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

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Order read for Resumption of Debate on Question [17th February, 1981],

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 First Session of this Parliament.".'. - [Mr Eugene Yap Giau Cheng].

Question again proposed.

Mr S. Chandra Das (Chong Boon): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the Motion standing in the name of the Member for Mountbatten thanking the President for his Address. I also wish to express my congratulations to you on your re-election to the high office for another term.

The Presidential Address has identified the challenges of the 1980s. It has also pointed to the possible solutions. However, in my view, a third element in this process is missing: the element of consultation. By consultation, I mean a dialogue between the Government and the people through the various grassroots and other civic organi- zations as well as the mass media. However, a dialogue is only possible and meaningful if there is more disclosure of information. Of course, this is easier said than done. Nonetheless, a start has to be made and indeed must be made now. Singaporeans, especially the younger ones, are already stewing with impatience to know the whats, hows, wheres, whens and whys of our political, social and economic policies. In short, there should be greater consultation and sufficient disclosure of information consistent with a relatively mature electorate.

As Singapore is vulnerable to external developments, it is important for us to anticipate what will be the likely scenario in the 80s so that the people and Government are better prepared to meet the challenges and opportunities ahead. While it is not possible to assess the future with precision and certainty, we can anticipate the following to be the general scenario:

(a) Oil prices will continue to rise in the 80s.

(b) It will be a period of slow growth in the industrial countries and the protectionistic tendencies may even increase further.

(c) Singapore exports will face keener competition from developing countries. However, as these countries develop their economies, there will also be opportunities for Singapore to export higher skilled and hopefully knowledge-intensive products.

(d) There will be pressures to graduate Singapore to a developed country status. We have to resist this misconceived and premature graduation.

(e) OECD, ASEAN and West Asian countries will continue to be Singapore's most important economic partners as markets and sources of investment, technology, capital and raw materials.

(f) The Soviet Union and the United States will remain the two decisive powers in global politics. The two powers will influence the direction of world events.

(g) ASEAN will remain the cornerstone of Singapore's foreign policy.

(h) The Asian-Pacific region could become increasingly more important in shaping economic and political relationships.

In view of the above, I feel that the Government should, through its radio and television, explain external developments as clearly as possible and how these are affecting Singapore and what the Government will be doing to meet any problem or opportunity. The onus will be on SBC not only to entertain but also to educate and inform.

For some reason, Government statements on policies tend to be very terse. This can and will cause misunderstanding or even resentment among the people. To improve presentation, I suggest, for example, whenever the PUB (this is a very common topic) wants to increase its charges, it should explain in as simple a language as possible to the people the implications of OPEC's price increase and why the PUB regrettably has to increase its charges. Maybe some facts and figures should be used to illustrate. It does not do the PUB any good or improve Government's image, when prices are increased on the one hand while PUB announces hefty surplus in the next breath! PUB charges affect every family in Singapore. If it is well explained, there will be less misunderstanding, particularly among the lower income groups. In addition, PUB should also embark on a programme to educate the people on the more effective use of energy.

As the Member for Bedok referred yesterday, the recent explanation of the PSLE results by the Members of Parliament for River Valley, Leng Kee, Kuo Chuan and Brickworks on TV was well received by parents. Many of my constituents also felt that it would have been even better if the talks were given before the results were announced. Private Sector Initiative in Social Investments

With rising affluence and expectations, Singaporeans, quite legitimately, will be clamouring for more and better recreational and leisure amenities. The Government by itself cannot hope to be able to cope with this burden. To do so would, from the fiscal point of view, add a significant load on the national budget. This is something we can least afford, taking into account our policy to keep Government expenditure under control. It is also undesirable for the Government to shoulder this responsibility alone without private sector participation.

Social investments in recreational or leisure activities should not always be subjected to cost benefit and profitability considerations. Granted, any project should be evaluated according to certain cost benefit criteria. However, it is my contention that:

(a) social benefits of recreational projects are intangible and therefore elude any cost-benefit calculus,

(b) rising income must mean more labour-saving gadgets in households, e.g. washing machines, vacuum cleaners, high-speed microwave ovens, etc. This trend, in turn, leaves our people with much more leisure and free time.

The urgent need for recreational or leisure facilities is therefore obvious. One solution will be for the Finance Ministry to provide fiscal and other tax incentives to induce private participation in social investments, such as recreational or leisure activities. Such investments could be guided by the dictates of social market forces rather than by administrative decree. The former should generally induce greater efficiency in resource allocation.

Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission, may I now refer to the Addendum on the Ministry of Trade and Industry. Specifically, I would like to commend the Ministry for having said, and I quote:

'Our young professionals will be helped through loans to establish and expand key supporting industries to supply the needs of multinational corporations.'

This move is laudable but the provision of loans to our local entrepreneurs is a case of the "wrong instrument being directed at the right target". If the move is designed to plug our local entrepreneurs into the 'technology and management grids of the MNCs, then loans or finance is the least of the problems confronting Singaporeans. The problems, I submit, are technical know-how, management and marketing expertise, to name a few. One possible route would be to get our aspiring local entrepreneurs and young professionals to go into joint ventures with MNCs wherever possible. The Ministry on its part could encourage multinational corporations to take in local partners.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in the Addendum on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, I would have liked to see some mention of the furthering of relations with West Asian countries. The Addendum is silent on this subject.

In the 1980s, the West Asian region should be more effectively harnessed not only as a source of oil supplies but also as a market for our exports. More important, we should also tap the petro-dollars for investment purposes. And what's more, West Asia could be a new catchment area in terms of tourism. In order to exploit all these potentialities, it would be necessary for us at least to have physical diplomatic representations in this region.

Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission, I would like to touch on an issue which relates to my constituency, and maybe to other new towns. As a pure HDB estate, it is fully occupied except for one block. However, to date, there is only one primary school functioning. (Two primary schools and one secondary school are now under construction). Many parents having moved into the new estate cannot find places for their children in the primary school. This is causing unnecessary inconvenience and financial burden in the form of additional transport fees. Since there is a waiting list of 2 1/2 to 3 years for HDB flats, I cannot see why the two additional primary schools and one secondary school could not have been built much earlier. This not only would have reduced inconvenience to parents but also save considerable amounts in construction costs to the PWD. Maybe, as one resident put it to me, the priority seems to have all the revenue-earning facilities completed well in advance - markets, shops, carparks. Schools and polyclinics are not revenue generators and hence are accorded low priority. I sincerely hope that this imbalance in priorities could be realigned in the development of new towns in the future. This could be done with better coordination between the Ministries concerned. 2.44 p.m.

Encik Saidi Shariff (Kaki Bukit): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the Motion moved by the Member for Mountbatten to thank the President for the speech he delivered on behalf of the Government at the opening of the First Session of this Parliament.

The major tasks confronting us have been identified but the most essential considerations would be on how to carry out these tasks. We have been given the mandate to carry out this responsibility during the next four to five years.

Our immediate target, to my mind, is to accelerate the process of developing our society into a nation of people equipped with the ideology of group survival, imbued with the ideals of individual excellence and fired with the realistic outlook and expectations of the future. These must be particularly instilled in the hearts and minds of our younger generation, especially the youths, at all levels and places. This could be done through a process of informal and formal continuing lifelong education and training programmes by the various institutions, organizations, the mass media and the Ministries with their respective departments having responsibility for the welfare of youths.

The total development of our youths should encompass the spiritual, mental, physical and cultural aspects of every individual. This means that every young man and woman should be brought up and trained so as to be fully prepared to face the world at large and make the 6est use of life for himself, and simultaneously able to contribute to the fullest extent to the national life and its development. Therefore, there should be a systematic guiding of youths from the family to the educational establishments and eventually to the training institutions, thus integrating life in the house, the school and the workshop in a manner that the outcome is best, both for themselves and for those whom they come into contact.

Youth organizations and other similarly orientated organizations should be committed to the training of youths so as to inculcate responsibility, consideration, cooperation and the basic values upon which our democratic society ultimately lies. They should identify with our efforts to enhance our ability to protect all that we have constructed. They are required to develop in their members basic values and ideas which can guide their conduct as choices are made and courses of action taken. There are many youth organizations in Singapore and no one can claim to have achieved or contributed most to the total development of youths. We should not question who has done what and for whom, and how effective they have been. It is time that efforts were made to evaluate youth organizations, particularly in their programme of activities and services to ensure that the right things were done the right way.

There are presently doubts and fears among parents in our streaming policy. The grouping of children into 'special', 'express' and 'normal' streams has caused an unnecessary pressure and unintentional stigma. The object of ensuring that students will be taught at the most suitable pace can still be achieved if the aim of the teacher is to help the students learn rather than teach them for the purpose of passing examinations. Teachers are expected to carry out education policies and programmes. They must thoroughly understand and appreciate these policies. In addition to the setting up of the Schools Council, there must be a continuous dialogue with the teachers themselves at classroom level. Their acceptance and cooperation will ensure success in the implementation of the policies. Members of Parent-Teacher Associations and Advisory Committees could perhaps be included for they can represent the views of parents who will directly be affected by whatever policies are implemented. Teachers' Organization/Educational Institutions or Associations could also be invited to contribute their ideas. It is important that teachers must be competent professionally and, at the same time, have the right attitudes to instil in the students the basic values, the essentials of our philosophy of life.

Historical evidence has shown that the major threat to the survival of most civilizations is the gradual decay in the driving spirit and moral standard of the rulers and people. They could not resist the temptation of the familiar vices of luxury, selfish pursuits and vulgar morals. They became soft and dissipated their energy on commercialized pleasures.

With this in mind, it is imperative that we all become keenly aware of the social implications as we climb up the technological ladder and higher wages. There is always the inherent danger of our people becoming dehumanized and deculturized in the process of development. It is important that we channel our energies into devising guidelines on how we can use our time and money wisely and purposefully. Our TV must increasingly show local entertainment programmes of a high educational value in order to give an impact or arouse in the viewers a common appreciation of our local cultures towards evolving a national identity. Steps must be taken to take effective control of the import of undesirable videotapes which are unobtrusively shown during private parties, and the activities of private marriage bureaus.

The correct attitude of our people towards work is vital to the survival and progress of our society, especially when our survival is almost entirely dependent on human resources. The cultivation of correct work attitudes among our people is the concern of everyone of us. We need to inherit and nurture the capacity and stamina for work from our immigrant forefathers but at the same time discard the out-of-date immi- grant grab-and-run mentality. To do this, our schools should have teaching and learning materials which contain elements that can give an impact towards cultivating in the students a sense of belonging, a sense of pride, and a sense of responsibility to their families, community and country. Appropriate measures have to be taken against bad work attitudes at the work place or factory level. In a tight labour market, it is inevitable that workers with some experience would be tempted to join another company. To inculcate loyalty, it is the management's responsibility to offer its employee an attractive career path and provide training programmes which would help him in his career advancement. The workers should also be offered opportunities to shoulder new responsibilities which could make their job more challenging and meaningful.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Motion. 2.50 P.M.

Dr Chau Sik Ting (Thomson): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to join my colleagues in this House in thanking the President for his speech delivered at the opening of the First Session of the Fifth Parliament.

Sir, may I refer to the Ministry of Labour's Addendum to the Presidential Address.

The Ministry is to be congratulated for its continued effort to help factories improve their safety and health administration. One of the important ways to do this is to have competent trained staff of the required types and in sufficient numbers to man the services in industry. There are four key types of trained manpower required, namely, the safety officers, the industrial nurses, the industrial hygienists and the industrial doctors. There is a dearth of trained safety officers at present. I understand that under the factory legislation at least 250 trained safety officers are required in the factories. But how many are there at present?. I understand that the figure is 127, just a little more than 50% of the number required. No wonder there has been very little or no improvement in the industrial accident statistics over the past years.

There are many nurses now working in industry and their numbers are probably insufficient. The majority of them have little or no training in occupational health and safety. As for industrial hygienists, there is not even a single individual qualified in Singapore, as far as I know.

The majority of doctors looking after industry are general practitioners with virtually little skill and competence to deal with occupational diseases and environmental conditions, particularly in its preventive aspect.

Mr Speaker, Sir, what I am trying to suggest is that in line with our Government's policy of upgrading skill at all levels, safety personnel, nurses, hygienists and doctors involved with industry need to be further trained, and trained in sufficient numbers, to help our factories improve their health and safety administration.

I note with interest the Ministry's earlier Addendum to the Presidential Address on 26th December, 1978, which stated that there would be a proposed Institute of Occupational Safety and Health which, I quote, "will concentrate on meeting the need for systematic training of safety and health personnel in industry". Further, in March, 1979, the Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour told the House that his Ministry was given the green light to proceed with the establishment of the Institute of Occupational Health and Safety. He interestingly stated at the time that his Ministry was undergoing a period of labour pains on the drafting of the necessary legislation to give final birth to this Institute.

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour (Mr Fong Sip Chee): The pain is still there!

Dr Chau Sik Ting: Nine months have passed since then; nay, more than 20 months have elapsed. But what of the birth? We are still waiting.

An hon. Member: Overdue!

Dr Chau Sik Ting: Mr Speaker, Sir, the proposed Institute is indispensable to our Government's aim to improve standards of safety and health. Call it by whatever name, an Institute or Board of Occupational Safety and Health, it will be no white elephant. Initially it should be mainly concerned with training, with the provision of part-time professional courses for the safety officers, industrial nurses, industrial hygienists and industrial doctors. As in the case of the Ministry of Health, the Labour Ministry should consider. inviting some renowned foreign consultants for short teaching stints at the proposed Institute. Some degree of consultancy work and operational research need to be done and these will expand in due course when we have more trained manpower.

In the midst of our earnest quest for rapid industrialization and technological advancement, the establishment of this Institute or Board to serve as a focus for the proper development of occupational safety and health to protect the interest of our workers is timely. This is not to say that the Ministry of Labour is unconcerned. In fact, it has gone through the different levels of safety and health training for personnel in industry. But the effort has not been concentrated enough and is, therefore, inadequate. Furthermore, it has launched several programmes, the latest being the Occupational Cancer Prevention Programme. It is hoped that the early establishment of the Institute, with its increased availability of professional and skilled manpower and laboratory facilities, will ensure that this programme is effective and the House can be informed every year that occupational cancer figures remain at zero.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the second point I would like to take up is the statutory medical examination of workers in certain industries to safeguard workers' health.

At present, as far as I know, statutory medical examinations are required for four areas of risk, namely, for workers exposed to ionizing radiations, to silica, to asbestos and to benzene. There are, however, other very important areas of risk which have been glaringly left out. According to the latest figures of notifiable diseases given to me for the year 1980, industrial dermatitis heads the list with 255 cases and noise-induced deafness a close second with 229 cases, and compressed air illness ranking third with 25 cases. One would have thought that these areas of risk, namely, workers exposed to the risk of industrial dermatitis and noise-induced deafness, should have the protection of statutory medical examination.

Though the damage due to industrial dermatitis rarely becomes permanent, it can nevertheless contribute significantly to sickness absence and, therefore, directly affecting productivity. Noise-induced deafness, on the other hand, is irreversible and there is no known cure. Its potential cost to industry is probably greater than for any other occupational disease. This cost should be computed not only in terms of hearing impairment but also in terms of workmen's compensation, reduced productivity, increased accident rates, communication difficulty and other factors.

Statutory medical examination of workers should be done by professionally competent doctors. As I have said earlier, the majority of doctors looking after industry are general practitioners with little or virtually no training in dealing with occupational diseases. They are mainly concerned with treatment of common ailments and they lack the essential skills to institute preventive measures. There is a need for these general practitioners to receive further training in occupational health so that they can become Designated Factory Doctors (DFD) for statutory medical examinations.

Mr Speaker, Sir, what I am again trying to suggest is a widening of the scope of statutory medical examination from the present four to include two more and others which the Ministry would like to look into, such as exposure to hazards from lead, and to introduce a system of designated factory doctors who will be competent to perform these statutory medical examinations for the protection of workers.

Mr Speaker, Sir, my third and final point is my observation on the Addendum of the Ministry of Science and Technology, notwithstanding its impending disintegration. It is stated that the Department of Scientific Services will upgrade the services it provides to the Government departments. Why only to Government departments and not to the private sector as well? More than two years ago, the public was suddenly made aware of the accidental inclusion of a radioactive source among the scrap delivered to National Iron & Steel Mills Ltd., subjecting a number of our workers to unnecessary risk. While blame cannot be attached to our system of control in this particular case, it does reveal a point of weakness. Since then, it is surprising to note that these particular radioactive wastes are still awaiting disposal. Surely there must be a more effective and speedy way to solve this problem. The possibilities of sources being lost through negligence or otherwise are always there. Are there any incidents other than the National Iron & Steel Mills' case where sources have been reported lost but not made public?

Mr Speaker, Sir, we are a small country with one of the highest population concentrations in the world. Any calculated risk in the area of radioactive contamination must be avoided at all costs. This unseen, unfelt and unheard enemy poses great danger to our well-being.

The Ministry of Science and Technology should upgrade and increase the number of trained staff in its Radiation Protection Inspectorate to effectively implement the Radiation Protection Act of 1973 and to enforce its regulations. I know it is going to be taken over by the Ministry of Health. It is an excellent piece of legislation which has helped to minimize to a certain extent the hazards of ionizing radiation in Singapore. The control is basically done through a system of licensing and inspection by the radiation protection officers and also through a system of medical surveillance of ionizing radiation workers and members of the public who may be exposed to radiation. To maintain effective control over the increasing use of radioactive materials and irradiating apparatus to protect our workers' health will require more trained manpower than are presently available.

While on the subject of radiation, may I digress a little and shift to the Ministry of Health. There is a common practice of requiring an annual chest X-ray examination for workers generally, and this has been incorporated into many collective agreements. I question its necessity and the validity of continuing such a practice. More than 15 years ago annual chest X-ray examination was introduced for the purpose of the early detection of pulmonary tuberculosis because tuberculosis was prevalent then. Today, thanks to our Government's effective leadership and success at improving our people's standard of living, pulmonary tuberculosis is a receding disease. Is there then a necessity to continue this practice instead of making it a relic of the past? The interval between chest X-ray examinations should be increased from one to three years except for those exposed to specific hazards.

It is not so much a question of saving expense and inconvenience for the employers but rather we need to constantly review some of our common practices to see if they are still relevant today. The radiation hazard of a single chest X-ray is, of course, minimal; but then our health conscious citizens will want X-ray examination for the slightest injury as well as requesting for other more sophisticated diagnostic procedures, such as the barium meal and the intravenous pyelogram in addition to having routine X-rays while in national service. The total dose may not be insignificant.

The workers in Singapore are not in a position to recommend any change and doctors are reluctant to do so for their own reasons. Could the Ministry of Health come up with an authoritative and considered clear-cut opinion on this issue of annual chest X-ray examination for workers in general?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I trust that I have succeeded in drawing attention to the need for the establishment of an Institute of Occupational Health and Safety, the necessity of widening the scope of statutory medical examinations by competent designated factory doctors and the vigilance required to protect our workers and citizens from radioactive hazards.

Sir, I support the Motion thanking the President for the Speech which he delivered on behalf of the Government. 3.10 p.m.

Dr Augustine H.H. Tan (Whampoa): Mr Speaker, Sir, it is my privilege to join my colleagues in thanking President Sheares for his Address to this House.

The President has set out clearly the priorities for our social and economic development in the 1980s. No right-thinking Singaporean can quarrel with the three objectives of building a modern industrial society, of ensuring our defence, and providing for renewal in political leadership. However, we can and we ought to have a lot to say about how these goals are implemented. My colleagues in this House have had much to say over these last two days and I do not propose to repeat what has been said. There is, of course, the temptation to rebut some of the points raised but I must not rob the Ministers of their pleasure. However, I will make one small exception for the Member for Kim Seng. I will give him two quotations.

Matthew 6:5: Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.

Matthew 6:33: But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you.

An hon. Member: Amen!

Dr Augustine Tan: That is the proper response.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in his Address, the President said:

'Singaporeans are maturing as a nation with our own lifestyles and our own aspirations. We can learn from the West and Japan. We want their technology and knowledge, but our basic values, the essentials of [our philosophy of] life, must be preserved. We cannot imitate the lifestyles or the ephemeral fancies of other peoples without doing damage to ourselves.' He also said that we must become:

'a more cohesive and a more united nation, with each Singaporean keenly aware of his responsibility to his family, to his fellow-workers, to his employer and to his country.' I agree, Sir, that we need to be selective in importing values from abroad. At the same time, we need to examine our own value system in order to weed out the undesirable propensities and qualities.

Singaporeans have a particular vice which is seriously damaging to our work ethic, the quality and professionalism of our work, and which completely undermines the Ministry of Education's efforts to provide moral education. I refer, Sir, to the vice of gambling and speculation.

The dictionary defines gambling as "playing games of chance to win money" and "risking and betting on the outcome of an event, sport, etc.". To speculate is to "risk loss for the possibility of considerable gain."

Sir, I shall provide ample illustrations for this House of how widespread gambling and speculation are in Singapore, and much of it is encouraged by Government policies. The Board of Commissioners of Currency encourages speculation in coins and profits considerably by special issues of commemorative coins. There is Toto, the Singapore Sweep and the Four Digit-Lottery, all owned by Government, and all highly profitable. We have encouraged Lucky Draws. Every emporium has one. A number of banks offer attractive cash prizes in their Lucky Draws. They are simply following the footsteps of the POSBI The Singapore Labour Foundation, from time to time, has a Lucky Draw. The Ministry of Culture rightly forbids games of chance at fun-fairs and forbids Community Centres to have Lucky Draws. I wonder who gave authorization to the Singapore Cultural Foundation for its recent Lucky Draw? One- arm bandits are allowed in private clubs, to which the children of high executives, professionals and wealthy businessmen have access. SIA is now introducing one-arm bandits to provide relaxation to passengers. Of course, it will also be highly lucrative!

Banks are now offering gold and silver accounts, the value of which fluctuates automatically with the prices of gold and silver. Incidentally, Sir, such accounts are promoted more vigorously when the prices of gold and silver are on the down-trend. There must be a lot of gullible people in Singapore!

The stock market and the property market have become casinos!

Perhaps, Sir, I can show how damaging gambling and speculation are to Singapore by using the property market as my example. In the last two years, property prices in Singapore in the prime areas have quadrupled, and even quintupled! How has this come about? There are two key factors. One is capital flowing in from abroad to buy property. The other is speculation, both by Singaporeans and foreigners. Allow me, Sir, to illustrate the process with two examples.

Example I: A new condominium is advertised. On the day bookings are open, no member of the public has a chance to buy. The case reported two days ago was an exception - there were only 20 units offered in Seletar. Witness the mad scramble! Usually, the public has no opportunity to buy direct from the developer. The directors of the company, their relatives and friends, among them, bank clerks and officers and realty agents, are given the privilege to book. Until three months ago, all they needed to pay was $2,000. Now they have to pay 10% as downpayment. The property takes 18 months to two years to be developed and subsequent payments are by instalments. In the meantime, the units booked change hands many times, with several hefty additions to the price. I monitored the market recently. There were several examples of virtually identical units being offered for vastly different prices. One flat, for example, was offered for $600,000. Another similar one in the same block was offered for $800,000. When I asked the realty agents for an explanation, I was told that the person who offered the flat for $600,000 had bought it for $550,000 while the flat costing $800,000 had been purchased at $750.000.

Example II: A house which is already built is sold by A to B for, say, $500,000. The deposit is 1%, or $5,000. The option is for two weeks. If B succeeds in selling the house within the two weeks he makes a very handsome profit. Even if he exercises his option and pays the full 10% or $50,000, he will have 6-8 weeks to complete the transaction. In the interim he sells the house to C for $550,000 who in turn sells it to D for $600,000. Within a matter of months, property prices can rise 30% or more, because of the activities of speculators!

Similar things happen in the market for office space and shops. People can get rich quickly overnight, except MPs. The market is full of stories about bank clerks, secretaries, developers' employees and real estate agents who have made fortunes in real estate.

How did all this come about? In 1973/1974, Government succeeded in stabilizing the residential property market by restricting foreign ownership. A foreigner could only buy a residential property if he worked in Singapore or had legitimate business here. However, because of complaints by developers, this rule was soon relaxed to allow foreigners to buy condominium and apartments above six storeys unconditionally. Because of this relaxation, developers found it much more profitable to build condominiums and flats and neglected bungalows, semi-detached and terrace houses. The property market boomed as a result. Because of shortage of supply, even bungalows, semi-detached and terrace houses boomed.

What are the effects of gambling and speculation in the property market? There are several.

(1) The erosion of the work ethic. Why bother to work hard or learn new skills for a few hundred dollars a month when there is a fortune to be made in gambling, 4-Digit and so on, or speculating in shares and property?

(2) Apart from those who already own property, or who are rich enough, the Singaporean, as one MP pointed out yesterday, is effectively priced out of the private residential property market. Today a young executive starting out can aspire at most to a HUDC flat, and even that is beginning to look like a distant dream. How many young couples have enough CPF to pay for a HUDC flat of between $150,000 and $200,000?

(3) Condominiums are supposed to provide for higher density living to save land. But how many Singaporeans are living in our condominiums. I challenge the Ministry of National Development to take a survey not of bookings made but of actual occupation.

(4) The prospective release of CPF funds for purchase of private property has fuelled the increase in prices further. I noted that about a week after the announcement, prices went up nearly 30%. Besides, how many Singaporeans will be able to buy, even with CPF? Suppose individual A has $100,000 in CPF (one of the few to have such a balance). The cheapest condominium unit costs $400,000, a mere 2-room unit. The banks' valuation of the property is at most $250,000 because the banks' valuations are always conservative and lag behind market prices, and loans are given only up to 80% of banks' valuation. Individual A is short of at least $50,000. What about stamp fees and lawyer's fees, which escalate with property prices? What about furnishing and minor renovations?

(5) People who own private property cannot afford to die. Suppose individual B dies and leaves a semi-detached house worth $500,000. His heirs are allowed exemption of $200,000 and would have to find cash to pay estate duty on the remaining $300,000.

(6) The boom in the private property market causes an escalation in construction costs. As a result HDB and HUDC prices are raised substantially. I know Ministers like to blame OPEC's oil price increases. And the Minister for National Development is no exception. Oil price escalations have some impact on construction costs but the real culprit is speculation, fuelled by inflow of foreign capital into the property market.

(7) The property market boom will lead to an exodus of middle and higher level civil servants because salaries in the private sector adjust more quickly. The net result will be continuing escalation of executive and managerial salaries. The wage disparity will become very pronounced.

What can be done? In the private residential market, the Government can reimpose the restriction on foreign ownership for condominiums and apartments. Anyone having legitimate interest in Singapore or living in Singapore will be entitled to purchase any unit, but not for renting out. This will immediately calm the market because speculation cannot take place without an unlimited supply of end-buyers. Let us remember that we have only 617.8 square kilometres of real estate. There is plenty of money sloshing about in the international monetary system. A little bit of that money coming in can create huge distortions in prices, wages and income and wealth distribution.

Something should also be done about commercial and industrial properties. Hong Kong ought to provide us with an example of what distortions can be produced by a free-wheeling economy. It is like a mad house. Increasing rentals of office space, industrial buildings and accommodation have escalated costs of doing business there.

A property market boom is wonderful for property owners but the economic price to pay is great, as I have tried to show. We cannot build the kind of society envisaged in the President's Address if we have policies that encourage rampant gambling and speculation.

Now let me turn my attention to the Ministry of Education. Sir, there was considerable confusion over the meaning of a distinction and over the so-called T-score. In my view, Sir, confusion was completely unnecessary, if the Ministry had done two things in the first place. An examination - and I speak from 13 years' experience as a teacher (Applause] any examination that produces grades which bunch together with a mean of around 70 marks is a horribly bad examination. The teacher ought to be examined! In this case, the Ministry of Education ought to be examined. When you start giving pupils A's on their report slips and you expect the parents to take streaming without complaint, I do not know what you are doing. If at least you have standardized the scores and provided the T-scores which are much more realistic, then there would have been no complaints at all. But the First Deputy Prime Minister did a very smart thing. He invited Members of Parliament to tea. Next time, I suggest he invites them to lunch as the Minister for National Development did, Sir. The timing of both invitations was rather curious.

Sir, the Ministry of Education wants to promote full-day schools. I wonder whether they have solicited the views of the teachers who will have to stay for the full duration of the day. I would expect some teachers to resign and I would also expect fewer women to become teachers because one of the attractions of becoming a teacher in school is the half-day work in school, or so they think.

Another point concerning the Ministry of Education, Sir, is the question of salaries for teachers. Last week, I had the Personnel Manager of a bank come in to talk to my Honours students about a career in his bank. He came offering them $1,250 as starting salary. After six months, this will rise to $1,500 and after a year of training they would get $2,035 a month. This is doing better than teachers after 10 years of service, and this is about doing as well as a university lecturer with a Ph.D starting out.

Let me next turn to the Ministry of Labour. Many Members have already commented on the so-called problem of job-hopping. I have always considered that problem to be a non-problem, for the simple reason that the statistics are suspect. If you ask any company, "Do you have job-hopping?" They say, "Yes, I have plenty." If ten people out of a thousand were to leave a particular factory every month and ten people get replaced but the other 990 remain fixed, you would show quite a substantial job-hopping in a year in the first place. If the Ministry of Labour were to do a careful study, it will find that there is a very good correlation between so-called job-hopping and the rate of economic growth in Singapore. It will find that in periods of very rapid growth in Singapore the incidence of job-hopping is higher.

There is another term to describe this phenomenon, that is, the mobility of labour. I have talked to managing directors of multinational companies in Singapore, and when I hear about the paltry sums which they are paying to their workers it is no wonder that the workers leave them after three months. Any economist worth his salt will be able to tell the Ministry of Labour that we need a healthy mobility of labour if we are going to get the best out of our people in Singapore, If people's talents are not properly utilised in a particular firm and are better utilised elsewhere, then they ought to move. But we are thinking of policies that are going to tie people down to particular firms. Sometime ago the Ministry of Labour had a policy of tying work permit holders down for five years to a particular firm. It is no wonder that you get shoddy work, absenteeism and all the rest of it.

An hon. Member: Unhappiness.

Dr Augustine Tan: Unhappiness, yes. I just wonder what would happen when the trade unionists who are trained from Harvard and the London School come back.

The Labour Ministry also proposes that the CPF Board should be more aggressive in its investment policies. I thoroughly disagree with that. Our CPF funds are meant for retirement and I know there is inflation going on. But we should take care of inflation rather than play about with the money. I do not agree that we should invest the CPF money in a way that banks invest and private indivi- duals invest. I do not believe in fooling with this retirement fund. And we can do something about inflation.

Let me next turn my attention to the Ministry of Finance. Sir, in the Addendum to the President's Speech, the Ministry of Finance states that in terms of monetary policy "we shall permit such expansion of the money supply as to achieve a real growth of 8-10% per year for our economy." This is the vaguest way of stating monetary policy, Sir. I have never seen such a statement anywhere else or in any other country. That gives the Ministry of Finance and the Monetary Authority of Singapore complete freedom to do what they like in terms of monetary policy. We would like to get down to the brass tacks of how many per cent a year and within what range we are prepared to allow money supply to grow. I would suggest that the Minister for Finance take Milton Friedman seriously on this score.

There is nothing stated in the Addendum about our exchange rate policy and this is a critical variable in our context. It is linked up with monetary policy. Exchange rate policy is the key as to whether we are going to import inflation, we are going to import deflation and we are going to have destabilizing capital inflows. We should learn from our experience of 1972-73 when our money supply just shot up incredibly and inflation rose incredibly in Singapore, and all we did say was to blame OPEC. It was our exchange rate policy which was at fault and today, if we are not careful, we will make the same mistake, and I believe, in the early months of 1980 we made a similar mistake as we made in 1972-73. I hope the First Deputy Prime Minister is listening carefully.

Sir, this morning President Reagan of the United States announced his four-point programme to create new jobs, to reduce inflation and to increase productivity. He wants to cut Government spending by $49 billion, to reduce income tax by 10% each year over the next three years and to increase depreciation allowances for business firms, to reduce and to reform Government regulations affecting business, and to maintain a consistent monetary policy. There are five important points for us to note.

First, the cuts in taxes and expenditure merely reduce the growth of the US budget. They do not trim the actual absolute size of the budget. Secondly, the critical question is whether Congress will cut expenditures along with taxes to the same degree. Politically, it is much more difficult to cut expenditures than to cut taxes, particularly with the system in America. Thirdly, even if President Reagan gets what he wants, the deficit is still a colossal $54.5 billion this year and $45 billion next year. Fourthly, there is the question of how the deficit will be financed. This is the critical part because it can be financed by printing more money or by borrowing from the private capital market. The monetary policy of the Federal Reserves in America will be critical in the next couple of years. The US economy will teeter on the tight-rope between high inflation and deep recession. And fifthly, what will be the response of US businessmen? With interest rates so high, it will not be possible to revive the motorcar industry and the housing industry: two key industries in the US.

Why do I raise these matters? I raise them because of the implications for Singapore, because I expect continuing difficulties not only in the US economy but also in OECD countries, and we shall feel the backwash effects in Singapore. And I urge the First Deputy Prime Minister again to pay very careful attention to exchange rate and monetary policy in Singapore and to monitor financial institutions very carefully because many financial institutions will be in deep trouble. [Applause] 3.42 p.m.

Mr P. Selvadurai (Kuo Chuan): Mr Speaker, Sir, there are two issues of national concern with which this House would be deeply involved in the ensuing years. They are Education with regard to which a vast restructuring is already taking place, and Industrial Relations, a field in which refor- mation of a similar dimension is about to begin. The structure of both Education and Industrial Relations would determine the ultimate character and texture of our lives. Hon. Members would be familiar with the national discussion outside this House generated by the new education policy. Despite the information and explanations given by the Ministry of Education both on the need for streaming and the desirability of giving double weightage to two languages many parents remain unconvinced by the arguments supporting an examination system with a built-in language bias. They point out with considerable emotion that if the current policy had been effective a generation ago, many of those who are professionals and academics today would not have gained admission to a Singapore university. They point out that if the ends of university education are to produce good professionals and technocrats who would man and run our industrial society, the double weightage given to the languages is irrelevant. If, however, the ends of education are to be more than functional, and value-oriented, in other words, the evolution of a cultured human rooted in his classical heritage, such ends are yet to be defined. There are vague stirrings and periodic statements of an, as it were, ex cathedra nature in that direction. But a coherent philosophy is yet to be evolved. It would be a fascinating and useful exercise to sketch the profiles of the different monolingual types that we have and compare them with one another and with the type that the new education policy is designed to produce.

Of equal moment are the impending changes in our Industrial Relations. The SIAPA episode has now become a pilot project. Again, statements have been made recently comparing the British and Japanese styles of conducting industrial relations. Since the Japanese system has been more successful than the British in harnessing the productive energies of the people in present day circumstances, it is an example worth emulating; if only, such emulation would tell our managers how they too can, like Hitachi, by taking thought double their turnover every three and a half years.

But the dangers and pitfalls of piecemeal borrowings are well brought out in a comparative sociological study made by Professor Ronald Dore, formerly of the London School of Economics, and his team of British and Japanese researchers, entitled British Factory - Japanese Factory. The Origins of National Diversity in Industrial Relations They make many important points. In analysing the attitudes and assumptions which underlie what they call "the market oriented system of Britain" and the "organization oriented system of Japan", they caution that before one decides that the Japanese system is a good thing one needs to understand how it relates, on the one hand, to the general security of employment in Japan and, on the other, to the general cultural assumptions about the importance of age common in other spheres of Japanese society.

It should be noted in this regard that employment in a Japanese corporation is for life. Unlike the situation in Singapore, a Japanese employee enjoys security of tenure. The characteristic feature of the Japanese employment system which the team found was that terms and conditions of employment were less and less influenced by considerations of the price a worker might get for his skill from another employer in the external market but more and more fitted into an internal structure of relative rankings peculiar to the enterprise and predicated on the assumption of relatively stable long-term employment.

Singapore society is unlike that of Japan and before we rush into legislation it is important that we get our priorities right. In essence, what we are seeking to do is to mould men and the relations between men in such a way that the machines can be as productive as possible. Indeed, this is the objective of industrial enterprises everywhere. But when we swing away from the Western model of industrial relations based on antagonistic management-worker postures to the Japanese model of manage- ment-worker teamwork, we must find our own mix to suit the temperament of the Singaporean.

"Nothing is for free", is not merely a slogan with us. It is an axiom of policy and, by and large, the people have come to accept the wisdom of this policy. So every time the cost of oil and other materials that affect our daily lives goes up, it is not long before the PUB rates and the conservancy charges are also put up.

The constant grouses that one heard from voters during the recent general elections related to the literal doubling of PUB water and energy bills and the rise in conservancy charges. Where the rise in the family income was insufficient to match the general rise in the cost of living due to galloping inflation, there comes a point when the people begin to look to the Government for relief. The hardship is greatest on the old age pensioners and the unemployable. It is a hard fact of life that the old eastern family system is breaking down. The causes and reasons for this are many and complex. It is not simply a case of the Singaporean becoming too westernised. Indeed, I believe the same process is also taking place in Japanese society. So when families break-up and fail to perform their traditional functions, the old and the infirm members of our society are the hardest hit.

I am gratified to note from the Acting Minister for Social Affairs' Addendum to the President's speech that he proposes to do something about this problem. I hope that it is not too much to expect his Ministry to move in this matter as speedily as the tax-collecting departments of Government. This House would no doubt go into the specifics of the impact of inflation on the welfare of the weaker sections of our society in the forthcoming debate on the Budget proposals of the Government.

Sir, I have pleasure to add my own voice to the chorus supporting the Motion.

3.50 p.m.

Mr Lim Boon Heng (Kebun Baru): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support most firmly the Motion of Thanks moved by the Member for Mountbatten.

At this stage, Sir, I would like to add to what the Member for Whampoa said earlier on this afternoon. I believe in his discussion on the gambling mentality of the Singaporeans, he omitted to mention one example. My observation is that in many functions organized by our civic organizations, such as community centres and resident committees, the primary attraction of such functions appears to be the Lucky Draw. Although there is no betting, I think this form of mass attraction should be discouraged.

Sir, allow me to raise a point that may appear trivial but is of fundamental importance. Two days ago in this House, the hon. Member for Changi said something to this effect, and I quote: "Although we are a one-party Parliament . . .". Sir, there appears to be an error that needs to be corrected. As I understand it, a one-party Parliament would refer to a political system where there is only one authorized legal political party, and only those affiliated to that party are allowed to stand for elections and be voted into office. Examples of such one-party parliamentary systems are found in Zambia, Kenya and Tanzania. In fact, Zambia's motto is: "One party, one government, one nation."

Mr Speaker, Sir, I was horrified when I read a report on the first day's proceedings in this House carried by one of yesterday's morning newspapers. With your permission, Sir, I quote the Straits Times: "This is particularly important in a one-party Parliamentary system." The Straits Times was referring to the proceedings in our Parliament.

Sir, ours is not a one-party parliamentary system. Ours is a parliamentary democracy. Our constitution provides for free elections to be held at least once in five years. During such elections, any citizen, affiliated to any registered political party, or as inde- pendents, may present himself or herself before the electorate as a candidate.

Members in this House have, only two months ago, been elected. In 38 constituencies, these Members have defeated Opposition candidates. That all Members of this House are from one political party is the free choice of the people in the exercise of their democratic right. It demonstrates the full confidence of the people in the People's Action Party.

Mr Speaker, Sir, two days ago the hon. Member for Mountbatten said in this House, and I quote:

'... walking into other people's land and taking control of it by force is indeed despicable and cannot be tolerated by any intelligent human being. It's like walking into someone else's home and taking over because he likes the swimming pool. This very immoral, presumptuous and avaricious act, cannot by any decent standard, happen in a country.' At this juncture, some of us in this House had the impression that he was about to comment on compulsory land acquisition for redevelopment by the URA or the HDB. However, he drew this parallel to censure the invasion of Kampuchea and Afghanistan.

I am sure he did not intend the connotation. Most definitely, there is no parallel between compulsory land acquisition and the invasion of Kampuchea and Afghanistan. The invasions of Kampuchea and Afghanistan are cases of naked aggression. It is the taking over of one country by another and the subjugation of one nation to another. Such acts should be strongly censured. It serves as a grim reminder to all citizens that Singapore is our country, and it is our duty to defend it.

Compulsory land acquisition, on the other hand, is a necessary measure of progress and accepted as such. All Singaporeans can see the results. Legislation has provided for orderly acquisition and compensation. Through this measure, old decaying parts of our city have been and will be renewed. It is also this measure that has allowed the HDB to build flats at such a quick pace that over two-thirds of our population now live in public housing, In short, the compulsory acquisition of land from citizens is for the common interest of all citizens.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in his Address, the President, commenting on the fact that there is only one Party in this House has stressed the need to ensure that the Government does not abuse the trust of the people, and has urged Members of this Parliament, especially those not constrained by ministerial office, to voice the views of their constituents. I propose now to mirror their views.

The first subject deals with those affected by compulsory land acquisition. It concerns the implementation of the Act, and not the Act itself.

One common complaint is that the exgratia payment is inadequate to pay for the HDB flat that is allocated to each family. They, therefore, have to pay monthly instalments. They also now have to pay conservancy charges. Then they find that all utilities - water, gas and electricity - cost them more. Some have in the past been able to minimize on such expenses by supplementing with well water and firewood. In these days of rising oil prices, such fall-back measures mean a lot to these families whose incomes are low.

To make matters worse, in a number of instances, there is a complete disruption of their means of livelihood. The alternatives offered to them invariably mean the switching from one form of employment to another. There is no retraining provided. We must bear in mind that those who operated small farms, in their 40s and 5Os, cannot become provision shop owners or market stallholders overnight. Many of them simply do not know where to start or how to start. There is the question of initial capital and requirement of transport. At best, they possess a rudimentary knowledge of business principles. Therefore, we can appreciate their lack of confidence in taking up the offered alternative means of livelihood.

For many, the easiest form of alternative employment is operating hawker stalls. But there is a shortage of hawker stalls. It would be unwise to flood the market with hawker stalls. How else can we help them? I hope the Ministry of National Development and the Ministry of Labour can work out a practical scheme.

Another common complaint comes from the small shopkeepers serving the areas affected. They claim that, and in some cases I know it is true, though the majority of residents have already moved out, they have not yet been allocated new premises. They see their revenues diminishing, and they are driven to the point of desperation because there is a genuine fear that they would not have capital enough to start business elsewhere. There must be greater emphasis on the social and humane aspects of resettlement. Those affected go through a difficult period of adjustment.

Mr Speaker, Sir, over the years we have learnt much from the building of new HDB towns. We see improved designs and facilities with each new town. However, there is one aspect that appears not to have improved. It is the seeming lack of central coordination among various Government departments. I support the hon. Member for Chong Boon's comments. Schools, polyclinics, traffic lights, overhead pedestrian bridges, recreational facilities - all these seem to lag far behind the completion of residential units. True, it is not possible to provide all the facilities from the very beginning. Even in our country instant trees take a few months to sprout leaves to provide shade. But we can minimize the time-lag through coordinated planning.

The hon. Member for Boon Lay's suggestion of forming QC circles in Government departments should be seriously taken up. In this instance, an inter-department QC circle needs to be formed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, much has been said about the Singapore Bus Service. After all the criticisms, I would like to state that the SBS has generally improved its bus services over the last few years. They would be the first to admit that it is not perfect, and there is room for improvement. I have one humble request. I am sure I speak for all hon. Members whose constituencies include parts of Ang Mo Kio New Town that the present feeder services are grossly inadequate during peak hours. This matter has been taken up by the residents, but I believe all that they have received so far is an acknowledgement card to their letters.

Could the Hon. Minister for Communications please look into the matter? It is most likely that SBS, like all efficient enterprises, need to justify the provision of services. In this respect, data on traffic flow is required. I am sure the residents' committees would be only too willing to assist in the collation of statistics if it will help SBS to provide better services in a shorter time.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Hon. Prime Minister, in his Lunar New Year message, has pointed out the need to preserve the family as it is the building block of society. This message is most timely. It has been further amplified last night by the Hon. Minister for Trade and Industry and Health and the Hon. Minister without Portfolio to community leaders. We must prevent the fragmentation of the family system. Rather, we should encourage family members to stay together, or close together. We teach filial piety as a desired social value, therefore the implementation of Government policies and programmes must manifest this teaching.

Sir, we are justifiably proud of the achievements of the HDB. However, this rapid housing programme has caused the uprooting of whole communities. The spirit of those communities, built over several generations, has been lost. Over two-thirds of our population are affected. By 1985, 75% are expected to be affected. What is more significant, however, is the dispersal of families. This is not conducive to strong family ties. If we are to rebuild community spirit, we must begin by preserving the family.

There is a large number of residents in HDB housing estates who wish to stay together with their families. There are many young couples grappling with the problem of working and bringing up children. They rush in the morning to send their children to the grandparents, from one HDB estate to another, and bring them back in the evening. Most certainly the quality of attention given to the children suffers. Then there are those who leave the children to fend for themselves after school. What values will these children pick up? Unguided for several hours a day, they are at risk. We will see the erosion of the moral character of our people in the years to come unless immediate corrective measures are taken.

The Prime Minister's message has given many families fresh hope. At long last their voices have been heard. I am sure Members of Parliament have seen a rise in the number of constituents enquiring about the schemes the Prime Minister has stated that the HDB is studying. I hope the Hon. Minister for National Development will be able to provide us with specific details in the proceedings of this House soon. I hope it will provide for incentives, such as first priority for applicants who will be supporting their parents staying with them. In these days of small families, it should not matter whether it is the parents of the husband or the wife who would be staying with the couple.

At the same time, I suggest that we re-examine the rules to give low priority to those who are legally married, but not staying together because they have not gone through the customary rites. This practice deprives those with real housing needs, and artificially inflates demand.

The family unit must also be emphasized in social development programmes. I have suggested that the SBC Roadshow series that has just started improve its content to provide for participation by families. Participating as a family helps to strengthen the family identity. May I further suggest that community centres and residents' committees organise more activities that allow family participation. These are practical steps that I feel we can take to preserve and strengthen the bond among family members, and should merit the attention of the People's Association.

Sir, I support the Motion. 4.08 p.m.

Mr Ho See Beng (Khe Bong): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to congratulate the Government for highlighting, and setting out in simple terms, the three most important tasks ahead for our nation in the 80s.

Singapore has often been described as a "freak state" among the developing countries of Asia. It is true that in a sense we are unique. We are a city state, with no hinterland or natural resources and, as has often been said before, our only resources are our human resources. I think, however, we would not be immodest if we say that we have made progress, despite natural and geographical handicaps.

Mr Speaker, Sir, during the past 20 years our country has, because of good government, surmounted various crises, both national and international, rather satisfactorily, and continued to make economic and social progress. This has only been made possible by careful forward planning and strict social discipline which has earned the approbation of all Singapore citizens and demonstrated by Singaporeans at the recent general elections.

It is this hard-headedness which saw us through the first two decades after independence. It is the same hard-headed pragmatic approach which moved us to develop a new economic strategy for the 80s. And in this context, it is gratifying to note that appropriate emphasis is being given to the building of a modern industrial society, resting on sophisticated economic activities and on new relationships between management and labour.

Sir, the most excellent economic and social plans and projects are futile if the people who are concerned with the implementation and execution are not united in their approach to achieve the goals set by the planners. Singapore, as a former colony, inherited certain traditional western attitudes of labour-management relations. In the final analysis, the concept was that the worker must be antagonistic to management because management was antagonistic to workers. This is not the philosophy for development nor should it be the philosophy for any developing country. We have seen the consequences of this approach in many countries and it is clear that far from making progress they are only creating problems for themselves.

This is not to say that workers' welfare should not be safeguarded. As pointed out recently, workers and management must work as a team for a common objective. In other words, as implied by one of my colleagues, both workers and management must wear a common hat, namely, the Singapore hat. They must not feel that they are on opposite sides of the fence. The stress on good labour-management relations thus is most timely. n

It is also appropriate that the pivotal role of defence and national service be reiterated because, although the subjects of defence and national security have been emphasized over and over again, it is all too easy to forget because of our affluence or relatively affluent societies to develop complacency and indifference which will ultimately erode and undermine our vigilance.

Singapore is a little distance away from the horrors and tragedies that are at present being perpetuated in and around Kampuchea, and so we must never forget how easy it will be for us to be overtaken by a similar situation if we are not on our guard at all times. It is quite easy for us, basking in the prosperity of Singapore and in an environment where law and order prevails, to forget the dangers that lurk around the corner - around the corner and not too far away. It is not easy to understand the horrors and the tragedies of war and the degradation of inhuman government under communist or totalitarian regimes unless we have experienced such situations. Impressions from the media, newspapers and television become distant memories and are often forgotten, because we are usually too busy to think about them, and often because human beings do not like to remember unpleasant things.

Singaporeans who have been abroad and have visited countries which have been ravaged by war, insurrection or occupation by a foreign power would understand these things more easily, because there is no substitute for experience. But not many of us have witnessed such tragic situations and so, Mr Speaker, Sir, the need to recognise the role of defence and security to ensure Singapore's independence and prosperity cannot be over-stressed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think Singapore is about the only newly independent country which has taken concrete and positive steps to build up a second echelon to take over the reins of government when the old guard fades out of the picture. Indeed, this is another demonstration of Singapore's pragmatism. It is obviously a necessary step for man does not go on forever, and it is a tribute to the Government that they have selected a new team of high quality, efficient men with proven talent and capacity who will look after and safeguard the interests of Singapore in their time.

Sir, if we look around most developing countries we often find that the leadership has passed their prime, but they tend to cling to power until the bitter end. It then often happens that people get annoyed, and trouble starts, and often when things go wrong a military junta takes over. The military normally does not have experience in the an of government and the situation tends to get worse. This has happened in some developing countries throughout the world.

This conscious development of a second echelon, instead of leaving it to chance, will safeguard Singapore's future, in the same way as our positive economic and social programmes drawn up soon after independence safeguarded and ensured Singapore's progress during the past two decades. If the Government in 1959 had left things to chance, leaving economic growth and social programmes to develop in a haphazard fashion, Singapore would not be what it is today. This is the crux of the matter which we must bear in mind.

And now, Sir, I would like to turn to the emphasis that has been laid on the need to preserve Singaporeans' basic values and the essentials of their philosophy of life. In this context it will be recalled that in recent times there have been calls for renewed vigour in preserving and strengthening the family, as the basic social unit and the pivot of Singapore society, especially in the light of social transformation accompanying our Republic's economic development. Singaporeans are being continuously exhorted not to discard family ties, and as part of this family commitment not to neglect the aged, be they members of their immediate family or relatives.

These calls, Mr Speaker, Sir, to the public of Singapore are most timely. The social and economic transformation of Singapore and the change in our lifestyles have tended to make inroads into our traditional ways of life. And one of the casualties appears to be the older people whose numbers are increasing year by year. It is only right and proper that every effort should be made to maintain the family as a cohesive unit, where the children deem it not only a responsibility but also a pleasure to take care of aged parents and relatives.

But, Sir, it cannot be said that such a spirit of consideration and compassion is being manifested by the Government in its welfare policies. It has been pointed out time and time again, for example, that those receiving public assistance receive less than half of what they require for minimum subsistence. And yet the Ministry of Social Affairs appears to be mounting a campaign to deprive this small group of people from receiving public assistance of their pittance. One of the devices is to withdraw public assistance from old people, if they have relatives who have earning capacity. This is causing untold hardship and problems. Relatives close or distant who might be willing to lend a hand are now becoming reluctant to do so, because the moment they do so they are saddled with the full responsibility of looking after such older people. Thus the sympathy and care for the aged parent and relatives shown by the children or other relatives will eventually rebound on them as a financial responsibility.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as a result of the Social Welfare Department's intractable approach and lack of sympathy, few people today are prepared to volunteer to look after aged relatives who may be receiving public assistance. They fear that the Social Welfare Department will cut off the meagre public subsistence which, as we all know, is not enough to pay for the rent of a room; and they will become responsible for the unfortunate old person.

Thus on the one hand we are rightfully reminded of our laudable responsibility of looking after older people; on the other hand the Government appears to be disowning any responsibility for the welfare of old people. I find it difficult to reconcile these two approaches.

At the same time, Mr Speaker, Sir, we are spending thousands and thousands of dollars on making Singapore a garden city. I am rather puzzled by this approach. The question we should then ask ourselves is whether we value our greenery more than our old people. It will be interesting to compare the money spent on Public Assistance with the total funds being spent on making Singapore a garden city. 4.24 p.m.

The First Deputy Prime Minister (Dr Goh Keng Swee): Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission, I will first deal with matters which really do not concern my portfolio. These refer to subjects like gambling and speculation raised by the Member for Whampoa in his most excellent address.

First, gambling. He condemns gambling. I also condemn gambling, but for a different reason. I always lose in gambling and I do not like to part with my money easily. But other Singaporeans are different. They like to part with their money in gambling. So why should not the public revenue benefit from these generous Singaporeans?

As regards speculation, we had an interesting account of speculation in property. The Member for Whampoa quoted a case where identical houses were sold at greatly different prices; $600,000 in one case and $800,000 in the other. There is an economic explanation for this. The Member for Whampoa must be a well-qualified economist and he is sure to be familiar with the term "market imperfections". The remedy for market imperfections is - not less speculators but more speculators. The Member must have more confidence in Milton Friedman.

He makes an important point that in our monetary policy we should pay particular attention to the exchange rates. I entirely agree with him. He advised me to monitor the exchange rates of the Singapore dollar closely. I have done so, but I do not think that the Member has acted on the advice he gave me because if he did he would find much in the exchange rate of the Singapore dollar over the last few months that would gladden his heart.

I now turn to matters raised by Members on the new education system. It seems to me that nobody has really pinpointed one of the major defects of the new education system, and that is, its name. It is not really a new education system. The system should be called "Old Education System, Mark II".

I will give Members the points on which the basic structure of the system remains the same. First, the terminal point of the education system for most students will be the 'O' and 'A' levels examinations. As regards the Normal stream, in a sense we are really reverting to a practice of some years past when most students took five years for the 'O' level. Even the Monolingual stream is not new, as I shall explain later. The PSLE has remained unchanged. The bilingual policy again remains the same. The choice of schools based on points scored in the PSLE is exactly the same as in the past years. The only difference is that this year, we give details of grades scored by pupils, and for reasons which the Member for Whampoa explained, this created misunderstanding because parents equated an 'A' as a distinction. However, this matter has been explained to the public, and I hope most of them are satisfied.

What is new about the system is streaming. I think the objects are clear but people are not happy and have reservations about implementation. Parents are anxious. They are always anxious when their children have to sit for examinations, but with streaming it becomes more complicated. Last year, for instance, there was a lot of fear expressed about streaming at Primary 3 into the Monolingual, Extended and Normal streams. This year, the attention has been turned to streaming between the Normal and Express streams. Although the percentage of children streamed into the Monolingual stream this year is nearly twice that of last year, there has been no public comment on it. I suspect the reason is that children of professionals are hardly ever streamed into the Monolingual stream and those who do are probably from the lower income groups who are not very vocal. Of course, it is quite right that parents should be concerned about their children's education.

Members have raised two points about the Monolingual stream. The first is whether it is right that streaming should take place at Primary 3 when a child is at the age of nine. The second is what would be the future of those in the Monolingual stream. As I said before, monolingual education is really not an innovation. Remember that we are dealing with the lowest 10-15% of school children. In the early years when we had to produce more schools and more teachers, the system just had to push children ahead regardless of whether they failed or passed the class examinations. The result was that the bottom 10-15% got promoted, and as they got promoted they understood less and less of what was taught in schools. Some four or five years ago the situation in schools was easier and the Ministry decided that if children did not pass their class examinations at the end of the year they would be retained. If they failed three times they would be streamed into the Basic Course which is a monolingual course. The trouble with this arrangement was that by the time the child failed three times he had lost interest in school education and the drop-out rate from the Basic Course was extremely high. Before the year was half-way through, about half the pupils had dropped out, and in the case of those in Basic 4 less than 10% remained.

How dependable is streaming at Primary 3 when the child is only nine years old? Are we not taking a dangerous step in deciding a child's future at such a tender age? In August 1979, the systems engineers did a study called "A Survey of Weak Pupils". This is the study [indicating] and it is a rather voluminous one. I am afraid I cannot invite Members for tea again. The Ministry is much too poor for tea, not to speak of lunch. So if any Member is interested, he can get a copy of this for a small sum of $5, I will read out the principal findings of this survey. It studied a sample of some 2,500 pupils in the Basic Course in some detail and also the general performance of some 7,800 pupils channelled to the Basic Course for the years 1977 and 1978. This is the major finding:

'It was observed that 93% of Group I pupils [i.e. the Basic Course pupils from all levels, from Basic 1 to Basic 41 had failed their P3 examination. The average number of P3 pupils who had failed the school examination was 7,632 for the years 1976, 1977 and 1978. Nearly all pupils who had failed P3 will end up being channelled to the Basic Course since the difference was only 357, i.e. 7,632 minus 7,275.' May I mention that this figure represents close to 20% of the Primary I cohort. Since we are streaming less than 10% of the Primary 1 cohort, I do not think there is great risk that we are doing any injustice to a child who would have chances of performing well if he had not been streamed to the monolingual course.

Now I will deal with specific points raised by Members. First, the Member for Moulmein. The Ministry has spent vast sums of money in engaging foreign consultants and I think we will do well if we engage him as a consultant but, unfortunately, according to the rules of the House we will not be able to pay him any money.

Mr Sia Khoon Seong (Moulmein): Sir, on a point of order. I did not speak.

An hon. Member: Member for Mountbatten.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Mr Devan Nair, you are from Mountbatten?

An hon. Member: Anson.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: This really shows that the time has come for the old guard to retire! I think the Member for Anson has put his finger on the real trouble spot of our education system. He said that schools must not be knowledge factories and the trouble began with the mass production of teachers and mass production of students. Those were the early years and there was no way that we could have avoided it. And now with numbers stabilizing, the time has come when we can spend more time on developing schools and teachers at a more deliberate pace.

He mentioned one particular defect in the school system with which I totally agree and, that is, the depersonalization of Government schools because policies were determined by edicts from the Ministry without proper explanation. He made an observation about this with which I totally agree and, that is, aided or mission schools perform well because they ignored the circulars of the Ministry of Education if they thought that it was nonsensical. In fact, quite early when I moved into the Ministry I asked to see an old college colleague of mine, Miss Tan Sock Kern, who had just retired as Principal of the Singapore Chinese Girls' School. I asked Miss Tan, "What is really wrong with this system?" She did not go so far as to say that the Ministry was a complete madhouse, as a teacher was recently reported to have said. She said that the trouble was that directives were issued without proper explanation, and recounted one memorable occasion on which she asked the inspector of schools, "Tell me, why should I comply with this directive?" And the inspector said, "This directive came from on-high." She said, "You go and tell your on-high to explain why I should do it. Otherwise, I refuse to do it." Since then the school inspector made it a point not to visit this school. Perhaps as a result of this, the school came out to be the best of the girls' schools. It has been scoring 100% passes; if not 100%, it is 99.9%.

The Member for Anson made some observations on the role of teachers' unions, now that we are going to establish a Schools Council. This is a matter of some importance and, Mr Speaker, with your permission, I will use the prepared text. I must ask the ladies of the press to check against delivery because this was prepared in a rush this morning. Let me remind Members of what the Member for Anson said, and I am quoting from today's Business Times.-

'The Addendum contained a proposal to set up a Schools Council and to venture into the areas of moral education and comparative religion. If these proposals presage an intelligent and determined effort in these directions, as I believe they do, the teachers' unions in Singapore will need to perceive their roles in an altogether new light. For nothing is more important than producing the rounded, balanced and motivated Singaporeans of tomorrow, which can only be the result of conceiving the educational process as an integral body-mind-spirit affair, involving a creative and continuous interaction between students, teachers, the Ministry and the community at large.' The Member for Anson went on to say:

'I do not suggest that the machinery for processing the claims, grievances and grouses of teachers should be dispensed with. But what I do think is crucial is the transformation of teachers' organizations in Singapore into primarily professional bodies much more concerned than they are today with formulating, monitoring and promoting the range of professional interest, standards and values of our educators.'

When I was discussing the composition of the Schools Council with my professional and administrative staff, the inclusion of members of the five teachers' unions was debated at length. We reached the conclusion, and rightly, I think, that so long as they remained trade unions, primarily concerned with the terms and conditions of service of teachers, their membership in the Schools Council would not be right. This answers the point raised yesterday by the Member for Kampong Ubi.

I therefore strongly recommend that the five teachers' unions be dissolved and be transformed into one or more professional associations, preferably one; if that is not possible, then they could federate with the other existing professional teachers' associations.

When that happens, they will be invited to join the Schools Council where I am sure they will make a valuable contribution. In particular, they can help us to get teachers out of the state of inertia, even despondency which some of them have got into, by tackling the root causes and not the symptoms.

As members of a professional association, they are entitled to represent the teaching profession on claims, grievances and grouses about the terms and conditions of service and other matters. But their principal area of concern must be the raising of professional standards.

The teachers of our National University had recently closed down their unions, which should never have been formed in the first instance, and formed themselves into a professional association. I strongly urge the five teachers' unions to follow their example.

In fact, I see no advantage in the continued existence of the Teachers' Unions. The ultimate bargaining strength of the trade union is the right to strike. To their credit, teachers' unions have not exercised this right, even though they must have found circumstances frustrating at times. It is inconceivable that the PAP Government will allow matters to reach such a point that teachers will go on strike, something which happens quite frequently in other countries. Education is an essential service and if gazetted as such in Singapore under the Emergency Regulations, strikes will be illegal. So when the need to strike had not, does not and will not arise, nor will the occasion to do so be allowed to happen, why not become "respectable"? I do not want to take issue with the Minister without portfolio. He may not have a portfolio but he has got lots of other things. Why not become "respectable" and convert into fully professional associations?

Look at the doctors and lawyers. They do not have trade unions but their professional associations look after their interests very well - some would even say too well.

Now, I have noted useful ideas from various Members about how the Schools Council should function, for instance, the Member for Bedok, on the involvement of parents, the Member for Buona Vista, concerning the grouping of principals by catchment areas. I will bear these in mind, The Member for Telok Blangah asked whether a Schools Council for primary schools should be formed. The answer is no. Let us start with secondary schools first. If this turns out to be more or less successful, then we can think about primary schools.

I will now turn to specific matters raised by some Members. The Member for Ayer Rajah and the Member for West Coast thought that the examinations place too great an emphasis on languages so that those good in mathematics and science will be penalized and, in this way, we may prevent or inhibit the emergence of scientists and engineers. I think these Members must have been influenced by a recent letter to the Straits Times by Mr C.C. Leong. There will be a reply forthcoming.

I will just give Members a few figures to show that fears that those good in mathematics will suffer because they are bad in languages are not well founded. The systems engineers did a study of the 1972 PSLE cohort which went into secondary schools, and compared their performance in EL 1 with the general performance in 'O' level. Of those who had a raw score of 90 or more, 86% got seven or eight 'O' levels. On the other hand, of those who had less than 50 marks, 85% of them failed to get even three 'O' levels. The whole table and explanation will be published in due course in the Straits Times

The Member for Telok Blangah claims that the systems engineers are high-fliers and must come down to earth and see the teachers, principals and the parents. I want to seek some clarification from him. What evidence has he got? How many teachers and parents has he seen? How many systems engineers has he interviewed? Can I ask him for a clarification?

Mr Rohan bin Kamis (Telok Blangah): Mr Speaker, Sir, during the Chinese New Year festivities, I had occasion to visit a Vice-Principal in his home where there was a gathering of something like 20 teachers. They range from Vice-Principals to teachers with at least 15 years' experience. I learned to my surprise, if not my horror, that they were never consulted and they did not know anything about the PSLE T-score. They were actually figuring out with their own ingenuity what the T-score meant. They thought that since there were four subjects and the results were not more than 400, they were total scores. They thought they were right. But when they found out that one of the students had 412, there goes all their deductions. Now, I have spoken to many parents who are just as concerned, particularly those in my constituency of Telok Blangah. They say they are very confused, and I do not blame them.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Mr Speaker, Sir, Members must understand that the T-scores in examinations are the responsibility of the professionals in the Ministry, not the systems engineers. Actually, my Permanent Secretary, who is the chief of them, makes it a point to visit at least two schools a week. He has spoken to hundreds of teachers and, heaven knows, hundreds of students. One of the systems engineers spent one and a half years at the Institute of Education and she has spoken to literally thousands of teachers. Well, I would not labour the point. But I do ask the Member to do a proper study before he gives advice to Ministers, otherwise his advice will be taken very lightly.

The Member for Jurong raised some points about school inspection. He believes there are so many schools that it will not be possible to visit a school more than once in six years or even eight years. The school appraisal system is one that we have adapted from Australia, as I have explained in the Addendum. It is the policy of the Inspectorate to concentrate on the weaker schools with more problems. The better schools can look after themselves. They will present no problem. But in between visits by the Inspectorate, the schools themselves do their own self-appraisal. And they do write up annual appraisal reports. No doubt the system can be improved because it has been introduced just over a year ago. The professionals will pay greater attention to this.

But there is one problem area which has been mentioned in the Addendum. We want to attract better teachers to the Ministry and under the present system of salary scales and promotion this is rather difficult. The Member for Jurong need not fear that nobody helps schools in between these periodic inspections. The Schools Division has specialist subject inspectors attached to them and officers of this branch do visit schools and are available for consultation whenever the schools want advice. However, here again, the problem is that although we have many posts in the Ministry, a good number of them have not been filled.

The Member for Ayer Rajah hit the headlines yesterday [Straits Times,18th February, 1981, page 13]. Here it is, Mr Speaker [indicating]. It is rather a nice photograph of the Member in a very happy mood. The headline says: "School system helping to create class division: MP." This is really an absurd statement. I hope the Member attended the function last night at the Istana and heard the very excellent speeches by the Minister without portfolio and the Minister for Trade and Industry. The point they made is that it is our school system that allows able children from poor families to rise and become professionals. That is why we have general cohesion and contentment in Singapore at all strata of society.

Let me quote from a speech I gave at the Reunion dinner of the Christian Brothers Old Boys' Association on Saturday, 24th May last year. After the break I will give this copy to him free of charge. It explains the difference between our system and the system prevailing in western countries. I discussed the awards, over ten years, of President scholars, Overseas Merit scholars and Colombo Plan scholars. They total 670. The largest single group were children of manual workers, 39% of the total. The smallest group were children of professional families, only 13%. These figures follow quite closely the general occupation distribution of Singapore.

When you talk about class division, you are talking about wealth, status conferred, not so much by merit and effort, but by privilege, by birth. The position in other countries is different from ours. I have to quote from Britain. But this really does not reflect badly on them because it shows that when a society has matured, you will eventually find that the same kind of social rigidity will take place. It will take place in Singapore in perhaps a generation or two from now.

A study made in 1955 showed that 80% of students in Oxford and Cambridge came from the upper middle class. According to official statistics, this class constituted only 19% of the population. So 19%, the top upper class of the British society produced 80% of Oxbridge students. Not because the British educational authorities did nothing about it. For the best part of three decades after the war, they recognised that class division in Britain was a serious social problem and something had to be done to enable those who come from the working class, the poorer families, to rise up in the way that we have achieved in Singapore. This is what Professor William Taylor, Director of the Institute of Education in the University of London, said in one of his research papers:

'There were great hopes in the years after the Second World War that by making secondary education free for all and providing student support grants that the main obstacles to inequality of opportunity must be overcome. And yet in the past 25 years, we do not seem to have made dramatic progress.' And he gave figures of University entrance related to social class in other European countries, and he went on to say:

'Figures of this kind can be repeated for most advanced countries. The proportions concerned have remained remarkably consistent over time despite constant repetition of the claim that these are the kinds of differences we want to avoid.'

The Member for Ayer Rajah went on to observe that Singaporeans go increasingly for prestigious brands of clothing, bags, shoes, motor cars and even schools. Of course, he is quite right about this. But I think he should have deplored this practice. Let us talk about clothes. For some years, it has become the fashion to wear trousers called jeans. Now, it is quite often that we see advertisements of jeans just showing backsides of people. This causes the Singapore consumer to pay quite exorbitant sums for these products. I did a study some years ago on a very popular brand, I compared the retail price with the ex-factory cost of one pair of jeans. Ex-factory cost was $7 a pair and the Singapore consumer paid $45 for it. But RTS, as it was then known, got $10 for a pair of jeans through advertising and I assume the balance is shared by the proprietor/retailer and so on. So who is being rooked? Not only that, the consumer pays to be rooked, paying $45 for something costing $7. We are, what you might call, a parvenu society, nouveau riche. People like to show off, they are snobs; very deplorable, even though quite natural.

But the solution does not lie in what the Member advocated. He said that the West was having second thoughts about streaming, and he went on to say:

'Perhaps the Prime Minister's observations on mixed housing apply equally to our schools - a good mix of abilities will certainly go a long way to discourage intellectual snobbery which I think is far worse than social snobbery.' I do not know about that. But let us be careful about these things. Let us not fool around and experiment with what is called "mixed ability classes." In England and in America, there are honest and good people who believe that the poor must be given a good chance or the same chance as the rich. If your child is not bright, that is because you are disadvantaged; the society is not being fair to you. So they have what is called "comprehensive schools" where bright students and less bright students all mix together. These comprehensive schools are decided on political grounds, not on educational grounds. So they tried comprehensive schools and they found that the less bright students still did worse than the more bright students. Now they say, "The examinations are not fair. Let us have 'O' level examinations where you have difficult questions and easy questions and then everyone can pass equally well." What these authorities have not understood is that equal opportunity does not lead to equal outcome. In Singapore, we give everybody equal chance in education, in jobs, in everything. And if the outcome is unequal, fair enough. It reflects differences in ability. But let us not look down on the school children who do not get four distinctions at 'A' level. Let us not look down even on the monolinguals. They can be good, honest bus drivers, factory workers. So long as they work hard, are honest, law-abiding citizens, they are a credit to the nation.

Dr Augustine Tan: And don't gamble!

Dr Goh Keng Swee: On the other hand, a student may get four 'A' levels - he becomes a professional, a lawyer or doctor, and then grabs his client's money and goes to jail. Such people may be clever, but I do not think they are any credit to our society.

I think I have covered all the main points raised by hon. Members. There are one or two small matters which have been raised this afternoon. The Member for Chong Boon asked why, when the Housing Board builds houses, it does not build schools at the same time so that when families move in, the schools are there? This has got a long history. In fact, when I was in the Finance Ministry, I myself was partially to blame for this. When the Education Ministry asked for certain schools to be built in some housing estates, they put up a very poor submission, full of errors of fact and errors of logic. So I asked them to resubmit the application, but they never did. The result was that the building of schools became the responsibility of the Public Works Department which is in the Ministry of National Development, and they had to get funds from the Finance Ministry, The Housing Board is not interested in building schools because they do not get rents from the principals. They have to run an efficient outfit, and rightly so. I have discussed this with my colleagues, the Finance Minister and the Minister for National Development. Now we have agreed that the Housing Board will build the schools together with the houses and send the bill to the Minister for Finance. So I think the errors that we made in the past will be remedied in future.

The Member for Whampoa asked whether teachers have been consulted over full-day schools and is the Ministry aware of the problems. The answer is that teachers have been consulted and we know that the institution of full-day schools will create some problems. Married women teachers, for instance, would like to teach only half a day and would like to go back to look after their families. So the whole system of employment of married women teachers or retired married women teachers is being reviewed so that if they have the talent, the experience, and they want to work, we should adjust the terms and conditions of service and the time table to mutual benefit. 5.14 p.m.

Mr Sia Khoon Seong: Mr Speaker, Sir, can I crave your indulgence and the indulgence of this House to respond to the First Deputy Prime Minister's proposal to the five teachers' unions to convert themselves into some professional teachers' organization as a means to bring about greater professional pride, and so on and so forth?

I would like to tell the First Deputy Prime Minister that if, in the course of time, he can convince me that by so doing the teachers' pride can be restored and the professional competence can be improved as a result of a change of name, I give him my assurance that I will get my committee on behalf of the Singapore Teachers' Union to initiate the move. But as at this moment I find it very difficult to believe that by a change of status, a change of name of the Singapore teachers' organizations will achieve that. The reason is that at the present moment the loss of pride, the discontentment, has got nothing to do with the teachers' unions instigating the teachers, but it has very much to do with the Ministry of Education's inability to make some of the adjustments when it implements new policies. I can quite understand the First Deputy Prime Minister's concern in wanting to see that teachers are more professional and competent. And he mentioned the Association of medical doctors and the Association of lawyers as two examples to illustrate that because of these two associations, the professional competence of the doctors and lawyers is ensured. But if he had looked at some of the newspapers in the past, he will notice that despite the associations a few doctors and lawyers did commit very unprofessional conduct. This is not to say that the Singapore Medical Association or the Law Society did not do anything. What I am saying is that a mere change of the name of the organization or status of the organization itself is not going to help.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Objectives.

Mr Sia Khoon Seong: The First Deputy Prime Minister just took over the Ministry of Education two years ago. Probably he was not aware of the discontentment of the teachers during the last 10 years. If he can get his research officers or systems engineers to do a research or look at the newspaper cuttings on reports of the discontentment and the unhappiness of the teachers 10 years ago, he will notice that they were so dissatisfied with the many adjustments they had to make as a result of so many policy changes. In fact, the teachers' unions, particularly the Singapore Teachers' Union, although its role is that of a trade union, had in the course of the last 10 years helped the Ministry of Education in bringing about a higher morale in the teaching profession. So there has not been any let-down by the Singapore Teachers' Union. Has there been any statement by the Singapore Teachers' Union that it will do this or do that in order to create a kind of antagonism against the Ministry of Education? In fact, all the grievances have been expressed by me in this House and very often they have nothing to do with mundane matters. They have very much to do with educational matters.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Therefore, you should convert yourself.

Mr Sia Khoon Seong: That is not going to help. Just because the Ministry is not able to bring 4bout a measure of success in terms of greater confidence, greater competence, greater happiness in the teaching profession today, I think it is not fair to put the blame on the teachers' unions. But whatever it is, whether it be the teachers' unions, especially the Singapore Teachers' Union, or whether it is a union or not a union, I can assure the First Deputy Prime Minister that we will always give our fullest cooperation.

To show him that we do get ourselves interested in professional matters, we have conducted several seminars. The major project that we have carried out is a professional survey. The report will be out in a month's time and I will be glad to personally deliver it to the First Deputy Prime Minister and to all Members of Parliament to show him ---

An hon. Member: Free-of-charge?

Mr Sia Khoon Seong: Yes, free-of-charge. I will not charge him $5 although he wants to charge us. What I am trying to say is that we are all for the education objectives. But I think that this gimmick or this move is not going to help. What is more important is to bring about greater rapport, a greater understanding on the part of the Ministry of Education officials of problems of the teachers and to encourage a greater dialogue. As it is, I have great difficulties in trying to arrange for meetings with the Ministry of Education to discuss some of the educational problems. Every time I ring up, they say, "Informal meetings we will have, but not formal meetings." I will give the First Deputy Prime Minister another example of a professional matter.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: You are a trade union.

Mr Sia Khoon Seong: No, whether we are a trade union or not, we do engage in professional activities. What's in a name? There was, for example, the Ministry of Education coming out with this idea of the Rolling Plan. It wants the school to have a three or five-year plan. When the concept was first mooted, the principals were at a loss as to what to do. It was the Singapore Teachers' Union which got the principals together and tried to get the Ministry of Education to get them to come and tell us how to go about getting this Rolling Plan initiated. We got the National Productivity Board experts to come and tell the principals how the Rolling Plan could be planned. We could not get any help from the Ministry of Education. So the fault does not lie with the teachers' unions. But if, for other reasons, the teacher's unions had been a nuisance in the sense that every time there are flaws or mistakes by the Ministry and the teachers' unions make a nuisance by pointing out these mistakes and become an irritant, then that is a different matter. Could it be for these reasons that the unions ought to be closed down? In fact, financially it is quite an attractive proposition because by turning ourselves into a Teacher's Association we do not have to pay the National Trades Union Congress $130,000 a year.