PRESIDENT'S ADDRESS Debate on the Address (Second Allotted Day)

Order read for Resumption of Debate on Question [10th January, 1979].

'That the following Address in reply to the Speech of the President be agreed to:-

"We, the Parliament of the Republic of Singapore, express our thanks to the President for the Speech which he delivered on behalf of the Government at the opening of the Second Session of this Parliament.".'. - [Dr Lau Teik Soon]

Question again proposed. 2.35 p.m.

Mr Teo Chong Tee (Changi): Mr Speaker, Sir, when the House rose yesterday I was speaking on the Addendum on the Ministry of National Development. I would like to continue today.

The administrative procedures of the Housing and Development Board should be revamped to cut down unnecessary queuing time. People who go to the HDB offices either to register for flats or to collect keys to their flats have to queue for as long as half a day, if not more. This is unhealthy as hundreds of man-hours are wasted each day, and many people are subjected to a lot of inconvenience. People who queue up at HDB offices to apply for flats or to collect keys to their flats have to take time-off from their work or business. To these people, time is precious. Some of them, after queuing for a long time, are even turned away and told to return later because they have failed to follow certain administrative procedures due to ignorance. Their anger and frustration are often unpleasantly expressed in heated arguments with HDB officials at the service counters. This, in fact, is happening every day.

Previously, when large numbers of people called at the HDB office to apply for flats, it was unavoidable that applicants had to queue up for some time. However, now that the number of applicants has reduced significantly, they should not be made to wait too long before being attended to. The HDB should find out what is wrong with the administrative system and rectify the situation immediately. As for applicants who go to the HDB office to collect the keys to their flats, they should be expeditiously attended to. The HDB should know, through past experience, the number of people it can serve a day. Therefore, it should space out the appointments with applicants so as to minimise queuing time.

Sir, in recent years the Building Control Division of the Ministry has been spending considerable time and effort in the rural areas demolishing structures which were found to have been constructed not in conformity with the building laws. It is understandable that demolition action has to be taken against newly-built private dwellings and structures which were constructed without prior approval from the BCD. However, where the structure is small, in the form of extension by the kampong folk and it has been in existence for many years, the BCD is requested to be sympathetic and not to be too harsh on them. Their appeals for retention should be kindly considered. Many of the rural folk, in their ignorance of the BCD requirements and needs, have somehow committed minor infractions of the building law, such as putting up corrugated zinc awnings in front of their wooden houses, additional bathrooms, kitchens and other minor extensions. In spite of the fact that these structures are old and in poor condition, the owners are still served with demolition notices, as they are not able to produce documentary proof to justify their claim that the shed or structures have been in existence for many years.

Such unauthorised structures are bound to appear in the rural areas. It is only a matter of time before the rural folks are resettled in Housing and Development Board flats in view of our fast developing programmes. It is my hope that this matter can be favourably reviewed by the BCD which should divert more of its energies to the bigger projects and problems rather than to small issues and minor projects. I am sure many of my colleagues in this House will fully share my sentiments.

Developed countries have always expressed their desire to help developing countries in their economic development. But the economic policies of these countries show that they are more interested in protecting their own economies. Australia is a clear example of such hypocrisy. On the one hand, while criticizing protectionist policies, on the other hand she was putting in all her efforts to devise policies to protect her own economy.

The proposed low air fares between London and Australia is an indication that Australia is taking advantage of her economic strength to cover up her weaknesses. Already our trade balance with Australia is not in our favour. Instead of taking measures to correct the imbalance in trade, Australia imposed tariff and import restrictions on our goods. Now that the protectionist policies are showing their effects on our trade, she has formulated another protective measure to cut our national carrier off from passengers on the London/Australia run.

Australia claimed that the new low-fare policy is to make air travel available to more people. If this is the aim, Australia should allow all airlines operating along this route to participate in the low-fare scheme and not restricting it to only the two end-to-end carriers, that is, British Airways and Qantas. Besides, travellers should be allowed to break their journey at reasonable cost. Furthermore, if Australia is sincere in offering cheaper travel, the airfares between Australia and the ASEAN countries should also be lowered to encourage people to travel between ASEAN countries and Australia.

Therefore, a closer look at Australia's proposed low-fare policy indicates that it is only a protectionist policy. It is not formulated with the travellers at heart, but with the aim of selfishly restricting travellers between Australia and London to Qantas and British Airways. Travellers should realise that Australia is aiming for a duopoly, i.e. the sole right in carrying passenger traffic between Australia and London. This is not to the travellers' interest because, once the duopoly is established in their favour, they will jack up the airfares again. Moreover, travellers will have no choice but to travel in either one of the two carriers. This will lead to deterioration of services in the long run.

To make sure that the ASEAN countries show as little resistance as possible to the low-fare policy, Australia would like to see the breaking-up of ASEAN solidarity. She may put pressure on certain ASEAN countries so as to create disagreement among us. Therefore, we must be on guard against any attempt to break up our common stand against the protectionist low-fare policy of Australia. Collectively, the ASEAN countries should sit back and think of retaliatory actions. Our retaliatory actions need not be restricted to the air industry. We could also contemplate other measures as well.

Finally, I would like to join my colleagues in congratulating the President on his re-election and we wish him good health. 2.44 p.m.

Encik Mansor Haji Sukaimi (Kampong Kembangan): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to join the hon. Member for Serangoon Gardens in thanking the President for his speech and to extend, on behalf of my constituents and on my personal behalf, our deep appreciation to President Sheares for graciously consenting to serve a third term as our President.

As is the practice on each Opening of the Parliament, we are charged with the task of reviewing and debating the policies that our Government will pursue in various aspects of governance. The materials we are provided with are the Presidential Address and its various Ministerial Addenda. These documents, as they should be, set out statements of intent and rationale as to why our Government leaders have to do what they have set out to do.

In preparing for this debate, Sir, I had to divide my material for use in this debate and the forthcoming Budget debate. For this Debate I have chosen those issues which I thought would have the best impact if they are raised now. Other issues will be reserved for the Budget debate.

I propose to present my comments in two ways.

First, I will attempt to make a general overview and evaluate the Ministerial Addenda on a comparative basis. Then I would make comments on specific issues. I have chosen to make a general overview because I thought it would be useful if we can get an overall feel of the policies which have been presented by our Ministers. This will also enable us to assess the comparative standing of the various Ministerial programmes.

The policies presented to us through the Addenda cover a wide variety of topics. Notwithstanding this, I see two unifying and inter-related themes which underlie them. Firstly, there are policies which reflect the long-term problem that concerns all of us. This is the fundamental question: "How we Singaporeans living on a small island, devoid of natural resources, seek to earn a decent living for ourselves and our children and also our children's children in such a way that will safeguard our national integrity, yet earn respectability, regionally and internationally."

The new and promotive policies set out by the Minister for Finance in regard to monetary and fiscal policies, industrial development and trade development clearly reflect the attempt to upgrade the economic basis upon which we depend to fulfil our long-term national programmes. Similarly, the proposals to upgrade the use of manpower and development of leadership by the Minister of Defence serve to further refine the organisation of manpower in the SAF which, in turn, will consolidate the build-up of the SAF which the Minister says has been practically completed.

The Addenda on the Ministries of National Development, Communications and Education also contain various programmes which attempt to make our island republic more amenable to and responsive towards rational development in the various tasks of social and economic development programmes.

The second category which I see from the various Addenda are policies which reflect short term efforts. They are policies which reflect our effort to improve what we have achieved in the past; to adjust to economic and social imperatives which we are subjected to; or to seek new and better targets as a response to demographic, social, economic and political conditions and trends that have an impact on us.

Though the Ministerial Addenda are in a sense unified by these two underlying themes they, however, vary to a certain degree in the following ways.

Firstly, they are policies which clearly seek higher and new targets through consolidation, expansion and restructuring programmes. Secondly, they are policies which, though consolidating in nature, are quite tied up with resolving long-standing problems. Thirdly, there are those which are primarily preoccupied with resolving long-standing problems or are not yet geared towards vigorous consolidation or new programmes.

Again, the Ministry of Defence is the best example of the first type. The Minister's Addendum strongly reflects the Ministry's confidence and readiness to upgrade programmes. The Minister is satisfied that the primary task of a build-up of the SAF is practically completed. The Ministry is now geared to undertake new tasks in improving the quality of its personnel, introducing computerisation of allocating technically qualified national servicemen and upgrading SAF leaders. Only two programmes in the Minister's Addendum are essentially continuing in nature.

The Ministerial Addenda on Finance, Communications and Science and Technology also contain exciting policies which project the predisposition and ability of these Ministries to embark upon major expansion and new programmes.

My proposition is that these expansion sectors will invariably encounter problems peculiar to systems which undergo rapid changes which quite naturally are bound to create new problems and new reactions. These problems and reactions will by nature be different from those arising from past expansion and to ensure that these new programmes achieve best impact, these new problems and reactions must be anticipated and appropriate measures must be taken to adequately prepare the ground during implementation.

In Defence, for example, old programmes on personnel deployment will have to be reviewed and rationalised as mechanisation and labour-saving devices are introduced, as more women are recruited into regular service; and as more NCO skills are improved. Publicity and coordination programmes to explain the new changes to departments or the public affected by these changes must also be given due attention. Similarly, if I take the example of the Ministry of Communications, consideration must also be given to the implications of the changes with the expansion of the tourist and traffic cargoes, expansion of telephone and port services, and, in particular, introduction of the Post Code System.

Let me now come to the second category of policies and these comprise those which, though consolidating or expanding, are still quite bogged down with outstanding problems. The Ministries of the Environment, National Development, Home Affairs, Health, and Culture seem to fit quite well under this classification. In such situations, there exist two disparate levels of expansion rates: one, where there is higher priority for sectors which are developing and, the other, where there appears to be lower priority on service departments.

The tendency is that expanding departments will be given greater priority (as it should be) but the problems will arise when this is done without sufficient regard to service departments where the problems are more intractable and are less quantifiable. If this disparate priority exists, but adequate explanation and attention are given to the service departments, then I believe the problems can be controlled. However, if there is oversight or unwitting disregard, coupled with inadequate explanation, the effect of this disparate priority will be an imbalanced allocation of staff and budget with resulting lowering of staff morale, ineffectiveness of the service departments and a disgruntled public. Ministries under this category would do well to give due consideration to this type of problem.

The third category is the most complex and tricky. This comprises those Ministries which do not seem to be able to embark upon a vigorous and purposeful expansion programme for the following reasons:-

(1) The problem itself is a complex one;

(2) There is unclear policy objective;

(3) There are inadequate administrators and key staff:

(4) There is inadequate budget;

(5) There is disorganised intervention by outsiders making it difficult for ministry officials to pursue and organise their policies on a long-term basis; and

(6) Political problems.

The Ministries failing under this category seem to include Social Affairs, Health and Education.

Let me take the Ministry of Education first. If the formulation of education policies is merely an exercise of professional or technical judgment, then I think the job in that Ministry would not be as difficult as it is now. Unfortunately, education is an all-embracing problem. Education policies must take into account sociological and political considerations. This should be so because if education ignores the sociological and political needs of the country, our students will just be literate and skilful people but persons lacking the soul and ballast so essential for a dynamic Republic such as ours.

The question here is whether it is really possible for us to separate sociological and political considerations from the professional concerns of Education. I think we cannot. On the contrary, professionals in the Ministry of Education - administrators, principals and teachers - must surely know that, in the final analysis, education is not merely a process of equipping our students with bits of alphabets or figures or formulas or sentence construction. There must be inculcation of "purpose" - purpose to create a citizenry well equipped to perform economic and political tasks and to understand why; not only to know how to do things properly and efficiently, but to know why. Therefore, my proposition here is that educationists must themselves realise that understanding social and political issues and imparting them to the students are part and parcel of their professional responsibility in education.

The example which I have given on education clearly indicates the problem of programme definition or redefinition of purpose, which is the central problem affecting the Ministries under this third category.

Take Social Affairs. Are we still supposed to be preoccupied with eleemosynary or charitable considerations, without giving due regard to seeing that social services serve as a development programme charged with the task of tackling and preparing the society which is developing and modernising rapidly? If so, why? If not, why not? If we have to restructure our approach, how can we ensure that the needs of the helpless destitutes, etc. are well attended to?

The Addendum from the Minister for Social Affairs does not sufficiently answer these issues except perhaps the proposal to implement the Family Service Centre which certainly is a suitable programme designed to promote more abiding friendship, mutual help and neighbourliness amongst families, children and aged kinsfolk in the new housing estates.

May I mention here, Sir, that I am not saying that we must totally disregard the helpless, the abandoned, the aged and the destitutes, even if we believe that the living standard and earning capacity of Singaporeans are now very much higher. Naturally, there are still many unfortunates who would still need the care and protection of the social services rendered by the State. This service must continue and even extended especially to the problems of the aged, bearing in mind the demographic changes anticipated in the eighties and nineties, and also the problem of break-up of the extended family and the loosening of bonds of filial piety.

While we continue to render protective and charitable services, we must also bear in mind that there are many others healthy and quite well-off but who still need some form of social and community service. New considerations must be given to this, and therefore new policies are required. These have not been set out in the Ministry's Addendum. The problem of redefinition, based on the Ministry of Social Affairs, can best be contrasted by the situations in the Addenda on the Ministries of Health and Culture.

With regard to the Ministry of Health, the problem of systems redefinition is invariably also a major problem. I am glad to note that the Hon. Minister for Health, on assuming the Health portfolio, had seen it right to give urgent attention to the problem of policy redefinition, and here he has stated three important policies:-

1. To make a clear distinction between hospital and community health services;

2. To restructure and expand the community health service under the programme of primary health care; and

3. The need to pursue an urgent policy on preventive health, through a vigorous health promotion programme.

If the Ministry had not tackled these policy redefinitions on a priority basis, it is likely that the Health Ministry will still be bogged down with unending problems of inadequate doctors, medicines, long queues of patients and long queues on the surgical lists. They will also find it very difficult to seek the rationale for proper allocation of budget and manpower, and they would not be able to carry out their expansion plans in a more effective way. On the other hand, with a clearer policy redefinition, it is possible for the Ministry to embark upon its programme more confidently. With emphasis on health care and preventive medicine, correct emphasis can be put on the individual and community responsibilities of Singaporeans in tackling the problems of health. Morbidity issues will also become more important than mortality issues. It is really futile to spend so much time preparing beautiful mortality statistics when what is more important are morbidity statistics.

With the expansion of the public health education programme, there is a greater chance for the general public to learn how to look after their own health, and this I believe could lighten the burden of the Ministry. Of course, the Minister still has a number of outstanding problems to resolve.

The policy set out by the Minister for Culture is another example of the importance of policy redefinition. I am glad that the Ministry has done something about the vague and amorphous subject of Culture. His recent statements do give us some indication of his concept of culture. But there are a number of papers which could be discussed to indicate the correct interpretation of what a unique Singapore culture is, vis-a-vis the stature and role of the component cultures of the various racial groups in our society.

The Minister has stated that he will "pursue the policy of allowing Singapore's rich cultural heritage to gradually interact and blend into a distinctive Singaporean culture", and he plans to do it in a very imaginative manner. He realises the importance of achieving better coordination between the cultural programmes of Government and those carried out by private cultural bodies. He has also taken steps to provide the important infrastructure, namely, the Cultural Foundation, and through this I have confidence that he can succeed in attracting greater involvement and contributions from private cultural organisations and individuals.

With regard to the improvement of radio and TV programmes, he has also stressed the importance of "listener participation." All these indicate a very refreshing approach in the task of promoting culture which is so essential to us, especially the young who need the cultural ballast to strengthen certain important traditional values and at the same time to guard them against the impact of convenient, fashionable, but not always relevant values of the West.

The Minister, however, still has a number of outstanding matters which require urgent attention.

Mr Speaker, Sir, these are my brief overviews on the Addenda on the policies presented by the Ministers.

May I now be permitted to come to specific issues? Let me take the Addendum on the Ministry of Finance. My comments are on the three following issues, tourism, statistical development, and the Civil Service.

I share the concern of the hon. Member for Whampoa when he raised the question of the limits of tourism. He may have some aversions about having too many foreign tourists all over Singapore, and I do share his views. I would like to add my comments on three points:

1. The question of the limits of tourism.

2. Policies of making Singapore a conventional centre.

3. Tripartism in the field of tourist promotion.

Our Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Defence has, as early as December, 1976, cautioned us about the limits of tourism when he spoke at the annual dinner of the Singapore Society of Tour Agents. I quote:

'The rapid growth of the tourist trade has both its blessings and its problems. On the one hand, it has contributed to significant foreign exchange earnings, created employment and added to the construction boom in the recent past. This is for the good. But can we keep on growing forever?'

He further stated, and I quote:

'What I am proposing is that we should look closely at the long-term problems which will arise from limitation of space. slow growth of population and the requirements of our own citizens when they have to compete with the demands of the overseas visitors. When we have understood these matters better, we can probably raise the maximum number of tourists we can receive each year and still provide tourist visitors and citizens with enough elbow room.'

He concluded his speech, which was made three years ago, by stating:

'These are matters for close study by the experts. The problem is still a long way off. That is why it is better to start working on it now rather than wait until it is upon us, when many options will have been closed needlessly for want of foresight.'

I would like to humbly request the Minister for Finance to assure us that this matter has been adequately looked into and that the Ministry has made preparations to overcome the problems as anticipated by the Deputy Prime Minister three years ago.

I think the expansion of tourism should not be seen as an unending linear expansion, that is, just more tourists and longer stay in Singapore. Of course, we will ,.benefit if we have more tourists and if they stay longer. But we must assess our capacity for more tourists. We must also consider whether there is a need to restructure the system so that new and different types of tourist facilities are introduced to cater for large increases without necessarily giving rise to internal problems.

I think we were right when we chose the policy of making Singapore a convention centre. This is the second point I would like to comment on with regard to the Addendum from the Minister for Finance. This policy is consistent with attracting a 'high-load' tourist volume besides, of course, raising the mature of Singapore as a place where people can reflect and discuss serious matters on development, professional, and international issues. If it is the intention of the Minister to really develop this policy, it is important for the Ministry to review the management and status of the department in the Singapore Tourist Promotion Board which is responsible for implementing this policy. It appears from recent developments that the STPB is as yet unable to sustain an effective directorate to implement this because of some protracted staffing problems.

Finally, I would now like to touch on tripartite participation. If I may be permitted, Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to raise a point on the specific recommendation which has been made by the participants of the recent seminar which was organised by the Food, Drinks and Allied Workers' Union regarding trade union involvement in the task of tourist promotion and development. The seminar noted that the membership of the Tourist Promotion Board at the moment consists of only Government representatives and representatives from the private sector. There are no representatives from the trade union movement.

An hon. Member: Yes, there is.

Encik Mansor Haji Sukaimi: I beg your pardon, Mr Speaker. Apparently this matter has just been resolved. Thank you very much for updating my information.

I am glad that this matter has been resolved because the delegates to the seminar spent a lot of time discussing this matter. The point to stress is that the union represents over 10,000 workers in hotels, restaurants and various industries within the tourist sector and I think it will benefit our tourism development programme if we have the union represented in the Board, so that they can effectively link the policies of the Government and the Board with the problems at grassroots levels.

Finally, with regard to the Ministry of Finance, I would like to comment on the statistical development. I support the Minister's proposal to undertake a census of population in 1980. I hope he can report to this House at a later stage on the progress of preparation undertaken by his Ministry.

Aside from population data. the Minister has not made any mention about the data on Civil Service performance. I say this because way back in 1960 there was a President's Commission on the development of research and statistical services in Government departments. In fact, specific recommendations were made by that Commission on plans to improve statistical services by the Ministries of Labour, National Development and Health. I would like to ask, if it is possible, whether the Minister could report to the House on the progress of the implementation of the Commission's recommendations. If it is possible, I would also like to ask if he could indicate whether there is a need for other Ministries, not covered by that Commission's report, to also take steps to develop fu ll-fledged research and statistical services.

With regard to the Civil Service terms and conditions of service, I support the Minister's proposal to improve the terms and conditions of employees and to make them comparative with the private sector. I agree that priority must be given to developing a strong corps of administrators, and it is important for us to attract the best in a competitive way with the private sector. In this programme, the issue must not be just to attract them but also to ensure that they remain and serve in the Civil Service with greater dedication and conviction.

I also hope that the Ministry has plans to improve the terms and conditions of Government employees in the lower grades, including the Public Daily Rated Employees.

There was no mention in the Minister's Addendum about staff assessment problems. I know that the Government is using Staff Confidential Reports but there have been discussions which indicate that this reporting system is far from adequate, especially if we are to assess Government employees on matters like character and commitment. I had the privilege of presenting my comments to the Head of the Civil Service early last year, and he assured me that the Public Service Commission would review the staff evaluation system. I wonder if the Minister could report to this House the progress on this matter and whether the Ministry has plans to revamp the staff performance system.

Let me now be permitted to comment on Defence. The Minister has told us that the basic build-up of the SAF is practically completed. Steps are now being taken to improve the quality of the personnel, development of leadership, improve the Reservist Corps, and the control of drugs. However, there is no mention about whether or not the Minister will encourage the national servicemen to take an active part in community service. I am aware that the SAF personnel have been active in helping MPs in numerous gotong-royong projects, but I think the SAF can do much more than this. The Ministry of Defence should realise the need to help the national servicemen to understand the problems of community service, and to know how and why they should be actively involved in community service. To me, this is important because in the long run nearly all adults in Singapore would have gone through National Service and I do not see why we should not prepare them to be more involved in community service.

Another reason why I recommend this is that through SAF there is a greater chance for us to get more professionals to gear themselves to take active positions in community service projects. If this is achieved, then the problems of attracting more professionals to voluntary service in civic organisations could be effectively resolved.

With greater community involvement there is a chance for the Army and the community to understand and respect each other. If this is achieved, then all will be well because the high technical or technological standards and capability which we have built up in our Army will be consolidated by strong and abiding grassroot support of the ordinary citizen.

With regard to the Ministry of Labour, I have a few points to raise. I share the concern on problems of occupational safety. My view is that while it is necessary to review present policies and introduce better ones, it is more important to make sure that there are proper and effective enforcement and monitoring programmes. it is no good having excellent laws and regulations but which are not properly enforced.

The statements on labour-management relations are a bit lopsided. It is not fair, by implication, to keep on blaming workers for failing to work hard or to accumulate and develop skills. There are, of course, workers who lack diligence, who job-hop and who do not seem to appreciate the value of work ethics. However, these problems, more often than not, are the result of inefficient and inconsiderate management. By this, I do not mean that management are intrinsically or wilfully bad. I am more concerned with the unwitting failure of top management not knowing what is happening at grassroots level.

There is also inadequate public discussions about the responsibilities of managers. On the workers' part, the NTUC have undertaken various educational services and workers' education programmes and are really attempting to educate the workers about their responsibilities, obligations and the need to work hard. On the other hand, there is no corresponding concern and interest on the part of management to do similar programmes for their members. I know that many companies have undertaken their own internal management education programmes. But, to my mind, this is not enough. Managers must also be educated on their broader responsibilities and obligations. They must understand the social, economic and political imperatives of Singapore and, in context, what their roles should be.

The Labour Minister's Addendum also does not discuss a very important subject of night shift or shift work. I think there is an urgent need to study this matter because more and more Singaporeans are required to perform night shift or shift work and also because, without night shift and shift work, I do not think our industrialisation programme can achieve its maximum potential and capacity. These studies should show what effects night work has on workers, their families and their community life. Is night work medically harmful to workers? If it is, is it more harmful to men or women? If it is harmful to either party, or both, what steps should be taken and what specialised or new social services are required in the factory or community?

It is good to note that the Ministry will review the Employment Act but nothing is mentioned as to what the objectives of this review are, why it must be done, what criteria will be used to select those parts of the Act to be changed, and why?

Another problem which is building up, but has not been adequately discussed by the Minister, concerns the increasing number of workers joining the service industry. This trend has already been seen in many industrialised economies and there has been so much discussion on this problem in those countries. Yet our Ministry has not indicated in the Addendum that urgent attention has been given to this. I think this is important because so far our labour policies have been directed more towards problems of industrial workers. This must be so in the past and perhaps also in the future because of the importance of the manufacturing sector, but we must not ignore the increasing importance of the service industry. Sir, I would like to ask if the Minister could keep us informed about this particular problem.

The next point is workmen's compensation. With the very kind permission of my colleague, the Member for Moulmein, I would like to know whether it is true that workmen's compensation does not cover accidents involving teachers in school premises. If this is not included, what is the rationale? I would like to ask the Ministry to review this because there should be some form of protection for teachers who could be injured in accidents in laboratories or for any other reasons involved with their school and professional duties.

Next is National Development, and I think this subject is too large, I prefer to reserve this for the forthcoming debate. I would only like to raise a few points and this concerns the ethics of officers in the HDB and also in the Ministry of National Development. Firstly, is there a standing instruction in the Ministry on how fast or how slow replies should be given to letters from members of the public and Members of Parliament? From the cases I have seen, it appears that there is a policy that in so far as replies to MPs are concerned, take your time.

The second problem concerns officers who go round taking surveys of families affected by resettlement programmes. I must commend the Resettlement Department for tackling the resettlement problem magnificently. I know there are problems, given the complexity of the exercise. But I have received many complaints from my constituents in Kampong Kembangan and also in Kampong Ubi which I look after on behalf of Tuan Haji Ya'acob bin Mohamed. At the time of the survey, which may be one, two or three years before actual reallocation, the families were told not to worry and were given assurance that they would be given flats. But now there are cases where the constituents come and tell me that the HDB will not give them flats even though they were promised a flat at the time of the survey. I think this makes the job of MPs much more difficult because it is difficult to prove whether this has happened. And I normally avoid getting embroiled with the staff of the HDB on this matter. But I think it is very important for the Ministry officials and HDB officials to make an effort to make it clear whether a person is eligible for a flat on resettlement, with priority or without. If they are not eligible, I think, to be fair to them, the officials should tell them in advance so that they can register for a flat at an earlier date.

I agree with the comments of the Member for Changi about unauthorised structures. I have had the privilege of getting wonderful assistance from the former Senior Minister of State for National Development and the present Senior Minister of State in tackling many problems of unauthorised structures. I agree that some structures need to be pulled down. But the point stressed by the Member for Changi is correct: in many cases the structures have been in existence for many years and it is impossible for the owners to produce proof. I think the Ministry should give due regard to this problem.

On the Ministry of Health, the programmes set out by the Minister are consistent with my conception of what health services should be, and I fully support him in his approach to give priority to primary health care and health education. My only comment is to suggest the need to give greater consideration and interface between various sectors and institutions in the health-care system that, in this scheme of things, it is imperative that the Ministry develops and upgrade the monitoring and evaluation system. The best way is perhaps to review the recommendations of the President's Commission on the development of research and statistical unit for health development and to consider further improvements.

The Ministry of the Environment should be commended for having successfully expanded its water and air pollution control services. I think it has also done creditably in drainage development programmes. But two matters, I think, require discussion.

Let me take hawkers first. I am not too sure whether there are really 27,500 hawkers in Singapore. Presumably, these are stallholders who are selling in markets and food centres and who are licensed by the Hawkers Department of the Ministry. But I know there is another category of hawkers who are administratively defined as "stallholders" but licensed by the Public Health District Offices and not by the Hawkers Department. For purposes of overall planning, the Ministry should resolve this question as to whether these stallholders should not rightly be defined as "hawkers" as well. If this is done, then the number of hawkers in Singapore will be very much more than 27,500.

The second point concerns public toilets. I support the plan to improve the management and standard of hygiene.in public toilets. However, I do not know whether this can be achieved solely through enforcement methods. The managements of shopping complexes, cinemas, restaurants and bus terminals must be made more aware and more concerned about this problem. Of course, the public themselves must be involved. But, to be fair to them, it is not possible for the public to flush when the flush is faulty, or always to tip-toe when the floor is so dirty because nobody washes it.

I have already raised a number of points on Social Affairs. I just have one or two more points. If we look at the Minister of Culture's Addendum, we would have seen the steps he has taken to seek the involvement and support of private cultural organisations. I think the Ministry of Social Affairs should adopt the same approach. There are about 2,400 registered societies in Singapore. My guess is that 60% of them are societies which are connected with the rendering of social and welfare services at grassroots level. In this sense, I think they can play a greater role towards upgrading the social services in our Republic. It will do us a great deal of good if the Ministry takes steps to hold regular dialogues with these associations and their leaders to see how they can be more involved and make more wider contributions in the field of social services.

Another point which I am quite doubtful about is that societies are registered by the Home Affairs Ministry but many of the problems affect the Social Affairs Ministry. I do not know whether there is any link or interface between the Home Affairs Ministry and the Social Affairs Ministry.

Another point which I would like to raise concerning the Ministry of Social Affairs is whether the Ministry could carry out an urgent study about certain creditable civic organisations and whether they deserve some special support. The support I am thinking of is by way of seconding experts from Government departments, or even private organisations by invitation, to serve full-time for a specific period to help upgrade the administration and management of social services undertaken by these civic organisations. I say this because many civic organisations are doing a very good service, but they are facing serious problems of ensuring a consistent and vigorous management leadership in the planning and implementation of community programmes.

With regard to the Majlis Ugama Islam of Singapore which, of course, comes under the Ministry of Social Affairs, I prefer to reserve this for the Budget debate. The only point I would like to mention here concerns the proposal to review the Administration of Muslim Law Act. It would be useful if the Minister could in the very near future indicate why it is necessary to review the Act now. What are the points or issues which need to be rationalised? What are the criteria that he will use in making these changes? And will he seek active consultation with persons in the civic organisations and the community at large to ensure that these amendments are consistent, not only with solving problems or upgrading present services but also in managing problems of the future?

I have already made some mention about education. In fact, I have chosen not to spend too much time on it because I am eager to learn what the full recommendations of Dr Goh and his team of systems analysts are. I do not know whether these recommendations will be forthcoming but it is worth waiting for them because it will show us clearly whether the programmes of the Ministry are really firm and whether they will be implemented on a long term basis.

The Education Ministry, in a recent case especially, gave us very little notice about the very major changes in educational policy. I think this is not fair. I think it is necessary for the Ministry to give the public some notice about impending changes. This raises a second point: is it possible for the Ministry to consider how, and to what extent, community leaders, including Members of Parliament, can be involved in formulating and reviewing new proposals on educational policies? In fact, one Member said to me a very interesting recommendation as to whether or not educational policies, especially the major ones, could be made the subject of a White Paper to be submitted to the House for study and debate by Members.

Regarding the proposal on feedback and monitoring to be undertaken by the Ministry, it will be useful if the Minister could tell the House how the Ministry will implement the feedback and monitoring exercise. What criteria it will use, and how this feedback and monitoring programme will benefit not only in the formulation of educational policies but also in ensuring that the programmes are effectively implemented.

For Culture, my only remark at this juncture is that there is an urgent need to review the People's Association programme. I have had the privilege of having discussions with the Director and we agreed that P.A. is not a private corporation. It is a national body concerned with national problems and it must reflect the aspirations and future problems of the whole nation. I would like to reserve my discussion on this in the Budget debate.

Home Affairs. I fully share the views of the Member for Khe Bong about drug problems and the need to get employment for ex-drug addicts released from rehabilitation centres.

In Kampong Kembangan we have been lucky to emplace 150 ex-addicts to profitable employment. All these jobs have been offered by private companies. I had difficulty in getting these ex-addicts emplaced in Government departments. I think it is important for us to review this because, in the final analysis, the success of rehabilitation will depend on the degree to which these drug addicts have a way to redeem their self-esteem through getting decent employment.

I am sorry to have taken so much time, Mr Speaker. Taken as a whole the Ministerial Addenda to the Presidential Address have adequately covered many important issues that should be looked into in the immediate years and, with the record that we have achieved and the momentum that we have built, I am confident that we should be able to overcome the gloomy economic growth that the President has timely reminded us in his Address.

Of the three issues mentioned by the President, the conflict in Indo-China and the problem of the next political leadership are also very important matters which deserve serious attention.

I wholeheartedly support the statement by the ASEAN leaders recently released by the Indonesian Foreign Minister. With ASEAN's credibility as a serious-minded regional organisation, I am confident that what we say and what we do will go a long way towards gaining the attention and respect of the big powers and countries involved in this conflict. With our active participation in resolving this regional problem, we should be able, if not solve the problem, to at least minimise its implications.

As to the question of future political leadership, this is another point which, I think, is critical. This matter has attracted the deep concern of the Hon. Prime Minister who has taken special pains to seek, test and groom up candidates for the future leadership. It is indeed very rare for us to find a political system where current leaders who hold power take serious steps to prepare others to take over from them. In fact, there are more examples to the contrary.

I also fully support the concluding reminder from the President that "it is the quality of the political leadership that is decisive." He emphasised the importance for us to have the commitment and willingness to look for future leaders, give them the experience and time to understand the demands of leadership. I am especially moved by the President's emphasis on the need to develop camaraderie amongst leaders. In the final analysis, I think this is the crux of successful leadership in Singapore. The Prime Minister and his close Cabinet colleagues and also the top leaders in the Government departments, the trade union movement and even in selected private sectors, are people who have enjoyed a high degree of camaraderie amongst themselves, for they have undergone together the tough battles of our formative years. In fact, in their case, they were first friends and then leaders. This esprit de corps enables them to discuss and review problems openly, frankly and sincerely. I think this is the formula - the spirit of camaraderie which is the best guarantee for us to build up the top leadership of the Republic of Singapore.

3.40 p.m.

Mr Sia Khoon Seong (Moulmein): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the motion standing in the name of the hon. Member for Serangoon Gardens.

1978 must surely go down in the annals of the Education Ministry as the year with the record number of what the Education Ministry euphemistically termed as "refinements in educational policies and practices." Parents, pupils and teachers who are at the receiving end, however, do not see them as just mere refinements but very substantive changes in educational policies and practices.

That the Education Ministry is in the habit of making educational changes should be no surprise to any one. What amazes the public at large is that the Ministry should have made so many changes in quick succession in the past few months, particularly when the Ministry itself has not yet managed to solve completely the implementation problems arising out of earlier changes introduced by them. Surely, the Government must recognize that the recent educational changes must require additional manpower support and expertise, particularly at the headquarters level, to ensure their effective and smooth implementation. Even with only the routine problems, the Education Ministry is already at its wit's end. And now, with new educational changes, bringing in their train more implementation problems, it can but only serve to compound an already very difficult situation.

True, some of the recent educational changes, such as the Immersion Scheme, the Supplementary English Language lessons, and the selection of certain Chinese secondary schools for development into effective bilingual schools, have great merit in them as well-conceived plans for the improvement of our present education system. I must say that the thinking and the raison d'etre behind these educational changes are both progressive and forward-looking. But when you have a backward administrative and professional support in implementing too many forward-looking policies at one and the same time, that is when all the troubles start.

Unfortunately, the Education Ministry is notorious for its undistinguished record of introducing too many changes in a short space of time and sometimes, retracting some of these changes as fast as they were introduced. If the changes were not retracted, they would at least undergo several so-called refinements.

The Education Ministry has been crying wolf in the past every so often. Can we blame the public for being sceptical to any announcement of any educational change, whether it is sound or otherwise? Very often the quarrel is not with the thinking behind the policy or the conception of the plans but the way in which they are implemented. We can certainly credit the Education Ministry with many fine education policies, but it is extremely hard to find a single instance when it has implemented its policy effectively and smoothly. What is the reason? Is it because we are trying to do too much at one time, or is it because we are short of able officers to run a big Ministry with increasingly greater and complex problems?

Has the introduction of a team of systems engineers into the Ministry begun to boost the work efficiency in the Education Ministry?

Many of us are beginning to wonder what is happening to the "military takeover" in the Education Ministry. Are the bright systems engineers lost in the maze of the Education System, or are they making good progress? If I do not get an answer to that, I can quite understand as they are used to operating in typical military style, that is, everything is "top secret".

The Education Ministry, in its Addendum to the President's Speech, mentioned the introduction of a full-day school session in a few secondary schools in 1980 as a pilot project. This is one of the few occasions that the Education Ministry gives the public adequate advance notice of its intention to make an educational change. For this advance notice, I give the Education Ministry top marks. But whether or not I can give them top marks for the plan to be actually implemented in 1980 is quite another matter.

No doubt the full-day school plan, if imaginatively conceived and sensibly implemented, can benefit the children. Many teachers can be persuaded to give the scheme their enthusiastic support, if adequate incentives are given to them to teach in a full-day school and their workload not made heavier than at present. This means that a full-day school must have a better quota of teachers.

But knowing that some officials in the Education Ministry and Finance Ministry are still under the delusion that teachers are underworked and are still obsessed with wanting to make the teachers work a 42-hour week, we may see in 1980 a monstrous plan for a full-day school, a plan which not only teachers but also parents will vehemently object.

In concluding my remarks on the Education Ministry, may I say this. No matter what fine educational plans and policies are introduced by the Government to improve the quality of education, two very essential ingredients are necessary to ensure their successful implementation. The first is the calibre of the administrative and professional leadership at the headquarters level. The second is the morale of the principals and teachers. There is so much the Government can do to boost the morale of the teaching profession. To begin with, stop treating them like mere cogs in a machine. Treat them like human beings, with the dignity that they deserve.

Mr Speaker, Sir, 1979 marks two decades of PAP government in Singapore. The present generation of top political leadership has ably steered the Singapore State through many political storms and economic crises to the much desired haven of economic viability, and forged a Singaporean identity among its two million-odd citizens. More than that, Singapore has, under its stewardship, emerged each time from its political and economic challenges more successful and stronger. With the high standard of public health enjoyed in Singapore, the favourable standard of living attained in Singapore, and the meticulous attention and care that many of the present top political leaders give to their health, I have not the slightest doubt that they will still be dominating the political scene, charting and guiding the future destiny of Singapore for many, many years to come.

In terms of man's life-span, one decade or two decades is a long time. In terms of a nation's history, it is but just a short period.

When seen in the long range view of a nation's history, the question of who will succeed the present generation of top political leaders when they leave their office assumes greater significance and importance. The earlier the future political leadership is groomed, the better the chances of some, if not all, of the future leaders succeeding. It is therefore prudent and farsighted, in this context, on the part of the present political leadership to apply its mind and attention to the grooming of the next generation of political leadership. Many Singaporeans naturally are concerned whether the norms set for selecting the successor leadership can withstand the test of time and trials. We can only hope and pray that Singapore will in future have the younger and equally capable and dedicated versions of the present political leaders. 3.50 p.m.

Dr Ong Leong Boon (Kim Seng): Mr Speaker; Sir, I rise to support the motion standing in the name of the Member for Serangoon Gardens, thanking the President for his Address on behalf of the Government at the Opening of the Second Session of Parliament on 26th December, 1978. At the same time, allow me to heartily congratulate President Sheares on his unanimous re-election to a third term as President of the Republic. May I wish him many years of good health and happiness. I am confident that Singapore will continue to develop and prosper under his wise and able leadership.

In his Address, President Sheares highlighted three major issues that will influence events and focus the attention of this Parliament: namely, the world economy vis-a-vis Singapore's economic growth, the conflicts in Indo-China and repercussions for Thailand and Southeast Asia, and thirdly, the question of Singapore's future political leadership. Many hon. Members have delved at great length into these subjects and I do not propose to go further into these other than to say that I have no doubt that under the Government's direction, Singapore will, as recent history has proven, find the right solutions to these major challenges for the immediate future.

May I join in the usual rhetoric and exhortation to all Singaporeans not to take the good life we presently enjoy for granted and to stress the virtue of hard work and industry. We must also be prepared for less favourable times. Singaporeans must be cautioned of the need to understand our vulnerability to events and developments in this region and the world; factors and variables which are beyond us to influence or control, and to be guardedly optimistic about the future. We must continue, as we had demonstrated in the past, to develop the capacity and flexibility to accommodate external events, no matter how painful these adjustments may be; so as to ensure our further growth and national sovereignty, Singaporeans must discard the mantle of insularity and look bravely upon the world as our hinterland. We must also be able to critically evaluate developments, regional and global, which may sooner or later have implications for Singapore.

We must learn to read beyond words and written assurances. In our relations with other countries let us judge others as others judge us by actions and deeds and not promises. In October 1978 the Vietnamese Prime Minister, Mr Pham Van Dong junketed around ASEAN capitals with the olive branch in one hand and liberally proclaimed verbal promises of respect for national sovereignty and territorial inviolability. Three months later, Vietnamese forces blatantly invaded Kampuchea leading to the dramatic collapse of Phnom Penh and sent Pol Pot into the jungle. Whether the rape of Kampuchea represents proxy war or fratricide, the fall of Phnom Penh serves as a telling reminder to all ASEAN countries the urgency to rally together for greater economic, social and political cooperation, and to further translate potentialities of ASEAN into realities. In this context, I have serious doubts about the statement in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Addendum which declared:

'For Southeast Asia, the post-Vietnam period, defying earlier predictions, has turned out to be more hopeful, particularly for the ASEAN countries'.

We know, of course, that statement was made just two weeks before the fall of Kampuchea.

On the occasion of the Chinese Vice-Premier Teng Hsiao-Ping's visit to Singapore in November 1978, our Prime Minister noted that the geopolitical situation in Asia was changing so rapidly that many people are now re-examining previously unquestioned assumptions. In order to minimise surprises and to ensure Singapore's durable future and peace in Southeast Asia, we have to try and identify "the key forces which are shaping the future of the world".

The need to re-examine a previously unquestioned assumption is singularly true in respect of civil aviation and tourism. It is my hope this afternoon to contribute to the debate on the President's Address by expanding on this subject. I am referring specifically to the new Australian International Civil Aviation Policy (AICAP). If unchecked or unchallenged, the new arrangements for Qantas and British Airways to monopolise the end-to-end traffic between Australia and Britain will be implemented by 1st February 1979 with serious consequences to our aviation and tourist industries.

What is the new Australian International Civil Aviation Policy? This policy was announced by the Minister of Transport, Mr P.J. Nixon, on 11th October 1978. The Australian ICAP maintains that there is inefficient use of resources in the provision of air services resulting in passengers having to pay higher fares than necessary. AICAP provides for traffic between two countries to be carried only by the national carriers of these two countries. All other airlines would be excluded from carrying such end-to-end traffic. It follows, therefore, that only Qantas and British Airways would be allowed to carry the end-to-end traffic between Australia and London.

This restructuring of air routes would result in changes to the present traffic flows, but Australia asserts that the introduction of lower end-to-end fares on all routes would result in an increase in traffic volume. However, to achieve higher seat factor (i.e. occupancy rate) that would support commercially viable operations at lower fares, Australia maintains that there would be need to have a reduction on total capacity presently operating into and out of Australia.

Australia has, therefore, proposed reductions in the number of Singapore Airlines' flights between Australia and Singapore on the premise that the existing frequency will become excessive as Singapore Airlines, being a third country carrier on the Australia/UK/Europe route, will no longer be able to participate in the end-to-end traffic carriage between Australia and UK/Europe.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this new Australian policy smacks of protectionism for their national airline - Qantas Airways. The AICAP is protectionistic because a special low fare would be introduced which would prevent passengers from making stopovers en route. The present stopover surcharge of A$75 would be raised to between A$302 (S$755) and A$432 (S$1,080) under the AICAP. This policy would effectively cause the bulk of passengers going from Australia to Europe to travel by Qantas or British Airways and forgo stopovers in ASEAN as the cost of making a stopover in any of the ASEAN countries would be prohibitive.

It may be that the phenomenal growth of Singapore's tourism from half a million tourists in 1970 to two million in 1978, and Singapore Airlines' spectacular success story overwhelmed our friends in Australia. Perhaps if Singapore Airlines had been less aggressive in hard-sell and more discreet in advertising, Qantas might tackle Freddie Laker's challenge without resorting to unfriendly acts that spell of protectionism. This new policy arrangement dictating duopoly on the Australia/UK route for Qantas and British Airways to the exclusion of fifth freedom carriers like SIA smacks of collusion between the two governments. The Australian initiative will eventually lead to aviation protectionism which, if allowed to grow into global proportions, will benefit only the airlines of developed countries and those airlines with big domestic markets.

This will surely raise the ugly spectre of developed countries ganging up to squeeze out of business airlines from the multitude of less developed countries.

It is indeed ironic that the Prime Minister of Australia should take such pains to go aknocking at EEC capitals seeking preferential treatment for Australian goods and exports and dejectedly accused the EEC of protectionism, whilst at home in Australia without any hesitation erected trade barriers, import restrictions and other protectionist measures against exports of ASEAN and other developing countries to Australia.

What are the implications of AICAP for Singapore? These are two-fold: Tourism and Aviation. Based on 1977 figures of 200,000 Australian visitors, half of whom represent stopover traffic, and each Australian visitor spending about $452 in Singapore, the annual loss to the tourist industry will be about $45.2 million.

For the Aviation industry SIA would lose the opportunity to carry passengers between Australia and UK/Europe. SIA will not be able to carry traffic from intermediate points between Singapore and Australia to and from Australia, e.g. traffic from Indonesia to Australia. Without traffic rights between intermediate points and Australia, certain European carriers would also have to reduce their operations to Australia as well as Singapore. This will, in turn, reduce SIA and other ASEAN airlines operations to the countries of these carriers.

What are the implications for ASEAN countries? They are similar. In 1977, the number of Australians who visited the other ASEAN countries by air was as follows: Indonesia 53,000; Malaysia 57,000; Philippines 60,000 and Thailand 63,000. It is again estimated that about one-half of these Australian visitors represents stopover traffic. Further, intra-ASEAN traffic rights may have to be given to the European airlines or any other non-ASEAN airlines to compensate such airlines for the loss of their traffic rights between intermediate points, i.e. Southeast Asia and Australia. This would mean a drop in market share for the ASEAN airlines in the intra-ASEAN air traffic market.

Singapore has stated quite categorically that it welcomes the concept of low fares, but we are extremely concerned about the Australian proposal to allow only Qantas and the national carrier of the other country to carry passengers on such end-to-end low fares. We subscribe to the principle of open competition and free enterprise in international civil aviation and we contend that airlines other than Qantas and the national carrier of the country concerned should be allowed to participate in such low fares. This will be to the benefit of the travelling public. Further stopover surcharge at Singapore or any ASEAN country should be nominal and not prohibitive as proposed, and finally there should be no reduction on present airline capacity between Australia and Singapore and there should be provision made for future increases in airline capacity based on traffic demand between Australia and Singapore.

It is indeed heartening to note that ASEAN has decided to adopt a common stand on this matter and presently are engaged in negotiations with the Australian Government in Canberra.

It is my purpose this afternoon to highlight this issue and to reinforce our Government and ASEAN's common position vis-a-vis the new Australian policy. Let us stand firm on our convictions. Let us remind Australia that no shortsighted, protectionist move on its part will be acceptable to its ASEAN neighbours. Let us impress upon Australia that any act of hostility towards 250 million ASEAN neighbours will only harm Australia in the medium and long-term and, finally, while we hesitate to think of retaliatory measures, pending the outcome of the present negotiations, it is perhaps not untimely for us to re-examine a previously unquestioned assumption, and that is that Australia has been regarded traditionally as a friendly part of Southeast Asia. 4.07 p.m.

Haji Sha'ari bin Tadin (Bedok): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the Motion of Thanks standing in the name of the Member for Serangoon Gardens. I would like to congratulate the President for having been re-elected to office and to thank him for his Address delivered on behalf of the Government.

In his address at the opening of the Second Session of the Fourth Parliament, the President outlined three major factors that would influence events in this country. They were, namely, Singapore's economic growth, the conflict between Vietnam and Kampuchea and the issue of the next political leadership. Sir, with the fall of Kampuchea into the hands of the pro-Vietnam Kampuchean rebel forces, the future of peace in the whole of Southeast Asia is at stake. Sir, I do not propose to dwell on this topic and the other two major factors mentioned, as other Members have already dealt at great length with these subjects. Neither do I propose to give an overview of the Ministerial Addenda as the Member for Kampong Kembangan has ably and eloquently done so.

However, Sir, what concerns me most, after reading through the Addenda of the various Ministries, are matters which have direct relevance to our daily lives, especially those who live in the housing estates or New Towns. I have singularly picked out a few aspects which, I think, are of interest to us all Singaporeans, and I would like to dwell on them with the limited time given at my disposal. Sir, these observations are personal, and I hope to draw the undivided attention of the authorities concerned so that these matters may not fall on deaf ears as had happened in the past.

Firstly, Sir, a problem faced by residents in New Towns is the inability of schools to adequately absorb children who have moved in to take up residence with their parents. In Bedok New Town, for example, Sir, the problem is compounded by the fact that out of the eight schools earmarked for the Town, only two are ready and functioning as of today. As a result, 10 Primary I classes, unable to be accommodated in the Bedok View Primary School, have to be temporarily housed in the Bedok View Secondary School, whilst a few hundred children who have registered for primary school this year had to be turned away because of lack of places, not counting the requests for transfer to schools in Bedok from parents whose children are still studying outside the constituency.

I wish to suggest, Sir, that authorities like the HDB and the Ministry of Education should jointly conduct projection studies to determine, as far as possible, the number of classes that are required which should be commensurate with the rate of construction and occupation of flats in new towns and their neighbourhoods. If children can be absorbed into new schools smoothly, parents would not be subjected to unnecessary inconvenience and expense, and children could save time by not having to commute long distances to schools with vacancies. I would like to urge the planners to speed up the construction of the remaining schools in Bedok Constituency so as to avoid further hardship to these residents who have already moved into the Bedok New Town while their children continue to study in schools nearest their former homes.

The other aspect which has been given a lot of emphasis, Sir, is the quality of life in the HDB estates. References made to the living conditions in HDB estate and the need for the people "to get out of their cocoons" brought out not only comments but generated interest amongst our sociologists. This clearly shows that there is a need for a co-ordinated study by the various interested parties in order to bring about better living standards for the flat-dwellers.

In my observation of leisure pursuits in Housing Board estates and New Towns, the recreational needs of children and active adults are well catered for. However, I have yet to come across areas set aside for the elderly and senior citizens. They need quiet areas, away from the more boisterous activity of children and the active adults. Perhaps resident committees and neighbourhood committees can now think in terms of selecting one or two void decks for use by residents who wish to indulge in quiet games and even callisthenics, like Tai-Chi and Yoga. This is again subject to HDB approval.

Sir, in the Ministry of Education Addendum to the Presidential Address, it was stated that:

'Full-day schooling will be introduced as a pilot project in selected secondary schools in 1980 to allow a more thorough treatment of the curriculum and to provide better interaction between pupils and teachers'.

I wish to take the opportunity here to give a little of the background of this plan. I feel sometimes it is necessary even for a Backbencher to state what the fact is, if he happens to be in a position to explain. Sir, education is a very sensitive subject and it affects all of us. Several of my colleagues have already spoken on the changes recently introduced to our education system. Being one who is involved at the implementation level, I do not wish to add to critical comments made by those concerned with education.

To come to the concept of full-school, as we are aware, Sir, the quantitative expansion of the education system in Singapore, commencing with the post-war demand for education and accelerated in the 1960s with the electoral commitments of the PAP Government to provide a place for every child of school-going age, necessitated the use of school facilities on a double-shift system. A two-session school day has thus become a common feature in the local education scene. This constitutes an eminently neat solution in overcoming the problem of space constraint in an island-state where land is a scarce and expensive commodity. Optimum use of land dominates the thinking of physical planners.

Now, Sir, with the quantitative targets met, the time is opportune to focus on the question of injecting quality into education through a number of educational measures, covering inter alia a comprehensive 5-year Rolling Plan on In-Service Education aimed at upgrading the professional competence of the entire teaching force, systematic development of curriculum, syllabus and instructional materials, and the plan to reduce class size and the introduction of full-day schools. At first sight, Sir, it may appear unrealistic to consider the introduction of full-day schools as it has immense financial and manpower implications. Sir, any consideration for new educational measures will have to take into account the implication of its implementation. The full-day school model is a radical departure from the current school-day model. The reactions of teachers, pupils, parents and the general public will have to be considered in the implementation of the proposal. The establishment of the full-day school may give rise to, inter alia, unhappiness among teachers who are required to teach in full-day schools, as they consider their working day to be longer than that of teachers in two-session schools, although the teaching workload remains the same.

A comparison of full-day and two-session schools shows a disadvantage to the latter as the former may acquire an elitist image in the eyes of the pupils, parents and the general public; a disruption of transport arrangements of pupils who attend two-session schools; and a financial burden on parents as expenditure on their children's lunch is necessary.

Sir, while I am for the full-day schools, all efforts must be made to ensure their smooth implementation. I would like to propose, Sir. that consideration be given to the implementation of the proposed full-day schools in the new schools now being built in the New Towns, rather than converting the existing schools into full-day schools. If the concept of a full-day school is to bring about a total and complete involvement of pupils, teachers and principals, and to give the child "more interaction with teachers" and so create better rapport between the school and the community, then the choice of such schools should be confined to those schools within the housing estates of New Towns where the children and teachers come from the same neighbourhood. Then we would have achieved our objective of education in an enriched school environment.

Sir, in the Addendum on the Ministry of Home Affairs, it was stated that "Police posts will be set up at the void decks of housing blocks. They will serve as a first contact point and immediate source of help to the residents nearby." This is very much welcomed by the residents. This scheme, Sir, is of special interest as most of my constituents are or will be housed in HDB high-rise housing. I totally agree with the concept of more intensive patrolling by reservists and members of the VC as this will further ensure the safety of the residents and the force can serve as a deterrent to criminal activities. However, I wish to recommend that these men should perform their patrol duties not only during the day from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. but also during the later part of the night, i.e. from 10.30 p.m. to 12 midnight so as to provide protection especially for young girls who work late shift hours. It is to be observed that certain areas of the housing estates are fairly dark and deserted at these times as most of the shops are closed.

I wish now, Sir, to touch upon the objectives of this scheme. They should not only be restricted to crime detection. The primary aim should be crime prevention, and this should be the responsibility of the authorities and the residents themselves. In other words, there should be built up between them the gotong royong spirit of helping one another in times of need. There should be, therefore, rapport between them. May I therefore recommend the following measures:

In order to command respect from the residents, those on patrol should be better disciplined. There is no room for long unkempt hair and sloppy dressing.

Preferably, the patrolmen should be chosen from among those living in the same area of patrol. This will ensure that the residents are able to identify them and they, in their turn, can identify themselves with their work area as they have a vested interest in ensuring security for their own homes as well.

The patrolmen should not only be present to arrest criminals, but they should also be so trained that the residents can approach them for help in general matters. In other words, they should know the workplace so well that they can offer direction or advice when called upon to do so.

The person placed in charge of these police posts should be someone from the same estate where these posts are established. The residents should know well not only the locality of these posts but also the duty officer-in-charge at various times of the day and night. This calls for a campaign to get the residents and the duty officers to know each other really well. These officers too should have a sense of permanency in their area of service because knowing the people well would result in greater rapport. Transfers of these officers should be kept to the minimum.

Lastly, to enhance the sense of rapport, those doing vertical patrolling of the various blocks should drop in at the homes of the residents at designated times to render service, if required, and to get to know the residents therein. To avoid the possibility of unauthorised persons entering these flats, the police posts should make the necessary appointment prior to their visits.

These measures, Sir, if taken and implemented effectively, will enhance the objectives of the intensive patrolling scheme. Patrolmen should not just be there because they have been told to be there but they should be performing their duties as friends of the people, each side having a vested interest in ensuring the safety of the place they live in. 4.20 p.m.

Mr Tan Soo Khoon (Alexandra): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Motion standing in the name of the Member for Serangoon Gardens.

The President in his Address has stated that there will be "a total revamping of the rewards and salaries of senior officers in the public service." I would like to make two observations.

Firstly, while this is a step in the right direction, we have to be aware that money does not buy everything. Providing adequate monetary rewards is only one aspect of the problem. It may not be sufficient to retain the able ones. We have to think of career prospects. Initial salaries for some grades in the public sector can be as good as what is available in the private sector. But promotion in the private sector is rapid, and over a period of time the public servant can lose out to his counterpart in the private sector. And that is the problem - how do we promote faster, how do we give recognition, and along with that to reward amply those who are better, regardless of seniority, so that those who are really able are not attracted to the brighter-lights of the private sector.

Providing monetary incentives is one solution but it is an insufficient solution. We have to provide for better prospects of advancement in career for those who opt to remain, and yet we must do so without having to compromise on the high standards that we set for our public servants. Promotion in the public service is based on qualification, experience and merit. More often than not, it is experience that counts. If those who choose to remain prove themselves capable of the demanding tasks that confront them, then they must have opportunities to move up. They must be assured that merit counts as much as, if not more than, experience. Perhaps it is an opportune moment for a body like the Public Service Commission to do a detailed study on how present procedures could be modified to facilitate identification of bright people in the public service and to provide opportunities for career advancement.

This leads me to my second observation, and that is, the President has referred to only the senior officers and the scholars who are completing their period of bond with the Government. Providing for the top talent is one thing, but we must remember that what makes the whole administrative machinery tick efficiently is not just those at the top. There are others in the lower rungs and those who need not be scholarship holders, also with the talent, and just as hardworking, and if one is to think of continued support of able administrators for the political leadership, then any exercise to achieve this must encompass more than senior officers and government scholars.

An hon. Member: Hear, hear!

Mr Tan Soo Khoon: Moving on to the Addendum of the Ministry of Finance, it is heartening to note that the Ministry intends to introduce proposals to amend the Companies Act to give better protection to investors. In the past few years a number of people have been brought to court for contravening the provisions of the Companies Act. These cases which are reported in international publications will be detrimental to our efforts to promote Singapore as an international financial centre.

There is one particular provision in the Companies Act (1967) which I would like to draw your attention to. Section 107 (1) of the Act provides that every company shall within one month after the date on which a transfer of any of its shares is lodged with the company, complete and have ready for delivery all the appropriate certificates in connection with the transfer. In spite of this provision, some companies listed on the Stock Exchange do not comply with the period of one month. The common grouse amongst investors is that during the time the share certificates are in the hands of company registrars they cannot sell their shares and one can imagine the frustration of shareholders who want to sell when prices are high but they have not got the scrips to deliver. As to why some companies take a long time to effect transfers of shares is beyond my comprehension; one can make all kinds of inferences. But what can be done is to take steps to ensure that this provision in the Companies Act is strictly followed.

In its Addendum to the Presidential Address, the Ministry of Labour states that:

'Workers must work hard, accumulate experience and develop skills. Their expectations must be adjusted in relation to the effort put in and the level of their skill and experience.'

This is a significant statement. In between the lines of such a statement, one can detect the justifiable fears of the Government that the attitudes of our workers constitute a problem which unless tackled immediately may prove detrimental to us. The cynics will laugh that year in and year out we have been telling people to work hard. But it is a reminder that has to be carried out all the time, and even now, with greater intensity if we are not to be in danger of slipping into complacency and take things for granted. Our younger people do not want to work in unpleasant and tough jobs like ship-repairing and construction, so we have foreign workers to do it. We need skilled workers but we have less skilled workers than there ought to be. Rapid growth in the past decade has led to abundant job opportunities, so industries experience high rates of labour turnover, and in such a situation workers do not stay long enough to accumulate skills.

These are the pitfalls that face us: a working population whose expectations sometime stretch beyond reality, who do not see the need to learn new skills, who do not know that the learning of skills is a long process that requires patience and which can never be acquired if one thinks in terms of better but short-term monetary rewards that come so easily by job-hopping. How do we promote the correct work ethos? How do we temper expectations? How do we educate our young people to change their present attitudes towards jobs and work? How do we prevent ourselves from falling into the same trap that has engulfed so many of the Western industrialised nations? Above all, how do we assure foreign investors that ours is, and can remain, a hardworking population? These are problems which require serious study, not just on the part of the Government but also of the trade unions.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I remember when I first became a Member of this distinguished House exactly two years ago, the President urged us all to vigorously voice the different shades of opinions on matters that affect us. But while Backbenchers have been most vigorous in making their voices heard on various issues, the same cannot be said of the attitudes of some of our Frontbenchers who choose to by-pass the heat that can be turned on in this House by Backbenchers.

I remember some months ago the Hon. Minister for Health made known to this House his plans to increase the fees for visits to the Accident and Emergency Departments. Although many may still not agree with him to this day, he at least had the good sense to make his announcement here and generate into motion the ensuing debate on the matter.

Unfortunately, not all Ministers possess the same enlightenment as the Hon. Minister for Health now appears to have. 4.30 p.m.

Mr Speaker: Order, Mr Tan. It is now 4.30 p.m.