PRESIDENT'S ADDRESS Debate on the Address (Fourth 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.

The Minister for Communications and Minister for Labour (Mr Ong Teng Cheong): Mr Speaker, Sir, the President in his Address has listed the building of a new relationship between management and labour - where both pull, and are seen to be pulling together - as one of the three major tasks for the Republic in the 1980s. Many Members have spoken in support of the need for good labour-management relations for the 80s and beyond. The need for employers, unions and workers to work as a team, the need for good management and the need for workers to adopt the right work attitudes, have been. pointed out repeatedly during the course of this debate. I wish to thank Members for their concern for good labour-management relations.

My Ministry recognises the need for higher productivity if our economy is to upgrade and to grow. It also realises that crucial to this is cooperation among management, union and workers and good work attitudes. The Government's role will be one of promoting and supporting the development of good labour-management relations and good work attitudes. To this end, a number of measures have been worked out by the Ministry of Labour and the National Productivity Board. The National Productivity Board will expand its training programmes for middle management and supervisors. For example, in-depth courses will be conducted on human relations, communication, industrial relations and related topics. The Member for Mountbatten may wish to know that the National Productivity Board is already promoting the concept of QC circles. It will also assist firms to establish this form of labour-management cooperation.

My Ministry will take a firm stand against unreasonable demands of unions and unreasonable actions of management which are not conducive to good labour-management relations and work attitudes. Measures against bad work attitudes, like job-hopping, are being studied. Job-hopping is a multi-faceted problem, and I wish to thank the Member for Whampoa for his lecture yesterday. I benefited from time to time from the wisdom that he imparted to me especially about "healthy labour mobility". Whilst some job mobility is necessary, too much job-hopping, especially those for frivolous reasons, will negate our effort to promote work attitudes.

My Ministry is currently conducting a survey of some 6,600 CPF members who change jobs more than three times within a period of 12 months from April 1979 to March 1980 with a view to determining the causes for job-hopping. Members may wish to know also that about 85,000 CPF members changed jobs at least once during this same period.

Besides the CPF Employment Record Scheme introduced in January this year to enable employers to check the job history of their prospective employees, two other measures have been proposed. One is a disincentive scheme involving the forfeiture of employers' CPF contribution if a worker changes job more than three times a year. Another is an incentive scheme to encourage workers to stay on with their employers. We have consulted both employers' organizations and the unions on these two measures and are presently studying their views and recommendations. I wish to assure Members that any measure finally adopted will be monitored to assess its effectiveness and to ensure that it does not result in undesirable social effects.

Sir, a number of Members have said that we should learn from the Japanese and West German labour-management relations and work attitudes. I agree that we should do so. I should, however, add that we will learn from any country which has a good record of positive work attitudes and good labour-management relations. Although there is, as alleged, some softening in the work attitudes of some of our workers, I must say that the great majority of our workers do have positive work attitudes. With better management, they can be motivated to a higher level of productivity. Therefore, management must be convinced that wholehearted cooperation of their workers is crucial to the vitality and productivity of their companies. Management of personnel should no longer be seen as merely a function of the personnel department. Rather, it should also be the responsibility of all management and supervisory staff. They should ensure that their staff who handle workers are trained in the management of people. In this regard, employers' organizations should implement programmes which will lead to good management of personnel among their member companies.

On the other hand, unions should disregard partisan interest, identify and isolate bad workers and apply group pressure on them before their bad work habits spread. Unions should realise the importance of good labour-management relations and support programmes for labour-management cooperation. There must, therefore, be tripartite cooperation if we are to evolve a new labour-management relationship. While each has its role to play, ultimately it is the management, supported by labour, that will determine whether we will succeed in the eighties and beyond.

Sir, may I now turn to the points raised by the Member for Thomson. I am grateful for his concern shown in the matter of industrial safety and health. Apparently, the hon. Member has benefited from his association and discussion with my officers. I do know that the hon. Member has been concerned with the promotion of safety and health for our workers even before he was elected to this House. His efforts are praiseworthy and I am grateful.

My Ministry is currently carrying out a comparative study of the industrial safety and health situation in Singapore in relation to those of other countries. It is also looking into how other countries are discharging the functions of providing training, consultancy services and research in occupational safety and health and with what success. The result of these studies would help us to decide on the best way in which we can provide training, consultancy services and research on occupational safety and health in Singapore.

It is imperative, indeed pertinent, for us to examine in greater detail how best such a body can serve the purpose and the needs relevant to the Singapore situation in industrial safety and health. The studies I mentioned earlier are precisely directed to this end. If the Institute, or in whatever form it will take, eventually emerges, we may even engage the services of foreign consultants, as proposed by the hon. Member, if the need requires.

My Ministry is aware of the point raised by the hon. Member also on the shortage of safety and health personnel. As regards safety officers, my Ministry, taking into account the shortage of trained manpower, is reviewing the need for the employment of safety officers in certain industries which are less hazardous.

Industrial hygiene, which he also mentioned in his comments yesterday, is a rare discipline. There is a world shortage of industrial hygienists. As for industrial nurses and doctors, the problem is less difficult to overcome. It is really a matter of supplementing their basic professional training, and this exercise will form part of our work programme.

The Member for Thomson also touched on statutory medical examinations. These statutory medical examinations are required only for a few categories of workers. Many factories have, on the advice of the Industrial Health Division, provided periodic medical examinations for their workers exposed to specific health hazards. Results of these examinations are being monitored by the Industrial Health Division of the Ministry. The Ministry intends to extend statutory medical examinations to cover a wider range of industrial occupations. We will certainly take note of the Member's observations when this is done.

As to the other points raised by various hon. Members in this House during the last three days, these points are noted and they will be looked into and studied by the Ministry.

Now, Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to turn to the SBS. The SBS, like any other public company, has a right to make some profit and it should not be ashamed to say so. The SBS is answerable not only to the Stock Exchange but also to the shareholders, most of whom are men in the street who have invested in SBS with their hard-earned savings and with money from the CPF. The SBS is not subsidized by the Government and for this reason most of the profits are ploughed back into the company for replacement of old buses with newer and better ones and to buy more buses to provide a higher level of service and to meet increasing demand.

The Member for Changi unfortunately has not been fair to SBS by accusing the company of profiteering. He alleged that SBS is making a huge profit. This is not true. He knows and I know that this is not true. SBS bus fares were last raised on 1st December, 1979, nearly 1 1/2 years ago. Since then, operating costs have been rising steadily and this has negated the effects of the last fare increase. In 1980 SBS spent about $36 million on diesel alone compared to about $16 million in 1979, an increase of 77%. The wage bill too has increased. It rose by about 19%. Hon. Members may wish to note that, as a matter of fact, SBS has been reporting an average operating loss of some $700,000 every month since August last year.

In order to cut down costs, economies of operation have to be realized, and it is partly for this reason that the trunk and feeder concept and the OMO concept have been introduced in new towns. This is a more rational and efficient mode of operation, as it removes the need for trunk services to circulate in towns, especially in a new HDB town. In this way there is less waste. Commuters are generally happy with this new arrangement as it provides them with a reliable and efficient transport service.

It may appear that the need to transfer at interchanges imposes a monetary as well as a time penalty on some of the commuters. But without the feeder concept, bus fares would generally have to be even higher and the level of services would be lower. Fares charged on feeder services are already low. If these are to be abolished, as suggested by the Member for Changi, then the cost of providing the feeder service will have to be passed on to commuters on the trunk services. Either way, someone will have to pay since, as I have mentioned earlier, SBS is not subsidized.

The Member for Kebun Baru raised the point on the feeder services in Ang Mo Kio and about the reply card that he has received from SBS so far, I have taken note of the point he has raised and I shall look into it personally.

Finally, Sir, on the question of concessions to senior citizens. I agree with Members that concessionary travel will encourage the aged to travel more frequently and to socialize. I have already asked the SBS to seriously look into this matter again. 2.51 p.m.

Dr Augustine H.H. Tan (Whampoa): Mr Speaker, Sir, with your indulgence, may I make a couple of points for clarification? First of all, it should be noted by the press and the Hon. Minister that I do not sermonize nor do I lecture in this House. I merely participate in the debate. Secondly, one or two quotes from the Bible do not constitute a sermon. A sermon begins with "Dearly beloved" and ends with "Hallelujah".

The second point of clarification, Sir, concerns job-hopping. Now, whenever reference is made to Japan, people always conjure up the Zaibatsu, the trading company, the big company. They talk of seniority, lifelong employment, loyalty, and so on and so forth. But they forget that the Zaibatsus account for less than half the Japanese economy and that much of the adjustments needed in a Japanese economy is borne by the other half of the economy comprising very small firms which are subject to frequent bankruptcies, turnover and high mobility of labour, or job-hopping as the Minister chooses to label that economic phenomenon. I would hope that in revising his schemes of incentives and disincentives to discourage job mobility, he would study the Japanese economy more realistically. 2.53 p.m.

The Minister for Trade and Industry and the Minister for Health (Mr Goh Chok Tong): Mr Speaker, Sir, as I have to cover several areas, I propose to be concise and precise. On Research and Development, the Member for Boon Lay suggested that we should set up a National Coordinating Committee to implement R & D. Perhaps this suggestion can be considered at a later stage. In the meantime, the Ministry of Trade and Industry will perform the role of coordinating R & D. R & D must not be divorced from the end-users in particular industries and hence my Ministry will, wherever possible, consult the end-users and the National University of Singapore in undertaking this task of coordinating R & D.

The Member for Changi suggested that the Skills Development Fund should be used to promote R & D beyond manpower, for example, safer ways of manufacturing products. I do not believe the Minister for Finance will agree that that is the proper use of the Skills Development Fund which is meant for upgrading manpower. Research staff can, however, have recourse to the Skills Development Fund if further training and upgrading are required. In fact, SDF has provided a total sum of $233,000 to three companies to train engineers for R & D work.

The Member for Chong Boon suggested that young professionals be encouraged to go into ventures through joint participation with multi-national companies. He thought that finance was the least important problem. Here, I would disagree with him. Generally, young professionals who work in multinational companies have picked up the relevant experience and they feel that they can branch out into supporting industries on their own. Finance to them is an important problem and the Small Industries Finance Scheme will help the young professionals to branch out into ventures on their own. The point, however, is taken that wherever possible we should encourage joint ventures between multi-national companies and these young professionals or executives. But we operate a free enterprise economy. We cannot require multi-national companies to have local shareholders. It is a decision which we leave entirely to the investors.

Despite the number of Members of Parliament who have made comments on the economic restructuring and other matters, there are really very few points for me to answer on the economic side.

Moving on to the Public Utilities Board, several Members of Parliament seem unable to reconcile what they call the hefty surpluses of the PUB with the frequent increases in PUB charges. They appear to labour under the misconception that the PUB is out to make profits. The Public Utilities Board does not have shareholders. There is, therefore, no vested interest for the PUB to make huge profits because who would it distribute the profits to? It is true that the PUB had an operating surplus of $119 million in 1979. Taken in isolation, this figure appears to be hefty but related to the total investments in property, plant and equipment at historical cost, the return on these investments comes up to only 4%.

The surplus is required to repay loans taken from the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank and other sources which were used to finance development. The Board has an outstanding debt of $1.2 billion which has to be repaid and hence the need to generate a small surplus. If there were no surplus generated every year, the Board would be regarded by banks as a non-credit-worthy enterprise and the Board will have difficulty in getting-fresh loans to finance development. The PUB intends to spend some $2.2 billion over the next five years. Half of this would have to be borrowed. The other half could be financed from operating surpluses generated over previous years.

The point remains valid, however, that as a monopoly a statutory board must exercise all care to ensure that there is no inefficiency. The PUB is aware of this and looking at the cost of generating electricity, it would appear to me that the Board has exercised due care in keeping costs low.

Fuel oil accounts for 77% of electricity. Interest on loans and depreciation 15%, maintenance of equipment and so on 5%, and wages only 3%. Oil price has gone up from S$39 in 1972 to S$479 per ton in 1980, an increase of 1,130%. The average price of electricity per kilowatt hour was 6.38 cents in 1972. In 1980, it was 17.74 cents, an increase of only 180%. This, to me, proves that the PUB has in fact minimized price increases through higher productivity and efficiency, through the proper use of plants ind manpower to produce electricity. There is a limit, however, to the extent that the escalating oil prices can be offset by improvement in efficiency. Once they have purchased better equipment, it is more difficult to absorb the next round of increases in the cost of fuel oil.

One Member suggested that the abolition of promotional block rates might affect industries which are desirable and yet, at the same time, are high energy users. I can assure the House that the abolition of promotional block rates should not affect the overall attractiveness of Singapore as an investment centre for such industries because the cost of electricity in Singapore is still lower than in Hong Kong or Japan. And then there is also the point of whether Singapore should encourage industries which are large users of energy. If there are other desirable attributes of such industries, of course, we should encourage such industries despite the fact that they are big users of energy.

Some Members have suggested that we should avoid wastage in the use of energy and I could not agree more with the suggestion. My Ministry intends to have an energy conservation campaign very shortly, sometime in May. The thrust of the energy conservation campaign will be on the inculcation in consumers of the need to conserve energy, good housekeeping in other words, and also to look into the enforcement of regulations to ensure that conservation is taken seriously by industrial and commercial enterprises, in particular, offices and hotels.

A point was made by several Members of Parliament that in any revision of PUB charges, consideration must be given to the lower income group, i.e. those who use the minimum amount of energy or water, and that cost increases should not be passed on to them provided they are not the ones who are wasting water. The point is well taken and, in fact, that is the philosophy of the Public Utilities Board. All consumers who use less than $80 per month are granted, for example, a concession of not paying the 10% Government tax.

We indicated in the Addendum to the Presidential Address that water rates may be revised. The rationale for this is the big increase in the rate of water consumption. In the last two years, the demand for water has grown too rapidly, by 7.4% in 1979 and 7.7% in 1980. If this rate of water consumption continues, there will be a water shortage in times of crisis, in times of drought, given our limited water storage facilities in Singapore.

There are two ways in which we can control the rate of increase in the consumption of water. One is through rationing and the other is through the price mechanism. We think the price mechanism is the lesser of the two evils. When the water rates were revised in early 1973 and late 1975, there was an immediate reduction in the growth rate, from 7.7% in 1972 to 1.6% in 1973 and 1.8% in 1974. In 1975, the growth in water consumption was 9% and it was reduced to 1.7% in 1976 after the price revision. Therefore, price revision has a salutary effect on wastage of water. The minimum amount of water required by the lower income group will be taken into consideration in any water rates revision to ensure that these people are not adversely affected.

May I now have your permission, Mr Speaker, Sir, to wear my other hat, that is, the Ministry of Health? The Member for Ayer Rajah commented that promotion of Singapore as a medical regional centre should not be at the expense of the national health care. We agree with that observation and I would give the assurance that turning the health industry into a prized industry to cater to regional requirements will not be done at the expense of national health care.

He made several points, more of an administrative nature, regarding improvements to the GP referral system and so on. On his suggestion that patients be allowed to be referred by GPs directly to the specialist clinics instead of through the outpatient dispensary, I would like to say that the differential pricing for specialist clinics is, in fact, intended to keep the workload off from these clinics. If GPs are allowed to refer patients directly to specialist clinics, there is always the possibility of abuse. Of course, the Member for Ayer Rajah has suggested that these direct referrals be limited to clear cut cases. But we know that very often doctors have different opinions as to the diagnoses or the diseases the patients may be suffering from. We therefore require the patients to be referred to the OPD so that the Government doctors can serve as a screen before these patients are passed on to the specialist clinics. It is better for the OPD to take on this additional load than for the specialist clinics.

The Member suggested that GPs be allowed or be encouraged to take over post-operative and follow-up cases from hospitals. This suggestion is a good one provided he can come up with a list of takers. We shall be more than happy to come to an arrangement whereby patients can be passed on to GPs to attend to when these are follow-up cases. We may, however, have to insist on some control over the kind of charges which they intend to levy on the patients so that there is similarity in their charges and what the OPD would charge.

The Member's suggestion that Government laboratory and X-ray facilities be opened for use by the GPs can be considered. In fact, GPs at the moment have free access to Government laboratory facilities for infectious diseases. For diseases outside this particular scheme, their request could be considered when they wish to use Government facilities but there must be a charge.

The Member's proposal that polyclinics be turned into processing centres for GPs amounts to posting specialists to polyclinics from our point of view. We cannot afford this at this point of time as manpower is a problem which we have to tackle in the Ministry.

The Member for Ayer Rajah thought career development or the lack of it is a primary reason for young medical officers to resign from the medical service, and he went on at some length to plot a possible career path for the medical officers. I do not think career development is the major reason for doctors resigning from the medical service. The doctors in the private hospitals have no career development plans and I have yet to come across any of them resigning from the private sector to join the Government hospitals where we have such plans.

The Member appears to have his facts wrong when he said that the Ministry has no career development scheme for doctors. The Ministry has. The housemen, for example, are required to undergo three postings of four months each to give them exposure in selected areas. For appointment as medical officers after their housemanship, they are put on two years' probation during which they are rotated at six monthly intervals. The compulsory postings are to give them rounded experience. On confirmation in the appointment, those who wish to specialize can apply for further training under a traineeship scheme. The Ministry has a Personnel Section and also a Training Unit that not only look after the deployment of staff but also their welfare.

Whilst career advancement or lack of it, from the Member's viewpoint, may not be an important reason for staff resigning from the medical service, it is nevertheless an important aspect of the medical service. We will, of course, look into the areas whereby we can improve working conditions for the medical officers. For example, in hospitals medical officers are not given adequate facilities in the rest room; there is only one bed where the doctors can take a rest. If there is more than one doctor, they have to take turns to use the single bed, like those who rent beds in the old days in China Town. They have to take turns using it, except in this case they do not have to pay a rent or a charge. We will look into the improvement of working conditions for the doctors. We will also see how we can involve them in greater participation in policy decision deliberations so that their morale can be raised.

There was one criticism by a Member as to the charge of $10 per attendance at A & E units. The A & E attendance fee was raised from $4 to $10 on 1st April 1978. The purpose was to discourage non-emergency cases from overcrowding the congested A & E departments at hospitals and to encourage them to visit the Outpatient Departments or the general practitioners. It is right, therefore, that the fee should be higher than what the general practitioner charges.

Prior to 1978, attendances at A & E departments increased steadily by 12.1% in 1976 to 17.6% in 1977. After the increase in the charge from $4 to $10, the rate of increase in A & E attendances dropped to 5.1% in 1978. Again, the price mechanism seemed to work very well. However, here it seemed to work only for a while, as the rate of A & E attendances went up again to 12.8% in 1979 and 10.6% in 1980. About 46% of those who attend A & E departments are not emergency cases. It is a matter for consideration, therefore, as to whether the A & E fee should not be further increased. We are not suggesting this for the time being but certainly we will not decrease or reduce the fee of $10.

The Member for Telok Blangah observed that medical benefits for civil servants were downgraded in the revision on 15th September 1980. Prior to this date, the ward eligibility for civil servants was pegged to income. After that, it was pegged to divisional status, which is a better basis for pegging eligibility because with regular increases in pay through the National Wages Council wage increases, civil servants who should be eligible for lower class wards are being pushed up to higher class wards. In the fiscal year 1978-79, civil servants and their dependants represented 41% of all Class A, 38% of all Class B and 7% of all Class C admissions into Government acute hospitals. Obstetrics and Gynaecology admissions of civil servants and their dependants in Class A were 50%, in Class B 48%. The use of Government facilities by civil servants and their dependants was high in relation to the general population. Subsidized medical benefits for civil servants are recognized as a service perk. However, this should not be at the expense of the paying public who has to bear the burden of periodical increases in hospital fees. Hence, the need to peg the medical benefits for civil servants to their divisional status and not to their income.

The Member for River Valley went to great lengths to argue that the Abortion Act should perhaps be amended to tighten implementation. We need not go into the arguments, the merits or demerits of the Act. The matter has been debated for many years. I will therefore just limit myself to one point, i.e. whether his suggestion that abortion is being used as an alternative means of contraception is correct or not.

When he looked at the increasing number of abortions, he conceived that this was so. But I think he has misconceived. Maybe this is because he has his feet firmly planted in the air. It is true that the number of abortions have gone up, but if he were to look at the charges for abortion in private hospitals, which I believe range from $100 by private doctors when the procedure is done by doctors without higher qualifications to about $500 for abortion by doctors who are about the equivalent of the Registrar or Senior Registrar, it is clear that very few people would use abortion as an alternative form of contraception. The charges by Government hospitals are, of course, much lower, but then there is also the inconvenience of having to go to the hospital and staying there for quite some time and the added risk of being recognised for mothers who are married. Hence I do not think the increasing number of abortions is an indication that the Act is loose and that it is being abused by some members of the public as a form of contraception when it is not meant to be.

Finally, I shall move on to the point made by the Member for Thomson that chest X-rays should not be done on an annual basis. First, I wish to clarify that this is not a requirement of the Ministry of Health. It is a requirement written into the collective agreement by some employers and employees. His observation is valid. Frequent X-rays can have injurious effects. In 1979 the Singapore Anti-Tuberculosis Association performed routine X-rays on some 139,000 persons. Approximately 50% of these individuals were in the 20-29 year age group and a further 25% in the 30-39 year age group. Their pickup rate of active tuberculosis in the persons X-rayed was 0.06%. This is an extremely small yield and does not warrant an annual X-ray check up. The Ministry of Health wishes to state categorically that in its view the present status of tuberculosis control in Singapore does not warrant routine annual X-rays of people below 40 years of age and this practice should be stopped because of the possible harmful effects. Over the age of 40, specific groups require X-rays but this can be done at two-yearly intervals. This group will include teachers and others working in schools. Teachers are required to go for more regular check-ups because they deal with children. The only country in the world which encourages individuals over the age of 60 to have yearly X-rays at present is, surprisingly, Japan and this is one area which we are not following. 3.29 p.m.

Dr Tay Eng Soon (River Valley): Sir, I was advised by more experienced and more battle-scarred Members of Parliament yesterday that as a new Member of Parliament one should expect to be involved in cuts and thrusts and to expect to receive some cuts. So I rise to reply to some of the points that the Hon. Minister for Health has mentioned about the Abortion Act. I assure him that my feet are firmly on the ground and not in the air. As a matter of fact, I have been wading through Hansard through the debate on the Bill when it was first introduced in 1969 and again in 1974 when amendments were made to that Bill. The Minister for Health has chosen to speak on the point about the abuse of abortion or my allegation that abortion is being used today as a means of birth control, and he has not provided any figures. But, fortunately, I have been able to dig up some figures and I would like to present these figures to this House for information.

The Hon. Minister is quite right in pointing out that over the years the rate of abortion has increased and I would like to refer to some figures which strongly support this. For example, after the Bill was introduced in 1969, there were just under 2,000 legal abortions, 1,913 to be precise, and this number constituted 4.2% of live births. But by 1979, according to the Singapore Family Planning and Population Board, this figure of legal abortions had risen to 14,855, an increase of 7.8 times and it constituted 36% of live births, that is to say, for every four babies born there was one being aborted. It might not be possible simply to conclude from this that people are turning to abortion as a means of birth control, although this huge increase suggests that there must be a reason for its popularity.

I was able to find another set of numbers, this time published in the Studies in Family Planning [Volume 11, No. 11, November 1980] and this paper was written by members of the Singapore Family Planning and Population Board. And in Table III of that paper they quoted several very interesting statistics. In 1970, the abortion figure was 1,913, as I have just mentioned, and in that year, new acceptors of oral contraceptives totalled 12,400. But by 1979, the number of abortion cases in that year, and they included menstrual regulation, had risen to 16,999 but the number of new oral contraceptive acceptors in 1979 had dropped to 5,779. I think these figures suggest that women are not turning to the use of contraceptives as there is a convenient way out through abortion.

I offer these figures because preliminary indications are that there may be a cause for concern in this area. There were reasons that prompted me to speak on this subject, and I assure you, Mr Speaker, Sir, that I do not intend that this should become a debate this afternoon, especially as a lot of debating has been done on this subject by many Members of this House. My concern is that when the Bill was first introduced in 1969, there were many cautious remarks being made by the then Minister for Health and Member for MacPherson, and he assured the House that the Bill was not intended to encourage abortion but that it was meant to be a last resort or as, he used a very colourful expression, "a long shot" (an expression used in cricket) for those who needed abortion.

The Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Chua Sian Chin): A long stop.

Dr Tay Eng Soon: A long stop. Yes, thank you. He also said that it was not the intention of the Bill that abortion should become so freely available as to be abortion on demand and there was also no intention that abortion should be a substitute for the conventional methods of contraception, but that it should merely supplement contraception. And he expressed the hope that not more than 10% of births would be aborted and that there was no real risk that people would turn in a big way to abortion. Now, with nine years of hindsight, I think some of his hopes have not been met and the trend that we observe is that more and more women seem to be turning to abortion for family planning.

As it was not raised by the Minister for Health, I do not feel it is appropriate for me to take my argument to the next point, which is that of moral concern for this trend. But if you allow me, Sir, I just want to say a few words on it. What this trend suggests to me is that we have people today, not all because there are some, I am sure, who need abortion for sound medical reasons, who because of the free availability of abortion have an attitude that they can terminate their pregnancies at will when it suits them. This brings up the question: is that the type of moral responsibility, or even the sense of responsibility, that we would like to see among mothers? As I said, I do not want to carry further the arguments about morality. There may be another occasion for us to debate this. So on that point, I would like to rest.

3.40 p.m.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock (Ayer Rajah): Mr Speaker, Sir, would you allow me to clarify three points made by the Minister for Health?

The first point is that he said that if the OPD doctors were to refer patients direct to the specialist clinics at the hospital, the specialist clinics would be clogged up. How can a specialist clinic be clogged up when the cases ultimately seen at these clinics irrespective of whether they are referred by the GP direct or indirect by the OPD doctor are the same?

The second point is that I did not say that the lack of career development is the main cause why doctors resign. I did list out a number of other causes. Career development, I agree, is planned only for the specialists in the hospital but there is yet no career development plan for the medical officers and this is the point that I want to clarify.

Dr Augustine Tan: Mr Speaker, Sir, may I just ask a couple of questions by way of clarification? First of all, in regard to abortion, could the Hon. Minister inform this House how many of the nearly 17,000 cases of abortion reported by the Member for River Valley involved unmarried mothers, and how many of those cases involved were repeat cases of abortion, i.e. women who had previous abortions in previous years?

Turning back to PUB, may I ask him what is the method of depreciation used by the PUB? Secondly, would the accumulated depreciation allowances, together with whatever surpluses or profits that the PUB has been earning from year to year, be sufficient to cover the replacement costs of new generators or whatever other equipment that are used by the PUB? Sir, I raise this particular question because in this age of very high inflation, many business firms find themselves in difficulties because their tradtional methods of depreciation and allowing for depreciation allowances are not adequate to cover replacement costs as they are based upon the original cost concept.

Mr Rohan bin Kamis (Telok Blangah): Mr Speaker, Sir, can I seek clarification about ward-downgrading? In view of the increase in wages due to the NWC recommendations, would the Minister consider changing the method of allocating wards based on divisional status by increasing the income ceiling? Otherwise this method seems to be throwing the baby with the bath water. 3.42 p.m.

Mr Goh Chok Tong: Mr Speaker, Sir, it appears that we are going to have a long debate on abortion and I should perhaps abort it by confessing that I do not have the figures at this moment on the number of repeat cases of abortion as well as those of unmarried mothers. I would not be able to give the Member the figures right off but we can look into the figures and provide them, if necessary, to the Members who want them.

Dr Augustine Tan: Provide them to the House in written form?

Mr Goh Chok Tong: If you put the right question, you will get the right answer.

I could perhaps comment on the data provided by the Member for River Valley when he compared the base year in 1970 with 1979. Again, in using data one has to be very conscious of data which are not covered or collected in the statistics. The Abortion Act was enacted in 1969 and I would believe that in the year 1970 the number of illegal abortions would not have been captured in the data, and therefore a straight comparison of the two figures to give a very high percentage of increase in the rate of abortion is unfounded.

Dr Augustine Tan: Absolute figures are bad enough!

Mr Goh Chok Tong: Perhaps the Member should think of it the other way. If abortion is not available on a voluntary basis to those who need it, think of the number of unwanted babies that these parents might be saddled with.

Dr Augustine Tan: Selfish!

Mr Goh Chok Tong: Selfish from the point of view of the person concerned. I did not mention that society will be saddled with the parent's concern or the mother's concern.

The Member for Ayer Rajah might have misunderstood me when I talked about the point of direct referral to the specialist clinics and thereby overloading the clinics. When the cases are referred by the GPs to the OPDs, not all cases are automatically passed on to the specialist clinics. If that is so then, of course, his point is correct. It is an indirect route and the same workload is being given to the specialist clinics. The OPDs serve as a screen to ensure that only genuine cases are passed on. This is not to suggest that GPs are passing on cases which are less genuine but, as I said earlier on, there are differences of opinion in diagnosis and, of course, the Ministry of Health would take the opinion of its own doctors in the OPDs.

The Member for Whampoa wanted to know the methods of depreciation and whether it takes into account replacement costs. My own understanding is - and I would like to check on this further - that it does not take into account replacement costs, i.e. inflation of costs in replacing assets has not been taken into account. And if we take his point into consideration, which is an important point, there is need to even have a heftier surplus. But in generating the required funds to pay back loans and to finance future development, because of the requirements of the World Bank that there must be an 8% return on average total assets employed and cash to debt ratio of 1.5 times, I would believe that some consideration has been taken into account for the high costs of replacement. But I could not at this stage tell the House exactly whether the total costs of replacement, taking into account inflation, have been provided for. 3.45 p.m.

The Minister for National Development (Mr Teh Cheang Wan): Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to comment on the various matters under my jurisdiction which have been raised by the hon. Members in this House.

First, the Member for Radin Mas has objected to the HDB allowing owners of HDB flats to resell their flats at a profit. While our public housing policy is to provide housing for the people, it is also to encourage Singaporeans to buy their flats as a form of investment and a hedge against inflation. The HDB, therefore, allows flat owners who have lived in their flats for more than five years to resell their flats at the market price to eligible buyers of their own choice. The Government's policy is also to encourage mobility of HDB dwellers so that they can both upgrade themselves and live in bigger and better flats and also live closer to their parents and children. Allowing them to resell their flats will, therefore, enable existing HDB dwellers to upgrade themselves. There will also be flats available in the old estates for sale to those who like to live there, perhaps to be closer to their parents and children.

Regarding the lifts in HDB estates, statistics show that the general performance of lifts in the HDB estates has been continuously improving in the last decade. This is due to the installation of better quality lifts and better maintenance. The frequency of breakdowns of lifts has decreased. On the average, the breakdown rate of HDB lifts last year is about one lift per month. This is not a high figure compared with the lifts installed in private flats or those built by other housing authorities. The HDB will look into the repeated breakdowns of lifts complained by the hon. Member for Radin Mas, and appropriate remedial measures will be taken to rectify the defective lifts.

Coming to the Member for Telok Blangah, I disagree with his complaint about the poor planning and poor supervision on the construction of roads. The roads in Singapore are well planned and the traffic jams are the minimum as compared with the other major cities. I speak with full conviction. If hon. Members go to Bangkok, Manila, Jakarta and other cities and see the traffic situation there, they will find that our traffic, in fact, flows more smoothly. I would like hon. Members to let me know which city with the same population and the same number of cars as Singapore has a better plan for traffic. Our roads are constructed in accordance with American and British standards of specification adopted to suit our local soil and climatic conditions. Therefore, the quality of our expressways is as good, if not better, than any other developed countries. Our Pan-island Expressway is comparable to the highways in England which hon. Members admire very much. Perhaps the difference is that in England an hon. Member can drive along an expressway for hundreds of miles but if he does that in Singapore he will end up in the sea.

On the question of the seepage of water through the walls, as pointed out by the hon. Member for Telok Blangah, the HDB will look into the problem. I can assure him that appropriate remedial action will be taken.

On public housing, the hon. Member for River Valley pointed out that the HDB last year missed its target of 25,000 units by 5,000 units because there were not enough contractors willing or able to tender for HDB projects. He implied that a large number of HDB contractors gave up public housing projects to undertake the more lucrative private housing projects. This is not the case. The main reason was that most of the HDB contractors who had accepted HDB contracts in 1978 and 1979 suffered substantial losses and some even went into bankruptcy. Even though in the HDB contracts allowance was made for NWC wage increases and increases in some of the building materials, actual wage increases were much higher than the NWC recommendation for the building industry. As for the increases in the building materials not covered by the HDB contracts the contractors had to pay for those increases themselves. For these reasons the contractors have decided to reduce their commitments. In other words, those contractors who were able to build, say, 2,000 flats a year ago now play safe and build only 1,000 flats. The more prudent contractors simply do not tender for the contracts and adopt a wait-and-see attitude.

The HDB is now studying ways and means to encourage more contractors to tender, including the provision of coverage in the contracts for the escalation of prices in most building materials. Another important step is that the HDB is also forming a construction company to undertake some of the public housing projects to supplement the work of HDB contractors.

The Member for Kebun Baru spoke about the dislocation of the people's livelihood as a result of resettlement. In fact, resettlement has been going on for the last two decades, that is, since 1960 when we set up the Housing Board. Large resettlements have taken place since then. We are now in the last phase of our resettlement programme. It is most probable that the resettlement programme in Singapore is likely to be completed by the end of this decade. I would say that about 70% of the resettlement work has already been done in Singapore.

An hon. Member: The problems are still there.

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: In our experience over the last two decades, I must say that in general most of the people have been able to adapt well to their new environment.

As regards the compensation paid to those affected, the rates have always been periodically reviewed. The last review was carried out in March 1979 and compensation rates, in general, have increased. I would like to assure Members that, if necessary, further reviews will be made.

The Member for Kebun Baru and the Member for Chong Boon spoke about the lack of coordination between the HDB and the various Government departments. The HDB regularly informs the relevant departments of its plans and the facilities that have to be made available in new towns. As the First Deputy Prime Minister mentioned yesterday, the main problem lies in the delay in the provision of funds. A procedure is now being worked out to ensure that all the required facilities will be provided as soon as a new HDB town is ready.

I come now to the last point touched on by both the Member for River Valley and the Member for Whampoa about speculation in properties. The Member for Whampoa seemed to imply that prices of properties are within Government's control and can be determined by the Government at will. For example, he suggested that by allowing or disallowing foreigners to buy condominiums and high-rise flats, the Government can create either boom conditions or depressed conditions for the property market. If it were that simple, then I think life for the Government would be very easy. The depressed property market between 1974 and 1979 would have been avoided if the Government really had the control. The Minister of Defence and the Minister for Foreign Affairs will be able to tell Members that for years the DBS condominium at Ulu Pandan could not be sold, notwithstanding the lifting of the control over foreigners buying condominiums in 1976. In other words, having lifted the control in 1976, they were still not able to sell many of their flats at Ulu Pandan. Even with the very favourable condition of just 10% down-payment and 90% loan available, and with airconditioning and other things thrown in, people just do not buy property in a depressed market. The announcement of a reduction in property tax in 1978 also had little effect. This clearly shows that there are other factors responsible for the ups and downs in the property market, and that it is not just the control over foreigners buying property alone which can do the trick.

However, my Ministry is following the property market situation closely. While there are foreign purchasers of private properties, the majority are Singaporeans. Statistics as at December 1980 from the Controller of Housing show that 77.5% of the purchasers of new housing units are Singaporeans. Only 22.5% are foreigners. Control over foreigners buying private properties can never be fully effective. Foreigners can always buy through Singaporeans. I firmly believe that the solution lies not in instituting elaborate controls but in increasing the supply of housing.

It is necessary to dispel the impression created by both hon, Members for River Valley and Whampoa that many Singaporeans are deprived of a roof over their heads by the escalation of property prices. The present property market situation attracts a very small percentage of the population. More than 99% of the population are qualified under income ceilings to apply for HDB and HUDC flats. Therefore, only 1% are not qualified. Of course, this 1% include persons like the Shaw brothers and Wee Cho Yaw. They are not qualified. Already, more than 70% of the population have been housed by the HDB, HUDC and the JTC. A good number of those earning more than $6,000 per month own property. To many, therefore, the purchase of private property is a form of investment, not a roof over their heads.

I agree fully with the hon. Member for Whampoa that very few Singaporeans live in condominiums. They buy condominiums to rent to foreigners.

The Government has a responsibility to provide housing to our citizens but it cannot assume the responsibility of providing cheap properties for investment. Some speculative activity in the property market is not harmful. However, excessive speculation should be discouraged. The Ministry of National Development recently disallowed the transferring of options. Other measures are now being considered to discourage speculation. The escalation of property prices is due to many factors. The most important factor is the slump in the property market during the period 1974 to 1978 when the construction activity in the private sector slowed down. This has resulted in the present shortage, not only in housing units but also in commercial office space. The Government will, therefore, be releasing through the URA very large amounts of land to meet the demand.

For housing, the Ministry will be releasing land sufficient for the construction of 5,000 units in 1981. This is a very large volume for private housing because if we look at the figures for the last two decades since 1960 up to now, the demand for private housing was about 2,000 or 2,500 units per year. So if the Government releases land for the construction of 5,000 units and coupled with the 8,000 to 10,000 units of private housing now under construction, they will all add up to 15,000 units, and this figure represents the normal supply for 7 1/2 years. So this is an enormous figure and I believe that with this volume of housing, the shortage will be over soon. 4.05 p.m.

Dr Augustine Tan: Mr Speaker, Sir, may I seek your indulgence to clarify a few points made by the Hon. Minister? First, I do agree with the Hon. Minister that Government is providing for over 99% of the population, if we take the income ceiling of $6,000 p.m. as the cut-off limit. And certainly I do agree with him that our Government has done a lot in terms of housing for our people. If we compare ourselves to Hong Kong and Tokyo, living conditions are much superior in Singapore than those places. A young executive in Hong Kong cannot hope to have an apartment bigger than 500 square feet, and even so he has to pay an astronomical rent for it. But having said that, our comparison should not be with the bad conditions of Hong Kong or Tokyo. Singaporeans are going to judge us on our achievements at the present, whether we can do better.

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: Compared with which country?

Dr Augustine Tan: It is a comparison with ourselves. And if people like me do not raise questions in this House, he may not be Minister for very long!

Sir, this 1% of the population may include the likes of Wee Cho Yaw but they also include young executives, the brains of Singapore, the entrepreneurs of Singapore, the people in the middle and upper echelons of the civil service. My concern is not with people like myself who have already managed to buy some property some years back, but with the young people starting today looking forward to the future. What can they expect in the future? In terms of buying a car with increasing restrictions, it does not look like they can afford it in the future; in terms of buying a house, it is outside their range. All they can hope for is a HUDC flat. So I ask myself the question: if I were a young man starting out today, what are my expectations of the future in Singapore? Do I have a future in Singapore? And the point which I made was certainly valid - and the Minister has not countered it - and that is, anything in the private property market that is decent costs about $400,000 or there-abouts, and it is well outside the range of a young executive or a young couple, and that point still remains valid.

As for the Minister's remark that about 77.5% of the condominiums are being owned by Singaporeans, I wonder what kind of a figure he has produced. Is it based on bookings that the developers have registered with the Controller of Housing? Or does the figure represent actual ownership, say, after one or two years? In other words, has the Minister been incorporating the names of the speculators? And I do recognise that quite a number of the speculators are Singaporeans with limited capital. As I tried to show yesterday, a capital of $40,000 or $50,000 could go a long way in terms of creating havoc in the property market.

Governments may not be able to create booms and depressions exactly at will but governments can create conditions that can lead to booms and to depressions. The Great Depression in America was caused by the Hoover Administration tightening the money supply overly. I recommend the Minister to read Milton Friedman's Free To Choose and the chapter on the Great Depression. It is well worth reading for education of what a government under a misguided policy and leadership can do, and what damage can be done by a government.

My point was simply, Sir, that if the Government would take a sensible measure like restricting foreign ownership, we can dampen this wild spiral in the market. I am not against boom conditions. I am not against people becoming more wealthy. But what I am against is the tremendous distortion built into our system. I do not know whether the Minister ever studied Economics. If he did, he probably studied Alfred Marshall, ceteris paribus, other things being equal, looking at one little pigeon hole at a time. We have to look at the problems in terms of what is called general equilibrium - please do not think I am trying to lecture to the Minister - mutatis mutandis, taking into account repercussions on the rest of the economy, and that is my concern. If we are going to produce a wage distribution of $250 or thereabouts and $20,000 or more at the top, that is a very absurd situation. The people at the top do not feel much better off because of the greatly increased prices of housing. People at the base feel deprived because they have to be stuck with one-room HDB flats. We are going to create problems for the Government in the future. So I would urge the Government to study this problem very seriously.

My point which I made yesterday is still valid. With so many square kilometres of land that we have, even a fraction of the many billions upon billions of liquidity sloshing in the international monetary system can ruin our economy. We are one of the most open economies in the world. We are so open that we are totally unselective in terms of what we allow into Singapore. We welcome foreign investments for productive purposes, but not when they distort our property market and distort our wages, our salary systems and cause inflation in the economy. That is not a productive activity. I recommend the Minister to read Adam Smith. 4.12 p.m.

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I must confess I have not studied Economics. But I am a bit doubtful that a government can create boom conditions. If all governments can do that, then I think we would not have so many governments in Africa and other developing countries crying for help, because all they need do is to study Economics and say, "create all the boom conditions" so that they can have plenty of money. But I do know that governments can create serious depression, can create depressing conditions by all sorts of rules and regulations, controls and other things.

On the question of housing, as I have said just now, the Government has the responsibility to provide a decent standard of housing for our people. The hon. Member was talking about people stuck in one-room flats. I do not think that is true because in the HDB estates, there is a tremendous mobility of our population. And the hon. Member himself knows that, in Whampoa, at one time about 1,000 units of one-room emergency flats in his constituency were converted when the people moved out of these flats because they were not going to be stuck in one-room flats. The majority of them, in fact, were moving out to three-room, four-room and five-room flats. The First Deputy Prime Minister yesterday spoke about the difference in the Singapore society, and that is we permit mobility. In HDB flats, this mobility has been going on all the time.

Dr Augustine Tan: Mr Speaker, Sir, on a point of clarification. I believe the Minister is shadow-boxing. I did not raise that issue.

Mr Teh Cheang Wan remained standing.

Mr Speaker: Dr Tan, the Minister is not giving way. Please sit down.

Dr Augustine Tan resumed his seat.

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: In fact, on the HDB waiting list, 17,000 applicants, who are living in one-room, two-room and a small number in three-room rented flats, are waiting to buy larger flats. So the HDB, in fact, has created mobility and we enable our people who may have started very humbly in one-room flats to move up to two-room, three-room and four-room flats. And we are hoping that those people who are living in HDB four-room and five-room flats will eventually be able to move out of HDB flats to HUDC flats and, if possible, to live in condominiums where the hon. Member has a great admiration for that type of flats.

On economic matters, perhaps it is more appropriate for either the Minister for Finance or the Minister for Trade and Industry to answer. I must confess that this is beyond me. 4.16 p.m.

The Minister for Law and Science and Technology (Mr E.W. Barker): Sir, I rise not to support the Minister for National Development. He does not need my support. Nor have I come here to quarrel with the Member for Whampoa.

Perhaps the House will allow me to relate some of my experiences when I was in the Minister's job. I take Members back to the year 1966 when we had just separated from Malaysia and there was no confidence in this town. I was then accused by the then Minister for Finance of merely wanting to build public housing and not encouraging the private sector. So we did. We gave them incentives. If somebody wanted to turn an office building into a hotel, we allowed him to do so. Re-zoning was easy. On paying $2 a square foot, residential land became commercial land. We gave other incentives too. There were no development charges for exceeding the maximum density. But the critical point was that of property tax. So I asked the Minister in charge to reduce the property tax to 12%, and told him that 3 x 12 is 36; 36 x 0 is 0. He agreed, and we had our first Urban Renewal Sale. We offered 14 sites, but even then the public had no confidence. Only seven sites were taken up. The average price was about $20 a square foot. All those hotels along the Singapore River - Miramar, Apollo and King's. Today, of course, King's Hotel is $12 for a share. But this is just to tell Members that conditions then were different. But our first sale succeeded to some extent.

We had a second sale. Prices had gone up - $50 a square foot. We had a third sale. It went up to $90 a square foot, all those high-rise properties you see along Shenton Way. But then labour was getting short, the price of cement had gone up: the price of steel had gone up, and I was asked to do a turn-back. The same Minister called me up and said, "Stop it." I told him that it was impossible to stop a boom. He said, "Put the brakes on it." So we put the brakes on it. You cannot quarrel with the Minister for Finance. He gives you money, whether you work in the Ministry of National Development or Law. You cannot do a thing without him. I hope he forgives me for saying this. If you are an officer in the Ministry of Finance, whether in the civil service or in politics, you get recognition and fast promotion. But let me come back to my subject.

I have figures here from my colleague. We have had eight urban renewal sales so far, and the prices have jumped. 1979, for commercial properties $310 per square foot or over $3,300 per square metre. 1980, for commercial properties $616 per square foot or $6,629 per square metre. At our first sale, no one wanted any of the properties along the Golden Mile. Had someone offered a dollar a square foot we would have sold. Today prices have jumped to $600 a square foot. And I believe, in the last sale, prices have gone up even further.

To come back to the Member for Whampoa, we did take steps in 1973. The problem he raises is not a new one. In 1973 it surfaced, leading to the issue of a Government statement that foreigners could not buy land. This was on the 10th September 1973. We announced that legislation would be introduced with retrospective effect from 11th September 1973, to the effect that only citizens of Singapore could purchase residential property without any restriction. All others would require written approval of Government. Approval would depend on their economic contribution to Singapore and on the condition that these properties were intended as dwelling houses for personal use and not for rental or other purposes. This Bill took a long time. It was a difficult piece of legislation. The Bill was referred to a Select Committee and only enforced in 1976. Meanwhile, policies had changed. By the time that Bill became law, minds had changed, the thinking had changed. It was even suggested that we should not enforce the Bill. But we had been administering the Bill for more than three years and it was impossible to unscramble. So the Bill became law but we did not enforce all its provisions strictly.

Before the Bill became law, we had announced that "If developers have a condominium or a building over six-storeys, foreigners could buy." The Member for Whampoa now says, "Think about it again." We certainly will. But I must point out that legislative changes should be carefully considered. Drastic changes made every now and then may have undesirable effects. Members can be assured that any remedial action to safeguard the interests of our citizens and which is in our economic interest will be implemented as and when necessary,

That having been said, I shall now reply to the Member for Thomson who spoke on the Department of Scientific Services. The Department was set up mainly to serve the various ministries in their regulatory functions. It could lead to conflict of interest if the Member's suggestion is accepted that the Department performs the same services for the private sector. In any case, I understand the private sector is adequately served by SISIR, the Applied Research Corporation (ARC) and other commercial laboratories.

Then the Member expressed concern about radioactive waste. Let me tell him what happened. A gauge containing radioactive source Caesium 137 was discovered lost in Western Australia and somehow found its way into a consignment of scrap metal shipped to the National Iron & Steel Mill in early December 1978. The Western Australian Health Authority informed Singapore of the loss. The Radiation Protection Inspectorate (RPI) subsequently traced it to one of the furnaces in the steel mill. RPI immediately took action to decontaminate the furnace and the radioactive waste in the sludge is now safely installed in steel drums kept in an isolated corner of the steel mill. The radioactivity is very low, about 30 millicurrie, and does not pose any serious health hazard.

As there is no suitable site in Singapore for the disposal of the radioactive waste, RPI approached Australia, Britain and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for assistance in the disposal of the waste. I am afraid these efforts have not been successful. Recently, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has taken up the matter with the Australian Government, hoping to send the waste back to Australia. We are still waiting for a reply.

The Member also wanted to know whether there are other similar cases. There is one other case of the loss of radioactive source in Singapore. This occurred in 1978. In this incident, the radioactive source which was contained in a small steel capsule was Iridium 192 used in industrial radiography, The loss was reported by an ex-worker and the source was suspected to have found its way to the refuse dumping ground in Tampines. The company responsible for the radioactive source was prosecuted and fined in court for not reporting the loss immediately. Although the radioactive material was not found, it did not pose a serious health hazard as the radioactive level was low and only had a short life span of 74 days.

For the Member's information, besides licensing, the RPI conducts regular inspections on premises where radioactive substances are used. RPI also provides a badge monitoring service where dosage of radioactivity received by all operators is monitored monthly. 4.29 p.m.

Dr Augustine Tan: Sir, I would like to thank the Minister for Law and Science and Technology for the historical review, which surely proved my point against the Minister for National Development. Sir, in economic matters, measures instituted today do not normally have instantaneous effect. There is a lag effect. It is easier for us to create a depression than to create a boom. I grant that. But if you deny that governments can create boom conditions, then you are denying the whole achievement of the PAP Government over the last 21 years. We created boom conditions out of a virtually God-forsaken place. That is what we have been trumpeting at every election. That is why we get re-elected.

Sir, may I set the record straight because the Minister for National Development put words in my mouth, which I never said. I have never denied that there has been tremendous social mobility in Singapore. I have never denied that people living in one-room flats have gone up to four-room and five-room flats. In fact, for the information of the Hon. Minister - he may not be aware of this - there are quite a few owners of HDB and HUDC flats who have formed companies which, in turn, own private residential properties. And it is quite legal, if the Minister for Law would like to confirm it for me or the Member for Kuo Chuan who is not here. There are quite a few instances.

We are talking about people's aspirations. People may live in a five-room flat, but if they have got extra money, they would like to invest in something else, maybe for retirement so that when the time comes they can move into such houses. But when the aspirations are limited to a HUDC flat, then it is something else. If the Minister were to look at the columns of advertisements of sale of properties, he will come across quite a number of "Owner migrating. Must sell." I will tell you why they are migrating. When their bungalow is worth $1 million, it is well worthwhile considering migrating. Do you want to know why? Because property prices in Australia and Canada and many parts of America are a fraction of property prices in Singapore today. And all these are unnecessary distortions and can be avoided. And I am glad to hear that Government is considering doing something about this and the move is very simple - just go back to what the law provided for initially and that law would have an immediate effect on the market. You call it a depression. I call it a breathing space from 1974 to 1979 whereby Singaporeans could adjust their savings and hope to buy a private residential property but -

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour (Mr Fong Sip Chee): Sir, on a point of order. Will the hon. Member please address the Chair?

Dr Augustine Tan resumed his seat. 4.33 p.m.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Culture (Mr S. Dhanabalan): Mr Speaker, Sir, may I first deal with the points raised on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and then go on to the points raised on the Ministry of Culture.

The Member for Chong Boon lamented the fact that the Addendum on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs did not cover the importance of West Asia and the need to cultivate that part of the world and the need to have a presence there. I would like to say that the Addendum just sketches the broad principles that will guide the policy and work of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for the next few years. The Addendum did not go into the details of particular geographical areas that require attention. We are quite well aware that not only West Asia but other areas require consideration, and I think the Member would be pleased to learn that we are just now having a team in Jeddah going into the details of establishing a mission there. There are other areas of the world which require further attention, and our missions have to be strengthened. These too will get the proper attention and apart from establishing missions we will also be sending teams, visits by political leaders and others, perhaps Members of this House, to cultivate and establish ties so that these ties will be useful for us as we seek to establish economic and trade relations with these areas.

Now coming to the matters raised on the Ministry of Culture, I think the Member for Kaki Bukit raised the question of video-tapes and the dangers that these pose, especially now that they are so freely available and now that video-tape recorders are becoming so popular. I do grant that there is a proliferation of outlets selling video-tapes as well as lending facilities handling video-tapes. The Ministry is studying the matter and we hope very soon to take the necessary administrative, if not legislative, measures to have some measure of control over the sale and lending of video-tapes. I think it is still too early for me to give further details on this matter. I want to assure Members who are concerned about this that it has not escaped the attention of the Ministry.

The Member for Telok Blangah raised the point about dialect programmes, that is, the older citizens who can only speak and understand dialects will miss one important source of entertainment if dialect programmes are discontinued. At present, SBC screens one very popular dialect programme a week and although the broadcast of Chinese programmes as a whole is constantly under review, especially in the light of the need to promote Mandarin, there are no immediate plans to discontinue this once-a-week dialect programme.

The Member for Radin Mas mentioned the bewilderment of seeing a TV programme where what he saw on the screen did not synchronise with what he heard coming out from the speaker. I can assure him that while he may be bewildered, the staff at SBC are much embarrassed by such lapses. Programmes are constantly reviewed for technical lapses and every attempt is made to avoid such lapses.

The Member for Mountbatten raised two points. One was his point that SBC programmes run counter to Government policy and that TV being a silent destroyer of values such an approach by SBC completely nullifies Government's attempts and actions in other areas. Secondly, he emphasized the need to schedule programmes properly. On the first point. I am afraid the Member's enthusiasm to find a statement that will attract attention has caused him to stray somewhat from the truth because SBC is very aware that its programmes must reflect general Government policy. Members will be aware that every time there is a Government programme or campaign there are programmes on TV as well as Radio which promote these campaigns. And all programmes on TV are very strictly censored and scrutinised to ensure that the values and the ideas that they transmit and purvey are in accordance with what we really want to promote in Singapore and what we want to instil into our citizens. If there are specific examples of programmes or themes that Members feel run counter to what we want to promote in Singapore, I will be more than happy to listen to such specific criticisms. If the Member's ideas differ from mine I will explain, but if he has got validity, certainly we will take some action.

The trouble with TV, Mr Speaker, is that it is a very popular medium. Everybody knows how to switch on a TV. Everybody knows how to watch. Everybody knows what he likes and everybody knows what he dislikes. And therefore everybody thinks he knows how to run a TV station. And there are as many views about how a station should be run as there are viewers and it is really not possible to please everybody.

An hon. Member: If you cannot, then please some.

Mr Dhanabalan: We cannot please everybody all the time. We cannot even please some of the people all the time. But if we can please most of the people some of the time, we are quite happy.

SBC does try to strike a balance between entertainment and educational programmes. In fact, about 22% of the programmes broadcast in terms of hours are educational and informational programmes. This is as a total, and if you take the local programmes, more than 50% of the programmes produced locally are educational or informational and steps will be taken to increase this content. I am sure that when these steps are taken there will be equally loud howls of protest from other Members of the House because there is not sufficient entertainment on TV. As I said, we cannot please everybody.

As far as scheduling is concerned, the Member pointed to the importance of careful scheduling so that films or programmes with adult themes will be shown in the later part of the evening and those for children will be shown in the earlier part of the evening. This is done at the present moment and if children stay up late, of course, we cannot help it. It is the parents' fault. But we do make it a point that themes which are for adult viewers are shown in the later part of the evening. In fact, even the advertisements are scheduled in such a way that liquor advertisements, for example, are shown only after 10 p.m. and, much to my surprise, I was told that advertisements of underwear are only shown after 10 p.m. which, I think, puts our approach sometimes on par with the Victorian view that all legs should be covered, not only human legs but also the legs of pianos, lest chaste eyes be offended,

But I think the answer is parental control of what the children watch. We try to cater to the population as a whole. We try to schedule what we think should be normal hours of watching for children and normal hours of watching for adults, and if parents exercise control I think they will find that their children will not be watching what they should not be watching. One feature that the TV can have is a key which will enable the parents to lock up the TV and perhaps the Consumers' Association of Singapore can take this up. I am quite serious. If every TV has got a device to lock it up, parents will be able to exercise more control of what their children watch. 4.43 p.m.

Mr Eugene Yap Giau Cheng (Mountbatten): Mr Speaker, Sir, can I have your permission to make a point of clarification before I close? With all due respect to the Minister for Culture, if I understood him correctly, I did not seek to make a statement to attract attention.

The Acting Minister for Social Affairs (Dr Ahmad Mattar): Just clarify; do not close yet.

Mr Eugene Yap Giau Cheng: Yes, all right. Secondly, it would depend on my moral standards, my value system standards, as against the Hon. Minister's standards. But when I do refer to it, I refer to a specific programme, such as Love Boat. I do not follow this programme but I get concerned when my daughter follows it. I do not know whether the other Members follow this programme, but it is shown at 8.50 p.m. But if I am wrong I stand corrected.

Mr Dhanabalan: Sir, I do not know this programme but I have taken note and I will look into it. 4.45 p.m.

Dr Ahmad Mattar: Mr Speaker, Sir, first, I would like to respond to the points raised by the Member for Khe Bong on my Ministry's Public Assistance Scheme. The Member is unhappy because he suspects that the amount the Government spends on Public Assistance is not growing as fast as the amount it spends on keeping Singapore a garden city. There is a good reason why this is so. It is a measure of the success of the Government's economic policies that today anyone who needs a job can find a job. Again, it is a measure of the success of the Government's social policies that our citizenry will not waste its sympathy on those who can work but will not work.

The Government's Public Assistance Scheme, Sir, is meant for the truly destitute, that is to say, those who are physically incapable of working, have no savings and have no close relatives who can look after them. Their number is declining. That is why the amount we spend on public assistance is not growing.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to answer the specific questions posed by the Member for Khe Bong. He says, and I agree, that Public Assistance at $60 a month for a single person and $80 a month for a couple is not enough to live on. He went on to say, and here I disagree with him, that if relatives chip in to help the unfortunate recipient, his Public Assistance would be withdrawn on the ground that he has relatives, and that for this reason relatives who can and wish to help do not do so, thus depriving the recipient of the supplementary assistance which the Government itself acknowledges he needs.

Let me explain, as I have done before in this House, why Public Assistance is set below what may be considered subsistence level. It is because it is no part of our policy to rob anyone of the incentive to work. As has happened in some other countries, not all of which it is yet unfashionable to name, we will never have people who turn down job offers because they can live comfortably enough on Public Assistance.

Having said that, I should add that we are not unmindful of those who are physically incapable of working. My Ministry will, in deserving cases, arrange supplementary assistance for them. As a rule, we do so for all those who have no relatives or friends who can or will help them. I should like to inform the Member for Khe Bong, and also the other Members of this House, that the recipient will not lose his Public Assistance simply because he receives supplementary financial assistance from relatives or friends.

We do not, however, give Public Assistance to those who have close relatives, that is to say, brothers, sisters, sons or daughters who are in a position to support them. I am happy to inform you, Sir, that we do have cases of Public Assistance recipients who voluntarily give up their claim because their close relatives, as a result of improved financial circumstances, assume full responsibility for their maintenance. These are shining examples of family responsibility being willingly and gladly accepted.

The Member for Khe Bong knows that he is free to bring to my attention any case where he feels that Public Assistance has been either denied or withdrawn without good reason. I will, as I have always done, personally look into any such case that is brought to my attention by a Member of Parliament.

Next, I turn to the suggestion raised by the Member for Geylang Serai. The hon. Member enquired whether the Muslim Religious Council or MUIS, in addition to providing bursaries to Muslim youths to enable them to pursue higher education, would consider introducing an educational loan scheme to assist needy students. As the Member will be aware, the assistance that MUIS gives to students is financed out of fitrah or tithe collections. The MUIS has been advised that, in accordance with Muslim law, the proceeds of fitrah collections cannot be utilized for the purpose of granting loans. Such funds can only be used as outright gifts for any one of the eight prescribed purposes or asnafs.

The Member for River Valley proposed that the Government should consider a grant-in-aid scheme for voluntary welfare organizations. My Ministry has, in fact, been discussing this question with the Singapore Council of Social Service. My Ministry's view is that it is much better for the Government to give all possible assistance to voluntary welfare organizations to raise funds from the public than to give them grants-in-aid. Not only would the organizations raise more money this way but it would also give the general public a greater sense of participation in welfare work. The organizations themselves accept that fund-raising is an integral part of voluntary welfare work. I am glad to inform the House that the Singapore Council of Social Service is now actively looking into a scheme to bring about greater public participation in raising funds for voluntary welfare work.

The Member has also asked whether in future sessions of this House he could expect to hear more details of my Ministry's programmes to strengthen the family unit and to rehabilitate prisoners. I would like to assure the Member that I will indeed give detailed information on these programmes to this House when the opportunity arises.

Mr Ho See Beng (Khe Bong): Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to make a point of clarification. I would like to ask the Acting Minister for Social Affairs whether he will agree with me that there are unfilial sons, the lousy children, who refuse to look after their aged parents. A caring PAP Government concerned with aged people who are unemployable, cannot afford to see them hungry and starved to death. The Social Welfare Department is in the habit of making an investigation whenever a destitute person receives public assistance. If the officers find out that a recipient has children, the public assistance is immediately withdrawn. If the Minister does not agree with me, I will bring up a case from my constituency to him. He will remember that towards the end of December 1980, there was a spate of complaints about the withdrawal of public assistance. I think the Minister himself might have come across cases like this. This complaint is not only from the Member for Khe Bong but also from many other constituencies.

Dr Ahmad Mattar: Mr Speaker, Sir, if I got the Member correctly just now, he said that if I disagreed, he would send the case to me. Well, I disagree with him. The Member can, therefore, send the case to me and I will look into it. 4.55 p.m.

Mr Eugene Yap Giau Cheng: Mr Speaker, Sir, I count it a high honour to be given this privilege to move the Motion, and for this I have to thank the Leader of the House. I am indeed indebted to all hon. Members for their participation in this debate and their support and also the Hon. Ministers on the other side of the House for their great patience and their replies.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have just been asked to advise the Minister for Labour that periodic medical examinations, being done on a voluntary basis by factories on the advice of the Industrial Health Department, are obviously not adequate to protect the health of our workers exposed to specific hazards. The Member for Thomson has suggested that statutory medical examinations are definitely required. I hope he will take note of that.

Having heard the various sentiments expressed by hon. Members, the Leader of the House can rest assured that his advice to let our conscience be our guide and to speak freely and frankly has not fallen on stony ground. Instead, I should think that it fell on very fertile ground and seemingly typical of the computer age in which they flourish, many Members have been producing lots of suggestions and very worthwhile ones too in a very short time. Whatever the output has been these past few days, it is sincerely hoped that these suggestions will be seriously considered, if thought fit.

It is very clear from the tenor of the various speeches made by hon. Members that a good management-labour relationship, a strong and efficient defence system together with a team of effective young Ministers working with, and taking over from the old guard within a suitable period of time, are necessary pre-requisites for Singapore's continued progress and survival. Perhaps I might add that our future success will very much depend also on a supportive population like what we have today.

In listening to various Members, I feel that I would not have done my duty if I did not reiterate that healthy management-labour relationships should not only be seen in the present Singapore industries, but also in the various Ministries, statutory boards and Government-owned companies. We should be more receptive to new ideas and must encourage them to flow upwards so that they can tap the greatest potential from those who are actually on the job.

Some Members certainly did not lack gumption when expressing their sentiments on hikes in bus fares and PUB charges. Whilst it is appreciated that the SBS, like many other companies, has a right to make profits, and although the PUB belongs to the non-profit making category, it will still merit a thorough investigation of the Members' points of view, especially in the light of suggestions that relevant departments should keep trying to find ways to trim costs of operation. Savings achieved can indeed help to reduce the impact on imported inflation.

On price increases, just as with promoting better management-labour relationship, we must guard against "trying to take the speck out of our neighbour's eye while not noticing the beam in our own". The Government very closely scrutinizes price increases in consumer items, such as tea and coffee sold in Singapore, but I hope the Government will also scrutinize its own price increases with the same conscience and enthusiasm.

Lift breakdowns and leaking roofs of HDB flats, especially the older ones, were raised again and again. My colleagues are indeed glad that the Minister for National Development has recently assured the House that something has been done and that there are less lift breakdowns. However, if the Hon. Minister for National Development can find some possible means to play "Superman", he might be able to reverse what the Member for Kim Seng calls "the Law of the Universe" in order to prevent the natural order of decay. Considering the achievements of the HDB over the past few years, I am certain that having been the Chief Executive of the HDB for some time, the Minister for National Development is the man to improve living conditions and to ensure that randomness, confusion and disorder will not increase.

The Member for Bedok raised a very relevant point regarding the lack of consultation when implementing policies. It is indeed pathetic to have brilliant minds with brilliant ideas rendered ineffective through poor implementation or impatience. Sometimes, all that is required is just a little bit more time and patience.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there is a pressing need to look for a more balanced situation regarding the escalation of property prices. Many Members have expressed their concern here. Property prices have been pushed up so artificially by unscrupulous property owners manipulating the market that serious implications can develop. Those who will suffer will be those sandwiched between those who can afford luxurious homes and those who qualify for HDB flats. Although these people only form 1% of the population, it does hurt them, and we are glad that something will be done.

Another area of great concern is education, as seen in the rather heated debates that came up on the topic. Many points were raised. Among others, the pathetic state of the teaching profession which has suffered social devaluation over the years was brought up.

It is also interesting to note in the Addendum that among the many young teachers, those 30 years or younger, 81% of them are female teachers. If we assume that the male is still the head of the house, then it could be that the male teachers must have gone to seek better pastures, be it salary or other fringe benefits to better support the family. I would ask this question: at this point of time, are we concerned with the observation of the Ministry of Education that "male pupils may be increasingly deprived of a male image to look up to and to emulate."

The Ministry of Education anticipates that with full-day schools, married female teachers may not find teaching attractive any more. Previously the half-day nature of schools used to be attractive to them, and so they may begin to leave the service. The Straits Times did a survey among our female teachers and, if I am right, they appear to have discovered that they may not leave the service because they like teaching. But I wonder whether we can accept this as gospel truth, bearing in mind what the Member for Whampoa predicted yesterday. If they leave, it may be slow, not sudden, and then when we begin to realise it, it may be too late to rectify. This merits closer consideration. The question is: are we doing too much too fast? Already we are short of teachers. To lose teachers again because of full-day schools may be counter-productive.

Another point raised was the fear that the Schools Council will only be a rubber stamp for the Ministry's "one-way-street" directives to schools and this reflects the distrust that principals and teachers have for the Ministry of Education. This does not speak well of the administration. Why, I do not know, but since the Ministry of Education is trying again, it is a good sign. This time, they must try harder and give the Schools Council the true nature and characteristics of the genuine STEP QC Circle which promotes bottoms-up-management.

Mr Speaker, Sir, with the permission of the Member for Boon Teck, I would like to borrow his words. The hon. Member, after congratulating you on your re-election to the Chair, said, "How pleased we are to see you there." Mr Speaker, Sir, on behalf of my colleagues, we all admire you for the tremendous patience you have displayed as Speaker for so many terms in this House. You have oft-times displayed great wisdom. You have indeed managed Parliamentarians with the adroitness of an expert kite-flying enthusiast. Our sympathies are always with you, for you, Mr Speaker, have to sit through so many sessions year in year out listening to us but not able to participate. When sessions get heavy, you did not so much as show even one of forty winks, neither did you yawn. You have disciplined yourself very well. We will endeavour to repay you, and repay you we must. We will from today undertake to provide you with better quality 'Offerings.'

Finally, Mr Speaker, can I on behalf of my colleagues and fellow Singaporeans express our thanks and admiration to the Government for the hard work and the time they have sacrificed to give us a pleasant and progressive country to live and work in.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

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 Speaker: I propose to take the Suspension now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 5.40 p.m.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 5.07 p.m until 5.40 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.40 a.m.