MAIN AND DEVELOPMENT ESTIMATES OF SINGAPORE FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1ST APRIL, 1980 TO 31ST MARCH, 1981

Order read for resumed consideration in Committee of Supply [2nd Allotted Day].

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Head R - 2.40 p.m.

Dr Ang Kok Peng (Buona Vista): Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head R be reduced by $10 in respect of Object Group 1100 of Subhead Code RA-01 of the Main Estimates.

Sir, a year ago, the Minister for Labour, recognising the enhanced earning capacity of our workers and the higher cost of living, informed the House that the Workmen's Compensation Act would be amended accordingly to provide for a fairer compensa- tion for injured workers and the dependants of deceased workers [Vol. 38, col. 795].

Among the amendments being considered were the raising of the eligibility wage ceiling of $750 per month for non-manual workers which was fixed in 1971, and an upward revision of the quanta of maximum compensation payable for death and permanent incapacity fixed in 1975.

When fixing the new eligibility wage ceiling for non-manual workers and the quanta of compensation for injury and death, will the Minister consider including a provision in the Amendment Bill for the periodic upward adjustment of the eligibility wage ceiling and the quanta of compensation to take into account the increasing wages and the rising cost of living? This will obviate the need for the Minister to come to the House whenever a necessary revision has to be made. This makes for more speedy response to changing circumstances through an administrative process.

On another matter, the Minister, in reply to a Member, also informed the House that the use of CPF money for life insurance purposes was being deliberated upon. The rationale for this consideration was to include an insurance element in the CPF scheme so as to provide better protection for members' families, especially in the event of the untimely death of young workers early in employment.

Sir, these two matters are important, and I would like to ask the Minister to let the House know what progress has been made on them so far.

Mr Tan Soo Khoon (Alexandra): Sir, I seek your permission to speak now so that I need not move my amendment later on.

The Chairman: All right.

Mr Tan Soo Khoon: Sir, last year, together with the Member for Buona Vista, I raised the same question as to whether the Minister would introduce legislation to amend the Workmen's Compensation Act in order that more people, whose incomes had increased as a result of NWC recommendations over the years, would be covered by the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act. I recall that the Minister, in his reply, did say that the Act would be amended soon and that one of the amendments would relate to the ceiling of $750 per month. That was a year ago. I would like to stress that with each passing year and with incomes rising very fast, more and more people are falling outside the scope of the Workmen's Compensation Act and there is, therefore, a deep urgency to deal with this matter as quickly as possible.

Sir, I realise that if this ceiling is amended the Workmen's Compensation Act would not be the only piece of legislation involved. Also involved would be the Employment Act which at the moment covers only employees earning $750 and below. There would, of course, be implications on other policies, such as our work permit policy. 2.45 p.m.

Sir, in order to reinforce my arguments I would like to quote some figures. According to the Yearbook of Statistics, in 1971 the number of CPF contributors earning $800 a month and above was 17,230.

By 1978, this number rose to 120,147. This means a seven-fold increase over that for 1971. If we were to take the period 1972 to 1979, the implementation of NWC recommendations for these seven years resulted in increases of salaries of between 45 and 62%, depending on the grade of the employee. I would therefore like to join the Member for Buona Vista in urging the Minister not to delay this matter any longer and to take the necessary steps to amend the relevant legislations.

The Chairman: The Member for Khe Bong has an amendment on the same Subhead Code. Would you like to speak now, Mr Ho?

Mr Ho See Beng (Khe Bong): Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir.

Sir, I would like to draw the attention of the Minister for Labour to the arbitrary decision of the Central Provident Fund Board to impose a penalty by way of interest on the innocent employers who are alleged to have made late payments in respect of their employees' CPF contributions. The CPF Board charges an interest of 5% or $5, whichever is the greater, on an employer who pays his contributions later than 14th of the month after the due date. In one instance, an employer had paid his contribution for his employee on 11th February, 1980. But he wrote on his cheque "2-11-1980" in figures, instead of "11th February, 1980". When the CPF Board received the cheque, the officer-in-charge interpreted the date as 2nd November 1980. Under these circumstances, if the officer-in-charge had any commonsense he would have sent the cheque to the payer for alteration or banked in the cheque and let the bank decide whether to accept or reject the cheque. But the officer did neither. Instead, he kept the cheque for one week before posting it back to the payer with a covering note asking him to alter the date and month in the proper order. The employer did as he was told and returned the cheque. One week later, he received a pink notice asking him to pay an interest of $5 for late payment.

My point is this. Had this officer the commonsense to return the cheque in time, the question of late payment would not have arisen, Since the employer was not at fault, I would like to ask the Minister to look into this matter and, if the fault lies with the officer-in-charge, will the Minister ask him to withdraw the notice?

The Chairman: The Member for Toa Payoh also has an amendment on the same Subhead Code. Do you like to speak now?

Mr Eric Cheong Yuen Chee (Toa Payoh): Yes, Sir.

Sir, the Hon. Minister for Trade and Industry stated in his Budget statement that higher wages is one of the instruments for economic restructuring. Last year the National Wages Council recommended a high wage policy to induce employers to upgrade their manufacturing and administrative processes. Since the implementation of the 1979 NWC recommendations, few employers have taken such steps. This is evident in the comments made by the Hon. Minister for Trade and Industry in the Budget statement. I quote:

'Economic expansion was achieved more through a quantitative input than through productivity increases.'

Some employers took the easy way out. Under the pretext of reorganisation, they resorted to retrenching workers who, with long years of faithful service and experience, happened to be in the higher pay bracket. Most of the workers affected are in the 40-49 age group and therefore will have difficulty in fitting themselves into retraining schemes or in finding alternative employment. This sudden loss of employment causes considerable hardship to them and their families, especially those with children still in school. It is a nightmare for most of them.

A few employers even carried out such retrenchment exercises in a blatant manner by giving instant notices. Their contention is that they are paying their retrenched employees wages in lieu of notice: "So what is the fuss about adequate notice?" One employer even came up with the absurd argument that the affected employees might resort to sabotaging the company's operations. This employer even refused to divulge the names of employees who were to be retrenched until the very last minute.

A recent case involved employees in the computer services division of a large agency house. The company retrenched several keypunch operators. After a while they advertised vacancies for the same department. The job specifications could be handled by the retrenched employees. When the union pressed for the re-employment of these retrenched workers, the manager decided to abolish the posts altogether.

These are just a few instances of the malpractices carried out by employers. Not every reorganisation leads to increased efficiency and productivity. What is required is an established procedure to ensure that the interest of the worker is protected. It should be made mandatory for employers to notify the Ministry of Labour in any retrenchment exercise. The Ministry should also monitor the situation closely to see whether the retrenchment indeed results in increased efficiency and productivity after a period of time.

On the one hand, workers are exhorted to adopt good work ethics and be loyal to their employers; on the other hand, they are not assured of any job security. Although in the past the Ministry had issued some guidelines on retrenchment, they are rarely followed. Adequate notice should be given to the employees affected by a bona fide retrenchment exercise. This will enable them to make the necessary adjustments to their working career. I suggest that the Hon. Minister look into the possibility of amending section 44 of the Employment Act to give effect to the points that I have raised.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to touch on the Industrial Relations Division of the Ministry of Labour. This Division deserves commendation. Through its efforts the officers in this Division have contributed to the industrial peace that has prevailed in Singapore for so many years. Any person with lesser resolve would not have taken on the job of a conciliation officer. Whilst doing a good job, conciliation officers are sometimes confronted with the problem of wilful absence on the part of employers at conciliation meetings. By ignoring call notices, employers have not only insulted the Ministry of Labour but also defied the law. Some employers even resort to sending junior executives to attend conciliation meetings without any mandate to make firm decisions. They acted like mail boxes.

A recent case involved a cinema operator. Both parties had reached a settlement on wage claims submitted by the union to the Ministry of Labour. The agreement was concluded under the chairmanship of a conciliation officer. The employer, however, refused to turn up on two occasions to sign the collective agreement. The matter was resolved only when the union took a strike ballot. Such irresponsible attitude on the part of employers will erode the confidence of workers in referring cases to the Ministry of Labour.

Mr Speaker, Sir, although there is provision under section 22 of the Industrial Relations Act for the Minister to order compulsory attendances, for obvious reasons it is not practical for the Minister to exercise his power in the cases that I have mentioned. I suggest that a provision be made for the Head of the Conciliation Division to enforce compulsory attendances.

Finally, Sir, I would like to touch on the policy on marriage of work permit holders. In line with the Government's policy of encouraging skills and the acquisition of higher skills, may I suggest to the Minister to review the policy of granting marriage licences to work permit holders. If a work permit holder has the necessary approved skills, he should be allowed to contract a marriage before completing five years' service in the same establishment.

Encik Mansor Haji Sukaimi (Kampong Kembangan): Sir, may I be allowed to speak on this amendment?

The Chairman: Yes, Encik Mansor.

Encik Mansor Haji Sukaimi: Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir.

Sir, I understand that there is an Industrial Affairs Council under the purview of the National Productivity Board. I would like to know whether it is possible for the Minister to inform the House of the progress made by the Industrial Affairs Council.

I think there is a need to revive this Council, or even to reconstitute it as a national tripartite Industrial Affairs Council. There is a need for such a Council, preferably a tripartite one as I have said just now, so that it could guide and expedite the efforts at industrial modernization and implementation of policy and practices of industrial relations. Perhaps this council should be concerned with the following four matters. First, it could coordinate the effort to raise the professional standards of personnel officers and trade unionists. Perhaps with this coordination, we would be able to identify core issues, skills or methodology which will be applicable and needed both by the personnel officers and the unionists. If we can develop such common principles or approaches, then there is a greater chance for both the unionists and personnel officers to bring about better cooperation at the shopfloor level. 3.00 p.m.

Secondly, this council could help in promoting the effort to select the types of industrial policies or practices on a sector basis. For example, we could develop the "common good" policies for the banking sector, for the shipbuilding sector, or even for the finance sector. By so doing, the personnel officers in these different sectors together with unionists working in these sectors will understand the prime concerns and issues of the sectors.

Thirdly, with the identification and development of better industrial relations policies and methods, there is a better chance for the employers and the employees to achieve good working relationships and put into effect what we have been saying for so many years about the need to introduce greater consultation and joint action in enterprise.

Finally, this council could serve as a consultant body which could help companies to identify the types of industrial relations policies or committees or programmes that are appropriate for the respective companies, and help develop such policies in the companies. I think we all know there is a need to upgrade the industrial relations policies and practices in Singapore. A very good justification is our effort to restructure our economy. I foresee that with the rapid restructuring of the economy, two factors will become particularly relevant to the industrial relations practitioners. First, the question of technology and, secondly, the types of workers that we will have in the years to come. Let me take technology first. Technology will become more sophisticated and more complex. In such a situation, the organisation itself will be complex. There will be greater specialisation, division of work, greater delegation, and so on. A personnel officer or unionist working in such a situation cannot solve problems merely by being experts in interpreting labour laws or in out-witting one another at meetings or negotiations. Both personnel officers and unionists not only must be competent in their respective fields but also must grasp the human implications of the actual processes of production, the application of technology, the way the companies are being organised, and the factors that make the companies succeed and viable.

On the part of the workers, with greater education and skill training, we can expect our workers to be more educated and more skilful in the years to come. There will be one trend which will be significant in the field of industrial relations: the new breed of workers will be less keen in accepting the authoritarian modes of supervision or in the "take-it-or-leave-it" method of settling grievances. They would, I think, want to know the reasons why things are done. They want to know the full facts of any case which involve them, and it will be much more difficult to keep on giving them half replies on all matters, all the time. The net effect of all this is that personnel officers and unionists must be competent and professional all round. In this regard, I think the formation of a high level tripartite Industrial Relations Council with this consultancy service will be a positive step towards achieving the objective of improving the quality of industrial relations in Singapore.

The next question I would like to raise, Mr Speaker, Sir, concerns the question of retrenched workers with regard to the use of the Skills Development Fund. I think there is a need for Government to pay greater attention and to give more money from the Skills Development Fund for the retraining of retrenched workers. We need to emphasise this, not just to say that the Fund will be used to upgrade workers as a whole. There must be this specific emphasis on retrenched workers.

In so doing, I would also like to ask if the Minister could consider whether the Skills Development Fund could be used to pay living allowances to retrenched workers while they undergo retraining courses or upgrading courses. This is important because if we want a retrenched worker to undergo a retraining course, we should also help him by paying some living allowances because he has a family to look after. I do not think this will be a serious burden to the Fund because the question of massive retrenchments will not be an indefinite problem. It may be so in the initial years but definitely not for all the years.

In suggesting that the Skills Development Fund be used to pay living allowances to retrenched workers, I do not in any way suggest that this effort to improve one's own skills and knowledge must be the responsibility of Government. On the contrary, I would like to stress that Singapore workers must be prepared to view this effort to improve themselves educationally or in skills to be their personal responsibility. They must make the effort. But then, besides this effort, if we have this strong backing of the Government, particularly through the Skills Develop- ment Fund, this effort to upgrade skills will have a greater success in the future.

Dr Augustine H.H. Tan (Whampoa): Mr Speaker, Sir, I seek clarification from the Hon. Minister for Labour on a couple of questions. First, would he have information regarding the extent of the implementation of the National Wages Council's recommendations from year to year, particularly for last year? My impression has been that it is only the unionised sector together with the public sector that implements these recommendations in full.

Secondly, would the Minister inform this House about the current work permit policy? Sir, I raise this question because from the Economic Survey which was introduced to this House by the Minister for Trade and Industry, it was noted that last year there was a 6.6% increase in our labour force. Natural increase of population, together with increased participation in the workforce, could not have accounted for more than 3 to 4%. Therefore, there must have been a very substantial inflow of foreign workers into Singapore.

Sir, Government's announced policy is to upgrade our industries and therefore to encourage employment of more skilled labour. I would like to know the increase in the number of work permit holders in Singapore. Are they mostly skilled labour or unskilled labour? Are they blue-collar workers, white-collar workers, or a combination of both? Are they day-to-day work permit holders, i.e. they commute to and from Malaysia? Do these workers have to reside in Singapore and, if so, are there accommodation problems involved? Does the Minister envisage placing some annual quota on work permit holders coming into Singapore?

Sir, I ask these questions not to embarrass the Minister but to try and get a clearer picture of Government's approach to this socalled second industrial revolution, because a high wage policy by itself without attention towards the supply of labour and the composition of labour will not be successful. In other words, it is no use having NWC recommendations of 15 to 20% a year and then allowing firms to freely recruit labour from wherever they choose because obviously firms faced with having to pay higher wages for Singaporean workers would then go abroad to seek cheap labour. Earlier, one of the Members pointed out that they would then take the incentive to retrench their more senior workers in order to escape the consequences of higher NWC awards from year to year, especially when the NWC specifically puts in a provision every year to the effect that workers must have been in employment for at least a year before they can be entitled to NWC awards.

Then, Sir, there is another feature in the past work permit policy which militates against this high wage policy and mobility of labour. In the mistaken belief that there was a very high labour turnover and that workers were adopting an irresponsible work attitude and were job-hopping, I think the NWC has in the past tried to penalise these so-called job-hoppers. At the same time, we have the Minister for Trade and Industry arguing that we should upgrade our industries and that we should not fear retrenchment and there must be mobility of labour and so on. We have to allow for mobility of labour if we want to upgrade skills. We have to allow for mobility of labour if we want to force employers to pay higher wages. And then we have got to close the loopholes in respect of our work permit policy if we want to implement our high wage policy. Otherwise, Sir, my belief is that we are going to get a very distorted wage structure in Singapore as a consequence of these inconsistent policies.

The Minister for Labour (Mr Ong Pang Boon): Mr Speaker, Sir, the hon. Member for Buona Vista is correct that I did inform Parliament in 1979 that the Workmen's Compensation Act would be amended to provide for fairer compensation for injured workers and dependants of those who died. Since the Act was last revised in October 1975, the income of workers has risen substantially. Using NWC increases over these years, a worker with an income of $330 per month in 1975 would today be earning $470 per month, an increase of 42%. My Ministry is at the moment finalising the review of the Workmen's Compensation Act, and the revision to the rates of compensation would take these factors into consideration.

With regard to CPF insurance, two schemes are being considered at the moment. The first is in the form of life insurance and is designed to provide a lump sum income-related payment to the dependants of a CPF member if he dies while under the cover of such a scheme.

The second is closely related to mortgage reducing insurance. The aim of this scheme is to provide those members who are using their CPF contributions to repay mortgages on their HDB, JTC and HUDC flats and houses an insurance cover such that their outstanding mortgages will be repaid if they die before discharging the mortgages. This will ensure that their dependants will not be deprived of a roof over their heads when the members die. These two schemes shall be administered by the CPF Board and the premia for such covers shall be payable from the members' CPF contributions. The Board has appointed a firm of consulting actuaries to carry out feasibility studies on the two schemes as well as to draft out the details. Officers of my Ministry and the CPF Board are working with the actuarial consultant to put the finishing touches to the scheme. When ready, they will be submitted to the Government for consideration. 3.15 p.m.

I agree with the hon. Member for Alexandra that there is a need to revise the present wage coiling of $750 per month provided under the Employment Act and the Workmen's Compensation Act. The Ministry is aware that over the years since the wage ceiling was last fixed in 1968 for the Employment Act, the wages of workers in Singapore have increased substantially. On the basis of NWC recommended wage increases alone, a worker earning $750 per month in 1972, prior to the introduction of NWC increases, would be enjoying a salary of about $1,399 per month in 1979. As I have said just now, we are finalising the review of the Workmen's Compensation Act and will be submitting the proposal on the revised wage ceiling, as well as other amendments, to the Government for consideration. But as for the Employment Act, a major review of the legislation is being made. The wage ceiling is among the amendments being considered. The views of the employers' organisations and trade unions will be sought before amendments are tabled in Parliament.

Coming to the Member for Khe Bong, under the Central Provident Fund Act an employer must pay CPF contribution for his employees not later than 14 days after the end of the month; employers with a workforce of 500 or more are given up to 21 days to make the payment. In the case of employers of seamen on foreign-going ships, they are allowed one month and 14 days to make the payment. Any employer who fails to pay within the relevant period is liable to pay interest on the overdue contribution at the rate of 1 1/2% (and not 5% as stated by the Member for Khe Bong) or the sum of $5 whichever is higher. I think these prescribed periods for payment are reasonable. However, where employers have acceptable reasons for late payment, the liable interest could be waived in part or in full by the CPF Board.

In the case cited by the Member for Khe Bong, had the cheque with the date written as "2-11-1980" been presented to the CPF Board, it would have been accepted and not returned to the employer for the date to be changed into the locally accepted form. In fact, American companies as well as some local employers had had their cheques accepted by the Board even though the dates on their cheques were not written in the locally acceptable form, that is, with the date first, then the month and the year. The CPF Board returns cheques to employers for correction only when ambiguities are found. In such cases, if late payment results, the Board will waive the interest, provided it is satisfied that the ambiguities are not made intentionally for the purpose of delaying the payment of contributions. In the particular instance quoted by the Member for Khe Bong, I shall ask the CPF Board to reconsider the case again and, if it is a genuine case of misinterpretation, I shall ask the Board to refund the interest to the employer concerned.

The Member for Toa Payoh has asked for the establishment of the mandatory system of retrenchment to be reported and also an avenue to establish that retrenchments are actually bona fide. He also said that some employers took undue advantage of the recent NWC increases to reorganise and in so doing retrenched the older and higher paid staff. My Ministry is aware of the likelihood of abuse of the present move to restructure our economy and of the problems that can arise out of retrenchment. In my address to the National Convention on Industrial Relations for the 1980's on 10th January this year, I had cautioned managements that they should not, under the guise of upgrading, retrench older workers merely to save on the wage bill. I also urged them to be sensitive to the problems created by retrenchment and to consult unions to ensure the smooth implementation of a reorganisation programme. Retrenchments should be a last resort. Efforts must first be made to retrain and redeploy the redundant workers.

The Member said that some companies retrenched workers who were mainly in the 40-49 age group. He may wish to know that during the period July 1979 to February 1980, 342 workers were retrenched partly as a result of the 1979 NWC wage increase. 82% of them were below 40 years old and only 18% were in the 40 and above age group. More than half of them have since found employment. No doubt more would have been employed if they were prepared to accept lower paid jobs. Herein lies the crux of the problem. A satisfactory solution is not easy to find. While the young may easily be retrained to equip them for other equally remunerative jobs, the older white-collar workers who are mainly in the senior clerical grades would present a difficult problem.

On his proposal that mandatory reporting of retrenchment be introduced, I would like to inform him that my Ministry currently has a system requiring employers to give the Ministry and the trade union concerned at least two weeks' notice of any retrenchment, irrespective of the number to be retrenched. The employers' organisations are cooperating with the Ministry in obtaining their members' compliance on this matter. The trade unions have also been requested to keep the Ministry informed of impending retrenchments. Upon receipt of such notice or information, the Labour Inspectorate will conduct an investigation into the proposed retrenchment. This includes reasons for retrenchment, the number and profile of workers involved, and the benefits to be paid. Workers who will be retrenched will also be referred to the Employment Service for job placement. With the cooperation of employers and trade unions, the Labour Ministry is being notified of all retrenchment, especially in large companies.

The Government takes a very dim view of any management that abuses its right to retrench. Although a management prerogative, the union can always discuss retrenchment with the management. In cases where management refuses to discuss, my Ministry can and will be ready to get both parties together. Unions should, in fact, refer cases to the Ministry where employers retrench older workers in the higher paid brackets under the guise of reorganisation. Investigations will be made to ensure that management has not abused its right to retrench. If it has, my Ministry will consider these cases under section 35 (2) of the Industrial Relations Act with a view to reinstatement of the retrenched workers. If these cases fall under section 81 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act, they will be referred to the Industrial Arbitration Court to consider reinstatement of the retrenched workers. Since existing arrangements regarding retrenchments are working well, I do not see the need at this stage to have mandatory retrenchment procedures. If at a later date it is found that a system of mandatory notification of impending retrenchment is effective in preventing abuses by employers, I am prepared to reconsider the matter again.

Sir, in our eagerness to protect our workers, especially the older higher paid workers in their jobs, we should not lose sight of the objectives of our development strategies in the 1980's which have been reiterated by the Minister for Trade and Industry in his Budget statement. To meet the challenges of the 80's, our existing industries have to upgrade and, wherever possible, mechanize, automate and computerise to save on labour and raise productivity. Such restructuring and reorganisation of production processes may lead to retrenchment of workers who would then be made available to the new or expanding high-value added industry. Where retraining of retrenched workers is necessary to fit them for other jobs, the Skills Development Fund will provide the financial resources for this purpose. I realise the trauma of being retrenched and the difficulties of having to find another job at an age when adjustment is most difficult. On the other hand, not to make the leap to a higher stage of economic development at a time when our economy is strong and our stock both in terms of political goodwill and financial reserve is high, we will be forever condemned to the rank of the underdeveloped countries, characterised by low income and low standard of living of its people. 3.30 p.m.

The Member for Toa Payoh has also called for relaxation of the marriage policy where the work permit holder is a skilled worker. For his information, if the work permit holder is a skilled worker, the current marriage policy allows the couple to contract marriage without requiring the work permit holder to satisfy the five-year work requirement. Hence, there is no need to review the marriage policy for such cases.

The Member for Toa Payoh may also be interested to know that skilled foreign workers issued with a three-year work permit are eligible to apply for permanent residence after completing two years of employment in a job relevant to their skills or qualifications. They may also rent HDB or JTC apartments. They and their immediate families may receive treatment in Government hospitals and clinics at rates applicable to Singapore citizens. Their children may attend schools here and pay old rates of school fees.

So as far as skilled work permit holders are concerned, our marriage policy is, in fact, very liberal. There is no difficulty at present to get married after working, say, for a period of about two years.

The Member for Toa Payoh paid compliments to the Industrial Relations Division of my Ministry. I must thank him for that. However, he has observed that some employers wilfully do not attend conciliation meetings chaired by officials of my Ministry. This is true but it rarely occurs. The Member for Toa Payoh is correct in saying that the Commissioner for Labour cannot compel the attendance of the employers at conciliation meetings held under section 20 of the Industrial Relations Act. However, if an employer wilfully refuses to attend such meetings, the Commissioner can notify the Minister who is empowered under section 22 (1) of the same Act to compel his attendance. An employer who refuses to comply with the Minister's direction to attend is guilty of an offence and is liable upon conviction to a term of imprisonment not exceeding 12 months, or to a fine not exceeding $2,000 or to both imprisonment and fine. So far, employers have complied with such directions.

As for the specific case he mentioned about the director of a cinema who failed to turn up on two occasions at, the Labour Ministry to sign a collective agreement, I must say that I was not aware of it at the particular time. If what he said is true, I would say that the officer handling the case could have been more firm in dealing with the employer. He should have notified me immediately and I would have directed the employer to turn up or bring him to court.

The Member for Kampong Kembangan raised the question of setting up an Industrial Affairs Council within the National Productivity Board, I think it is better we leave the National Productivity Board to concentrate on matters relating to productivity rather than venture into matters of industrial relations. In January, we had a seminar on Industrial Relations in the 80's where the employers, unions and the Ministry's representatives took part. In fact, I am waiting for a report on the proceedings of this seminar and the concrete recommendations made at this seminar. But, nevertheless, it is my view that matters of industrial relations should be dealt with by the Ministry and we should leave the NPB to do its main job, that is, to consider ways and means to raise productivity.

Encik Mansor Haji Sukaimi: Sir, can I raise a point of clarification? In fact, it was at that convention on Industrial Relations in the 80's that this question about the Industrial Affairs Council was raised. In our discussions on the proposal to form this Industrial Relations Council, one of the officials mentioned that there was already an Industrial Relations Council under the purview of the National Productivity Board. It was formed in 1975. So my question really is not to propose that it be formed under the NPB but to find out from the Minister whether this Council has been functioning and, if so, what is the progress of this Council which is under the NPB.

Mr Ong Pang Boon: Sir, I am afraid I would not be able to reply to this question. But since he has raised it, I am quite prepared to look into the matter and give him a reply in writing.

The Member for Whampoa wants to know the extent of NWC implementation among the industries. We do make annual surveys of the extent of NWC implementation, not just among the unionised sector but also the non-unionised sector. Since he is interested, rather than burdening Members of this House, maybe I could send him a copy of this report because it is quite a lengthy one.

As far as work permit policies are concerned, there is hardly any change. The policy is not to impose a quota at present. It is the view of the EDB as well as the Ministry of Trade and Industry not to arbitrarily impose a quota at present, but to allow the high wage policy to work its course. That means we will review this question in another two years' time. If by that time it is found that the high wage policy has not been effective in forcing the labour-intensive and the inefficient industries to upgrade and save labour, then I think this question of making it difficult for employers to recruit work permit holders will be looked into seriously. If a quota is necessary, probably a quota would be imposed. But right now, the thinking is to allow this high wage policy to work its course.

I think the NWC recommendation that wage increases should not be extended to job-hoppers was made before this new high wage policy was introduced. Although there was such a recommendation, in practice, it was found impossible to carry out. In fact, very few employers were prepared to, carry out the recommendation of the NWC on this matter. So although there was this recommendation, in practice, it was never carried out. So the question of hindering or obstructing labour mobility does not arise.

Mr Eric Cheong Yuen Chee: Sir, may I be allowed to make some clarification on the matters that I have raised? The Minister has stated just now that normally it is the practice of employers to give at least two weeks' notice, in the case of retrenchment. I am afraid I have to inform the Minister that most employers have got round this loop-hole by giving two weeks' notice only on the number of employees who are being retrenched, but not their names. The names are given on the day prior to the day of retrenchment.

Mr Ong Pang Boon: Sir, if that is the case, I will look into the guidelines again and make the necessary amendment.

Dr Augustine Tan: Sir, I just have a point of clarification to raise here. If I remember correctly, there used to be a policy which prevented work permit holders from changing employers before having worked for a period of five years. Is that policy still in force?

Mr Ong Pang Boon: Sir, it is no longer in force. For certain categories, we do impose a six-month period. If a work permit holder is moving to a high-skilled industry, then that restriction is not applied at all. 3.45 p.m.

Encik Mansor Haji Sukaimi: On a point of clarification, Sir. In his answer to the point raised by the Member for Toa Payoh, the Minister mentioned about the Skills Development Fund being used to help the retrenched workers who were undergoing retraining courses. Does this include payment in the form of living allowances? If not, would the Minister consider the merit or otherwise of such payment and, if so, would he recommend that such living allowances be paid?

Mr Ong Pang Boon: Sir, the Skills Development Fund is being administered by the Ministry of Finance. I think the Minister for Finance has appointed a committee headed by Professor Lim Chong Yah to advise him on how the fund is to be used. If I am correct, the payment of living allowances to trainees has been rejected outright.

Dr Ang Kok Peng: Sir, in view of the explanation given by the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment by leave, withdrawn.

The following amendment stood in the name of Mr Eric Cheong Yuen Chee:-

(4) That the sum to be allocated for Head R be reduced by the whole sum in respect of Subhead Code RC-02 of the Main Estimates.

The Chairman: Mr Cheong, amendment No. (4).

Mr Eric Cheong Yuen Chee: I am not moving, Sir.

Dr Ong Leong Boon (Kim Seng): Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head R be reduced by $10 in respect of Object Group 1210 of Subhead Code RD-02 of the Main Estimates.

Sir, the purpose of moving this amendment is to seek a commitment from the Ministry of Labour to review the Guide to the assessment of traumatic injuries for workmen's compensation. The Ministry produced this Guide in June 1978 and it has been in use for the past 1 1/2 years. The intention of this Guide, initially, was to help assessors evaluate more accurately the extent of permanent incapacity of injured workers. I must say that to a certain extent this Guide has been useful. However, in terms of application, the manual was not, in the view of the Commissioner for Labour, a guide but a gospel of truth, or something of that nature. It is something like an Instruction Manual where you have to abide very rigidly to the quantum of award stated.

In view of certain problems and glaring deficiencies of this Guide, I think the Ministry should now look into the question of reviewing the Guide, once and for all. The main defect of this Guide is that it looks at a human being not as a whole functional unit but more as an articulated skeleton, which is not what we are. There are also areas, such as soft-tissue injuries, where the Guide does not provide for a clear-cut compensation. In cases like this, one begins to wonder what value a doctor should give to a pound of flesh lost. Again, the Guide does not specifically allow for an assessment of long-term complications where problems could arise from injuries sustained some five to ten years earlier. This is a very important point because ultimately, when one thinks of proper compensation, there can be many injured parties who could have been left out without a fair award. In view of the points raised, I would urge the Ministry of Labour to consider updating or reviewing the Guide. I am sure the details could be left to the experts to work out.

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour (Mr Fong Sip Chee): Sir, I concede the point raised by the hon. Member for Kim Seng. I have no intention to pick bones with him, or I might emerge less better off in the process.

I thank the Member for stating the purpose of the Guide which we circulated to medical practitioners in June 1978 i.e. 11/2 years ago. The feedback from doctors and surgeons is that the Guide has been useful as it provides easy reference in assessing a single and simple injury. To that extent it is adequate. But I quite agree with the Member that there is need for a revision of this guide, particularly for multiple injuries.

Now, in assessing the injuries, doctors hitherto tend to assess the disabilities at individual points or individual areas, and simply total up the percentages and thus arrive at the final figure of so many percent incapacity. I am told by the doctors in my Ministry that this method is medically unsound - I cannot make that statement myself. The final figure would, therefore, indicate the extent of disability which could be very much more than the actual disability suffered by the injured worker.

In the process of reviewing the guide, we will no doubt consult the medical profession and those other people concerned. The Member may be pleased to note that in the revision, we will include a composite table to help doctors to assess multiple injuries. Perhaps we can draw examples from the American Medical Association. This is a table which serves as a guide.

It is not true, as alleged by the Member, that the Ministry has insisted that the Guide should be accepted as the gospel truth. The reason why the Ministry published this Guide was that doctors had found that there were no guidelines to ascertain the quantum of assessment. Some of their assessments were challenged either by the injured workers or by the insurance companies. This prolonged the process of compensation, and the injured worker would get the compensation very much later. Hence, we produced the Guide. But by and large, the Guide has succeeded in its objective, and it is about time we looked into it again and revised it.

With regard to the Member's observation on the extended pain, inconvenience or disability suffered as a result of an old injury caused, say, ten years ago, this is true in some cases. But it is very difficult for the Ministry to lay down guidelines. A worker might come back and claim that the injury he sustained ten years ago is now disturbing him and that he is feeling the pain, and so on. I am not a doctor, but I would imagine that if a worker were to leave his employment and switch to another kind of job, circumstances may aggravate the injury. It is then difficult to blame on the old injury as being responsible for the present suffering of the worker after ten years. The injury could have been aggravated either by his job or through his own negligence. Much as we sympathise with such workers, I do not think it is possible at all for us to consider this point now. Perhaps some amicable solution may be found later, but I cannot see how this is possible in the near future.

Dr Ong Leong Boon: Sir, when I spoke earlier on, I refrained from going into the various details. But I can assure the Hon. Senior Parliamentary Secretary that certain well-defined injuries which develop later complications could be included in the guidelines. This has been a recurrent problem in our everyday encounter with workmen's compensation. That is why I suggested that the details could be left to a team of experts, so that they can come out with a guide for awarding compensation that is fair to all parties concerned, the worker as well as the employer.

If the Senior Parliamentary Secretary has no further comments, I am quite satisfied with his commitment to review the guidelines for compensation. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment by leave, withdrawn.

The following amendment stood in the name of Dr Ong Leong Boon -

(6) That the sum to be allocated for Head R be reduced by $10 in respect of Object Group 1210 of Sub-head Code RD-03 of the Main Estimates.

Dr Ong Leong Boon: Sir, I am not moving my amendment (6).

The Chairman: All right.

Dr Ong Leong Boon: Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head R be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead Code RD-06 of the Main Estimates.

Sir, I move this amendment to seek information on the proposed Institute of Occupational Safety and Health. I notice that there is a vote of more than $3 million for this Institute. The subject has been raised previously in this House. I wonder if the Ministry could enlighten us as to whether the Institute will be established this year and, if so, what will be its sphere of activities.

Mr Fong Sip Chee: Sir, the sum provided under this Subhead is about $335,000 and not $3 million. For one moment I hoped the Member was correct because I would then have more money to spend. But it is only about 10% of what he has quoted.

Dr Ong Leong Boon: Sir, on page 289, under Subhead Code RD-06, there is a provision of $3.5 million for "Financing of the Institute of Occupational Safety and Health - Contribution to the Institute of Occupational Safety and Health."

Mr Fong Sip Chee: Sir, there is only a provision of $335,190. The bold print at the bottom indicates the total of Government's commitment for the whole Subhead Code. Sir, I do not think we should squabble about the figures. We can clarify that later.

The objectives of the Institute had been discussed quite extensively in this House at the previous Budget sitting. I need not go into that again. In his capacity as the Chairman of the Occupational Safety and Health Committee of the NTUC, the Member for Kim Seng has been more than vocal on this subject and has been a great help to the Ministry in all these years, and his concern for the workers' welfare is noted. The Institute will be set up precisely for the purpose of meeting the various objectives mentioned by the hon. Member and other Members in this House. 4.00 p.m.

The drafting of the legislation for the Institute has reached a very advanced stage and we hope to introduce it in the latter part of this year. The reason we have taken so long a time to go through the fine print of the draft legislation is that we do not wish to charge too heavy a responsibility on the Institute for the time being, as it might render it impossible to discharge its functions; hence it would appear to fall short of its objectives. However, the legislation will have sufficient leeway for the Institute to undertake its activities and to implement the immediate and the long-term objectives of the Government's concern on the welfare and health of the workers.

When the Institute comes into operation, it will concentrate mainly on training for the first two years. When its muscles and bones are sufficiently developed, it will take on consultancy work in the third year, and perhaps go into research in the fifth year. So we have set ourselves a charted course and a phased development. We hope that this will be a cornerstone in our efforts to look after the welfare, health and safety of the workers.

Dr Ong Leong Boon: Sir, in view of the Senior Parliamentary Secretary's explanation, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $13,929,140 for Head R ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates.

Head M -

Mr Ho Kah Leong (Jurong): Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head M be reduced by $10 in respect of Object Group 1100 of Subhead Code MA-01 of the main Estimates.

Sir, flat dwellers have always been said to be lacking in neighbourliness. Hence the setting up of community centres and the formation of Residents' Committees to pro- mote neighbourliness. However, the community centres and the RC centres are not the only places for such a purpose. Coffee shops in housing estates where people, especially the older generation, meet and chit chat, can serve as useful social centres as well. Hence it is not an uncommon sight to see coffee shops packed in the evenings, so much so that the shopkeepers have to extend their business to five-footways and con-courses. This has become a pastime for the flat dwellers, if not a way of life.

However, the recent action taken by the Ministry concerned to restrict the business of coffee shops within the premises has caused much inconvenience to the shopkeepers as well as those residents who are regular customers. I therefore appeal to the Minister concerned not to deprive the people of their little enjoyment of a cup of tea or coffee in a cool and comfortable environment in the evening. If environmental health is the thing that is worrying the Minister, I am sure the shopkeepers will be too pleased to comply with the necessary health requirements.

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment (Mr Chor Yeok Eng): ( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, on the question raised by the hon. Member for Jurong, I would say that in principle for the sake of maintaining environmental cleanliness and hygiene in public places and in consideration of public interest, we cannot allow coffee shops and eating establishments which are supposed to operate their business within their premises to extend such business to five-foot ways and other public areas such as an open space. The reason is that this may cause pollution and obstruction to members of the public.

On the other hand, if the business is extended to premises or open areas belonging to private property owners who have given permission for such use, then, if public health conditions are satisfied as suggested by the Member, we will be prepared to consider such request.

Mr Ho Kah Leong: Sir, since flexibility is allowed in this instance, there is a leeway for the shopkeepers to extend their business beyond their shop premises. I therefore beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Tan Soo Khoon (Alexandra): Sir, I beg to move,

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

Sir, last year it was reported in the newspapers that scores of patrons of a restaurant somewhere in the Chinatown area came down with food poisoning after attending a wedding dinner at that restaurant. Immediate action was taken by the Ministry of the Environment, and I think the restaurant ceased to function for a while.

In another case not too long ago, a well-known restaurant in the Orchard Road area was fined in court for failing to conform to certain health regulations. Sir, my own experience with restaurants is not entirely pleasant. I have seen instances of rats darting about in restaurants and I have even come across cases of food prepared next to toilets.

The Acting Minister for Social Affairs (Dr Ahmad Mattar): Why do you go to such restaurants then?

Mr Tan Soo Khoon: What is most alarming in these cases is that some of the offenders are the better-known restaurants, very posh, very well renovated, and this is in so far as the area where the patrons are seated. But what goes on inside the kitchen, I think it would probably make our stomachs churn.

Sir, my specific question to the Minister is: is the Ministry's enforcement unit tackling this problem adequately? In view of the mushrooming of restaurants in recent years, are there sufficient inspectors to go round the restaurants regularly to ensure that these food establishments conform to health regulations, so that incidents of the kind I mentioned earlier are not repeated?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to stress that no less than the highest standard of health control and cleanliness in restaurants is essential in view of the fact that more and more Singaporeans are now eating outside their homes. Furthermore, Singapore receives more than two million tourists a year and certainly we would like them to go away with the impression that Singapore is not only a clean city but also clean where eating is concerned.

The Minister for the Environment (Mr Lim Kim San): Mr Speaker, Sir, after listening to the Member for Alexandra, I am inclined to agree with the Acting Minister for Social Affairs when he wondered why the Member keeps frequenting such restaurants. In fact, he should warn his friends against going to such restaurants. Having heard him, I think if he ever invites me to go out and eat with him, I would have to decline the offer for he seems to have a penchant for finding restaurants with rats running all over the place or with cooks preparing food next to the toilet.

Sir, the Ministry of the Environment has enough health enforcement officers to go round regularly to check on restaurants and eating houses. If we had not been enforcing high standards, I think the Member would have read about more incidents of food poisoning in the papers than he had. But I would like to inform him that all restaurants, eating houses, coffee shops and premises where food is prepared are licensed by us. The licence has to be renewed annually and we make sure that the premises are kept clean and that food is prepared amidst clean surroundings. Otherwise we will take action to prosecute and when the time comes for renewal of licence, their licences will not be renewed. In fact, for the information of Members, last year 297 eating houses and 22 restaurants were prosecuted for not keeping their premises clean. So we do keep a lookout, and when the Member next goes out eating, I hope his experience will be a more pleasant one.

Mr Tan Soo Khoon: Sir, I certainly look forward to having a meal with the Minister in one of those restaurants which are free of mice darting all over the place. In view of the satisfactory reply given by the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Ho See Beng (Khe Bong): ( In Mandarin): Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head M be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead Code M B-03 of the Main Estimates.

Sir, may I range my remarks over my amendments (4) and (6)?

The Chairman: Yes. 4.15 p.m.

Mr Ho See Beng: ( In Mandarin): Sir, last month, I asked the Minister for the Environment in this Chamber a Question for Oral answer as to why the Ministry of the Environment did not allow the operator of an eating establishment to put their tables and chairs on the five-foot way or in any open space outside his business premises. The answer given by the Senior Parliamentary Secretary was not very satisfactory, and that is why I am raising it here again in the hope that a satisfactory and reasonable solution will be given. Instead, the matter has been aggravated; aggravated in the sense that after I had raised the question, officials of the Ministry of the Environment who used to inspect the area three or four times a week now go there three or four times a day. This goes to show that the Ministry of the Environment is going all-out to exert pressure on such hawkers, and thus posing a challenge to the Member of Parliament. This shows that their attitude is "Well, you can go and see your Member of Parliament. But we can put pressure on you. See what you can do now." Sir, this is a matter that should be solved the sooner the better.

Sir, I raised this question in this House in all good faith and with all good intention and in the hope that after my question the Ministry of the Environment would give some flexibility and solve the matter amicably to the satisfaction of all concerned. But the effect has been the reverse. I would like to ask why this problem cannot be solved with a certain measure of reasonableness. If the officials of the Hawkers' Department can exercise their powers to do whatever they like, then there will be more problems.

In the Housing Board estates, there are no hawkers operating their business on the five-foot way. They only put out one or two tables in the open space available. There is no obstruction whatsoever. If the Ministry thinks that the hawkers will dirty the place, then the Hawkers' Department can either take action against them in court or give them warning. They have the right to do so. If, on the other hand, hawkers are able to keep the open space clean, there should be no reason why some flexibility could not be exercised by allowing them to put one or two tables out in the open space. If the Ministry insists on prohibiting hawkers from putting up some chairs and tables there, then the matter will bring about very serious social problems. Is the Minister aware that there are a few thousand food hawkers in Housing Board estates, and each hawker stall employs about two or three employees? If he multiplies these figures, he will realise that a few thousand people will lose their jobs if he does not allow them to extend their business. With such a problem facing them, the stall holders will have to sack their employees. If these workers cannot get other employment, it will give rise to a very serious social problem. These people working in the hawker stalls are old people, mostly above 40 years old. Moreover, they are poorly educated or illiterate. So they will have difficulty in finding alternative employment. Which factory will want to employ such people? The factories in Singapore now only go for skilled workers or trainable workers, and these hawker stall assistants do not belong to this category. And with hardly any formal education, they cannot be trained. Who wants to employ them? Where can they go? So, if the Ministry of the Environment could exercise some flexibility and treat these people with sympathy and kind consideration the matter can be solved.

Sir, the officials in charge should be flexible in exercising their powers and performing their duties. Where they can be soft, they should act with softness to these people. They should not take the hard line all the time. I would also like to point out that some officials have not been doing their job properly. I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to spend some time on a visit to Jurong Town to see for himself the state of bus-stops there. He will see that the place is heavily littered with cigarette butts, as numerous as the number of stars in the sky. But the officials of the Ministry of the Environment do not care less although they can find a lot of cigarette butts at bus-stops in Jurong. So. when it is necessary for them to be tough they do not do so, and when it is not necessary for them to be tough, they would act more than necessary.

The next matter I would like to raise relates to a woman hawker. She is doing a small business of selling yu tao ko, i.e. yam cake, and bee hoon in a coffee shop in my constituency. Because business has been poor, she switched over to selling laksa. A hawker inspector found out about this change and told her that she was not allowed to change her business and that she must continue selling yam cake and bee hoon as before. She was threatened with non-renewal of her licence if she refused to comply with the instructions. After receiving the warning, she came to see me for assistance. I wrote for her a letter addressed to the head of the Hawkers Department. What kind of a reply did I get? It said that the Hawkers Department had interfered with the hawker on the ground that she had changed her business to one of selling cooked food in the coffee-shop which did not hold an eating house licence; so no cooking of laksa there was allowed. When I explained to the Hawkers Department that both the yam cake and the laksa alike were actually prepared at the hawker's home and then brought to the coffee shop for sale, why could she not be allowed to sell laksa? The reason given was that in the case of laksa, a stove had to be provided at the stall to keep the soup warm which was not allowed. Sir, what reason could be more ridiculous than this? This is very unreasonable.

The PAP Government which has been known to be a good government might, because of the stupidity of some civil servants who do not know how to exercise good judgment and use their commonsense and discretion in certain circumstances, have its good name as a good Government brought into disrepute. In fact, many governments have fallen because of the stupidity of their civil servants. So I would like to draw the attention of the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary to this matter and hope that they will spend some time to ponder over this.

The Chairman: The Member for Serangoon Gardens has indicated that he would like to speak now.

Dr Lau Teik Soon (Serangoon Gardens): Yes, Sir, and thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak now so that I do not have to move my amendment later on.

I shall raise another issue concerning hawkers, namely, the request of hawkers in the Serangoon Gardens constituency, especially those resident in Ang Mo Kio, for transfer from other places to Ang Mo Kio New Town itself. This problem is particularly acute because of the hundreds of hawkers who have been resettled in Ang Mo Kio New Town. The requests have been numerous: from 1st January 1978 to 31st January 1979 there were 23 requests; 1st February 1979 to 31st December 1979, 109 requests were made. The number of requests so far this year up to 11th March 1980 is 29. The applicants have put forward many grounds for their request but the main one is the distance the residents have to travel to their present hawker stalls which are located far from their homes.

In Ang Mo Kio New Town, many new hawker centres have been opened but the majority of the stalls have been allocated to either licensed street hawkers or resettled persons. Many of these hawkers are not residents of Ang Mo Kio New Town. Thus, they would also suffer the inconvenience of distance from their homes to the hawker stalls in Ang Mo Kio New Town.

It seems logical to me, therefore, that the Ministry should consider first the requests for transfer from residents of Ang Mo Kio to the hawker centres in Ang Mo Kio, and then allocate the vacant stalls elsewhere to the licensed street hawkers and resettlement cases, who are not residents of Ang Mo Kio. I hope the Hon. Minister will consider .this proposal.

Alternatively, if the Ministry finds this proposal difficult to implement for financial or administrative reasons, the Ministry should consider setting up a hawkers' mutual transfer unit, where mutual exchanges to the satisfaction of both parties concerned can be arranged.

I hope the Ministry will consider this matter.

4.30p.m

Mr Chor Yeok Eng: ( In Mandarin): Sir, first of all, I would like to reply to the two points raised by the Member for Khe Bong. First, he was repeating a question which he had raised in Parliament before, that is, it is about restaurants and food establishments extending their business to the five-foot way or other public areas and how we should deal with it. The expansion of the business does not involve only an expansion of area for service but also extending the kitchen and storage areas, so that the total area will be big enough to accommodate all activities. Just as what the Member for Alexandra had mentioned, certain restaurants look quite big from outside but there might be rats, cockroaches or other pests inside. The reason is that the areas being used for various purposes have now become too small and not enough to cope with the expansion. On the other hand, the Government has spent a lot of money on building hawker centres and markets and is re-siting those roadside hawkers into centralised markets and shop-houses with proper facilities and where there are residents around. This will facilitate the hawker's business activities so that there is no reason for these people to extend their business on to the five-foot way or open areas which is not right. Provided there is no obstruction to pedestrian walkways and if the hawkers have got the permission from the private owners or the proprietors who could provide adequate health facilities, then we will be prepared to consider their application.

The Member for Khe Bong mentioned about a woman hawker who was not allowed to change her trade or to renew her licence. He knows only one side of the story. The actual situation is not like what he has said. The woman hawker has a licence to sell yu tao ko, or yam cake which is sold in wrapped packs. This does not involve the use of bowls or dishes as the yam cake can be easily taken in or out of the eating place. It is not so with laksa because it requires the use of bowls, dishes and a washing area. The place which the Member mentioned was already very short of space for such facilities. So the real reason was the shortage of space for such a changed trade. If this hawker wants a change of site and if the new site has the required facilities, then we will give her or any other hawker the licence.

Mr Ho See Beng: ( In Mandarin): Sir, can I seek further clarification? I would like to ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary whether laksa could be wrapped in packs?

Mr Chor Yeok Eng: ( In Mandarin): Of course, not. Dishes and bowls must be used. So, as I said, there must be adequate facilities to wash the bowls and dishes. If they have such facilities, then we will give them the licence. Perhaps the Member has not heard me correctly before. But that is the real situation.

The Member also said with seeming seriousness that a lot of people would be unemployed because of our strict application of our regulations. But Singapore is short of labour. So we are not worried about this implausible situation. As long as people stay within the proper confines, there should be no worry. He gave a disturbed picture of the situation, a cloudy scene with certain adverse effects, and also about cigarette butts strewn carelessly around bus-stops in Jurong or other places. All these are mere exaggeration. The picture described by him is too serious. He further added that when there was no need for the officers to do certain things, they would overdo it; so we are too harsh. When there was a need to do certain other things, these officers would not care; so we are too idle. That i% also an exaggeration. The real situation is not exactly like that. What does he expect us to do? We must have our direction or we will lose our way.

The Member for Serangoon Gardens also mentioned about hawkers wanting to change their stalls or sites. Administratively, all markets and food centres within an HDB housing estate are handled by the HDB. In principle, we have agreed to allot stalls nearest to the holders' homes. My Ministry cannot reserve hawker stalls in an HDB estate for licensees who move into the estate. This is because we do not know in advance the number of licensees involved and the articles of sale. Stalls cannot be allowed to remain vacant for too long. This will affect the viability of the market or food centre. However, where vacancies are available, my Ministry has granted licensed hawkers shifting to a HDB estate a stall within that estate. In certain new estates, like Ang Mo Kio, the problem is that the vacancies are being used mainly to accommodate those hawkers who have been resited. Therefore, many vacancies have to be held to accommodate those roadside hawkers and resited hawkers. We have this general arrangement. In many new estates where these resited hawkers will be residing, we always ask them where they will be living, at the same time saying that they will be resited in new hawker sites in the new market or centre. But some hawkers are not willing to move in to such places. According to our past experience, usually hawkers have the opinion that when a market is new the business will be poor. After the market has been in existence for some time and when the business becomes better, then the hawkers want to move in but, by that time, there would have been no more vacancies. That is one of the difficulties.

There is another and even worse problem. At present, where there are new markets or food centres being built, two-thirds of the vacancies are meant for hawkers dealing with daily goods, vegetables and the like, and one-third for food stalls where demand is higher. This year, perhaps because many young working couples find difficulty in getting domestic help, therefore, they prefer to go to the nearest food stall to eat. There is a greater need and demand for food stalls and a lesser demand for daily goods. This is the general situation in recent months. I hope we will be able to make adjustments to improve the situation.

As regards another point raised by him, I think we will pay careful attention to this. If, for instance, there are two stallholders in two different estates who want to privately exchange sites so that they could have their stall nearest their home, we will give serious consideration to it. In my own opinion, I will agree to this suggestion.

Dr Augustine Tan: Sir, while I do appreciate the difficulties of the Hawkers Department in considering requests for transfer of stalls from one location to another, particularly in respect of new markets which are being built by HDB and not by the Hawkers Department, yet at the same time, the Hawkers Department is in control of the issue of licences. Secondly, the very policy laid down by the Hawkers Department requiring new hawker centres and markets to give priority to resettlement cases automatically precludes a lot of requests for transfers from being considered.

While I appreciate all the difficulties concerned, I would at the same time like to urge the Senior Parliamentary Secretary to give a little more flexibility in this regard because there have been substantial shifts of population in Singapore as a result of new housing estates being built and there are transportation difficulties encountered by hawkers as a result of shifting from one location to another in respect of their residences. So I hope he would be more flexible and pass down this message to the Head of the Hawkers Department so that where legitimate cases come up, they would be given due consideration despite the fact that a certain proportion of the stalls had to be kept for resettlement cases.

I would also like to urge him to give more flexibility to requests from hawkers in respect of change of the type of food they are selling. Often times, because of old age catching up on these people, for example, a fishmonger cannot get up that early at 3 or 4 a.m. to go all the way to Jurong to get his fish, and therefore he comes to see the MP and requests a change of trade from selling fish to cooked food. I think such requests ought to be considered sympathetically.

Mr Chor Yeok Eng: ( In Mandarin): Sir, the Member for Whampoa hoped that we could deal with hawkers' problems of site transfer and change of article of sale with more flexibility. I would like to say that in principle, we agree, but the crux of the problem lies in whether there are adequate vacancies. If there are adequate vacancies, then generally we would consider the change of stalls. As I said, very often, eating stalls would have better business and therefore many people would like to change to eating stalls. But usually in food centres there are very few vacancies, apart from newly built centres. There are very few stallholders who want to move away from the site or give up their stalls. If at all there are vacant stalls, that would usually be cases where the stall-holders are old with no children who are willing to take over, or were refused licences to carry on with their trade for various reasons. In this respect, we are negotiating with the relevant authorities to see whether we could make certain adjustments and provide better facilities for certain hawkers. 4.45 p.m.

Mr Ho See Beng: ( In Mandarin): Sir, before I withdraw my amendment, I would like to ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary a question. He seemed to have replied that if the tables and chairs are placed on private open areas, then this will not be interfered with by the officials. If the open space is within an HDB estate where the HDB does not object to it, may I ask whether the Hawkers Department will object to it?

Mr Chor Yeok Eng: ( In Mandarin): Sir, if the HDB is the proprietor and it does not object to it, and if the business can also provide hygienic facilities and does not interfere with traffic or other regulations, then we may consider approval.

Mr Ho See Beng: ( In Mandarin): I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for his reply. I have finally received a reply which is satisfactory to me. I beg leave to withdrew 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 will take the Chair again at 5.15 p.m.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 4.46 p.m until 5.15 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.15 p.m.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate in Committee of Supply resumed.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Head M - (cont)

Mr Ho Kah Leong: Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head M be reduced by $10 in respect of Project 8101 of Subhead Code M B-05 of the Development Estimates.

Sir, in moving this amendment, I merely wish to seek information from the Minister concerned as to when the Jurong Food Centre 1, I believe now known as the Corporation Food Centre, will be rebuilt. This particular food centre was built from old materials, some years ago. The ceiling is particularly low and the centre is therefore warm during the day, especially at noon. However, the condition is no better during the rainy days. When it rains, the roof leaks and the rain water splashes in from the eaves of the roof. The beams and columns are rusty and some of them are badly corroded. It is high time that this food centre was rebuilt.

Mr Chor Yeok Eng: ( In Mandarin): Sir, the Taman Jurong Market 1, referred to by the Member for Jurong, now known as Corporation Drive Market, has a market and a cooked food section. The market was constructed in earlier years. The other section which is the cooked food section was added in 1974. It was built out of old materials. In 1977 and 1978 we continued to improve and renovate this market, just as the Member has said. But because the roof is too low and since we are in the tropics the temperature is very high. We are now studying methods to improve the situation. Renovation work is continuing. This year we are going to whitewash or repaint the market and to make other improvements to it.

Mr Ho Kah Leong: In view of the explanation, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Ho Kah Leong: Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head M be reduced by $10 in respect of Object Group 1210 of Subhead Code MC-01 of the Main Estimates.

Sir, this is another example of a lack of co-ordination between two Government departments. Some of my constituents who rear pigs in the rural areas have received notices from the Primary Production Department requesting them to phase out their pig-rearing activities by 1981. As law-abiding citizens, they are complying with the instruction now. However, until very recently, they have received another notice from the Ministry of the Environment requesting them to install cess-pits to contain the waste from the pig sties. The construction of a cess-pit can easily cost a few thousand dollars. This is a big sum of money to the rural folks.

The point really is this. If the farmers have to spend a substantial sum of money to install cess-pits, then pig-rearing should be allowed. If pig-rearing is to be phased out in two years' time, then the poor farmers should not be asked to spend money on cess-pits. I hope the Minister will comment on this matter.

Mr Lim Kim San: Mr Speaker, Sir, I should make it clear that farmers who rear pigs in catchment areas are required to build cess-pits. The Member for Jurong posed the question whether the farmers should spend money on cess-pits. My question to him is this. Are we going to risk an increase in water-borne diseases by allowing pig wastes to pollute the water which flow into our reservoirs?

As it is now, the consumption of water has been increasing steadily and alarmingly every year. One of the objectives of the Government is to try and collect in our reservoirs as much rain as possible that falls on the island itself. For this reason we are trying to install sewers all over Singapore. We have carried on with the cleaning and improvement of canals so that we can collect the rain water. Therefore, to allow farmers to rear pigs which defecate freely is to endanger our catchment areas by the pollution of water that flows into the reservoirs from the catchment areas. This is dangerous as we will then expose the population to increasing danger from water-borne diseases. As the Minister responsible for public health, I will not take the responsibility of exposing our population to this danger.

Mr Ho Kah Leong: Sir, I fully endorse the Minister's view that our water sources should be kept as clean as possible. There is no argument on this point. The question is that in general the rural folks are financially depressed and some of them rear pigs to complement their family income. They are, in fact, small-time farmers. The authorities are now asking them to spend a big sum of money between $2,000 and $3,000 to construct cess-pits when the economic returns are almost nil. I hope the Minister will be fair to them.

I hope the Minister will be kind and sympathetic enough to exempt the poor rural folks from installing cess-pits, since they are in the process of phasing out pig-rearing. Will the Minister consider this?

Mr Lim Kim San: Sir, if anyone should get sick from coming into contact with contaminated water, I hope they will accept sympathy from the Member for Jurong. But we cannot evaluate the danger to human life in terms of dollars and cents.

The farmers have known for several years now that pig-rearing will have to be phased out of the catchment areas. We have tried to ease the process, but the time has now come for a concerted action to be taken. They have to make a choice. Sometime in our lives we all have to make a choice. We have our priorities and we should get them right. The priority now is to see that we got very clean water for our people, as much as possible. As I have said, pig-rearing in the catchment areas have to be phased out. The farmers have to think of other ways of supplementing their income other than by pig-rearing. The signs are on the wall. Notices have been given telling them that they should move out.

Mr Ho Kah Leong: Sir, it is not a question of whether or not they are moving out. I think the Minister is not quite aware of the living conditions of the rural folk.

Mr Ho See Beng: How can the Minister who sits in an airconditioned room in his Ministry be aware of the living conditions of the rural folk?

Mr Ho Kah Leong: That is another matter. Sir, it takes time for the pigs to mature. We just cannot dispose of them prematurely. Since there will be a loss of income as a result of the cessation of pig-rearing, they have to be given some time to make the necessary adjustments. It will be too harsh to ask them to stop pig-rearing suddenly. If there is no alternative but to construct cess-pits at this juncture, may I ask the Minister whether the Government is prepared to subsidise the affected parties, as in the case of the farmers in Lim Chu Kang.

Mr Lim Kim San: Sir, I have been in the Ministry of National Development, the Primary Production Department, and I understand the farmers' position well. I have been to the rural areas much more often than the Member for Khe Bong realised.

Mr Ho See Beng: By car.

Mr Lim Kim San: On foot. When I was young there were times when I had to go around barefooted. He had probably never done that.

We are all aware, Sir, that it is not possible to dispose of the pigs all at once. We know that a certain amount of time is necessary for the pigs to grow up before they can be sold. But a lot of time has been given to pig farmers, and this excuse had and will crop up from time to time. I do not think he can cite any instance when we have been really brutal or unreasonable in enforcing action. When notices to install cess-pits are sent out, it is just a warning to pig farmers, "Look, you had better get going quickly and try to dispose your pigs as quickly as possible." It is a question of either disposing of the pigs in good time or install cess-pits if farmers wish to continue with pig-rearing. I think that is the way it should be. It is not a question of saying, "If you do not have your cess-pits installed by tomorrow, we will turn you out." No. It has never been done that way. I do not think we have ever acted that way in any enforcement action. It is only after repeated warnings have been ignored that drastic action is taken. For pig farmers, we do allow them a cert8in amount of time, and this is the time for the farmers to really think, "Is it worth my while putting in cess-pits, or should I dispose of my stock when the time is convenient?" 5.30 p.m.

Mr Ho Kah Leong: Sir, the farmers have been given a deadline, i.e. by the end of 1981. It is a matter of two years. At this juncture, why do we press them to construct cess-pits within six months' time? Sir, it is a waste to spend a substantial sum of money on cess-pits. This is the point I want to make.

Mr Lim Kim San: Sir, I understand the Member's point, but I hope he realises that six months after serving notice, the pigs will still be defecating freely which will continue to contaminate our water. If we allow this, we might as well allow people who play around the catchment areas to defecate on the field and let the human waste also contaminate the water. It is a similar situation. This notice is just to say, "Look: please do not have pig-farming in that area.' If farmers think it is worthwhile to keep pigs for 18 months and build the cess-pits, then it is up to them to do so. If not, I think they had better stop rearing pigs.

Sir, we can go on arguing. Time has always been given. But the crux of the matter is that within the catchment areas, as far as possible, we do not want pig-rearing. If the farmers want to rear pigs, they should see to it that they do not allow pig waste to contaminate the water. If they can do it, we will allow them up to 1981. Beyond 1981, even if they have cess-pits, pig-rearing will not be allowed.

Mr Ho Kah Leong: Sir, I think the Minister is a very difficult person to convince.

An hon. Member: Withdraw your amendment?

Mr Ho Kah Leong: No. I do not want to withdraw my amendment. I would rather put it to a vote, Sir.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

The following amendment stood in the name of Mr Tan Soo Khoon -

(9) That the sum to be allocated for Head M be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead Code M D-01 of the Main Estimates.

The Chairman: Amendment (9), Mr Tan Soo Khoon is not here. Amendment (10), Mr Yeo Toon Chia.

Mr Yeo Toon Chia (Ang Mo Kio): Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head M be reduced by $10 in respect of Project 8108 of Subhead Code M D-02 of the Development Estimates.

Sir, Stamford Canal runs through one of the busiest places in Singapore. On one side of the canal is Stamford Road and not far away, is Orchard Road. Along these roads there are many tourist shops and places of national pride and of tourist interest, such as the National Museum and the National Library. As such, I feel that when reconstructing this Canal, we should also improve its appearance, especially the stretch from the mouth of the Canal to the YMCA building. With the skill of the architects of the Ministry of National Development, I am sure the appearance of this Canal could be enhanced while serving its purpose. The combined efforts of the Ministries of National Development and the Environment would surely make this Canal more interesting.

An hon. Member: How?

Mr Yeo Toon Chia: The existing Orchard Mall where pieces of an by local artists are displayed in the showcases is one example of an otherwise ordinary pedestrian walk made into an attractive place for both Singaporeans and tourists.

Sir, because of the prime locality of this Canal, would the Hon. Minister elaborate on the plans for reconstructing the Canal and whether this project will require the acquisition of land of existing buildings and schools along the Canal?

Mr Lim Kim San: Sir, the Member must be aware that a lot of construction work is going on along the Stamford Canal. The Stamford Canal is being widened and deepened from Orchard Road/Orange Grove Road junction to Beach Road. This will help to reduce flooding in this flood-prone area and there is a plan to connect Beach Road to Orchard Road by a pedestrian mall, part of which is most likely to be over Stamford Canal. The walls will be strengthened and will be constructed in such a way that they will be able to support the mall.

The widened Canal will cut two metres into the grounds of the Convent of the Holy Infant Jesus. The wall of the CHIJ fronting the Canal will have to be demolished and a fence will be erected along the side of the widened Canal. The school canteen will also have to be resited within the school, but all this work will be done during the school vacation so as to minimise any disruption of normal activities in the school.

Sir, the Convent of the Holy Infant Jesus will soon vacate its present premises to a new site at Toa Payoh. Its present site will be reverted to the Government and, therefore, there is no need for acquisition of any piece of land at all. The reconstruction of Stamford Canal began in 1978 and it is expected to be completed by 1982. The total expenditure would be about $32 million.

Mr Yeo Toon Chia: Sir, I am very pleased with the answer given by the Hon. Minister. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Rohan bin Kamis (Telok Blangah): Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head M be reduced by $10 in respect of Project 8201 of Subhead Code M E-01 of the Development Estimates.

Sir, the purpose of moving this amendment is to seek information from the Hon. Minister regarding several items of public interest. Singaporeans have just felt the pinch of increased utility charges of the PUB. This increase, according to the PUB, has been occasioned by the increase in oil prices. Could the Hon. Minister elaborate on the rationale for this increase and the reasons why the increase appears to be so drastic? Knowing that there is every certainty of oil prices going even higher with no chance of their coming down, I am sure the PUB must have thought of alternative sources of energy instead of the current oil-based one. In this respect, could the House be enlightened as to what steps have been taken to examine the various alternatives and the results of these findings; and if any decision has been arrived at? I am sure all Singaporeans would be most interested, especially when public utility is a basic need of every household in Singapore.

Mr Lim Kim San: Sir, the hon. Member is right when he said that the increase in public utility charges is a direct result of the drastic increase in the price of oil. The only point where he is wrong is that the increases in prices are not as drastic as the increases in the price of the oil.

Sir, even before the drastic increase in the price of oil, the PUB has in the last few years been looking into the possibility of using nuclear power. We have sent our engineers abroad to look into it. In the end, the conclusion is that Singapore being so small, we cannot find a suitable place to site a nuclear power station because, should anything go wrong with a nuclear power station, then there is danger of radioactive contamination and we have no place to evacuate our population. Probably the only way we can get out would be to jump into boats like the Vietnamese boat people and hope for the best.

An alternative to oil is coal. The hon. Member asked a question yesterday as to where soot found in residences in Telok Blangah came from. This is also a problem with coal. It is not only one of handling, but also a question of pollution. Of course, new techniques have been found to reduce the emission of coal dust from the chimneys. But apart from that, handling coal itself will cause dust to fly. The question of using coal as fuel for power stations is under study. We are also watching with great interest the development overseas on other energy resources such as hydro, geothermal, tidal, wind power and solar energy. Unfortunately, we have none of these resources. As for the others, it is not as yet possible to exploit them economically. For instance, electricity generation from solar energy is still not practical or economic.

Sir, all I can say is that we are still looking into the feasibility of siting a coal-fired station on one of the islands to reduce the pollution problem. But no definite decision has yet been made. We have several offers to do a feasibility study on it, and we are looking closely into the matter. 5.45 p.m.

Mr Rohan bin Kamis: Mr Speaker, Sir, I must thank the Hon. Minister for giving such a lucid clarification. However, I wish to clarify that I did not say that "it was drastic." I said that "it appears to be drastic." Anyway, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $127,381,430 for Head M ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates.

The sum of $232,561,210 for Head M ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.