have been for the three months from July to September, I would like to quote some figures. Between September and December 1977, there were 784 pedestrian-related accidents compared to 979 for the corresponding period in 1976. In other words, there was a decrease of 19.9% of pedestrian-related accidents after the campaign.

Lastly, the Member for Anson has again brought up the question of Wallich Street. He said that there had been some improvement in the situation now. I shall therefore leave it at that.

May I now reply to the points raised by the Member for Telok Blangah. Members will recall that the Member for Telok Blangah stated in his speech that he noticed that the number of staff in the Traffic Enforcement Section for FY 78 had remained the same as that compared with FY 77. But at the same time he said that there is a current shortage of staff. He wanted clarification as to why the Enforcement staff has not increased. May I say that one simple way of discouraging and apprehending traffic offenders is to deploy a large number of policemen on the streets. But this will entail the expansion of the Traffic Police Department. There is a limit to the number of Enforcement staff we can expand. My Ministry has considered this problem very carefully and has decided that we should work out a strategy for a more efficient and intelligent deployment of our manpower by first using our existing strength of police officers. To this end we have taken the following measures:

First, Traffic Enforcement Squads are being formed in the eight Police Divisions with existing officers. The operational efficiency of the Divisions will not be adversely affected since some of the more routine duties in the Divisions can be given to full-time national servicemen.

Secondly, the Traffic Police has also adopted a new strategy to deal with traffic offenders with effect from 10th July last year. Ten unmarked police cars have been used to track down traffic offenders. More cars will be acquired. With effect from 24th October last year some officers in the Mobile. Squad have also been deployed as plainclothes men to track down traffic offenders. There are presently 10 such officers in each shift.

Thirdly, the Traffic Police has been directed to be more selective in enforcement instead of being indiscriminate about it. They have been directed to concentrate on the more serious traffic offences such- as dangerous driving, inconsiderate and careless driving and give less priority to minor offences like parking offences. All senior police officers have also been instructed to report the commission of such traffic offences while they are travelling on the road, on duty or otherwise. The number of such offenders booked on the road in the last three months is as follows. This is the combined total of offenders booked by both the Mobile Squad as well as the senior police officers. Eighty-one offenders were booked for dangerous driving, 140 offenders for careless driving; and 1,421 for inconsiderate driving, making a total of 1,642 cases of dangerous driving, careless driving and inconsiderate driving booked for the last three months from December 1977 to February 1978. However, if it is found necessary to expand the Traffic Enforcement Squad by recruiting new officers, this will be done. But what I would like to emphasise is that we must adopt a new strategy to deploy our resources more intelligently to obtain better results.

Fourthly, for the information of the Member for Telok Blangah, there is now no bottleneck in the issue of summonses.

Let me now come back to the Member for Kim Seng. I remember that he wanted clarification on certain points, including the Highway Code. He stated that he had forgotten most of the Highway Code because it has been a long time since he took his driving test.

An hon. Member: Withdraw his licence!

Mr Chua Sian Chin: Sir, I do not act arbitrarily by withdrawing people's licences. First, may I clarify the position regarding fast and slow lanes. According to the existing rules in the Highway Code, every vehicle moving at a slow speed shall be driven as close to the left hand edge of the roadway as possible, and every vehicle shall at all times be driven in such a manner as not to obstruct vehicles moving at a faster speed. Given this rule, it is quite clear that the left-most lane is the proper lane for slow- moving vehicles. The right and centre lanes are therefore fast moving lanes. However, vehicles wishing to make a right turn are permitted to travel on the right lane if they are slowing down to do the turn. I hope that explanation is quite clear.

As regards his question on the number of persons booked for road hogging, my answer is that 5,081 persons have been so booked in 1977.

The next point is the green arrow for a right turn. The Public Works Department is at the moment carrying out a pilot scheme to study the feasibility of using a flashing filter arrow, a point which was brought up by a Member, to forewarn turning vehicles of an impending change in the light signal. For example, at the junction of Tanjong Katong Road and East Coast Road, the filter arrow flashes for a duration of six seconds before it goes off, So there should be sufficient warning. If the pilot scheme proves to be effective, the Public Works Department will install flashing filter arrows at appropriate junctions, including the one mentioned by the Member for Kim Seng.

On the question of more red-man and green-man signals at junctions, I cannot agree with the Member for Kim Seng more that more of such traffic signals should be installed at junctions. In fact, this is being done by the PWD. The PWD is also planning to install green-man and red-man signals at all new junctions. The Road engineers from the PWD have also, with the advice of the Traffic Police, been adjusting the timing of the green-man signal, to provide a safe minimum time for pedestrians to cross so that turning vehicles will not be unduly delayed and cause traffic congestion.

Dr Augustine Tan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to recall a matter which I raised previously under the Ministry of Health, in regard to traffic regulations pertaining to drivers of motor vehicles who fail to give way to ambulances and fire engines. Would the Minister ensure that better enforcement in this regard is effected? Furthermore, he would perhaps like to consider giving authority to the staff of ambulances and fire engines to issue summonses against drivers who fail to give way. 3.00 p.m.

Mr Chua Sian Chin: Mr Speaker, Sir, I cannot agree with the Member for Whampoa more by saying that those who refuse to give way to ambulances should be booked and punished. But I cannot agree with him that authority for issuing summonses should be given to ambulance drivers. The Member for Anson has brought up the point that summonses could be issued by any Tom, Dick and Harry. In fact, we have a very strict procedure and only authorised persons are allowed to issue a summons. I do not think ambulance drivers are appropriate persons to be authorised to issue summonses. In fact, summonses have to be signed by a magistrate before they are issued.

Dr Augustine Tan: Sir, what about educational programmes on TV and radio and in the schools to teach people that they must give way to ambulances and fire engines in the interest perhaps of their beloved ones in times of crisis and in terms of citizens in general?

Mr Chua Sian Chin: Sir, there are many matters which we would like to educate the public, not only just giving way to ambulances and fire engines. In fact, this is being done through our campaigns followed by enforcement. As far as traffic rules and regulations are concerned, this is part of the road-users' daily education that is going on in our schools, not just part of the syllabus. It is part of the duty of teachers to see that children in the schools learn about these rules and why they should be observed for the safety not only of themselves but also of others in the community.

Dr Augustine Tan: Sir, obviously there is room for much improvement.

Dr Ong Leong Boon (Kim Seng): Sir, when I raised the point on the Highway Code I was hoping that the Minister would perhaps consider giving a copy of the Highway Code to the driver every time he renews his driving licence. I mentioned my confusion regarding my knowledge of the Highway Code because I had the experience of driving behind the Hon. Minister himself, and it was quite an exercise in updating my knowledge of the new Highway Code.

Mr Chua Sian Chin: Sir, I do not know what the Member for Kim Seng is implying by making that point.

With regard to the Highway Code, as I said, this was part of the theme of the campaign last year. In fact, before the main campaign was launched in June, there had been mini campaigns where each month a rule in the Highway Code was devoted. In fact, if the Member for Kim Seng were to drive with alertness and care, he would see that some of these slogans, like "Do Not Road Hog", are still displayed at the rear of SBS buses. Well, he can learn a lot by being more alert.

Mr P. Govindaswamy (Anson): Sir, last Friday the Hon. Minister mentioned about kayu. Actually, I said that a police officer called the motorist kayu. How can the Hon. Minister use the word kayu? Is it a parliamentary word? The Minister should not use it.

Sir, unlike the Minister, I am not going to call anyone kayu. The reason why I mentioned about the police officer calling the motorist kayu is to draw the attention of this House to an abuse in the issue of summonses.

The Chairman: Mr Govindaswamy, what do you mean by "kayu"? I was not here last Friday. Do you mean "kepala kayu'?

Mr P. Govindaswamy: You are a "kayu" It means a piece of wood. The police officer called the motorist "kayu" and I only mentioned what the police officer said. But the Minister should not use the word "kayu".

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour (Mr Fong Sip Chee): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Anson said "you". I hope he was not referring to the Chair!

The Chairman: Mr Govindaswamy, surely you are not referring to the Chair as "kayu"?

Mr P. Govindaswamy: Sir, I was referring to the police officer who called the motorist kayu. It seems that the Minister has not answered my question correctly. Even if, as is alleged by the Minister which I gather is not true, the motorist had abused the plainclothes police officer and called him kayu, how did this spark off? If there was no spark there would not be any fire.

It appears that the Minister is defending his department which I think is rightly his duty. No doubt every Minister has to defend his department. But then my question was aimed at stopping the abuse in the issue of summonses. This is very important.

If I am not mistaken, what I learnt from the Minister's reply on Friday is that it is in order for any plainclothes officer from any department to issue a summons without properly identifying himself, even though the public request to see the warrant card, because of doubt. If that is the case, we would not be surprised to see that many impersonators will take advantage of the situation. Could the Minister enlighten us on this point?

The Minister had also stated that the motorist had shown disrespect for the court. This is a matter of opinion. Everybody must respect the court. It seems that the Minister is unaware that many people, not only this motorist, do not take the trouble to go to court, not because they have no respect for the court but for many other reasons, like whether or not it is economically wise to go to the court, or for reasons best known to the person concerned. Therefore, it is not fair for the Minister to give me an answer which is not to the point.

Sir, today the Minister asked why this man did not go and make a police report. Yes, that man went and reported to the police. The police did not receive the report because he went against the police. How can they receive the report? [Interruption].

Sir, I am not joking about this matter. The Minister has got to give instructions to the Traffic Police to take the necessary action wherever possible. If he is a plainclothes police officer, he must show his warrant card. If he does not show his warrant card, nobody will respect him and nobody will give a correct answer. That is why I raised this point in the House.

Mr Chua Sian Chin: Sir, the Member for Anson, and he is a good Friend of mine, quoted the saying that if there is no spark there would be no fire. I entirely agree with him. The only thing with regard to this debate on kayu or wood is that the spark came from him. It was he who introduced that expression in this august chamber. It was he who complained that the police officer in plainclothes, after having booked the motorist called him a kayu.

Mr P. Govindaswamy: Yes.

Mr Chua Sian Chin: Sir, I do not know if, in fact, that incident happened. What I said in clarification was that this motorist, after having been booked, went to the Traffic Police Department to complain that he did not commit the offence. But in spite of this - that he said he did not commit the offence - he paid the fine and said that it was a waste of time to go to court because the police officer explained to him that if he was not satisfied he could go to the court to say that he did not commit the offence. Instead he paid the fine and giving the excuse that it was a waste of time to go to court. That is why I said in reply, not showing any disrespect to the Member or to the motorist that if a person who is innocent, after going to the Police Department and is told that if he is innocent he can go to the court and challenge it, still pays a fine, which means that he is admitting his guilt, then he must be a real kayu. I hope the Member understands that.

About disrespect to the court, if a person were to say that it is a waste of time to go to court and challenge it to prove his innocence, I think he is being disrespectful to the court, I hope he is not implying that the court is also kayu.

Mr P. Govindaswamy: Sir, I agree with the Hon. Minister's explanation. The motorist explained to the Traffic Police saying, "I am innocent of the charge." The police officer said "If you are innocent, then go to court." The motorist did not want to go to court and so he paid the fine. If he goes to court, it is a waste of time. There are so many things involved here. The Minister must consider. The Minister is right when he said "If you are innocent, you go to court." No doubt he is right. But how many people are willing to go to court? Has the Minister checked with the Traffic Police to find out the number of people who went to court to prove their innocence? Nobody will go to court. It is a waste of time, waste of money. So they pay the fine. Anyway, I have brought up this matter so that the Hon. Minister can instruct the Traffic Police that next time a police officer in plainclothes stops anybody, he has to show his warrant card to identify himself.

Sir, I do not want to talk too much. I am only asking the Minister to give instruction that in future any plainclothes officer who arrests or issues a summons to anybody should show his warrant card. I agree with what the Minister has said about going to court But the motorist did not want to go to court, and so he paid the fine. The Minister says "If he pays the fine, he admits his guilt." What can the poor fellow do? He cannot do anything. All right, pay the fine. Sir, I hope the Minister can clarify.

Mr Chua Sian Chin: Sir, I had better clarify this matter once and for all. If a person, after having claimed that he is not guilty, still pays the fine, then he must be guilty. I cannot accept the argument that in this case he has been wrongfully fined or wrongfully summoned. So long as he is not wrongfully summoned, he should pay the fine. The point is whether the person should be summoned indiscriminately. I have already explained that issuing a summons is a grave matter. The Member for Whampoa asked me to authorise ambulance drivers to issue summonses. I say no. That cannot be done. Only properly authorised persons could issue summonses. So it is a serious matter. If the Member for Anson has any instance of a police officer who has indiscriminately issued summons or that he has wrongly issued a summons to an innocent person, I invite him to let me know the particulars and I shall investigate the matter. If it is found that the police officer has wilfully and wrongly issued a summons because of personal reasons, then action will be taken against such an officer. But where there are no such particulars and concrete proof of any misbehaviour on the part of the police officer, I think it is incumbent upon me to defend the reputation of the Police Force. I should scotch any implication that they have not behaved in a proper way as police officers. 3.15 p.m.

Mr P. Govindaswamy: Sir, the Minister has not answered my complaint about the police officer who was asked to produce his warrant card because he was in plain clothes when he issued a summons. The Minister asked me to give the particulars of the person concerned. If I furnish the particulars today, he will be victimised tomorrow. The Minister is not aware of what is happening inside, I want an assurance from the Minister that when policemen are in plain clothes they should show their warrant cards if they want to issue a summons.

Mr Chua Sian Chin: Sir, as I said, the Member has a propensity to exaggerate. May I scotch another misconception. If a police officer has issued summons indiscriminately and has victimised a member of the public, I think it is the duty of the Member for Anson to give the particulars. Having given the particulars, before I get the matter investigated I must make clear that there will not be any victimisation, because this is a very serious matter. The allegation should be scotched once and for all. If he gives the particulars of the police officer who has issued summonses indiscriminately on persons who are innocent, why should there be victimisation? In every case, the matter is being fully investigated and if it is found to be true, then action will be taken against the officer. If it is not found to be true, then no action will be taken. In fact, I have quoted figures. There were 25 complaints against police officers and only five allegations were found to be substantiated. Action was then taken against only those five persons. So how could the Member for Anson say that there is such a thing as victimisation, just because he gives me the name. I think the misconception has to be scotched once and for all.

The other question is on plainclothes policemen who book people. He has said that when asked to produce his warrant card, the police officer should produce his warrant card. If he does not, then he is in breach of discipline. I would like to assure the Member for Anson that when a police officer is asked to produce his warrant card, it is incumbent upon him to produce it.

Mr P. Govindaswamy: Sir, another matter is about the area bounded by Robinson Road, Cecil Street, Maxwell Road, Wallich Street and Anson Road. That is the place the Minister should look into. He should instruct the policemen to advise pedestrians if they cross the roads wrongly. They should not straightaway book the pedestrians, Some of these policemen on duty themselves do not know the rules and regulations of the Pedestrian Crossing Rules. I am not blaming all the police officers. Some of them are very good officers. Could I have an assurance from the Minister on this matter?

Mr Chua Sian Chin: Sir, instead of prolonging the debate, let me tell the Member for Anson that not only do I not answer questions in general terms but, in fact, I have drawn a plan of Wallich Street/Anson Road/Robinson Road -

Mr P. Govindaswamy: Very good. The Minister should show the plan to Mr Speaker.

Mr Chua Sian Chin: I can show it to the Member for Anson. I admit it is a complicated junction.

Mr P. Govindaswamy: It is a complicated junction. Since everybody makes mistakes the pedestrian must be given a chance.

Mr Chua Sian Chin: We do give chances, as I said. In my reply I have already mated that they are encouraged to use their discretion. But if it is a wilful -

Mr P. Govindaswamy: No, not wilful.

Mr Chua Sian Chin: How do you know? If it is a wilful act, then they must be summoned.

Mr Sia Khoon Seong (Moulmein): I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment by leave, withdrawn.

The following amendment stood in the name of Mr Phey Yew Kok -

That the sum to be allocated for Head S be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead Code SE-01 of the Main Estimates.

The Chairman: Mr Phey is not here. Amendment (5), Mr Baptist.

Mr Ivan Baptist: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head S be reduced by $10 in respect of item 1210 of Subhead Code SE-02 of the Main Estimates.

From the statistics quoted by the Senior Minister of State for Communications in the House last week, 0.09% of accidents were caused by faulty mechanical parts of motor vehicles. This is difficult to believe. I am sure it would involve much expertise, time and equipment to adjudge the state of the vehicle's mechanical parts after an accident, especially a major accident. I tend to think the figure would be much higher. As such, would the Minister consider introducing programmes for preventive maintenance of vehicles as a sizable part of a Road Safety Campaign? The maintenance of vehicles and their inspection with owners and drivers exercising constant vigilance to maintain vehicles in the best of conditions is a fundamental ingredient in the prevention of road accidents. This is all the more important as cars are being built to travel at greater speeds. Would the Minister also consider gathering more statistics of mechanical failure of vehicles to obtain a better grasp of this problem area?

Mr Chua Sian Chin: Sir, with regard to the point raised by the Member for Potong Pasir, I think he has already raised this matter with my colleague, the Minister of State for Communications. In fact, I need only add that poor maintenance of vehicles, as stated by the Minister of State for Communications, is not an important cause of road accidents. These are the figures and this has been the conclusion after studying the figures. As advised by the Member, we will continue collecting some more figures. Perhaps we will end up with the same conclusion.

I also understand that the Minister of State for Communications has informed the House of measures which the Ministry of Communications is taking to ensure that road vehicles are adequately maintained, in spite of the fact that poor vehicle maintenance is only a small cause of road accidents. In fact, the major cause of road accidents is due to the carelessness of drivers. It is the human being that we are blaming for road accidents rather than vehicles.

Mr Ivan Baptist: Sir, as I mentioned just now, there has been no sufficient close scrutiny where this problem area is concerned. I do not believe that the Minister can just slide over it that way. In addition to that, the Ministry of Communications is also introducing periodic inspection. I do not know why, if this is not a problem area.

Mr Chua Sian Chin: This is, in fact, a subject within the province of the ROV. As far as the Traffic Police is concerned, although it has an interest in this matter, it is mainly concerned with careless, dangerous and inconsiderate driving which result in accidents causing death and injury. If it will satisfy the Member for Potong Pasir, we will continue collecting the statistics of traffic accidents caused by poor vehicle maintenance. If it proves that it is a major cause of traffic accidents, of course, more stringent action will be taken. But this is actually a question of priority. As far as the Traffic Police is concerned, on present evidence, the conclusion is that it is not a major cause of traffic accidents. It does not mean that if it is not a major cause of traffic accidents, we should not look into it. I presume that is the reason why the ROV is looking into regular checks on vehicles. It is not just because of accidents but also of pollution. Regular checks on vehicles is not necessarily to avoid accidents alone but also to reduce pollution on our roads. 3.30 p.m.

Mr Ivan Baptist: Sir, as the Minister has promised to bring to bear closer scrutiny on the statistics on vehicle maintenance and periodic inspection, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment by leave, withdrawn.

Mr P. Govindaswamy: Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head S be reduced by $10 in respect of item 1210 of Subhead Code SF-01 of the Main Estimates.

Sir, what is the budget allocated for food for our Police national servicemen who are called up for in-camp training? I understand that the lowest tenderer was given the contract. At some camps, the supply of three meals per day, that is, breakfast, lunch and dinner was fixed at $2.45 per head, without any snacks in between. Just imagine what type of food can the national servicemen expect to get nowadays at $2.45 for three meals a day. It is no wonder that the swill collectors are getting a better deal because of the food that is wasted.

I also gather that the Vigilante Corps officers who know too well about the quality of food and who have to go for refresher course at St John's Island have asked their Cultural, Sports and Welfare Association to subsidise 50 cents per head per day so that the caterer could supply better quality food. Why must the Association subsidise this? Why did the Ministry accept the lowest tender for the supply of food? I think the Ministry should not be stingy in the supply of food. At least, a reasonable amount of money should be allocated, so that the boys can get decent meals instead of what they are getting at the moment.

Sir, national service was introduced in 1967. During the initial period, a few batches of recruits were sent to the First SIR for three months' full-time training and were later absorbed into the People's Defence Force. Subsequently, after a couple of years, when doing part-time national service, some of these recruits were transferred to the Special Constabulary. There was a standing instruction that those who have completed full-time national service must compulsorily perform part-time national service for 12 years or until they reach 40 years of age, whichever is the later. I have received complaints from many national servicemen who have been transferred to the Special Constabulary that they have been told that the period reckoned for part-time national service would commence from the date they were transferred to the Special Constabulary, and even now those who have been transferred to different branches of the national service are in doubt about the period reckoned for national service. Could the Minister enlighten the House on this point?

I also heard rumours that part-time national service for reservists until the age of 40 years has been scrapped, Is this true? Could the Minister make an official announcement about the actual period of national service so that our national servicemen would not be kept in suspense or anxiety.

Sir, I wonder whether exemption from part-time police national service could be considered for a person who has passed the call-up age but who has been called up because of his employment in the civil service. There is the case of a person who had served in the Special Constabulary for a period of six years from 1962 to 1968. He had undergone all the basic police training at the Police Academy. He was also active in service during the riots, the civil disturbances and other emergencies during that time. However, as he has to do shift duty and private studies, he was unable to continue service with the Special Constabulary and he ultimately resigned in 1968. Currently, he is working in a statutory board where his presence is required in times of emergency. Besides having to work on shift duty, he is also pursuing private studies for a promotion. I want to know whether consideration could be given for his past performance and whether an exemption could be made for such cases.

Mr Chua Sian Chin: Sir, I agree with the Member for Anson that the budget allocation for part-time national servicemen in the Special Constabulary called up for in-camp training for three meals a day is $2.45 per head per day. I do certainly agree with him that this is insufficient. But, Sir, the rate of $2.45 was arrived at because it was a rate fixed in 1973 in accordance with the SAF scale of rations then. Complaints Were received last year from trainees, as stated by the Member, that the quantity of food served was insufficient. My Ministry then asked the Ministry of Finance to revise the rate of ration to that of the SAF, that is, a revision from $2.45 to between $3.00 and $3.20. In the meantime, the SAF scale has also been revised upwards. Unfortunately, Sir, the request was rejected by the Ministry of Finance, but my Ministry is still pursuing the matter.

With regard to the current budget allocated for food to part-time national servicemen in the Vigilante Corps called up for in-camp training, it was calculated at $2.80 per head per day. Except for officers, where the refresher course is conducted at St. John's Island, in-camp training for the rest is being held at the Civil Defence School which maintains its own kitchen staff and is therefore able to supply the three main meals and tea or coffee during two training breaks and a light snack for supper at $2.80 per head per day. Meals on the same scale and cost per head as supplied at the Civil Defence School were prepared at St. John's Island by two cooks on loan from the school for the first six refresher courses. Except for complaints that the fare was monotonous, no other complaint was received. On the seventh refresher course at St. John's Island conducted in February 1978, it was not possible to obtain the assistance of the cooks from the Civil Defence School. Pre-cooked food was supplied for lunch and dinner and this probably led to the complaint by some trainees which I believe is the basis of the complaint of the Member for Anson.

What I do not agree with the Member is that, contrary to his belief, the Vigilante Corps Cultural, Sports and Welfare Association does not provide any subsidy for food. The subsidy of 50 cents per person per day which he mentioned is used to defray incidental expenses incurred in hiring of films, purchasing newspapers and for the end-of-course party and not for meals.

On the period of national service, may I enlighten the Member that the period of national service in the PDF served by national servicemen who are subsequently transferred to part-time national service in the Special Constabulary or the Vigilante Corps is being reckoned towards fulfilment of their national service liability. I hope that clarifies the point.

The other point is that part-time national service for all ranks will be for a period of 12 years or up to the age of 40, whichever is the earlier. I hope this also clarifies the point and I advise the Member for Anson not to listen to rumours that the period of national service has been extended. It is not true.

With regard to exemption or deferment, since the Member for Anson has not given sufficient particulars of the person referred to in the case he cited, I am unable to answer his question directly. All I can say is that some civil servants and staff in the statutory boards were called up for part-time national service under the Enlistment Act although they were not in the call-up age when national service was introduced. Applications for exemption or deferment by individuals have to be made to the Ministry of Defence, Central Manpower Base, and I am sure due consideration will be given depending on the merits of each case.

Mr P. Govindaswamy: Sir, in view of the explanation given by the Hon. Minister, some of which I do not agree, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment by leave, withdrawn.

Haji Sha'ari bin Tadin (Bedok): Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head S be reduced by $10 in respect of item 1210 of Subhead Code SG-02 of the Main Estimates*.

Sir, may I be permitted to speak on Amendment (8) standing in my name, as the subject of drugs which is under discussion is closely related to drug enforcement?

The Chairman: Yes.

Haji Sha'ari bin Tadin: Sir, the enforcement of the Misuse of Drugs Act has lately been stepped up. Operation Ferret II was launched earlier this year. Paradoxically, the number of arrests has declined, under-scoring the effectiveness of the drastic measures taken by the Drug Enforcement Unit of the Central Narcotics Bureau and the Police. In the first eight months of Operation Ferret more than 6,000 heroin abusers were arrested and sent to drug rehabilitation centres. But do we really know the number of drug abusers in our midst? However, the figure of 700 was given by the Deputy Prime Minister in this House last year in answer to an Oral Question on the number of drug addicts among national servicemen. This figure would represent about 1% of those in national service. Extrapolation would suggest that there would be something like 23,000 drug addicts among us, basing on a population of 2.3 million. This is a figure which should not be treated lightly, a figure which should give cause for the gravest concern.

On 28th December, 1977 when announcing Phase II of Operation Ferret, the Hon. Minister said that the heroin population as at September 1977 was 12,000. He also said that the twin aims of this phase II would be to ferret out the more elusive heroin abusers and prevent recidivism among those abusers who had undergone treatment and rehabilitation. Since then we have not heard of further development as to what has happened to the remaining heroin addicts.

I have, therefore, Sir, some questions which I would like to ask the Minister. Most of us here in this House, if not all, are parents. The answers to these questions would be relevant to all parents within this House and without. The questions are:-

(a) To-date, what is the number of arrests made, and how many of those so arrested have been sent to the drug rehabilitation centres?

(b) What happens to the rest of the addicts?

(c) Have they gone underground?

To prevent a general proliferation of the drug situation, the source of supply has to be plugged. The drug problem in Singapore has gone on long enough. The CNB and the Police must be commended for the good work they have done. The CNB must really work hard, doubly hard, to get at drug traffickers and pedlars. I know this is easier said than done, Singapore being what she is, a wide open global city-state. But it has to be done if we parents are to sleep well. The supply of heroin to this country is apparently on the increase. A most disturbing thought indeed; a cause for much discomfort for parents. 3.45 p.m.

I know that a recent amendment to the Misuse of Drugs Act was made with the object of plugging a loophole in the Act; a good move in the tactical war against traffickers. But amendments alone would not do the trick. It is the enforcement, the application, and the implementation that count. The punishment of pedlars and traffickers must be hard, relentless and pursued with greater vigour. This has been said before, but it bears reiteration. The problem must be nipped in the bud, stamped out quickly, and its possible spread contained. All this can only be done if sources of supply are identified, acted upon, crushed, and the culprits brought to book. The penalty of death and despair meted out to traffickers and pedlars must be swift and severe. For them, nothing less than a tooth for a tooth for what they perpetrate.

The problem of drug abusers and addicts deserves a different approach. There are therefore equally relevant questions that need to be asked, as their answers are equally important to parents. What I would like to know in this connection are:-

(a) How are drug abusers and addicts being helped and cared for?

(b) How are they being treated? Are they handled as if they are criminals?

(c) What is the approach adopted by the authorities concerned?

There seems, unfortunately, to be a general feeling outside that these people who have gone astray are handled and treated like hardened criminals. This, if true, is a cause for alarm. A different approach, a more sensible approach, a more humane approach would be necessary. It would be a mistake to treat them on the same basis as traffickers and pedlars. To impose criminal sanctions on such people, most of them young people, would cause far greater personal and social harm than whatever little good may be achieved. The damage, both short-term and long-term, would most likely far outweigh and outstrip the benefit. And equally important, if drug addicts are handled and treated like criminals, instead of benefiting from the help given them, it would create widespread resentment and disrespect for the drug laws. I am not suggesting here that we should treat drug abusers with kid gloves or pamper them. Not at all. I am suggesting that these people, mostly young offenders, have problems that may variously be medical and psychological in nature, that their problems be understood, that law enforcement officers should adopt an approach other than viewing them as drug abusers and therefore should not be too hard on them. Otherwise these drug addicts may eventually actually end up as criminals, having been treated as such. My plea here is that they be given different consideration. For the trafficker, the pedlar, the purveyor of suffering, nothing less than their just due - if caught, nothing less than the death penalty. This I support wholeheartedly. But. for the drug addict, help is what he needs.

On the question of the drug rehabilitation centre, since launching Operation Ferret in April last year, as I have said earlier, the number of arrests has shown sharp increases month by month from the statistical returns. Because of the increase in the number of arrests, this has necessitated the establishment of more centres in addition to the main one at Telok Paku. As a result, we now have five drug rehabilitation centres to accommodate the inmates.

When Phase II of Operation Ferret was launched on 1st January this year, the number of arrests has declined instead of increasing. With the large number of vacancies in the drug rehabilitation centres, will the Minister for Home Affairs consider converting some of these centres for other uses? If so, what are his Ministry's plans?

Will the drug problem be contained in the immediate future? If so, what plans has the Minister got for a run-down of the staff of the drug rehabilitation centres in view of the fact that some of the centres might be closed down or converted to other use?

Is the Minister considering employing drug addicts on work schemes in the drug rehabilitation centres not only to provide work discipline but to earn an income to pay for their stay in these centres?

Mr Ivan Baptist: Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to refer to the Minister's reply to a Question for Oral Answer raised by the Member for Kallang on the Drug Rehabilitation Centres in Hansard, Vol. 37, No. 6, cols. 323-4. I quote:

"The area of the cold turkey room is 42 square metres for 20 inmates. As for the area of an average dormitory, it is 322.8 square metres for 140 inmates." This in reality means 2.1 square metres per rehabilitee in the cold turkey room and 2.3 square metres per rehabilitee in the average dormitory. I believe that the process of rehabilitation involves making the rehabilitee kick drug dependence. Making living quarters most uncomfortable for those being rehabilitated could psychologically demolish the rehabilitee and create a barrier against rehabilitation. Are the rehabilitees, both those confined in the cold turkey rooms and those in dormitories, given opportunities to exercise outdoors daily? If so, what is the duration of the exercise? Could the Minister also consider increasing the size of both the cold turkey rooms and the dormitories?

Mr Chua Sian Chin: Mr Speaker, Sir, may I first answer the Member for Bedok. He spoke about the estimation of drug addicts. Before Operation Ferret was launched, we had to estimate the addict population by a simple method known as extrapolation which the Member for Bedok has mentioned. Such a simple calculation is unreliable for the reason that national servicemen are within a limited age range and it is not valid to apply the same parameter to other age groups. When Operation Ferret was planned, we recognised that a reliable method of estimating the addict population was essential. Otherwise it would be difficult to gauge whether or not the operation was successful. A method of estimation was carefully worked out, i.e. by a random sampling data on drug addicts arrested over a period of, say, a month, it was possible to estimate more accurately the drug addict population as at the end of the preceding month. After evening out the statistical errors, it was estimated that the drug addict population as at the end of January 1978 was about 9,424 as compared to 12,918 as at the end of March 1977. More significant was that after taking into consideration the number of addicts now under detention, the estimated number of addicts on the loose was 11,600 as at the end of March 1977 and 5,164 as at the end of January 1978.

With regard to the arrest of drug addicts between the launching of Operation Ferret in April 1977 and the end of February 1978, a total of 26,376 arrests were made for suspicion of drug consumption. Of these, 7,348 persons whose urine specimens were found positive were sent to the drug rehabilitation centres (DRC) for treatment and rehabilitation. The rounding up of such a large number of addicts contrasts drastically with the small number of addicts sent to the DRCs before the operation: 191 in 1975, 962 in 1976 and 449 in the first quarter of 1977. This was before Operation Ferret was launched. The remainder of those arrested had negative urine results and were charged in court for possession of drugs if drugs were found on them at the time of the arrest. Operation Ferret Phase II was launched on 1st January this year to seek out the more elusive addicts who had escaped the net in Phase I. Towards the end of Phase I of the operation, it was found that the addicts who experienced difficulty in getting their supplies from pushers and who could not take drugs in public places due to the pressure exerted by the enforcement agencies retreated to their homes and secluded places away from the eyes of the enforcement officers and the public. Despite the difficulties faced by the enforcement agencies to arrest these elusive addicts in Phase II of the operation, 775 persons were arrested in January and 612 in February 1978, compared to 715 persons in December 1977.

Persons arrested are subject to urine tests. They are put on bond pending the results of the urine tests. A significant number of persons arrested did not turn up upon expiry of their bond. A total of 124 persons arrested in January and 91 in February 1978 whose urine samples showed traces of controlled drugs absconded. That means they went underground. These absconders are likely to be hardcore addicts and every effort is being made to track them down. This vigorous enforcement will continue indefinitely until the drug problem is decisively overcome.

For the information of the House, may I say that a preliminary study of the situation indicates that the drug problem has at least been contained. One good indicator is that there is a considerable reduction of new addicts arrested recently. Let me inform the House how we arrived at this conclusion. Of those addicts arrested in recent months, a decreasing number of them are hot already on the Central Narcotics Bureau records. In the first month of Operation Ferret, i.e. April 1977, among all those whose urine samples were positive, there were 217 now addicts to every 100 old addicts. "Old addicts" mean those who are already on CNB records. However, in January 1978, for every 100 old addicts there were only 85 new addicts. This shows that there are proportionately less new addicts, and this in turn indicates that the contamination rate has declined. Another indicator is the feedback from the drug addicts themselves. Many of them when arrested admitted that it has been increasingly difficult for them to get the drugs.

With regard to rehabilitation in the drug rehabilitation centres, the addicts arrested are sent to the DRC for treatment and rehabilitation. On admission, they are examined by medical officers to see whether they could undergo the rigorous cold turkey treatment. I am not sure what the Member for Bedok means when he says that the "problem of drug addicts is medical and psychological in nature." If by that he means that drug addiction can be cured medically by substitution of drugs or by psychological counselling alone, then I disagree with him. Drug substitution programmes or what are known as replacement therapy in other countries have failed, and that is why Singapore has chosen a programme of cold turkey treatment, strict regime and work discipline for drug addicts. 4.00 p.m.

Sir, may I just outline the stages which drug addicts at DRCs undergo? In fact, they undergo five stages of treatment and rehabilitation.

Stage I is one week of detoxification during which no replacement drug is prescribed to the inmate to assist in the withdrawal symptoms except when their lives are threatened. This is monitored by medical officers.

Stage II consists of one week of recuperation from the rigours of cold turkey treatment and for reorientation to life in the centre.

Stage III consists of one week of intensive indoctrination to drive home to the inmates the evils of drug addiction and the realities of life by officers including a psychologist.

Stage IV, beginning from the fourth week until the end of the third month, is to shake up the inmates from the lethargic and disorientated way of life by giving them military style training, including going through obstacle courses to inculcate self-discipline and to tone up their physique.

The fifth and last stage is to put up the inmates to work schemes in industrial workshops to inculcate work discipline and prepare them for outside employment when they return to society.

Sir, I have enunciated these five stages in order to indicate and assure the Member that inmates of our DRCs are not treated as criminals. They are housed in dormitories in converted bungalows, houses and barracks and not in prison cells. That is the first point.

As I have stated in my answer to a Question in Parliament, we do segregate inmates who are hardcore and those who are beginners. Inmates with criminal records are detained separately in the DRC at Khalsa Crescent. At the centres, they have a diet which is equivalent to a Class C diet in hospitals, and this is much better than the prison diet. That is another point.

The progress made in the DRCs is reviewed by the DRC Review Committee headed by a medical practitioner to assess whether they warrant earlier discharge to return to society. The whole objective, Sir, of the treatment and the rehabilitation programme is to treat and rehabilitate the drug addicts and put them on their own feet and be useful members of society when they return to society.

Sir, I do not know why the Member for Bedok says that the supply of heroin in Singapore is on the increase. This is not borne out by statistics on heroin seizures. Although enforcement action has been intensified, the amount of heroin seized in 1977 was 56.8% less than in 1976, the previous year. Also many drug addicts have admitted that it has become increasingly difficult to get the drug.

Sir, as regards DRC accommodation, it was rapidly expanded last year to cope with the large intake of addicts arrested as a result of Operation Ferret. At present, the DRCs can accommodate 5,972 inmates and there are 1,638 vacancies on 15th March, 1978. However, the vacancies are not likely to remain for long for a number of reasons.

(1) In the early stage of Operation Ferret when accommodation at DRCs was insufficient, some addicts had to be released earlier than desirable. This was to enable more addicts to undergo cold turkey treatment and rehabilitation. Now, addicts will not be released until the Review Committee decides that they have been sufficiently rehabilitated. Otherwise it would have been a waste of time.

(2) Many of the addicts arrested are now recidivists. These hardcore addicts will have to be given longer treatment and rehabilitation.

(3) In the long term, two of the DRCs with a total capacity of 3,400 inmates will eventually have to be closed for the Changi Airport development.

With regard to work schemes mentioned by the Member for Bedok, work schemes for inmates were introduced last year. Inmates who have to undergo the initial three-month treatment and rehabilitation are now given work in five workshops at the Jalan Awan DRC. They make cane furniture, polish rosewood furniture and assemble electrical lights and fittings. The main object of this exercise is to inculcate work discipline in them. Generally, their productivity is low. They are therefore presently paid $3 for two weeks. However, we have now worked out a plan to increase their earnings to $1 a day but this will depend on the productivity and the ability to produce goods for sale.

The Member for Potong Pasir complained about the size of the cold turkey rooms. He says that the cold turkey rooms are not big enough. He says that if the cold turkey room is filled to its maximum capacity, each person would have a space of 2.1 square metres. I say that even if the room is filled to its maximum capacity, there is enough space for the inmates to move about as each inmate has an average space of 2.1 square metres. May I also point out to the Member that during withdrawal the inmates are not inclined to walk about as they are tired. Their tiredness is like the tiredness induced by a bout of influenza. However, we are not unmindful of this. We are now building three more cold turkey rooms costing $44,000 and the work will commence next month.

With regard to the living quarters, it is not a question of space. Although the cold turkey inmates do not have beds, as far as the living quarters are concerned, they have double decker beds. So the area of the space is quite adequate because the space is not just floor space but also cubic space. The ceiling, of course, is not as high as this Chamber.

Mr Ivan Baptist: Sir, there is another question that I posed to the Hon. Minister. I want to know whether the inmates in cold turkey rooms and dormitories are given an opportunity to exercise outdoors and the period of these exercises.

Mr Chua Sian Chin: Mr Speaker, Sir, I thought I have already answered that question, although not directly to the Member for Potong Pasir. To the question posed by the Member for Bedok, I gave an outline of the five stages of the rehabilitation. During the fourth stage beginning from the fourth week until the end of the third month, the inmates are not only given exercises but they also have to undergo a military type of training, like a marine corps training, to tone up their bodies. I think they have sufficient exercise. The Member need not worry about it because I am informed that after the three months, relatives who visit them are quite surprised at the tremendous transformation of the inmates both in their physique and their attitude. Before they entered the DRC, they were dopey and sleepy, but now they could pass as national servicemen after their six months' training.

Haji Sha'ari bin Tadin: Sir, I am happy with the reply given by the Minister, and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment by leave, withdrawn.

Mr P. Govindaswamy: Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head S be reduced by $10 in respect of item 1210 of Subhead Code SH-01 of the Main Estimates.

Sir, I know that it is not a right but a privilege where granting of citizenship is concerned. And I also know that it is a rule that applicants will not be favourably considered if they are considered a liability. Furthermore, the criteria for consideration are being reviewed from time to time. But there are people who find the standing instructions rather confusing.

I know of a case of a boy who was born in 1945 and has been a permanent resident since 1958. He completed his secondary education in 1967 and intended to further his studies abroad. Before leaving the country he applied for citizenship. But he was told verbally by the officials at the Citizenship office that he would only be eligible to apply in 1968 and also that the period of study spent overseas supported by documentary evidence would be considered as residence in Singapore.

In 1968, his application was recorded with proof of his studies abroad, and yet after some time he received a letter of rejection stating that he was not residentially qualified. What is the meaning of this? Are the officials clear in their advice to the public who are applying for citizenship?

In the meantime, every year during vacation he would come back to Singapore. Immediately after completing his studies in 1972, he came back for good and re-applied for citizenship. Within three to six months, he was given a letter of rejection, giving the same reason, "not residentially qualified".

In 1975, he again applied for the third time, and again it was rejected for the same reason. Could the Minister explain whether it is an offence for a person to go abroad for further studies even if he could produce documentary evidence to prove it?

When he received his last rejection letter, he went to the office to enquire the reason and also to re-apply. Very sad to say, I am told the experience he had was unpleasant. The officer who interviewed him was not sympathetic; instead he was hostile. The officer even discouraged him from re-applying saying that he would get the same reply because his mother and two brothers were not living here. What has this got to do with his case? He is married to a Singaporean and has a daughter born in Singapore. He has got a father and a brother who are also Singapore citizens.

But when he insisted on re-applying for the fourth time, the officer got angry and directed his clerk to give the person a date and to write on the form, "Refused but insisted on re-applying." This remark has deterred the person from going for an interview because it is something adverse to his application. 4.15 p.m.

Sir, it is noted that in the past citizenship had been granted to applicants whose families have not completed their 10-year stay in Singapore. I cannot understand why this particular person is being deprived of this privilege when his family is small. In addition, he has a foreign degree, and is contributing to the CPF and is also a taxpayer.

Could the Minister tell me what was the reason for rejecting his application? In the light of the facts that I have just given, could his case be considered favourably? If the Minister wants to have all his papers, I would not mind submitting them to him for consideration.

Sir, there is also the case of a boy in my constituency. His parents and seven brothers and sisters, except him, are Singapore citizens. He received his education in Singapore and is now 21 years old. He is a permanent resident and he holds a work permit. He has also registered for national service and is waiting to be called up. Will his application for citizenship be considered favourably?

The Chairman: I believe two other Members would like to speak on this Subhead. Yes, Mr Teong.

Mr Teong Eng Siong (Sembawang): ( In Mandarin): Sir, I would like to ask whether there is any change in Government's policy on granting of citizenship. What is the position now? There seems to be some improvement. Some people have got their citizenship. In spite of this there are still many applicants who have waited for a long time without receiving any reply. Why should it be? There must be something wrong with the Registry of Citizenship. There is also some problem with the qualifications stipulated. One is that the applicant should be financially sound and is able to contribute to the economy of our country. I cannot support this logic because there are many applicants who are labourers and their income is limited. They receive a meagre income of a few hundred dollars every month. Apart from their own expenses they have to support their family. In these circumstances how can they pay income tax and other incidentals. If the Registry of Citizenship insists on this condition of economic contribution before granting citizenship, then many such people will find it very difficult to get their applications approved. Without citizenship, it is virtually impossible for these people to apply for hawker licences or for jobs in Government departments. At the same time they cannot apply for cheap HDB accommodation. Therefore, they will have to live in private accommodation for which they have to pay higher rent, thus increasing their financial burden. I feel that this particular qualification for citizenship should not be too stringently applied. It is not that the applicants do not want to contribute economically to our country but they are not in a position to do so. So, I feel the department concerned should amend these conditions. I feel that so long as the applicants are honest, responsible people and are loyal to their work besides being able to look after their own family, they should be given sympathetic consideration and their applications approved.

Sir, I would now like to touch on another aspect of citizenship, namely, applications from old people. I have received some complaints that many of the applications from old people have been rejected, thus frustrating them very much. Recently many Ministers have urged the public to look after the old people, but the Registry of Citizenship does not seem to pay attention to this call. According to my knowledge, there is an applicant who is over 70 years old. He is one who deserves respect from others. For instance, he has a number of children who are all grown up and they are well known doctors. They have been in Government service for a long time, contributing much to our country and society. Their elders are also people who love our country. This old man has been very successful in educating and bringing up these children, turning them into professionals, and who are now in a position to contribute much to our country and society. But this old man who has been so successful in raising children who have become professionals also failed in his application for citizenship. I believe that there are many more applicants in the same position. I feel that the Registry of Citizenship should be more sympathetic towards such applications. To be more fair, the Registry should also take into consideration the conditions of the applicant's family and approve the application.

Mr Ng Kah Ting (Punggol): Sir, I rise to make a number of observations on the need to relax the criteria for approving the application of citizenship. Very often at my meet-the-people sessions, I come across people who have applied unsuccessfully for citizenship. They say that all that they ever get is a slip of paper with two lines stating that their application has not been approved. No reason has been given whatsoever. I can well understand why no reason is given to the applicant for rejecting his application. But when Members of Parliament write in. I think they should, to some extent, be informed of the reason why such an application has been rejected.

We have been hearing in this august Chamber that in attracting more skilled labour into Singapore incentives such as permanent resident status and even easy citizenship are given. I therefore fully share the sentiments expressed by my Friend, the Member for Sembawang. In this respect, could the Minister consider relaxing the conditions to some extent for those applicants who are economically active, who have some kind of a job, not necessarily so rewarding as having to pay income tax but a job that can maintain and keep their family together. I think these applicants deserve special consideration. I have come across an applicant who had applied three or four times. If he had been rejected once, why was he told, "You can apply again."? The second application was sent but it was shot down. He applied for the third time. I have come across as far back as 1967, that is, 11 years ago. I think it is about time that the authorities concerned seriously looked into the question of revising the criteria for approving citizenship applications.

Dr Ong Leong Boon: Sir, I rise to support the sentiments expressed by the three previous speakers. I would like to say that in our experience of meet-the-people sessions helping them to apply for citizenship is probably the most futile exercise that we have ever conducted. Perhaps, in a sense, the replies that I got are a little better than the replies received by the Member for Punggol in that besides the two lines of rejection there is the added phrase which says that "it is the prerogative of the Minister not to assign any reason for rejecting the application." Perhaps the Member for Punggol might recall that too.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Yes.

Dr Ong Leong Boon: We would like the Government to consider relaxing the rules governing the award of citizenship, since it is quite difficult to ponder in the vast majority of cases who are, in fact, deeply rooted in Singapore. These are the people who have been living in this country for more than ten years. If one goes according to the stipulations they would have succeeded in the application. But for some reason other than the length of stay, they have not been successful. One rejection, two, three, four and even five rejections; and no reasons assigned. We also have the case, as mentioned earlier, of a single member, a non-citizen in a family, small or large, but the other members of the family are citizens. This is perhaps a victim of the circumstances at birth; perhaps due to the fact that there was no name in the birth certificate. I understand that today even the statutory declaration is not sufficient evidence to show that his name was left out at that time for some reasons. For example, some Christians may be born without being named at the time of birth because the name would be given at the time of christening. That is just one example. For a lot of other people, names were not given at the time of birth. They were only given subsequently. But the fact that the names were not there meant that that certificate might not be his and, therefore, not born in this country.

I would be most grateful if the Minister could enlighten this House as regards the number of applications for Singapore citizenship and the number approved as at the end of the last two years, that is 31st December, 1976, and 31st December, 1977. If looking at these figures they do not indicate a liberalising of approval for citizenship, particularly for those whose roots are in Singapore, then would the Minister consider liberalising the rules governing application for citizenship? We would be most grateful if the Minister could comment on the reasons for rejecting these applications.

Mr S. Dhanabalan (Kallang): Sir, last year I raised the question of minor citizens who for various reasons did not take the oath of allegiance on attaining the age of 21 years. A period of one year is given for such minor citizens to take their oath of allegiance. Within this period if they do not take the oath, they are called up by the National Registration Office and their pink identity card is taken away from them and a blue identity card issued in its place. The young man or woman thus finds that he or she has lost his or her citizenship overnight. 4.30 p.m.

I have received representations since raising this matter, which indicate that the problem is quite widespread. In many cases, the parents keep all the important papers and if the minor became a citizen at the age of, say, 10 years, it is very unlikely that the minor can realise the implications and remember to look out for reminders on TV and Radio about the need to take the oath on reaching the age of 21. If the parents are not educated, the chances are that they will forget the whole matter. It is also possible that minor citizens may be out of the country in a place where there is no Singapore Consul before whom they could take the oath on reaching the age of 21. Again, in other cases, males who lose their citizenship in this way would probably have completed their national service. After bearing arms for the nation, they end up without citizenship. This seems most unfair and unjust.

I would like to ask the Minister whether he would be prepared to give consideration to extending the period within which the minor has to take the oath to three years instead of one year as at present. Or alternatively would the Hon. Minister be prepared to consider seeking powers to re-grant citizenship automatically to persons who lose their citizenship in this way if they apply within two years of such loss? Or still alternatively, would he consider reminding such people by post? If we can send a letter asking them to come and exchange their pink for the blue identity card, I think we can just as well send a letter reminding them to take their oath.

Mr Chua Sian Chin: Sir, may I reply to the Member for Anson first? I would again like to thank the Member for Anson for reminding the House that the grant of citizenship is a privilege and not a right and that the main basis for granting citizenship is that an applicant will be a national asset and not a liability. I hope the Member could do us a favour by reminding the Member for Sembawang this truth, that the grant of citizenship is a privilege and not a right and that the person must not be a liability before he is granted citizenship.

Let me answer some of the points which he has brought up. Let me first assure him that it is no offence for anyone who has the means or the opportunity to go abroad for studies to do so. He may go abroad for studies. If he is liable for national service, he must of course have an exit permit.

Let me next clear his mind with regard to residential qualification for citizenship. Article 57 (1) of the Singapore Constitution provides that an applicant must have resided in Singapore throughout the 12 months immediately preceding the date of his application and has, during the 12 years immediately preceding the date of his application, resided in Singapore for periods amounting in the aggregate to not less than 10 years. In calculating the period of residence, the period of absence for any course generally or specifically approved by the Government may be treated as residence in Singapore. Generally, Sir, absence abroad for the purpose of tertiary education leading to a recognised academic or professional qualification is regarded as approved absence. However, this does not include periods spent abroad for primary or secondary education which is available in Singapore and which we encourage our citizens to have it in Singapore. Approval will also not be given to treat the absence as residence where the person concerned did not succeed in obtaining the academic or professional qualification for which he went overseas. Otherwise, we will be encouraging professional students abroad.

The machinery that has been established to deal with citizenship applications ensures that every application is given its due consideration. Before an application is rejected, it is referred to an independent advisory committee appointed by the President under Section 19 (2) of the Third Schedule to the Constitution. The hon. Member can rest assured therefore that all applications rejected have gone before the advisory committee and given due consideration before they are finally refused.

The Member for Anson has quoted the case of a person whose application for citizenship was rejected and that applicant's experience with officials of the Citizenship Registry. I would like to emphasise to the Member that officials of the Registry of Citizenship have no power to deny or prevent anyone from applying for citizenship. They have no power to tell any applicant that he should not apply or that if he applies his citizenship will not be considered. Further, we do not normally refuse anyone citizenship on the grounds that the applicant's mother is not living in Singapore, as in the case cited by the Member, especially when the applicant is married to a Singapore citizen and has other close relatives who are Singapore citizens. If the Member for Anson had written to me about this case earlier, I am sure the matter would have been investigated and a satisfactory explanation given to him. But it is still not too late.

The Member also mentioned the case of a boy who has registered for national service and is the only non-citizen in his family. As I have said before, favourable consideration is given to applicants who are the remaining non-citizens in the family and serving national service is one of the criteria for granting citizenship. I see that the Member for Anson is very satisfied.

Mr P. Govindaswamy: That is right.

Mr Chua Sian Chin: May I now turn to the Member for Kim Seng. The first question asked by him is the number of applications approved in 1976 and 1977. The answer is, for 1976, 7,806 applications were approved and in 1977, 5,051 applications were approved. However, the number of applications dealt with in 1976 and 1977 was 11,552 and 11,637 respectively. In other words, the number dealt with in 1977 is slightly more than the number dealt with in 1976. However, the number pending as at 31st December 1976 was 25,829. But the number pending as at 31st December 1977 was 23,787. In other words, the backlog has been reduced by 2,042.

With regard to the criteria for assessing citizenship application, they are always under constant review although the basic policy of Government in granting citizenship remains the same. The general criterion of granting citizenship is that the applicant will not be a liability but an asset to Singapore. The question is that in applying this criterion, account is taken of the prevailing social and economic conditions in the Republic. However, within this framework, the Government is already giving special consideration to those with family roots in Singapore. Applications from those who are the only non-citizen in their family are dealt with sympathetically. Except for some Members of Parliament, most of them will bear testimony that most applicants in this category, that is, the applicant is the only non-citizen in the family, have in the last two years been granted citizenship.

The Member mentioned about statutory declaration as insufficient evidence. May I explain that this is a matter which does not concern application for citizenship but it is a matter of proof of birth in Singapore. Members will know that if we just accept statutory declaration as proof, I think it can lead to a lot of abuses because the mother can just swear that her son or daughter was born here. We do accept statutory declaration but it must be accompanied with further proof that he or she was born in Singapore in order to be regarded as a Singapore citizen.

With regard to length of stay, we have considered this in conjunction with the question of having roots here. If he is the only non-citizen in the family, his chances of getting citizenship are very, very good.

Now let me turn to the Member for Sembawang. He spoke about the long wait for citizenship. As I said, we have done our best. We have cleared the backlog by 2,000. But he was grumbling about the income being taken as a factor into consideration when deciding citizenship applications. Perhaps after this, he might have a chat with the Member for Anson who agrees that before a person can be granted citizenship he should not be a liability to the State; and not being a liability means that he must have sufficient income to support his family, otherwise he becomes a liability to the State. After thinking it over very carefully I am sure the Member will agree with me that income is an important factor for the grant of citizenship. Before a person is granted citizenship he should earn enough to maintain his family and not be a burden to the State. He should not make use of the grant of citizenship to get a hawker licence. If the Member for Sembawang thinks very carefully about it, he will not be so ready with his suggestion of granting citizenship freely so that they can have opportunities for getting a hawker licence. In fact, he is inviting more competition among his own voters. If the Member for Sembawang were to think very carefully, he would agree with me that his first priority -

Mr Teong Eng Siong: Sir, on a point of order. (In Mandarin) Sir, just now the Minister said that by suggesting the granting of citizenship to these people I would be inviting competition because they would then be allowed to apply for hawker licence and HDB flats. I did not say that. I said that without citizenship they would not be able to obtain their rights to other things. 4.45 p.m.

Mr Chua Sian Chin: Sir, that is not a point of order. It is a point of clarification. Maybe I have not made it quite clear to him. He was saying that they should be granted citizenship because it would enable the non-voter to apply for hawker licence or Housing Board accommodation. May I remind the Member that his first responsibility is to his voters, the citizens of this country. If he were to ask the Government to grant citizenship to every Tom, Dick and Harry, I do not think his constituents would like it because there would be more competition among the citizens for hawker licences. I would like him to think it over very carefully before he makes that suggestion.

With regard to income as a factor to be considered in granting citizenship, I would like to tell the Member that applicants who wish to obtain citizenship should therefore find steady employment and work hard to meet the income condition. If they do so, they will be granted citizenship.

On the question of granting citizenship to aged parents, I would like to repeat here that each case should be considered on its own merit. Where the family roots are very strong and the person concerned is stateless and, above all, unlikely to be a burden to the State, I would say that the chances of obtaining citizenship are quite good. If the Member for Sembawang has any case which complies with these conditions he can write in. I will consider it and should it be turned down I will explain to him why it is not possible for us to grant citizenship to such an applicant. That reply also applies to the Member for Punggol and the Member for Kim Seng. We would explain to the Members of Parliament the reason why citizenship was not granted, but not necessarily to the applicant himself. If I had been approached, I would have explained it to the MP concerned. Perhaps the Members for Punggol and Kim Seng had not done so. I am even explaining now in a general way why certain persons are granted citizenship while others are not granted citizenship. But if Members have any specific cases, I am quite prepared to explain to them. Of course, as a matter of practice we cannot state the reasons because this will lead to interminable arguments. But as far as the MPs are concerned, if they write to me, I am quite prepared to give them the reasons.

The Member for Kallang has again raised the question of minor citizens. He has suggested various alternatives to meet the problem. As I have said before, if a person is very unmindful of his oath of allegiance and forgets to take it I think we have to be very careful in granting citizenship to such a person. It is for this very reason that there is this provision in the Constitution that if a minor on reaching the age of 21 years does not take the oath of allegiance, then that person automatically loses his or her citizenship. That is the law. There is nothing the Ministry or myself, as the Minister, can do about it. It is provided in our Constitution that if a person fails to take the oath of allegiance within one year he or she will automatically lose his or her citizenship. There is no exercise of discretion about it. The Member for Kallang has said that reminders over TV and in the press are not sUfficient. This is particularly so, in the case of a minor who became a citizen not at the age of 19 but at the age of 12 years and that the parents who are keeping the papers might be abroad. The minor does not need to have papers. When a person reaches the age of 21 years, if he has been a minor citizen, he should know that he needs to take the oath of allegiance. He knows his age. Whether or not the papers are in his possession is not very material. Once a person has reached the age of 21 years knowing that he or she is a minor citizen, he or she should go and take the oath of allegiance. The question which the Member posed was whether we could change the law. If we were to extend the period to three years, we have got to change the Constitution. But I hope we do not have to change our Constitution and extend the period to three years. I think it is not necessary because what is happening now is that if a person has genuinely forgotten to take the oath within one year, we can make a concession. He or she can apply for citizenship and we will give priority processing or priority consideration. I think that would be sufficient to meet the problem rather than to change the Constitution and extend the period from one year to three years. We have, in fact, now given priority consideration for those who have forgotten to take their oath of allegiance within one year.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Mr Speaker, Sir, first of all, may I inform the Minister that I have had occasions to write to him on behalf of permanent residents who had applied for citizenship. I received a copy of the reply from the Registry of Citizenship. Arising out of the reply, I have two small questions. The Minister has mentioned that in 1976 there were 25,829 cases outstanding against 23,787 cases in 1977. Obviously only 2,042 cases had been cleared.

Mr Chua Sian Chin: That is the backlog of cases.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: The backlog. How many years of backlog? That is the question. The first question is how long does it take to process an application, and how long will it take for the application to be approved. Second, how long does the Minister expect to clear this backlog?

Mr Teong Eng Siong: ( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have a problem which I hope the Minister will answer. Regarding application for citizenship, he has said that the applicant must not be a liability to the State. This is very vague. For example, if a worker earns an income of about $500 to $600 and he can support his two-child family with this income, do we assume that his income is not sufficiently high enough to deserve consideration in respect of his application which has been made for several years? With an income of $500 to $600, how can he be a liability to the State? I do not think so. The civil servants seem to be subjective in their assessment of a person's income. They are not objective.

Mr Chua Sian Chin: Mr Speaker, Sir, the trouble with the Member for Sembawang is that he has not thought it over very carefully. It is not just a matter of being able to support his family from hand to mouth that he will not be a liability to the State. May I give one example. If the applicant is married to a non-citizen who is on a visit pass to Singapore and the children also are on a visit pass, then by granting him citizenship the wife and the children will come in and be given permanent residence and citizenship, and that can be a liability to Singapore. Of course, before we consider the case where the wife and children are on a visit pass, we will have to consider whether his income is sufficient to support his wife and children as a result of a grant of citizenship and coming in to live in Singapore. If his wife and children are already permanent residents, then a lower income rate is acceptable. That is the case. If the Member were to think very carefully, he will know why different cases are treated differently. The main criterion will, of course, be whether he will become a liability to the State or not.

With regard to the Member for Punggol's question about the backlog, as I have said, we are trying our best to reduce the backlog. We have managed to reduce it by over 2,000 cases. But it is not just 2,000 cases. He may get the impression that we have dealt with only 2,000 cases. What about fresh applications which have come in? We have also been dealing with fresh applications at the same time. So, in all, we have dealt with about 11,000 cases a year. Of course, if we were to process them in a careless manner, we could process more. But we have to be very careful. Citizenship is an important matter. We have to consider every case carefully, so that we will not get complaints that their applications have not been carefully treated. We are making progress slowly. We have cleared the backlog of cases by over 2,000. Perhaps this year we will clear a further backlog of cases.

Mr Dhanabalan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to clarify what I said about minors being out of the country. What I meant was that the minors themselves might be out of the country and therefore they are not in a position to take their oath within one year. They may be in a place where there is no Singapore Consul. Secondly, when I mentioned about papers, I meant papers relating to the fact that the person is a minor citizen and that these papers may be with the parents, as is often the case with Asian parents. The minor may not be aware that he is a minor citizen. There is no distinguishing mark on the red identity card to show that he or she is a minor citizen. The first time that the minor realises this is when he or she gets a letter from the National Registration Office. I am quite aware that the present law says that if the oath is not taken within one year then the person is deprived of his or her citizenship. That is the reason why I have asked the Minister whether he would consider - I do not mean changing the law - extending the period to three years. If I am not mistaken, he does not have the power to automatically regrant citizenship to those who lose their citizenship this way. I would like to ask whether he would consider seeking such powers. 5.00 p.m.

Mr Chua Sian Chin: Sir, in answer to the Member for Kallang, the law as stated in the Constitution is quite clear. If a person does not take the oath, he automatically loses it. There is no power on the part of the Government or the Minister to prevent that. As I have said, in a deserving case the person has got to reapply and we give priority to the application. If the person deserves it, then a fresh grant of citizenship is given, I must not say "regrant" because the person has already lost the citizenship. I think that is already a major concession.

The Member mentioned about a person who is abroad and would not know that he or she is a minor citizen. Even if the person is abroad, I am quite sure the parents would have told the minor that he or she was not born in Singapore. Surely the minor will know that he or she was not born in Singapore and being of an age below 21 years, he or she could only be a minor citizen. The fact that the person is abroad and is not able to go to a Consul is, I think, not a good excuse. If the person is abroad, even if we can write a letter to the person to remind him to take the oath, he will not be able to do so.

Mr Teong Eng Siong: ( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, just now the Minister said that economic requirements are not sufficient. There are applicants who do not have to support their families. Can the Minister explain why the Registry of Citizenship refused to grant citizenship to this category of applicants who do not have to support their families?

Mr Chua Sian Chin: Sir, a general question merits only a general answer. It depends on the case in question. I have already stated most of the factors which, if satisfied, will result in a grant of citizenship. I just cannot answer a general question. If a person can support a parent, then how will the Registry deal with the application? If, for example, in the case mentioned by the Member that the elderly gentleman has got children who are doctors and who can support the parent, and we are satisfied that the parent concerned will not be a liability to the State, then the grant of citizenship will be approved. However, on the other hand, if we suspect that the grant of citizenship to the old-aged parent is to find a place for the parent in a home for the aged - whether or not the son is a doctor he does not want to take care of the parent but just want to shift the burden to the State - then such an application would not be granted.

Mr Teong Eng Siong: That is a good answer.

Mr P. Govindaswamy: Sir, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

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: Order. I suspend the Sitting and shall take the Chair again at 5.35 p.m.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 5.05 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 S (cont) -

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head S be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead Code SH-05 of the Main Estimates.

Sir, this subhead concerns Immigration Enforcement and Control for which a total sum of more than $12.5 million has been spent to redevelop Woodlands Checkpoint which, I understand, is to cope with the increasing number of people coming in and going out of Singapore. As so much money has been spent to redevelop this particular Checkpoint, I would like to seek enlightenment from the Hon. Minister concerned as to the number of cases that this Checkpoint handles each day. In particular, with the operation of the Immigration Act, how many cases of overstay have been detected and how many have resulted in prosecutions? Also, Sir, apart from the Changi Airport Checkpoint which is being set up. I want to know whether the other checkpoints, like the Paya Lebar Airport Checkpoint, are rendering satisfactory results for checking entry and exit purposes.

Sir, in moving the Second Reading of the Immigration (Amendment) Bill last year, the Minister mentioned in the House that there had been many cases of overstay for as long as more than a year. If surveillance at these checkpoints had not been stepped up, the number of cases will not be known. As a result, a certain form or proforma has to be introduced for anyone who comes into Singapore. The visitor has to state the duration of his stay on the form and attach it to his passport. In this respect, how effective is this Woodlands Checkpoint and other checkpoints?

Arising out of this, there is the question of re-entry, a dilemma faced by Singapore blue identity card holders. Of course, when I speak of the dilemma of blue IC holder, I am mindful of my duty to my constituents who are citizens. These blue IC holders have relatives who are citizens. Before the Minister reminds me of my duty, I had better inform him first. What I want to point out with regard to the dilemma the blue IC holders who are permanent residents are faced with is on the question of re-entry for these people who make trips out of Singapore, say, to Malaysia without first applying for a re-entry permit. Hence, upon their return they stand to be penalised very unjustifiably because their permanent status would be lost. And in return for makings trip out of Singapore, they are given a Special Pass to be renewed from time to time.

Sir, a case to illustrate this unjustifiable action is a child named Kumar born in Malaysia, who was legally adopted by a Singapore citizen when he was two months old. When the child was about two years old, the adopted father who is a Singapore citizen brought him to Malaysia without obtaining a re-entry permit for the child. This trip was an emergency and the child had to accompany his adopted parents. But when the child returned to Singapore, he was deprived of his permanent resident status. In fact, he was given a student pass. This student pass has now been withdrawn because the child is not in school any more. Neither has he any relatives in Malaysia. This illustration brings home the point that such a measure is most unfair. I earnestly hope that the Minister concerned would review such an unfair policy. It appears that the policy of the Immigration authorities is to deprive blue IC holders of their permanent resident status if they breach it. In the case that I have mentioned, I request the Minister to look into the matter.

Mr P. Govindaswamy: Sir, I am in doubt. When the Hon. Minister replied to my question, he said that the wife and children of employment passholders can stay in Singapore. For a permanent resident who is getting more than $1,000, why are the wife and children not allowed to stay in Singapore? Can the Minister please clarify?

Dr Lau Teik Soon (Serangoon Gardens): Sir, thank you for allowing me to speak on this subject. For effective enforcement and control in the Immigration Department, those at the ground, namely, the Immigration Officers must be committed to their jobs. Besides those in the headquarters, these Immigration Officers man seven immigration checkpoints. There are others who board vessels arriving in Singapore. These Immigration Officers must be committed to their jobs. They have a variety of responsibilities including checking travel documents, taking down details, issuing special passes and even detaining illegal immigrants. Hence the responsibilities of the Immigration Officers are very significant. Yet, Mr Speaker, Sir, I understand that the Immigration Officers, those in Division IV, are not happy with their working conditions and this, of course, undermines the effectiveness of enforcement and control in the Immigration Department. 5.45 p.m.

There are a number of grievances and I would just name a few which have been brought to my attention. First, there is the problem of the distance that many Immigration Officers have to travel from their residence to the various checkpoints. I understand, and I have seen the figures, that they pay between 7-15% on bus fares; 7-15% out of their take home pay. This, of course, is a very considerable amount, considering the fact that they are poorly paid. Secondly, I understand there is the disparity of treatment between Immigration Officers at headquarters and those in the field, particularly those at the various checkpoints. Disparity of treatment in terms of promotion and recruitment into the elite force which is known as the Task Force. I understand that those recruited into the Task Force are almost assured of a promotion. Thirdly, they are unhappy with the salary scale which has not been revised for a number of years. I understand that at one time the salary scale of the Immigration Officer was superior to that of the Prison warder and the Police constable. But the position now is different. There have been revisions of the salaries of the Prison warders, Police constables and Assistant Narcotics Officers who were, in terms of entry qualifications into this post, comparable to those in the Immigration Department. But now their scale is inferior to these three categories that I have named.

In view of the very important role that the Immigration Officers have to perform, it is essential that we have the officers committed to their jobs. I hope that the Minister will look into the matter and maybe recommend to his colleague, the Minister for Finance, to improve the working conditions of these Immigration Officers.

Mr Ng Yeow Chong (Mountbatten): ( In Mandarin): Sir, I heard the Member for Punggol saying that when a permanent resident makes a trip to Malaysia, and if he had not applied for a re-entry permit, then upon his return to Singapore his identity card will be detained by the Immigration Officer and instead given the white Special Pass. This is unfair because permanent residents would have already been residing here for quite some time. Those who go abroad by air or by ship, the tourist agency will tell them that they must get their re-entry permit at the Immigration Office before they leave the Republic. To these people there is no problem. However, for the thousands of people who go to Malaysia through the Causeway, they are ignorant of such formalities and regulations. I would like to urge the Minister to relax such regulations on permanent residents because their next-of-kin or members of their families are in Singapore. If they are deprived of their rights to reside here permanently, it will be a big setback to their families here.

Mr Chua Sian Chin: Sir, may I first answer the Member for Punggol with regard to the Woodlands Checkpoint.

The Woodlands Checkpoint provides clearance for travellers entering or leaving Singapore through the Causeway. Besides Immigration, the Customs, the Registry of Vehicles, Police, Central Narcotics Bureau and the new Narcotics Dog Unit share the facilities of the Checkpoint complex. On the average, 33,000 travellers enter Singapore and about the same number leave Singapore through the checkpoint each day. Prior to the implementation of the Exit Control Scheme on 3rd January this year, the Immigration Officers at the Checkpoint could only examine travel documents of arriving visitors and they had to decide whether or not such visitors could be allowed to enter Singapore. This system was common to all the checkpoints but it was found to be inadequate as it did not ensure that a visitor would leave Singapore on or before the expiry of the visit pass. Over-staying was rampant. To deal with this problem, Exit Control was implemented. From 3rd January to 13th March this year, a total of 752 persons were refused entry into Singapore at the Woodlands checkpoint either because they were undesirable immigrants or because they were not in possession of proper travel documents. During the same period, 11 persons were prevented from leaving Singapore at this Checkpoint. They were mainly people wanted by the Income Tax Department or the Police. Although it is too early to assess the effectiveness of the Exit Control Scheme at the Woodlands Checkpoint, it has certainly tightened up control of entry and exit. This is my answer to how effective the Woodlands Checkpoint has been since Exit Control came into operation on the 3rd January this year.

From 3rd January to 13th March this year, a period of 70 days, 354 persons who had overstayed were detected when they were leaving Singapore at the Woodlands Checkpoint. This constitutes about 0.13% of the total flow of travellers arriving through the Checkpoint during this period of 70 days. 76.6% of these people had overstayed in Singapore for less than one week and only 2.1% had overstayed for more than three months. Prior to 6th March, 1978, the overstayers were issued with warning notices only. Since then Senior Immigration Officers at the Checkpoint have been authorised to impose composition fines on visitors who have overstayed. From 6th March, 1978 to 13th March, 1978, a total of 91 persons were dealt with in this way. No one has been prosecuted yet.

Besides the Woodlands Checkpoint, there are other checkpoints at Keppel Railway Station, Clifford Pier Building, South Quay, Changi Point, Jurong Fishing Port, Paya Lebar Airport, Seletar Airport, Changi Aerodrome, Tengah Aerodrome and so on and so forth. The main emphasis of immigration clearance at these checkpoints is that we provide an efficient and courteous service to genuine tourists and other travellers. Over the last two months the Immigration Officers cleared a daily average of 40,827 travellers and an equal number of departing travellers at all our checkpoints. Despite the large number of persons handled since the introduction of Exit Control on 3rd January, 1978, the Immigration Department has been able to maintain a satisfactory level of service and no major problem has been encountered. From 3rd January, 1978, to 13th March, 1978, a total of 4,930 visitors were found to have overstayed in Singapore. This is the figure for all the checkpoints. However, this constitutes only about 0.17% of the total number of arriving travellers during the same period.

On the enforcement side, over this period a total of 2,036 persons were refused permission to enter while 46 persons were not allowed to leave Singapore. Of this latter group, three were SAF deserters and 14 persons who were liable for national service attempted to leave Singapore without exit permits. The other cases involved mainly income tax evaders and people wanted by the Police. There were also a few cases of foreigners attempting to leave their children behind illegally.

Let me turn to the question posed by the Member for Punggol with regard to the loss of permanent resident status by leaving Singapore without obtaining a re-entry permit. May I say that it is not a question of the Immigration Officer wanting or waiting to deprive these persons of their permanent residence. The regulation is such that once they leave the Republic without a re-entry permit, they lose their permanent resident status, and that is why they will be asked to surrender their blue identity cards and given a Special Pass. In the case cited by the Member about an adopted child who is a Malaysian and who was two years old when the incident happened, he was brought back to Malaysia without a re-entry permit, and therefore under the regulations he has lost his permanent residence. Yet he was allowed back and given a Special Pass. He was not treated unsympathetically because he was issued with a Student Pass, with which he was able to get his education in Singapore. The point now is that he is no longer a student. He has grown up, I presume. The Student Pass is then withdrawn because he is no longer a student. In such cases the point is, being a male person, if he were to do national service, he might be sympathetically considered for permanent residence. In answer not only to the Member for Punggol but also to the Member for Anson, we do consider such cases sympathetically. Where a person has lost permanent residence because of non-possession of a re-entry permit before leaving Singapore, we do take into account this factor sympathetically and in some cases we do re-grant these persons permanent residence. In any case, a person will be given Special Pass and will continue to reside in Singapore, although he may not get back his permanent residence. Each case, of course, will be treated on its own merits.

The point made by the Member for Serangoon Gardens is about the grievances of Immigration Officers. He said that one of the grievances ii that they have to travel long distances to the various checkpoints. This, again, is one of the exigencies of service. We had occasion to hear of complaints of teachers being posted to schools far away from their home. 6.00 p.m.

He also mentioned about the disparity of treatment between headquarters officers and those in the various checkpoints, on account that those in headquarters would be favoured for appointment in the Task Force. I do not think it is a question of favouritism. The Task Force is an elite force in the sense that it must have good officers in order to solve the problem of illegal immigration. It is a difficult problem and therefore we need the best personnel. I do not agree with the Member for Serangoon Gardens that if an officer is appointed to work in the checkpoints instead of in headquarters, he would have less opportunity of joining the Task Force. May I assure the Member that if the officer is found to be good and efficient, he has equal chances.

With regard to salary scales, he said that Prison warders and Police officers have got better salary scales. May I point out that the Immigration Officer's job is more a white-collar job when compared to Prison warders whose job is not a pleasant one or to the Police officers who have to work in the rain and sun. This is the first time that I hear of such grievances and I will certainly look into it. But the point is this. In spite of the fact that he says that the conditions are unfavourable and that there are grievances, we had no problem whatsoever when we advertised for the recruitment of Immigration Officers. We had an overwhelming response. On the other hand, when we advertised for the recruitment of Prison warders and Police officers, we did not get similar response. Comparing the terms and conditions of service between the Immigration Officers and the Police officers or Prison warders, I cannot understand the reason for this phenomenon which he has now projected to me. I will look into it but personally I do not think the grievances can be that serious as made out by the Member for Serangoon Gardens.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Sir, I think the Hon. Minister will agree with me that a Special Pass is one thing and a permanent resident status, blue identity card, is another.

Mr Chua Sian Chin: Yes, of course.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Therefore, if one loses his permanent resident status as a result of negligence or ignorance of the law, surely if it is for the first time, sympathy should be given, as the Hon. Minister has mentioned. What sympathy is there if someone gets in exchange for the loss of such a status a Special Pass which is a piece of paper to be renewed from time to time? In the case that I have mentioned as an illustration, the child has got no relatives in Malaysia. There are many similar cases of blue identity card holders who have lost their permanent resident status as a result of negligence or ignorance. Is the penalty so harsh as to deprive them of their permanent resident status? The Minister could say that his Ministry is very sympathetic by issuing a Special Pass which can be renewed again and again. But, Sir, I would contend that these are two different matters. The Minister has mentioned that there are many checkpoints but especially at the Woodlands Checkpoint, would the Immigration Officers advise this category of people against leaving Singapore without having applied for a re-entry permit, or at least inform them of the consequences?

Mr Ng Yeow Chong: Sir, I share the sentiments of the Member for Punggol. Perhaps the Minister may not know how painful it is for a person to lose his permanent resident status.

Mr Chua Sian Chin: I know that.

Mr Ng Yeow Chong: As I have said earlier, those who wish to go abroad by air or by sea are usually advised by the travel agencies to apply for a re-entry permit first before buying their tickets. But in the case of those who travel through the Causeway by the thousands, it is just not possible for them to go to the Immigration Office to apply for a re-entry permit. On the spur of the moment they may want to go to Johore Bahru or they may want to visit someone in Pontian or Muar. The Minister might have done that many times because he has got some relatives in Malacca.

Mr Chua Sian Chin: Why is that relevant?

Mr Ng Yeow Chong: My point is this. Why cannot these people be informed of this requirement in one way or another? As suggested by the Member for Punggol, why not put up notices somewhere near the Woodlands Checkpoint to remind those blue identity card holders who wish to go across the Causeway to apply for a re-entry permit before leaving?

Dr Lau Teik Soon: Sir, I would like to clarify one point. This is with regard to the responsibilities of Immigration Officers. It is incorrect to say that they are all white-collar workers. There are Immigration Officers who have to brave the high seas to board the incoming vessels to check on illegal immigrants. There are Immigration Officers who are posted to Sultan Shoal and they have to do their job whatever the weather. They have to apprehend and detain illegal immigrants, some of whom are even armed. So their job is in a way not very different from the Police officers or the Prison warders.

Mr P. Govindaswamy: Sir, I support the Member for Serangoon Gardens. The Minister must consider the responsibilities of the Immigration Officers. The Immigration Officers must be given more salary. Then only will they work hard. Otherwise, they will not be able to control the illegal immigrants from coming to Singapore. I think the Minister has agreed to consider sympathetically the case about employment pass and permanent resident status.

Mr Chua Sian Chin: Sir, I always sympathetically consider the cases from the Member for Anson.

May I answer the Member for Serangoon Gardens? I agree that officers in the Task Force do arrest illegal immigrants and so on. They do jobs which are equivalent to that of Police officers. That is why it is an elite force and that is why even the Member says that if an officer is in this Force his chances of promotion are very bright. I agree that is so. But the point is that the majority of the Immigration Officers are doing a white-collar job. Some, of course not everyone, go to Sultan Shoal; maybe they can enjoy fishing as the Member for Punggol has indicated. So it may not be a hard job where they have got to brave the elements. These are exceptions but, by and large, they are doing a soft job. But I have already posed the question: why is it that we have no dearth of applicants when we advertised for Immigration Officers but there is a dearth of applicants when we advertised for Prison warders and Police officers?

I come now to the Member for Punggol and the Member for Mountbatten. They must not get the impression that I do not view these cases sympathetically and that I do not know the difference between a Special Pass holder and that of a blue identity card holder. Of course, there is a difference. In considering the case on its merits, if it does not merit a restoration of permanent resident status, we will deal with the case sympathetically by allowing the person to stay on a Special Pass. At least that person can continue staying in Singapore.

With regard to the point about reminding blue identity card holders of the fact that if they go out of Singapore they must apply for a re-entry permit, I think it is not necessary to get the Immigration Officers to remind every person. As I said, 33,000 people go through the checkpoint everyday and if the Immigration Officers have to see whether or not each and every person has got a re-entry permit, there will be a traffic jam. But the fact that we have debated this in Parliament and when it is reported in the newspapers it will serve as a reminder to them that they should obtain a re-entry permit before leaving Singapore. In fact, many of them do have a re-entry permit because they are not that ignorant. Those cases which the Member has quoted must have happened years ago. But at the moment, I can assure the Member that many of them know about this requirement. Even I myself do remind my constituents during my meet-the-people sessions that there is a need to apply for a re-entry permit. Likewise, I presume the Member for Punggol, amongst others, would remind his constituents about this. I think the publicity is enough at the moment. And if in spite of the publicity they still go over to Malaysia without applying for a re-entry permit, I think they are grossly negligent which does indicate that they do not really treasure their blue identity card privilege. 6.15 p.m.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Sir, I do not know as the Hon. Minister mentioned, if publicity will be given as a result of today's debate over this question of loss of permanent resident status. But I would urge the Minister to give some form of publicity, apart from the mass media covered by radio and television and the press, that permanent resident status will be lost if a blue identity card holder makes a trip outside Singapore without first obtaining a re-entry permit. If I get that assurance, Sir, I will withdraw my amendment.

Mr Chua Sian Chin: Sir, it is not difficult to give such an assurance. I shall give the assurance. I think in this debate itself, the fact that I have made the assurance in Parliament today will be sufficient to highlight it.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Sir, if that is the case, I must thank the Minister for his kind assurance. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $162,422,350 for Head S ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates.

The sum of $16,961,800 for Head S ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.

[Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair]

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Head T -

Mr Tan Cheng San (Paya Lebar): ( In Mandarin): Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head T be reduced by $10 in respect of item 1100 of Subhead Code TA-01 of the Main Estimates.

Sir, there is a proverb which says that, "It takes ten years to grow a tree, but it takes a hundred years to educate a person." The success of our industrialisation, the continued progress of our commerce and industries, and the improvement in the standard of living of our people are all closely connected with the education policy planned by our enlightened and judicious Government. Since the oil crisis of 1973, the advanced countries in Europe and America have, one after another, put up trade barriers and implemented protectionist policies. This has caused our export products to face greater competition.

In order to meet this challenge, our Government has correctly been encouraging investors in our country, both local and foreign, to further invest in precision industries in order to meet the competition posed by industrialisation in the various advanced countries.

In the past few years, our education policy has been closely coordinated with the Government's industrialisation programme. Our technical and secondary schools, the Industrial Training Board, the Singapore Polytechnic, Ngee Ann Technical College and the Engineering Faculty of the University of Singapore, have trained and produced many personnel required in the various fields of industrialisation.

Sir, with the development of the situation as mentioned above, the National Trades Union Congress organised at the end of last year a seminar on "Job Creation and Job Loss" in conjunction with its annual general meeting. The purpose was to enable workers who are employed to understand the problems our country is facing, and to appeal to the workers to face realities; to be practical and to work hard to raise productivity. Up to now, various unions affiliated to the NTUC are preparing to hold similar delegates' conferences or seminars in order to disseminate the conclusions reached by the NTUC Delegates Conference at the grassroots level.

Although the NTUC has tried its best to make the workers understand our country's problems, I feel that the Ministry of Education should coordinate with the NTUC to inculcate in the students at schools the concept of tripartite cooperation among labour, capital and Government. This will enable them to understand the true essence of the trade union movement in our country, and the role and achievements of trade union movement in the field of economic development in our country.

We all know that manpower is the only resource that Singapore has. The youths in schools today will be at the forefront of our national economic construction tomorrow, shouldering the heavy burden of promoting rapid development in our country. It is necessary for us to inculcate in our youths a correct understanding of our society and value concept. Only through the strengthening of the concept of the trade union movement and the tripartite cooperation of labour, capital and Government, can we achieve this objective and enable them to be more useful in future. Therefore, I hope our schools will include the teaching of "Trade union movement" and "Tripartite cooperation of labour, capital and Government" in their syllabus in order to foster the growth of our national economy.

Mr P. Govindaswamy: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, there was a move by the Ministry to post only graduate teachers to the secondary schools and the others to the primary schools. What is the progress made and how successful has the Ministry been on this plan? Is it practical to what the Ministry officials have in mind? Could the Minister explain?

Sir, the last promotion exercise for teachers which was conducted a few months ago had indeed created a headache for many of our Education Officers. Though the Minister has given an explanation, which is not satisfactory, as to why so many teachers were called for interview, I do not want to criticise him. But I personally feel that to call 9,696 teachers for interview and promote only 473 is definitely a waste of time of both the interviewers and the Education Officers who were called for the interview. Is it logical?

This in a way has caused the morale in the teaching profession to drop due to the frustration of many of the Education Officers over the years. The standard of teaching has also been affected and the students are the ones to suffer.

It is true that in every promotion exercise, there is bound to be some dissatisfaction among those who were unsuccessful. If they are unsuccessful they will not teach the students properly.

However, in any future promotion exercise, the Ministry should see to it that unnecessary expenditure will not be involved and time is not wasted by calling so many persons for the interview and selecting only a handful. It would be better, as in the past, to invite applications, short-list them and then call them up for interview, instead of interviewing the Education Officers as in the last promotion exercise which is not economical.

Sir, we still have relief teachers in our Education service. Since we are short of teachers, why should these teachers not be considered for permanent employment in the Education Service?

How successful has the Ministry been in recruiting teachers over the last few years? Could the Minister give some facts and figures as to how many teachers were recruited, both graduates and non-graduates, in the latest recruitment exercise, and also the number of teachers who had resigned during the last year?

I am told that the response to the last recruitment exercise was not encouraging. There could be something wrong with our Education System which explains why we do not get the right calibre of persons joining the teaching profession. It is time the Ministry seriously thought of resolving the problem of recruiting loyal and dedicated teachers.

Sir, there is the Basic Course for students who do not make the grade at the end of the primary school level. I wonder how successful has this course been. I understand that many students have not continued their education with this course and, as a result, a few Basic Course classes have closed down because of poor response. What is the Ministry doing about this?

Sir, the "Use Your Hands" campaign introduced into the schools was aimed at preventing our students from shying away from the blue collar jobs. It will also in a way help them to build a rugged and robust society. However, this campaign should not be over-emphasised. There are some schools where the students have taken over the work of the school servants, for example, sweeping classrooms, etc. As a result the servants are having a nice time supervising the students. Is it reasonable to get students to sweep?

I also understand that parents have to pay for the use of ambulance if their children are taken to hospital from the school. Why does the school not use the Miscellaneous School Fees Fund for such purposes? This is very bad. Why tax the poor parents for an accident in the school? After all, they are also contributing to the Fund.

Sir, it has been stated that as far as possible children will not be posted to schools which are quite a distance away from their homes. How successful has this idea been carried out?

It is true that improvements have been made to the system of admitting pupils to schools chosen by their parents. Very often at the end of the year, many parents find that children have been posted to schools very far from their homes. These are parents who do not have any priority admission for their children, and have been unsuccessful in getting a place for their children from one school to another. This is also true in the case of children who had passed the Primary VI examination. Could something be done to put the children in schools chosen by their parents, without the need for parents having to look for such places before the Ministry begins to post the children in schools not favoured by their parents?

The Chairman: Mr Lai Tha Chai is not here.

Mr Ch'ng Jit Koon (Tiong Bahru): ( In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, since independence Singapore has achieved remarkable success in various fields of development except in the field of education where the result has not been entirely satisfactory. At best, what we have achieved fully I would say is universal education. But in terms of quality education, particularly in the implementation of the bilingual education policy which is important for our development and survival, I do not think the result has been ideal. This has been the most important and fundamental aspect of our education policy. But we are still quite far from the objective of the policy that we have set out to achieve. 6.30 p.m.

Sir, because of our geographical location and our economic structure, we need to use the international and commercial language, namely the English language to promote friendship and trade with foreign friends. We also have to use it to get the latest scientific and technological knowledge and expertise for the rapid development in the various fields in our country. Furthermore, because of the multi-racial character of our country, we must adopt as a common means of communication for national unity one common language that can be easily acceptable to all the peoples in our country. It is therefore very correct to emphasise the study of English in our educational system. Our people understand and support it. But English was not an integral part of the traditional cultures of our people. Our traditional cultures embrace the Chinese and the Indian cultures, and the Malay culture which was greatly influenced by the Arabic culture. These cultures have a long history of a few thousand years. We have been able to establish ourselves in the midst of the stormy milieu in Asia because our people have inherited these traditional cultures with their fine value systems. These are our very roots. In preserving them, we would be able to survive and develop further. Abandoning them, our country will then be like a mirage, signifying existence without substance. In that kind of situation, our country would be unstable. Therefore, to safeguard our long-term interests we should, with full confidence and drive, not only preserve but also protect these cultures with their fine value systems that we have inherited.

To do this, it can be done only through learning the mother tongue. This is because the essence of our traditional oriental cultures could be well understood and absorbed only through the mother tongue. Conversely, we would not be able to achieve the aim with equal effects through other languages, just like the saying of a Chinese proverb: a person who scratches his feet with his boots on. We might even get lost. In this respect, Sir, while we are emphasising the learning of the English Language, it is equally important that we must also emphasise the learning of mother tongue. Sir, the bilingual education policy which gives equal emphasis in the teaching of both English and the mother tongue is of paramount importance to our survival and development. The Prime Minister has said that the essence of bilingualism lies in giving a person the instrument to earn a living and, on the other hand, in preserving the traditional cultures with fine value systems. Singapore had developed and progressed not because "we were a Western-Occidental-type society, but because we were an Asian-Oriental-type society, hardworking, thrifty and disciplined, a people with Asian values, strong family ties and responsibility for the extended family which is a common feature of Asian cultures." From what the Prime Minister has said, Sir, we know that the objective of the bilingual education policy is very sound and clear cut. But since implementing this policy more than 10 years ago, why have we not been able to achieve fully this very aim? Was it not because the Ministry of Education has lost sight of the very aim of the policy in the course of its administration of such policy? I suggest the Ministry of Education review judiciously the entire issue.

Sir, since we have agreed and accepted that bilingualism is a correct policy, we should implement it thoroughly and effectively. Do not let it exist in name. With all seriousness, I further suggest that in order to achieve this very aim of the bilingual educational policy thoroughly, there must be the requirement that henceforth admission to the pre-University classes and to the universities must be based on a uniform standard in the second language for all language streams of students.

Mr Ho Kah Leong (Jurong): ( In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, when talking about education we naturally think of the fact that Singapore is a small island with limited land space without natural resources but with a lot of people. Therefore, it is necessary for us to cultivate our younger generation to become useful citizens. This means that education is an instrument to train our younger generation to become future masters of the country. It is because we must make effective use of everything that we should not waste our resources in education. In order to treat the four language streams of education equally, in the administration of our education system we must pay attention not to neglect any language stream through momentary carelessness. We are aware that the number of days for lessons varies with the different language streams in spite of a similarity in the system. In some schools, there are classes on Saturdays, whereas in others they have three extra holidays. Some schools make use of the Saturdays for extramural activities. For those who have to attend classes on Saturdays, they have to make some sacrifice in order to attend extramural activities. We are working under the same education system, but there are different curricula in the various language streams. We are our own masters and we have to train up our younger generation as loyal citizens. But in terms of content of our textbooks, we do not seem to inculcate a sense of national consciousness in our students. Instead, we still see the left-overs of the former suzerain power in the textbooks. Sir, this is an obstruction to the development of a young nation. We have decided to implement a bilingual educational policy. Since 1972 in implementing the system of bilingual education we have increased exposure time from 25% to 33%, and then to 50%. But only very few schools have been able to implement this policy. Not very long ago, the Prime Minister also made a very excellent exposition on education. He said that we must use mother tongue education as a basis to imbibe Eastern culture, philosophy and moral value, and use English as a language of application. It is through the mastery of English that we will have the tool to earn a living. The Member for Tiong Bahru has already made reference to this. It is only then that we will not be wasting our education. Hereafter we want to have bilingually effective people in Singapore. So, I would like here to raise again the proposal of the Singapore Chinese Secondary School Teachers' Union made recently to do away with the misnomer of English school, Chinese school, Malay school and Tamil school. There should be a common syllabus for all Singapore schools. A unified Singapore educational system will be achieved through a common syllabus. Then, many man-made problems in the past will be solved with facility. This is the time to implement a common syllabus for a common Singapore type of school. We should set our plans and strategy properly before we take action to implement them. And then there will be no unnecessary troubles, so to speak. Apart from principles, some technical problems of implementation should be comprehensively resolved in advance before the implementation in order to avoid unnecessary trouble. Otherwise, there will be something amiss here, and thus requiring frequent amendments.

Sir, before we put into practice the common syllabuses for the various language streams, I would like to see a unified minimum standard of admission for all the language streams. There is now a unified practice in all the primary schools that one must pass the first language. In the secondary schools we also have a unified standard of C6 for first language and P8 and later P7 for second language for admission to pre-university classes for all language streams. For admission into the university entrants from Chinese secondary schools should have C6 for second language but this has not yet been stipulated for the other streams. As the Member for Tiong Bahru has said, in order to ensure that there is unification of various systems and unified and equal application of bilingual policy, non-Chinese stream students seeking admission to the university should also be expected to pass the second language at C6. In this way, other than demonstrating truly equal treatment of all the language streams, our young people will also be able to actually appreciate the significance and importance of mother tongue education. Our students have already got 12 years of mother tongue education. They should be able to use what they have absorbed in the mother tongue.

Recently, the call has been to urge the Chinese stream to allocate more periods for the teaching of English. To raise the standard of English, firstly, we must have qualified teachers. Secondly, we must have good textbooks. Thirdly, we must have adequate facilities. Fourthly, there must be proper environment. These will effectuate the learning of the language. If we do not have adequate teachers and do not have enough periods for lessons, how do we expect to raise the standard of English? At present, in the Chinese secondary schools, English language teachers are mostly non-university graduates and there are only six periods of English for Secondary I and Secondary II classes and seven periods for Secondary III and IV. That means to say that a teacher of English teaching about 30 to 32 periods per week would have to take on at least five classes. How do we expect such teachers to be able to teach well and raise the standard of English?

In a Chinese senior middle school, apart from science subjects which are taught in English, Economics will be taught in English, after which History and Geography will be in English. Will this achieve the desired effect? But there has been no notification to the schools for implementation yet. As regards History and Geography to be taught in English, it should merit discussion. Geography is a subject leaning towards science with a lot of foreign terminology, and teaching it in English is still acceptable. But in the case of History, it embodies the changes and evolution of a people or nation in its system, philosophy, religion, science and politics, etc. which incorporate the many cultural heritages out of the cultural development of a people. The teaching of this subject will play a great part in helping to preserve eastern philosophy and value systems, and I say that this subject of History should properly be taught in the mother tongue.

To speak the truth, we have made drastic changes in our education so suddenly that many teachers and students alike are caught unawares. Firstly, have we got enough English teachers? Secondly, what is going to happen to the present teachers in the other languages? The present lot of teachers cannot teach History, Geography and Economics in English; it is not their fault. It is but the result of a change in the education system. How are we going to look after the interest of such teachers? Some of these teachers are already old and quite incapable of retraining. For the younger teachers, we should try to train them up to be really able to master the use of the English language and not give them a rigid fixed time schedule and make them go through it mechanically which will result in negative productivity 6.45 p.m.

Sir, our education system has changed a great deal. But there are many things which have not been changed. For example, the ratio between teachers and students, the grant-in-aid to schools and the distribution of non-teaching staff, etc. All these systems had been fixed some 22 years ago when the Chinese schools received full grant-in-aid. In those days, the teacher-student ratio was 1:1 for primary schools and 1:25 for secondary schools. But today, in spite of the increase in the workload of lessons, homework and ECA, the ratio still remains the same. Whereas, for the grant-in-aid, in the past, primary school pupils were given an allowance of 50 cents per head and the secondary school students 75 cents per head. Now, we have more and more activities involving outside school hours and more workshops. Notwithstanding the increase in the public utility bills and their rates, the grant-in-aid is still the same. It is said that some of these schools have not been able to pay PUB bills for several months, notwithstanding the reminders sent to them. Some schools do have management boards, but we cannot depend on them for too long. The allocations of heads of sections and the non-teaching staff have decreased. There is only a slight increase in the staff of the laboratories. Whereas the workload of the various sections have increased a great deal, like the school clerks whose burden has been mounting and is becoming too excessive.

The Member for Anson had touched on teachers' promotion. Since 1972 when the promotion exercise was implemented, some teachers have been promoted but there are more and more complaints. Particularly in the recent one, there have been more discontent because too many people were called up indiscriminately for interviews which also caused ill feeling. Many who were outside these 9,000 were disgruntled for not even being included. Of course, there is no system which will make everyone satisfied, but if we can cut down these aimless interviews but assess the teachers through daily on-the-job performances, it would be much more satisfying. The test could assess the teacher's fundamental teaching qualifications, such as how serious they are in their teaching, have they been effective in their teaching. In addition, how did they perform in extramural activities, have they studied for self-improvement, what are their contributions to education, such as educational research, any writings, reading, what kind of extra qualifications they have acquired and then what kind of social service they can contribute? If the answers are positive, then one must be an excellent teacher and a model one at that. If there are such teachers, then, on Teachers' Day, such a teacher should be appropriately recognised. I think open recognition of this kind to teachers would serve a better purpose than waiting for interview for promotion, at least their records can serve as examples for emulation. In some countries in the promotion of teachers to the administrative grades or to the post of principals they have sent these teachers to other countries on educational studies to observe the work of educational administration for their own guiding reference. So sending teachers on study tour will be a kind of encouragement. On the other hand it will provide a means for comparative study. In some other countries, teachers who have served for more than five years will be able to apply for a grant to go on educational tour overseas. If we follow suit, this will be yet another form of encouragement which may be better and more beneficial than actual promotion.

Finally, Sir, I would like to enquire on behalf of the principals of various schools. Last year the Senior Minister of State told this House that by the middle of last year news relating to the post allowance would be known to the principals. So far this has not come about. What is the reason? Now, the simile is you want a horse to work well but you also deny the horse to eat grass. We want the principals to work hard, but we do not give them the due allowance. We want them to teach. We want them to look after the interests of the students and we want them to set an example to the teachers, and we also want them to run the whole school but we do not give them any compensation. This is a bit unfair. I hope the Minister can explain this.

Mr Cheong Yuen Chee (Toa Payoh): Sir, although we have achieved so much social progress in Singapore, very little is being done for the education of our young handicapped persons. The education of young handicapped persons is generally left to private charitable institutions. It is true that some of these institutions receive financial grants annually from the Government, but are these grants sufficient to cater to the needs of educating young handicapped persons in Singapore? The deaf, the dumb and the blind can be trained to do specific jobs. We should help the young handicapped to stand on their own feet. The Government should provide them with the necessary facilities for training so that they could become useful members of the community.

The other point I wish to make is whether the Minister oversees the training of young handicapped persons in private institutions to ensure that the training received is of an acceptable standard. There are many jobs in industries that are suitable for such handicapped persons. Every effort should be made by the Government to assist them. After all, parents of handicapped children are also taxpayers and their children should be given the same opportunity of a sound education as for normal children.

Dr Lau Teik Soon: Sir, it is common knowledge to Members and the public that the morale of members of the teaching profession is at a low ebb at the moment. This can be seen in the numerous complaints that have been expressed publicly and privately by teachers. It explains also the difficulty of the Ministry to recruit officers into the teaching profession.

I would urge the Minister to look seriously into the causes of this undesirable state of affairs. For a start, he may ponder on the following points.

Firstly, a teacher today is not just a classroom teacher but an actor playing a variety of roles - he is a teacher, sportsman, gardener, first-aid attendant, traffic warden, cleaner, fee collector, etc. The Member for Anson also mentioned servant. The principal function of the teacher is to teach in class and if the teacher is given time to concentrate on his teaching duties, the students will obtain the best benefit. However, if the teacher is asked to take on other responsibilities not of his own free choice, then his teaching will suffer and in turn the pupils will learn less from him.

Teachers are expected to participate in extra-curricular activities in schools and they should volunteer to take charge of one or two events. But I know of teachers who are compelled or under subtle pressure to take on extra-curricular activities about which they have little or no knowledge. For example, you have the teacher in charge of badminton, who does not play or even know the game. The Senior Minister of State himself is an ardent badminton player. To the teacher a single or double service is the same, and he does not know whether to stop at 11 or at 15 for a set. There is the teacher in charge of soccer, who stands in the shade with an umbrella while the boys are scrambling all over the field chasing the ball. The teacher will look extremely foolish before the boys. He would prefer to stay away, but then, he has been assigned the task by the principal.

I would suggest that for the extra-curricular activities, which are necessary for the children, teachers should be asked to volunteer to be in charge of games, societies and other activities which they know something about. At the same time, it should be obvious to teachers that in the merit system participation in extra-curricular activities is desirable for them and for their promotion prospects.

Secondly, teachers have been treated not like colleagues or even adults but like school children by some officials of the Ministry of Education. For some strange reasons, these officials take delight in flaunting their academic qualifications and humiliating the less qualified teachers in front of the students. It must be obvious to all Members that having a degree does not make a person a good teacher or even a cultured person. Ministry officials should treat teachers with respect and understanding. After all, the teachers form the backbone of the Ministry. Without them, it is not possible to implement the various policies of the Ministry.

Thirdly, there is the injustice and frustration caused by the recent promotion exercise. The Members for Jurong and Anson have mentioned this point, but I would like to elaborate further. 9,696 officers were shortlisted for interview: they comprised those selected by the Ministry and others whom the Principal felt were deserving officers, i.e. those who deserved to be considered for promotion. Yet only 473 officers or 4.88% of those invited were promoted.

From the complaints which I have received, it would seem that there were no clear-cut criteria for promotion. The Minister may reply that it is based on merit, but I would like to know what is his definition of merit. For example, will he consider a person with the following qualifications as worthy of promotion: Cambridge School Certificate, Higher School Certificate, Normal Trained Certificate, officer for 10 years in a uniform unit, editor of two school magazines, pass in the Second Language, Member of the Citizens' Consultative Committee, and more than 10 years' service. This teacher has the teaching experience, extra-curricular activities, community service and seniority, yet he was not promoted!

An hon. Member: No godfather!

Dr Lau Teik Soon: No godfather. Further, there are many senior assistants who have similar teaching experience, administrative responsibilities, extra-curricular activities, community service and more than 10 years' service who have not been promoted. With regard to the Senior Assistants, the Member for Jurong suggested that Principals should be given allowances. Should the Minister be kind enough to consider this, I hope he would extend these allowances to Senior Assistants as well. What then is the Minister's definition of merit?

In the promotion exercise, 230 teachers were promoted from Education Officer Grade 3 to Senior Education Officer Grade 3 and 71 of those promoted had 5 - 9 years confirmed service. If we were to take the example of the E.O. Ill officer with five years' service, then, it would mean that on promotion the person would have gained an increase from a consolidated salary of $600 to $1,245 i.e. more than twice or more than 16 increments over his previous pay! If the E.O. Ill officer had nine years' service, he would still have gained $515 increase or more than 12 increments. Sir, while on the one hand, the Ministry through the PSC was prepared to promote and give such unexpected bonanzas to these young teachers, on the other hand, they denied the more senior teachers their promotion which in most cases would have involved giving them a few dollars more. To avoid such wide disparities in future, the Minister may wish to consider either the award of merit increments or promotion in future exercises.

What then is the main criterion? Is it merit? Is it the staff confidential report? Or is it the performance at the interview?

Sir, I have enumerated only three reasons which I feel have led to the low morale of the teachers. It should be noted that such a condition is not new for it has existed for many years. Representations have been made most strongly by the Singapore Teachers' Union of which the Member for Moulmein is the President, but they have fallen on deaf ears. The Minister must ensure that a conducive environment exists in the schools so that the education of the young by the teachers can be carried out effectively. 7.00 p.m.

Finally, Sir, the Director of Education was reported to have said, and I quote, "Schoolchildren must revert to their pre-school habit of asking questions." He was unhappy that students nowadays seldom ask questions in school or participate in classroom discussions. But I would suggest that the blame for such a situation lies not only with the students but also within his own Ministry. May I refer the Minister to a complaint by a parent as published in the Straits Times of 23rd February. The parent referred to a discussion which took place between a Deputy Director and the students. According to the parent, in the course of discussion, this happened. I quote, "Arguments respectfully voiced by students were slapped down and thrown out and they were literally browbeaten into silence."

Mr Phey Yew Kok (Boon Teck): Not fair.

Dr Lau Teik Soon: I wonder what the Minister has to say with regard to this and the other points I have raised.

Dr Ong Leong Boon: Sir, I am not speaking.

Mr Sia Khoon Seong: Sir, the education system has gone through a correction course, so to speak, in the past two years when two major policy changes were made, namely, the abolition of automatic promotion and the introduction of the Junior Trainee Scheme for primary VI school leavers.

Automatic promotion in the past was very much a case of expediency. To meet the demands of free and universal Primary education and because of the constraints of limited school buildings, financial and human resources, it seemed then that the logical thing to do was to promote every child automatically irrespective of his academic performance. Pupils weak in certain subjects at a certain period of time were not given an extra year to be better prepared for the next higher standard. This accounts, in some measure, for the relatively high failure rate of Primary VI and Secondary IV examinations. With the re-introduction of the retention policy, it is hoped that the failure rate would be reduced considerably.

The education system, until recently, was also too much academic-biased. Everything was geared towards the attainment of paper qualifications. Those who did not make it to the secondary schools because they were not academically inclined, but might be good with their hands, were frowned upon by society and left in the lurch. The introduction of the Junior Trainee Scheme therefore should be viewed as a move in the right direction in helping the academically less inclined pupils to prepare them, skill-wise and attitude-wise, for jobs more suited to their abilities.

These two changes therefore can be said to be desirable and logical steps in our educational planning and development. They are aimed at making the education system more effective and productive, so to speak, in developing the varying skills of our pupils. These are decisions that appear straightforward and simple on paper. But when they are translated into action in schools, they bring about a host of implementation problems. For example, reliable assessment criteria will have to be worked out and applied in determining who should be promoted to the next higher class or retained. Then there is the problem of contending with the parents of children who are retained, for most parents will not like their children to be retained. Then, in some instances, there is the problem of finding additional classrooms and teachers to look after the additional classes of retained children. Then there is the question of getting the right teachers for the right subjects. It is not enough just to give sufficient number of teachers.

Giving the schools the right number of the right subject teachers is important if we want to achieve the best results. If the Education Ministry cannot do it because of financial constraints and other peculiar circumstances, then the Education Ministry should not blame the teachers for anything that goes wrong in the schools. I know the Education Ministry cannot resist the temptation of putting the blame on the teachers. When things go wrong in the Education Ministry, teachers are used as sacrificial lambs to appease the gods.

A recent example of this is the English course for teachers. There have been wild claims by some people that the standard of English has gone down in schools. Whether this is true or not is a subject for some serious research and study. Even if it was true, there are so many causes for it. Now the Education Ministry has shifted the blame on the English-medium teachers and herded some 1,000 teachers to a god-forsaken place, the former British School in Portsdown Road, on a six- month course despite the fact that the pre-requisite entry qualifications into teaching are now generally higher.

What can the Ministry achieve by organising this course? Nothing. What harm can it do? Plenty. First, it has antagonised the English-medium teachers by implying that they are underqualified. Secondly, the Education Ministry is depleting further the very short supply of specialist English Language teachers in schools to run these courses. Is this not going to make the situation in the secondary schools and junior colleges far worse than at present where there is already an acute shortage of specialist English Language teachers?

Let me now come to the question of the annual transfers of teachers. Teachers must be allowed to grow roots in the schools they are posted to if they are to give of their best to their pupils. In the Education Ministry, the problem regarding transfer of teachers has become worse. I realise a certain number of transfers are unavoidable. But I suspect quite a number of transfers are, to a certain extent, due to poor planning and management.

In last year's transfer of teachers, 1,001 teachers who did not ask for transfer were transferred. The transfers not only upset the teachers but also dislocated the administration and management of their schools. On the other hand, 873 teachers who asked for transfer were not transferred. Despite all the excuses given by the Education Ministry, I am quite sure that if greater care and imagination had been exercised, half the number of the unsuccessful applicants for transfers could replace some of those transferred but who did not ask for transfer themselves.

Let me now come to the question of the last promotion exercise for teachers, a subject which has been touched on so eloquently by previous speakers. There seemed to be a great deal of unhappiness after the results were known. This is partly because there is so much confusion among teachers as to what merits a promotion. It is a pity that the Education Ministry is not able to come forth with certain guidelines and define the criteria or the basis of assessing whether a teacher is suited for promotion or not. Unless this is done, there is going to be even more dissatisfaction after each promotion exercise.

Sir, much of the unhappiness and dissatisfaction in the teaching profession stem from the fact that the Education Ministry pays very little attention to the question of promoting and establishing good staff relations and rapport. The Education Ministry has failed to foster stronger links of communication throughout the hierarchy of the Education Service.

There are some 18,000 teachers in the employ of the Ministry of Education. This does not include a sizable number of other staff. That makes the Education Ministry easily one of the largest employers in Singapore in terms of the number of staff it has.

Sir, employers in the private sector, with staff one-tenth that of the Ministry of Education, not only spend quite a lot of money on personnel management and other related matters, but also ensure that they employ personnel management staff who are trained and are competent in their work. Even with much attention and money spent on promoting healthy and constructive staff relations, results are not always the most desirable. This is because personnel management is one of the most difficult and complicated branches of management functions.

In Singapore, it is well known that in the public sector, personnel management is often no more than just a matter of shackling the civil servants with the instruction manual regulations, and the filing of personal particulars and records. One must admit that in certain ministries, the filing system of such records is more efficient than the others. What of the human aspect of staff relations? The answer to that is a big "nil" in most public sector establishments.

If a competition were to be organised among the public sector establishments and proper standards and desirable norms were applied to determine the award of prizes for promoting and maintaining good and healthy staff relations within their establishments, it will be interesting to find out if any establishment can really make the grade and qualify for any of the first five prizes. But one thing I can confidently predict, and that is, the Education Ministry will qualify for the award of the "wooden spoon" with the greatest ease.

Mr Teo Chong Tee (Changi): Sir, thank you for allowing me to speak on the same Subhead.

Sir, mass recruitment of teachers is a thing of the past. Today, when it comes to recruitment of teachers, the Ministry of Education can afford to be choosy in placing emphasis on quality rather than quantity. Moreover, the Ministry of Education has not forgotten that teachers who are already in the education service need to be upgraded in their quality of service. As such various steps are being taken to improve the quality of teaching among serving teachers.

Non-graduate teachers with potential are sent on scholarship to take up degree courses. A few years ago the Institute of Education introduced the Advanced Certificate-in-Education course for serving non-graduate teachers. Furthermore, in-service courses related to all aspects of teaching were planned for teachers from time to time. All these courses are designed to widen the knowledge of teachers and to keep them informed of the latest development in teaching techniques. Therefore, the emphasis is on the knowledge aspect. This leads one to question whether the steps taken at present are adequate. Improving the knowledge and skills of teachers alone, however, is insufficient to improve the quality of teaching. To be a good teacher, one must be interested in teaching and this can only be achieved if one has a keen interest in children, possesses a genuine interest in their welfare, has a healthy personality and character, holds high ideals and has a high sense of national consciousness. Thus, it is equally important to instil these qualities into our teachers.

The educational system in Singapore has undergone tremendous changes in recent years. In fact, the changes have been so rapid and sudden that not only the students but also the teachers and principals appear to be confused. Clearly, the Ministry of Education has not given enough thought to these changes before implementing them. This should be looked into seriously because the future of thousands of students is at stake. We hope that in future if any changes are to be made, a more thorough study would have to be carried out. A change can only be made if it is feasible and practicable. 7.15 p.m.

At present all students have to go through six years of primary education. However, if they are retained on three occasions, they are channelled into Basic Course classes specially designed to provide them with simple skills to help them find employment eventually. It is also the objective of the Ministry of Education to keep these students in schools until they are old enough to seek employment. This scheme is beneficial to students who are not able to cope with the normal workload. This is a good thing. But the Ministry of Education must bear in mind that some students are slow developers and may thus be sacrificed if streaming begins too early. If more attention is paid to these students, they might be as good as any other students. Therefore, every parent would like to know whether steps have been taken to segregate this category of students so that they can be given remedial teaching. Moreover, teaching students in the Basic Course classes involves an entirely different technique and methodology. Has the Ministry of Education trained teachers specially to teach these classes? I feel that many of our teachers are not adequately trained to cope with students of varying standards and abilities in one class. As such, it is typical to find that practically all teachers do not really teach but simply impart knowledge to the average and sometimes above-average students. In the process, the interest of many students is killed. This is the reason why most students do not look forward to going to school. Therefore, more attention should be given to seek solutions to this problem which is, after all, what education is all about.

Next, I would like to mention something about the morale of teachers. Compared to the past, we can say that the morale of teachers has slightly improved. However, there is still much room for further improvement. Seriously speaking, the Ministry of Education can do much to improve the working conditions of teachers. At present what the Ministry of Education says seems to contradict what it actually does. For instance, according to the Ministry of Education, most of the vacancies for teachers have been filled, but there are still many relief teachers serving in our schools. These relief teachers come and go as they please and they cause a lot of disruption to the school curriculum. In fact, some of the relief teachers have been teaching for years and they are not considered for permanent appointment.

Sir, with regard to the promotion of teachers, some Members in this House have already spoken on this subject. But I would like to add my piece. More thought should also be given to devising a new system of promoting teachers. In the last promotion exercise several thousand teachers were shortlisted for interview but only. a small percentage of them were promoted. As the number of vacancies for promotion was limited, one cannot understand why such a large number of teachers were shortlisted for interview. Will it not save much time and minimise frustration if only those teachers who are likely to be promoted are called up? No wonder the promotion exercise has been branded as a big farce. There is definitely something wrong with the present system of promoting teachers. Due to the large number of teachers involved, a promotion exercise is very complex. The Ministry of Education should sit down and think of a more acceptable system. Presently, it seems that the Ministry of Education is working on an ad hoc basis, that is, discussing weaknesses of the previous system and merely seeking solutions to these weaknesses rather than attempting to tackle the issue as a whole.

Can the Hon. Minister also enlighten us on the average number of serving teachers who have been sent to colleges and universities overseas to upgrade their professional qualifications annually and how are they deployed on their return? I am given to understand that quite a significant number of teachers who have been sent overseas for training are non-graduates (particularly the English Language teachers and technical teachers) who upon their successful completion of their respective courses are posted to secondary schools. May I know whether these teachers are given some incentives (monetary or otherwise) to serve in the secondary schools? Here I am referring to teachers sent to do various diploma courses and not undergraduate courses.

In view of the fact that the Ministry has stressed so much on professional development of teachers, some highly motivated and professionally-oriented non-graduate teachers, because of their relevant teaching experience and qualifications, have been accepted by reputable universities in the United Kingdom to do the one-year M.A. degree course in Education but they have not been able to get study leave from the Ministry. The Ministry of Education should support this whole-heartedly. However, the bureaucratic process of seeking approval to pursue such courses sometimes discourages teachers. One also gets the impression that the Ministry of Education is not really keen on professional advancement in the educational service but would rather let the status quo remain undisturbed. Perhaps the Hon. Minister could review the matter.

In the light of upgrading the qualifications of our teachers, will the Ministry consider conducting part-time (Bachelor of Education) courses for the serving non-graduate teachers with the requisite experience and qualifications? Many of these teachers cannot be considered for any overseas awards because of the age limit but yearn to do a degree course. Surely we should not only concentrate on the quality of the new recruits but also help the old guards upgrade their skills. Now that there is a great shortage of quality graduate teachers in our schools, it is time the Ministry took another look at the matter.

Mr Ivan Baptist: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to raise two questions on education. I would like to know whether the Ministry of Education has any intention of altering the existing arrangement with the Cambridge Examinations Syndicate so as to have the combined Universities of Singapore and Nanyang developed into examining authorities for the combined GCE 'O' and 'A' examinations. If so, what are the stages of implementation envisaged? I would also like to know whether the Ministry intends to introduce, in a more systematic fashion, in Singapore ASEAN literature both in English and the other three major languages for secondary and pre-university classes.

Mr Hwang Soo Jin (Jalan Kayu): ( In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Member for Tiong Bahru has quoted the Prime Minister in the course of his speech. The Prime Minister has said that the essence of bilingualism is that, on the one hand, it will provide one with the tool for making a living and, on the other hand, it will preserve for him the five traditional culture and value system. Singapore's development and progress have been due to our hard working, thrifty and disciplined Asian and oriental society, a people which have the Asian value system and also strong family links with big family responsibility. The Member for Tiong Bahru has said that our political leadership has not been vague in their policy on bilingualism. I agree very much with the Member for Tiong Bahru on this point. But, have the people in charge of implementing this policy made a careful study of the directives and formulate good comprehensive plan for their implementation? I am an outsider where education is concerned. But I feel that in the process of implementing bilingualism the Ministry of Education seems to be hesitating in its moves, so that many parents are confused. I hope the Minister will take the opportunity here to clarify in greater detail how bilingualism is being implemented.

Mr Lee Yiok Seng (Bukit Panjang): ( In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, a lot has been said about the problems of education. But I would also like to speak on this subject. I agree very much with the Member for Jalan Kayu. Like him, I am an outsider to education. Many Members have spoken about the importance of bilingualism in our education. This is a fact. We also find that many parents are now very concerned with their children's ability to handle the second language. They have great expectations that the school will provide education for their children, especially the subjects which they want their children to learn. Every time there is an enrolment exercise for admission to primary schools, the parents show great concern and interest in the choice of the schools for their children. Generally speaking, parents are concerned about the ability of their children to cope with the second language. If the school cannot make provision to meet with their requirements, then the parents will be disappointed. In view of the great expectation of the parents, I feel that there are still many problems to solve. For instance, in the rural areas many Chinese primary schools and aided schools were set up a long time ago. These schools are not well equipped and communication is also not very easy.The student population in the schools is not very big, perhaps about 200 or 300 students. Only a very few of them have a student population of over 500. The boards of management of these schools are faced with a headache. They are faced with great problems because the parents expect their children to be able to handle the second language as well as the Chinese language. 7.30 p.m.

For the past few years, the boards of management of these schools could not overcome this problem because they were short of English teachers. They tried their best to recruit English teachers but they were always faced with the same difficulties. Many teachers do not like to go to these schools to teach because the schools are located far into the distant rural areas, and moreover the schools being small, communication is very difficult. In the past few years much has been said about the policy of second language education, and the Ministry has always spoken about the success of second language education. However, the situation in the rural schools is rather different. For the past few years, they have not been able to achieve the expected standard of second language education. Parents are also disappointed and do not know what to do. They are riot sure whether their children can or cannot meet the future requirements of the society. The boards of management are also rather worried because they have been entrusted by the villagers and the public to manage the schools. In view of these responsibilities, they have no other alternative but to do their best to carry out their responsibilities.

Sir, I would like to ask the Minister whether the Ministry of Education has any good plans to help these schools to engage enough qualified teachers. If these problems are solved we will then be able to say that we have achieved this objective of raising the standard of bilingual education.

Haji Sha'ari bin Tadin: Sir, I would like to join my other colleagues in this debate. Earlier the Member for Anson mentioned one point about the present policy of posting PSLE students to secondary schools. The present policy of allowing parents to opt for schools of their choice has given rise to certain schools being categorised as a dumping ground, because the prestigious schools will get the best students. To be fair to those schools in this category, year after year they have been saddled with pupils of poor ability and low achievers and this, of course, demoralises the teachers who have to teach these students and this to some extent affect their performance.

I would like to suggest if the Minister would consider doing away with the second and third choices and retain only the first option. I fully agree that parents should, be allowed to exercise this option, for no parent would want his children to go to the less prestigious schools. But since only a very limited number can get into such schools, Sir, the majority will have to find places in the less so-called prestigious schools. If the second and third choices are left to the Ministry to decide, then I would like to suggest that the Ministry takes into consideration the distance factor, i.e. pupils should be posted to schools nearest their homes. If this proposal is implemented, I am sure every school will get a fair share of the good and weak students as well.

Speaking as an insider and not as an outsider like some Members in this House, I would like to say something about the recent announcement on the revision of the secondary school system which abolished automatic promotions. In short, the RSES or the Revised Secondary Education System is an extension of the primary education system which abolished automatic promotions. Being a school Principal and at the same time a Member of Parliament, Sir, I find my dual role rather exacting. I am not standing here to answer on behalf of the Senior Minister of State for Education. But I would like to make certain clarifications on certain comments made by some Members in regard to the RSES.

The Chairman: Tuan Haji Sha'ari, please do not use abbreviations.

Haji Sha'ari bin Tadin: Yes, Sir. In the implementation of the revised secondary education system, the principals have been summoned to the Ministry for a series of meetings before and after the announcement that was made sometime in May last year. Only last week, Sir, teaching in workshops on the revised secondary education system has been organised by the Ministry for principals of various districts. The aim is to brief the principals on all aspects of the revised secondary education system and they in turn will organise briefing sessions and workshops with the teachers in order that they will also be able to fulfil their roles in the implementation of the revised secondary education system. If I may be allowed to say, the revised secondary education system creates problems which would have repercussions unless they are ironed out through an understanding of the implications. This is where sometimes members of the public are not fully aware of and make criticisms against the Ministry as well as the teaching profession. This is where both the Ministry and the schools have to explain to the parents how the revised secondary education system affects the children and, in this respect, the principals should make parents feel reassured that the whole exercise is aimed to help their children and not vice versa. So the schools will be organising a series of meetings with the parents on the question of assessment, promotion and retention procedures other than implication like class size, logistics and teacher requirements which will entail careful planning and organisation on the part of the principals.

I agree with what the Member for Moulmein said that this revised system is all right on paper but when the time comes we will have to see how it works out in practice.

Mr Dhanabalan: Sir, quite a few Members have spoken of the great unhappiness caused by the last teaching promotion exercise where so many teachers were interviewed. I have just been looking at the figures and I think they show some very remarkable statistics. From the answers given in this House, we understand that 9,696 teachers were shortlisted and 2,369 declined, leaving 7,327 to be interviewed. According to the Teachers' Rostrum, they were interviewed from the 28th July right up to 28th November. There was a whole series of interviews. This gives 97 full days if we exclude Sundays and take Saturdays as half-days. If the principals work eight hours a day without lunch or tea break to interview the. 7,327 candidates, the average time taken per candidate is 6.3 minutes per teacher. This period, of course, covers probably more than one interview. Assuming that the principals spent half the time interviewing all the candidates in order to shortlist for the interview by the PSC, then the first round should have taken 48 days or 48 1/2 days. The entire 7,327 teachers must have been interviewed at the rate of 3.1 minutes per teacher.

Mr Chua Sian Chin: It does not work out that way.

Mr Dhanabalan: Assuming that only half were shortlisted, I am prepared to stand corrected of course, and they were subsequently interviewed, then to get through the half over the remaining 48 1/2 days would have required a rate of about 6.4 minutes per person. So the person who was finally promoted would have been interviewed for a total of 9 1/2 minutes including the time taken for the candidate to come to the room, settle down, finish his interview and go out. So the actual interviewing time would be about eight minutes. By any standard, this is a remarkable achievement and all of us would be very interested to know the methods used in the interview because many schools of personnel administration would be only too keen to hear the methods used.

Mr Teong Eng Siong: ( In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, several Members have spoken on the subject of education. If you allow me to speak, then I will do so. If not, I will wait.

The Chairman: Mr Teong, are you speaking on Amendment No. (7)?

Mr Teong Eng Siong: Yes.

The Chairman: Can you wait until tomorrow?

Mr Teong Eng Siong: Yes.

The Chairman: Mr Chai.

The Senior Minister of State for Education (Mr Chai Chong Yii): Sir, originally I intended to first inform hon. Members of what the Ministry of Education has done over the last two years. As there is not enough time, I will answer first the small points raised rather than tell Members what the Ministry has done.

The Chairman: Mr Chai, you have plenty of time. You have until 4.40 p.m. tomorrow.

Mr Chai Chong Yii: Yes, Sir. Many Members have spoken on education and they have covered almost all aspects of education. Frankly, it is not possible to give satisfactory answers to every Member. I would just touch on a few points and tomorrow I shall give a more detailed answer.

The Member for Paya Lebar has touched on tripartism in the curriculum. He wanted it to be included in the curriculum. My answer is this. At the moment, the curriculum is fairly heavily loaded. Anyway, this topic of tripartism is not overlooked. It is being discussed in subjects like Civics and Current Affairs for the secondary schools. It is also touched upon in subjects like Economics and General Paper at the pre-university level. So our students do know something about tripartism. I can assure the Member that this topic is not overlooked. 7.45 p.m.

The Member for Anson touched on students taking over the school servant's job of sweeping the classrooms. Students do not take over the jobs of school servants but sometimes they do help to sweep the classrooms. This is in line with our policy to inculcate healthy attitudes towards manual labour. He also mentioned about parents being asked to pay for the use of ambulance for accidents in schools. I do agree with him that this should rightly be paid by the school. I am not sure which particular case he is referring to. But if he will bring it to my attention, I will check it up.

He complained of posting students to schools far away from their homes. It is not possible to accede to every request of parents for their children to be admitted to the school of their choice. My statistics here show that 90% of the students who were admitted to Primary I were admitted to the school of the parent's choice. So it means only 10% are not able to get in to the school of their choice. As for Secondary I pupils there are options and this resulted in 83% being posted to the school of their choice. The Member for Bedok brought up the point that since they are given three choices, why not limit it to one so that certain schools will not become"dumping ground", as he has described. I would like to inform him that we are studying this problem, but obviously it is a very complicated issue.

On the matter of relief teachers, it is something which we really cannot do without. Until such time as we can afford to have supernumerary teachers standing by to take over the job of teachers going on leave, there will be relief teachers. There are always teachers who go on leave of some sort. We are looking into this matter because we are thinking of further raising the quality of our education. It is a matter of money. If we can have supernumerary posts and can train sufficient teachers, we can do away with relief teachers altogether. Right now, I am afraid we have to live with it for some time. In any case the percentage of relief teachers that we have in schools is slightly less than 5%.

A few Members touched on the second language policy. The policy, whatever Members describe it, remains unchanged. We are actually pushing ahead according to our plan. As is described by our Prime Minister himself, the English Language is needed to make a living, in this case, in Singapore. We also want our students to learn their mother tongue so that they can be better Singaporeans, they know who they are and they know their own identity. Members have suggested that we specify certain requirements for second language for admission to university. The Member for Jurong even suggested that P6 should be imposed for admission to university. This is a very important issue. Following the trend of implementing the bilingualism policy, what I can say is that, although there is no decision as yet, it is being actively considered. It will definitely not be imposed immediately. Neither will it be imposed within one or two years because this has very far-reaching consequences. But I can say it will be in the foreseeable future, maybe five to 10 years. Anyway, we are seriously looking into this issue.

The Member for Jurong also complained that our textbooks do not teach patriotism. This is, in fact, included in our Education for Living. We try to encourage this, of course. As a nation, there is nothing more important than patriotism.

He mentioned about Saturday formal classes. I presume he referred to Saturday formal classes in Chinese schools. At the moment Chinese schools do have two periods of formal teaching on Saturdays while English schools normally confine Saturdays to ECA programmes. The Education Ministry really has no objection, if Chinese schools would do the same by adjusting their time table so that Saturdays can be confined to ECA programmes, just like English schools, or the Saturday classes may be used for remedial teaching of the English Language.

The Member for Kallang gave an arithmetic calculation of the number of minutes given to each teacher in the promotion interview. I would definitely say that it is not correct. Many panels consisting of experienced principals and Ministry of Education's officials are set up at the same time. The reason why we interviewed so many teachers is that it was not entirely for promotion purposes only. This is the first time we have tried to get the views of as many teachers as possible through interview. Of course, part of the purpose was for promotion, but we also wanted to get their views. He also complained about the way the interviews were conducted. Unless he can give me specific instances, I will not be able to say one way or the other, especially when 9,000-plus teachers were interviewed by so many panels.

The Member for Toa Payoh mentioned about education of handicapped children. At the moment there is a Committee in the Ministry of Education, with representatives of other Ministries like the Ministry of Social Affairs, looking into the problem of handicapped children to see how best we can help them. We must remember that, with the limited resources available right now, normal children are accorded priority over handicapped children, much as , we sympathise with them.

The Member for Serangoon Gardens mentioned about the big difference of salary scale between EO III and SEO III. He suggested that perhaps we should have merit increments. I would like to inform him that, in fact, we are actively considering this issue of an intermediate scale, in-between the two grades.

The Member for Changi is worried that Basic Course teachers are not trained. I can assure him that they are specially trained to teach Basic Course students. I do agree with him that there are slow developers among the students. We have made provisions for these students to be transferred back to the normal course if they subsequently pick up. In any case they are already given three chances before they are transferred to the Basic Course.

His description of the promotion exercise as a big farce is perhaps his personal exaggeration. I do not think the teachers consider it as a big farce.

He mentioned about the Ministry of Education not supporting leave for M.A. courses in Education or Applied Linguistics. Personally, I would like to see that they be allowed to go. But the point is that right now a M.A. degree in Education or a B.A. degree in Education is not recognised for emplacement. So normally we do not support their application because we do not want to disappoint them when they come back to find that they are not emplaced on the graduates' scale. Until such time when the degrees are recognised for emplacement, the Ministry of Education cannot support them. If they undertake not to complain when they are not emplaced, I can ask my officials to let them go. As it is, emplacement is not the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Education. Personally, I would like to see that they be allowed to go; after all a teacher with a B.A. degree in Education is better than one without it.

He also touched on the part-time B.A. degree course in Education. This was planned before but it was temporarily shelved because there are other priorities at the moment. We have more urgent things to attend to right now, and we are at the moment in no position to take on this additional task. Perhaps at some other time in the future we can go into that.

The Member for Potong Pasir would like to see our University of Singapore and Nanyang University appointed as Examination authorities. Perhaps this may be possible in the future but not right now. He also touched on ASEAN literatures. Perhaps it is a follow-up of the ASEAN spirit. As ASEAN countries get closer and closer together, we will know more and more about other ASEAN countries.

The Chairman: Mr Chai, this may be a convenient time to stop. You can continue with your reply tomorrow.

Mr Chai Chong Yii: Sir, I will continue with my reply tomorrow.

The Chairman: Order. Moment of Interruption.

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

Mr Chai Chong Yii: Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply has made further progress on the Main and Development Estimates for the financial year 1st April, 1978 to 31st March, 1979, and ask leave to sit again tomorrow.

Mr Deputy Speaker: So be it.