MAIN AND DEVELOPMENT ESTIMATES OF SINGAPORE FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1ST APRIL, 1981 TO 31ST MARCH, 1982

Order read for consideration in Committee of Supply [3rd Allotted Day].

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

3.13 p.m.

The Chairman: Pursuant to the resolution of the Committee, a Schedule (Cols. 1009 - 1010) of the revised times for the remaining allotted days for discussion of the Main and Development Estimates has been circulated to Hon. Members. Schedule - MAIN AND DEVELOPMENT ESTIMATES OF EXPENDITURE FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1ST APRIL, 1981 TO 31ST MARCH, 1982 (Cols. 1009 - 1010)

Head R -

Mr Eric Cheong Yuen Chee (Toa Payoh): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head R be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead RA-01 of the Main Estimates*

*The same amendment also stood in the name of Mr Ch'ng Jit Koon.

Sir, the Hon. Minister for Trade and Industry had in his Budget statement recognized the contributions made by the Labour movement in the restructuring of the economy and cooperation with management in maintaining harmonious industrial relations. Workers in Singapore have made many sacrifices in the interest of the country. The NTUC and its affiliated unions are not shortsighted and do not resist changes, if changes are necessary, even to the extent of cautioning workers against making excessive and bizarre demands which in the long term will not benefit the country. 3.15 p.m.

The NTUC and its affiliated unions have organized courses and seminars to promote work excellence and to adapt themselves to ever-changing economic circumstances. These are positive efforts made by workers in Singapore. Therefore, the recent proposals to introduce measures to curb the so-called job-hopping is really a slap in the face for workers in Singapore. How serious is job-hopping? Has the EDB or other Government ministries made conclusive studies to show that job-hopping is a serious impediment to our economic restructuring? How serious are employers in curbing job-hopping? Do they give due recognition to the contributions made by their employees by providing them with a good working environment and to adequately reward the hardworking and the loyal workers? Here, Sir, I must admit that there are some good employers but there are many indifferent ones too. To many employers, profits are their primary concern. They do not realize that a good and loyal workforce can also bring in profits.

Although retrenchment is not a serious problem when profits are down, employers resort to getting rid of workers who have put in long years of loyal service because of their higher salaries. Some employers are taking it for granted that it is the responsibility of the Government and the trade unions to motivate workers for greater work excellence.

Here, I would like to touch on two proposals by the Ministry of Labour to discourage job-hopping. On the one that penalizes a worker by a confiscation of his CPF contributions, the reactions from some employers are, "Yes, that is a good idea." To the second proposal to pay a service benefit for long service employees, their reaction was, "It is a heavy financial burden and unnecessary as job-hopping is now no longer a problem." Of course, to some it is the carrot-and-stick approach. Here, I must say that it is the workers who always get the stick.

I now touch on the 1980 NWC recommendations. I would like to ask the Hon. Minister how many companies have implemented the NWC second-tier payment to-date. The NWC will be meeting soon and I am quite certain that many employers have yet to implement the 1980 NWC recommendations. Some employers claim that they do not have any appraisal system and need time to consider. These are lame excuses. Sir, I submit that it requires the combined efforts and the willingness of Government, employers and unions to make the restructuring of our economy succeed.

I would also like to suggest to the Hon. Minister to consider revising some of the provisions of our labour laws, with particular reference to the restriction on payment of NWC annual wage supplement and the qualifying period for payment of retrenchment benefits, and the raising of retirement age.

The Chairman: Mr Ch'ng Jit Koon is not here. Dr Ang.

Dr Ang Kok Peng (Buona Vista): With your indulgence, Sir, I would like to join in the debate. May I refer to the chart on page 48 of the Economic Survey of Singapore 1980 which shows the female workers' participation rate of five countries, including Singapore and Japan. For female workers in the age groups below 30 years old, the female participation rate of Singapore compares very well with those of the other countries. However, in the age groups beyond 30 years old, the rate falls increasingly below those of the other four countries.

In view of our labour shortage, may I ask the Minister for Labour whether his Ministry has looked into the reason for this sharp fall in the rate, and what measures, if any, are being taken to improve the participation rate of our women beyond 30 years old.

Mr Ho See Beng (Khe Bong): Sir, the question I would like to ask is this. The NWC has made a recommendation that merit increments could be offset from the NWC recommendations. There are a lot of complaints from the workers that if we allow the management to deduct merit increments from the NWC recommendations there will be no merit because, on the one hand, you give a merit increment but, on the other hand, you deduct it. So the merit increment is negatived. I would like to urge the Minister whether he will kindly bring this issue before the NWC in its coming deliberations.

Mr S. Chandra Das (Chong Boon): Sir, we have been told in this House that the waiting time for HDB and HUDC units is about 2 1/2 to three years. This building programme is severely hampered because of lack of workers and building materials. Further, this shortage has raised the unit cost. I am told that attempts are being made to increase the supply of building materials. However, the shortage of labour in the construction industry is still very acute. Simple economics suggest, Sir, that the cure lies in increasing the supply of imported construction workers.

I would be very grateful if the Hon. Minister for Communications and Minister for Labour could enlighten this House on the necessity to impose a surcharge of $230 per worker per month for imported construction workers from non-traditional sources. Further, if justifiable, what specific plans the Minister has to utilize these funds?

Encik Mansor Haji Sukaimi (Kampong Kembangan): Sir, I would like to inquire whether it is possible for the Minister t? consider the granting of differential annual leave, particularly for female workers. I understand that in certain countries the amount of leave eligibility for female workers differs according to their age or child-bearing status. For example, prior to marriage, female workers would be granted a reduced amount of annual leave eligibility. For the period from maternity confinement to the early years of a child, the women workers are granted supplementary leave eligibility. This would allow them more time to raise their children. Beyond that age, when the children have already grown up, they would be granted a reduced amount of annual leave eligibility. I wonder whether this concept could be considered for implementation in Singapore.

Dr Yeo Ning Hong (Kim Seng): Sir, job-hoppers have come under severe criticism over the last year or so, but I wonder how much of job-hopping is due to people trying to look for jobs for which they have the aptitude. In Singapore, career guidance is by and large non-existent. Our students go to school and they take up subjects dependent very much on peer group pressure. When the time comes for them to get into the job market, they just get on to the first job that they can find, only to discover very soon that they are square pegs in round holes. I wonder if the Ministry of Labour, either independently or in conjunction with the Ministry of Education or the Ministry of Trade and Industry, could look into the possibility of providing adequate career guidance for our children. In the past, most of our children, as it were, follow in the footsteps of the parents. Nowadays with all the jobs that are going around, and being extremely complex, a lot of them new to the people in Singapore, such guidance is no longer available.

I would also be pleased if the Ministry of Labour could give some idea of the sort of job-hopping pattern. Are we seeing job-hopping in people within their first two or three years of their career, or are we seeing job-hopping persistently throughout the entire career of certain individuals?

The Minister for Communications and Minister for Labour (Mr Ong Teng Cheong): Sir, first of all, let me answer some of the points raised by the Member for Toa Payoh. Job-hopping is a multi-faceted problem symptomatic of the tight labour market situation that we now face. It is caused not only by the workers or by the management but also by many other external factors, for example, the shifting of population from one area to a new housing estate or from one estate to another housing estate.

I agree with him that we cannot condemn all those who change jobs. The point raised by the Member for Kim Seng is true to some extent and, that is, the greatest number of job-hoppers are in the age group of 18 to 23 years. Unfortunately, I do not have the figures here with me. We could release these figures in due course for the information of Members and the public. This is partly due to the fact that these are first timers who come out into the labour market looking for jobs. They change jobs not because they refuse to receive skill training but because they are still in the process of looking for a suitable job for themselves. Sometimes you might like to call it job-shopping instead of job-hopping. After a year or two they will settle down. We know that too high a rate of job-hopping is damaging to our economy because it reduces efficiency and slows down the acquisition of skills by workers. But, no doubt, irresponsible and frivolous job-hopping is an undesirable social behaviour which must be discouraged.

The two schemes mentioned by the Member for Toa Payoh i.e. the disincentive scheme and the incentive scheme which we have detailed earlier, have not been finalized. We are not sure whether this should take the form that was described earlier. I would like to assure the Member that his views will be taken into consideration when we are formulating these measures again on job-hopping. 3.30 p.m.

I will convey the Member for Kim Seng's views to the Minister of Education and the Minister for Trade and Industry and perhaps together we will see whether we could further improve on the career guidance for our children. I have no doubt that Members are aware that there is career guidance in higher institutions of learning, the Singapore Polytechnic and also in secondary schools. I think this is better tackled by the Minister of Education. But, as I have said, career guidance alone will not eliminate job-changing for young men or young women who come into the market for the first time. They would just grab the first job they come across and work for a few weeks or a few months. When they find out that that job is not what they have in mind, they would change to another job. But they will eventually settle down after a few years, maybe two years.

The Member for Toa Payoh also mentioned about the retrenchment benefits payable to workers who were retrenched within three years. Retrenchment benefits are given to workers mainly to tide them over the difficult period of unemployment until they find a new job. But in the present tight labour market situation, the retrenched workers do not have much difficulty in seeking or getting suitable alternative employment. The older workers who are retrenched, however, may face some difficulties. But generally they would have more than three years' service with the same employer and would, therefore, be eligible for retrenchment benefits. Although the qualifying period for retrenchment benefits is three years, many employers do give exgratia payments to retrenched employees with less than three years' service. Therefore, my Ministry does not think it necessary at this stage to amend the Act.

The Member for Toa Payoh also mentioned about the payment of Annual Wage Supplement (AWS). The AWS and the NWC recommendations were introduced so as to obtain an orderly wage increase and to minimize the number of disputes arising from the negotiation for bonus payments and pay rises. The objective of this policy has been achieved. Since 1972 disputes over payments of AWS or bonuses have been the minimum and not a single strike has arisen from these disputes. Furthermore, there has been an orderly wage increase over these years. Besides, over the same period, since 1972, there has been a gradual relaxation of this policy and employers may now pay the AWS above the frozen quantum of one month provided this does not exceed three months. In view of the continued need for an orderly wage increase and to minimize industrial disputes, and the recent relaxation on the payment of AWS of up to three months' wages, I do not think it is necessary to make any changes on AWS at this stage.

The Member for Buona Vista has asked for the reason for the difference in female labour participation rate between the Singapore female labour force and the Japanese labour force. It is very difficult to pinpoint the exact reason. But I suspect it is partly the importance that Singapore women attach to their role as home-maker and the generally low-paying jobs that they command, that make continued employment and re-entry into the labour market unattractive.

I understand that the Ministry of Social Affairs has plans to increase the number of creches. Hopefully, this will free the housewives from their domestic chores and encourage them to work again. In addition, as I understand it, the Ministry of Social Affairs has also plans to increase the number of children under its family day care scheme from 1,300 children to 2,100 children within the next 12 months, I hope this will encourage the female labour force to come into the labour market.

The Member for Chong Boon asked about the rationale of the levy of $230 per worker per month imposed on employers of construction workers from the non-traditional sources and to what use this money would be put to. The levy imposed on employers of construction workers from the non-traditional sources is intended in a way to raise the wage-cost of employing such workers so as to discourage employers from an over-reliance of foreign workers. It is also to exert pressure on such employers to resort to more labour-efficient and mechanized methods of construction. If we made foreign workers available cheaply to the employers in the construction industry, then there would be no incentive to these employers to employ local workers and train them to attain a higher skill and to go into mechanized methods of construction.

The levy collected will go into a fund to be administered by the Ministry of National Development. This fund will be used to assist employers in the building and construction industry to mechanize their methods of construction.

The Member for Kampong Kembangan has suggested the granting of different annual leave schemes to female workers according to their age and family status. I suppose this is to encourage them to come into the labour market. He cited the examples of annual leave available in other countries. I would say that if he has any proposals we would like to have a look at them. There are so many different laws in the world with different annual leave schemes. If the Member can pass them over to my Ministry or to me, we would be too happy to receive them.

Mr Eric Cheong Yuen Chee: Sir, the Hon. Minister has omitted to answer my question on the possibility of raising the retirement age for workers.

Mr Ong Teng Cheong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I think in a tight labour market situation like we have today, there is much to be said for raising the retirement age from 55 to 60 or even to 65 years, the white collar workers in particular, except nowhere in the world has this been introduced as a statutory requirement. I think we should encourage this through promotions and other methods, like collective bargaining and so on, to get the retirement age increased from 55 to 60 or even beyond 60 years.

For the blue collar workers, however, when a worker reaches the age of 55 or more, it is very difficult to encourage his employer to engage him to do manual work, especially heavy manual work. This is something which we could look into to find ways of promoting it rather than to do it through legislation.

Mr Ho See Beng: Sir, the Minister has not replied to my question about the NWC and merit increment.

Mr Ong Teng Cheong: Sir, my apologies to the Member. The request made by the Member for Khe Bong that this matter be referred to the coming NWC meeting for deliberations, I think we can agree to convey his suggestion to the coming NWC meeting for their consideration. At this stage I do not want to make any hasty remarks or conclusion on the merit or demerit of past practice. We will leave it to the NWC to consider the matter.

Mr Lim Boon Heng (Kebun Baru): Mr Speaker, Sir, since the Ministry of Labour has not yet finalized the plan for the disincentive and incentive scheme to discourage job-hopping, I would like to add my views on this matter.

First, let me highlight some of the facts that we have got out of the CPF statistics on job-hopping. There were 85,092 persons who changed jobs at least once during the period April. 1979 to March 1980. This is 8.36% of the total labour force. Secondly, females seem to change jobs more often than the males. While only 6.46% of the males in the total labour force changed jobs at least once during the survey period, 12.02% of the females did so. This is nearly twice the rate for males. There also seem to be higher mobility among the lower income group. While 10.35% of those earning less than $200 per month changed jobs at least once, only 4.73% of those earning more than $1,000 did so. It is also noted that 48,126 persons or 56.55% of those who changed jobs at least once were earning less than $300. If we draw the line at $500, then this figure rises to 82.46%. So we may generally conclude that it is the lower income group that will lose out in the disincentive or incentive scheme that is proposed. There would also be a bias against females. 3.45 p.m.

These statistics do not tell us why workers change jobs. Is it because of frivolous attitude or is it because they are seeking better jobs? But the fact that the majority of those who changed jobs are in the lower income group suggests that these people have little or no skill. And it may be in the nature of their work that since it requires very little training, there is no incentive on the part of the employers to upgrade their skills. When these workers have no prospect of advancement in a particular job, then it is only natural that they will change, to try to seek a job with reasonable career prospects in the long term.

Sir, I would like the Minister for Labour to look into this matter more seriously to find out whether the incentive or disincentive scheme will really discourage job-hopping.

Mr Ong Teng Cheong: Mr Speaker, Sir, in reply to the points raised by the Member for Kebun Baru and on the figures he quoted, we suspect that the main reason why those who job-hop during their young age are females is that all the boys are in national service. So within that age group, between 18 and 21, or even 22 years, there are more girls working. Is that right?

Mr Lim Boon Heng: There is an analysis on those who changed jobs three times or more. Of those in the age group 15-19 years, there were 630 males. This represented about 0.98% of the males in that category. Against this, there were 840 females or 1.43%. It is higher for the females in this age group. For those in the 20-24 years age group, there were 839 males or 0.65%, whereas there were 1,056 females or 1.02%. It is still higher. In the age group 20-24, most of the males would have completed national service. Then if we look at the age group 25-34 years, we have 1,026 males or 0.53% of the males in that group in the labour force. For females, it is 643 or 0.66% which is still higher than the males.

Mr Ong Teng Cheong: I suspect that the higher rate of female workers between 15 and 24 years who change jobs could partly be due to the fact that most of the males between the ages of 18 and 21 years, or even 22 would be in national service. At this stage I am not trying to come to any conclusion as to the reason why female workers are more prone to job-hopping than male workers. But this is something which I have explained earlier, especially for the younger age group, that they are involved in job-shopping rather than job-hopping when they first come into the labour market. It is for this reason that we have not yet finalized the disincentive and incentive schemes against job-hopping. In fact, we are not sure whether these schemes should be implemented or when they should be implemented if we think that these schemes will achieve the desired effect. This is something which we need time to look into further.

In fact, my Ministry was thinking that perhaps we should refer this back to the NWC for their further deliberation because this subject first came from the NWC's recommendations in 1980, and the disincentive scheme was one of the proposals made by the NWC. And since the NWC is going to start looking into this year's wage increase and into other matters relating to the NWC, we thought that perhaps it would be timely now to refer it back to the NWC. There is no hurry on this matter.

Mr Liew Kok Pun (Boon Teck): Mr Speaker, Sir, perhaps the Minister for Labour might want to examine the root cause of job-hopping, I believe it has a lot to do with the state of personnel management in Singapore. Personnel management, as it is, is still an art. I think it is because line managers do not know how to manage, do not know how to motivate the staff, that gives rise to the workers leaving the company.

So may I suggest that the Ministry of Labour, together with the National Productivity Board examine the possibility of conducting a course on personnel management. I think personnel management is going to be very important in Singapore and we should not take workers for granted. I think this is where the Ministry of Labour officials can do something about it and just do not leave it to the companies. Of course, companies can go bust if they do not manage well. Maybe the Member for Cairnhill can transfer some of his technology on Japanese expertise to the staff of the Labour Ministry and hopefully bring about a new era in personnel management in Singapore.

Mr Ong Teng Cheong: Sir, I agree with the Member for Boon Teck that labour/management relations need to be further improved in Singapore. I agree with him that we cannot put all the blame on workers when we talk about job-hopping. It is partly management's problem also. It is for management's own good that they do something about their own management system to improve their relationship with workers. In that respect, I agree with him that they have got to do something. As I have said, it is a multi-faceted problem. It has to be tackled on all fronts.

The National Productivity Board organizes courses not only for management executives but also for line supervisors as well. So I would encourage those managements who face job-hopping problems in their establishments to send their line supervisors and management executives to the National Productivity Board to attend the NPB course, especially now that we have the Member for Cairnhill as Chairman of the NPB. He will probably impart some of his knowledge.

Mr Eric Cheong Yuen Chee: Sir, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment by leave, withdrawn.

The following amendment, standing in the name of Mr. M,K.A. Jabbar, was not moved:

(2) That the sum to be allocated for Head R be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead RC-03 of the Main Estimates.

Dr Chau Sik Ting: Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head R be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead RD-04 of the Main Estimates.

Sir, may I beg your indulgence to raise this subject as it is of public interest, even though I myself am involved with occupational health practice.

In my recent speech on the Ministry of Labour's Addendum to the Presidential Address, I have mentioned the four areas of risk, namely, exposure to ionizing radiation to silica, to asbestos and to benzene for which statutory medical examinations are required. I have also highlighted noise-induced deafness with a notified incidence of 229 cases confirmed in 1980.

Sir, when noise-induced deafness was made a compensable industrial disease more than five years ago, the Industrial Health Division of the Ministry of Labour initiated a hearing conservation programme with a view to promoting awareness among employers of this particular occupational hazard. This ongoing programme is already five years old. Has there been any evaluation of the effectiveness of this programme? The rising trend of noise-induced deafness surely indicates failure of this programme. If that is so, what further measures are likely to be taken to arrest this trend?

So far, audiometric examinations have been done on a voluntary basis. As such, there was only a very limited response. The figures on cases of noise-induced deafness release,d by the Ministry of Labour is definitely an under-estimate. This underestimation of the true incidence of noise-induced deafness will increase from year to year because employers including MINDEF are not legally obliged to have audiometric examinations done on their employees and their national servicemen before the run-out date. My impression is that a good number of our national servicemen, particularly technicians with the Air Force, have a certain degree of noise-induced deafness. If they are not made aware of this, and they subsequently join Singapore Airlines' workshop or work in other noisy environment, their hearing will be further impaired as they are not likely to take the necessary preventive measures.

As noise-induced deafness is a serious and irreversible but a preventable condition, it is definitely timely now to introduce legislation to make audiometric examination a statutory medical examination for those workforce exposed to high noise levels. Five years of promotional work by the Industrial Health Division should be long enough for the idea of workers' protection against noise to take root. But it is, in fact, not so; simply because such an examination has not been made statutory.

Another area of concern is the increasing number of compressed air illness among our deep-sea divers who, as a result of this condition, have either died or suffer permanent paralysis of the lower limbs. This serious condition is again preventable and if deep-sea divers are made to undergo statutory medical examination to ensure their fitness for the job and at the same time to impart knowledge of the hazards and their immediate preventive measures, the incidence of this condition will definitely decline. More concerted effort is needed to ensure the safety and health of our deep-sea divers who are already in short supply.

4.00 p.m.

Mr Fong Sip Chee: Sir, I hear the hon. Member for Thomson loud and clear. Since 1975, noise-induced deafness has been made a notifiable and compensable disease under the Factories Act and the Workmen's Compensation Act. Since then, the total number of such cases detected and confirmed by the Ministry till the end of 1980 is 2,085. In 1980 alone, 229 workers, the figure as quoted by the Member, were detected. Of these, 280 were in the early stages of the disease. That leaves only 11 confirmed cases out of a screening of 2,085. I cannot agree with the hon. Member that our estimates are grossly understated. The figures were obtained from establishments which are known to have a high level of noise.

He questions the effectiveness of the hearing conservation programme. The programme was started in 1976. It is now in its fifth year, as the hon. Member quite correctly noted. During this period more than 5,000 workers from the various establishments with a noise level that is hazardous were screened. This is done every year and it is only for a small nominal fee. These workers are also health educated, so to speak, on the hazards of noise and the precautions to take because this is an illness you can contract even without your knowing it.

With the bulk of the noise-induced deafness detected in the first few years of the programme, the number of new cases has fallen significantly. This is because of the preventive screening. In 1980 from the 5,014 workers screened under the programme, only 44 new noise-induced cases were confirmed. Meanwhile the larger factories are being encouraged to conduct their own hearing conservation programmes and with their own audiometric facilities. So far, 13 factories have done so.

Another indication of the effectiveness of the programme is reflected in the increase in the number of workers wearing ear-protection gears. In 197 5, prior to the start of the programme, a sample study showed that as much as 79% of the workers exposed to a high level of noise did not wear any ear-protection gear at all. In 1980, five years later, the survey showed that the number has fallen to only about 26%. The percentage of workers wearing ear-protectors throughout their working hours in that kind of establishment has also increased, from a mere 18% in 1976 to 58% in 1980. Notwithstanding the progress of this programme, we intend to make audiometric screening a statutory requirement under the law. That will perhaps settle the point raised by the Member.

Decompression illness is an illness associated with deep-sea diving. At the end of 1980 the Ministry has confirmed 101 cases. Of these 15 were fatal, 56 suffered permanent disability, like paralysis of the lower limbs, and 30 suffered temporary disability. The majority of them, as the Member has mentioned, involved deep-sea fishermen doing diving work with compressed air gear. To combat this, in September, 1976, my Ministry prepared and distributed a good number of pamphlets to these people informing them of the hazards and the precautionary measures they should take. For example, they should not emerge from a deep level too quickly. They must stay at a certain level for a certain period of time before moving up to a higher level, so that nitrogen bubbles will not form in their bloodstream, blocking the capillaries. I have made some study of that.

We have also conducted a three-month health education programme, between November 1980 and January 1981, for deep-sea fishermen to educate them on the hazards of using compressed air and the precautions to take. A total of 352 fishermen have undergone this programme. The Ministry will continue to monitor the situation. The number of workers involved is small. It is not to say that we ignore their welfare. We will continue to monitor the situation further before we decide whether or not to make it a statutory requirement.

Mr Liew Kok Pun: Sir, I share the concern and sentiment expressed by the Member for Thomson. I would like to ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour whether there has been any study conducted on noise levels in school workshops where the technical teachers are continuously exposed to a fairly high level of noise.

Dr Chau Sik Ting: Sir, I am grateful for the satisfactory reply given by the Senior Parliamentary Secretary. However, I still maintain that the figures released by the Ministry is an under-estimate. Imagine examining an average of 5,000 workers annually compared to the total workforce who are exposed to noise, we can find no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that it is an under-estimate.

As regards deep-sea divers, the health education programme mounted by the Ministry of Labour has been successful to a certain extent, but I still would like the Ministry of Labour to seriously consider this move to make it a statutory medical examination because in this way the consciousness of the deep-sea divers to this particular hazard will be raised.

Mr Fong Sip Chee: Sir, first, the Member for Boon Teck. He is concerned about school students being exposed to high noise levels.

Mr Liew Kok Pun: No, teachers.

Mr Fong Sip Chee: Teachers only. Are you not asking about students?

Mr Liew Kok Pun: I am asking about teachers.

Mr Fong Sip Chee: I would include students as well, if I were you. This normally comes within the purview of the VITB establishment. I do know that they have a programme on safety, including noise-induced deafness. If it is insufficient, I will impress upon the Minister-in-charge to conduct a review of their safety provision in this respect.

As regards the Member for Thomson, it is true that every factory generates some noise. If we were to screen all of them, it would mean having to screen the entire industrial sector, which I think is impossible. We concentrate our efforts only on those establishments where the noise level is above 90 decibels. 50 or 60 decibels are really tolerable. We concentrate on those establishments where the noise level is above 90 decibels. So the figures are based on that. If the Member can let me have a list of those establishments which he thinks the noise level exceeds 90 decibels, which we might have missed, we will certainly move into those establishments.

On the question of Mindef and the Air Force, I do know that Mindef has its own safety unit. I speak as a soldier. Every time I go to the firing range, I am given a pair of ear-plugs. The artillery soldiers are also given ear-protectors when they do live-firing exercise. Mindef is very conscious of this. The Air Force technician is a highly specialized personnel. If he suffers from any disease, more so noise-induced deafness, the Mindef will lose him and his training. So Mindef is very conscious of this. Perhaps the Member may want to take on the Minister of Defence when he is on the carpet!

Dr Chau Sik Ting: Sir, the Senior Parliamentary Secretary has definitely not included the big group of sub-contractor workers working in shipyards. This is just to mention one category of workers whom his Ministry has not done any audiometric examination. Of course, for administrative reasons, it would be difficult to be able to examine them and get hold of them.

As regards Mindef, and I am also speaking as a soldier, I am aware that quite a number of them, after their ROD, do have noise-induced deafness. As to why they get it, I am not here to explain. However, I think it has got something to do with their training.

Anyway, Sir, I beg to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment by leave, withdrawn.

Encik Othman bin Haron Eusofe (Geylang Serai): Sir, I beg to move,

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

Sir, we now have a full employment situation. In view of this, would the Hon. Minister inform us what is the demand now for the services of his Ministry's Employment Service? How many persons are presently registered in the Employment Service? How many persons have been offered employment by it? How many of those offered employment have accepted the offers of employment?

Mr Fong Sip Chee: ( In Malay): In the year 1980, a total of 13,815 job seekers sought help from the Employment Service under the Ministry of Labour. During the same period a total of 2,439 employers used the services of this Office to fill vacancies totalling 25,723. So through the efforts of this Department, a total of 5,576 workers have found employment. These figures which I have mentioned earlier prove that this Employment Service Department is still needed, although Singapore is in a situation of full employment. And during the same year this Office also rendered assistance to 1,604 workers who applied for a change of their jobs. Most of them sought better jobs, jobs nearer their homes, particularly jobs which they feel are more suited to their talent and inclinations.

Encik Othman bin Haron Eusofe: Sir, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $15,137,690 for Head R ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. 4.15 p.m.

Head K -

Mr Ng Kah Ting (Punggol): Sir, I beg to move,

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

Sir, in his Presidential Address to this House on the 3rd of February, 1981, our President listed three priorities for the Eighties and he has listed Defence as the second priority. I quote the President's words [Hansard, Vol. 40, col. 11]:

'Second, we must get every citizen to recognise and support the pivotal role that defence and national service plays in underpinning our continued independence and prosperity.' Since we cannot afford a large standing army, the brunt of the defence of Singapore will surely fall squarely upon the shoulders of our younger citizens. So we have a citizens' army through compulsory national service of boys from the age of 18 years for a period of two to three years. On completion of their full-time national service of only two to three years, i.e. when they are on ROD, they have to do reservist training every year. It is in this regard, Sir, that I would like to address my remarks - reservist training. How much emphasis has been stressed on the reservists that they should take their reservist training with all seriousness and that national service does not end after ROD because our survival depends on our capability to defend ourselves? No doubt we may be a small island-state of some 650 square kilometres but this is our one and only home and country.

I bring this up, Sir, because during my meet-the-people sessions I come across requests for deferment of attendance at in-camp training for reservists. I can only suggest that we should not entertain such requests, wherever possible, unless special circumstances warrant due consideration of such a request because it involves, as I understand it, a lot of administrative red-tape. A case has got to go through the normal course of investigation into the circumstances, etc., after which the programme to be laid down would be somewhat disrupted.

I had occasion in earlier years to cite the example of the way Switzerland conducts its own defence set-up. We must not only make our national servicemen proud of the fact that they are playing an important role but we must also inculcate into the reservists a sense of commitment that for the next 10 years or so during their reservist training they are making an equally important contribution to the country by providing protection for themselves, their fellow citizens and Singapore. What I am trying to say is whether there is a sense of total commitment and dedication when they undergo reservist training and whether they take it very seriously.

If I may disclose a little more information. I have had occasion to observe some of the reservist training exercises. To me, some of the reservists appeared to have taken the exercises very lightly. Let me illustrate with a small example. There was a battalion on the attack to capture an "enemy" camp on a hilltop, and various tactics had to be devised, planned and carried out. When the "enemy" position had been captured and the mission accomplished, I noticed that quite a number of them were just standing around the hilltop, forgetting one thing. The battalion might have captured the "enemy" post but the fact remains that there might be some "enemies" who had only been wounded, and not killed. So if they exposed themselves, that's it, lives would be lost. In other words, the point here is that they were not taking their training seriously and were not careful. This is one observation which I have made, and I hope the Hon. Minister of Defence will look into this.

The other aspect, Sir, concerns the manpower recruited for national service. We have this streaming of students in Secondary 1 as well as in pre-university. With the streaming into normal stream, which takes five years, and three years for the pre-university, I can by simple arithmetic add up and say that we are short of two years. So we would not be able to get this group of boys to do national service. What plans are there in the Ministry of Defence to work out and project the number of national servicemen and if, under normal circumstances, had streaming not come about, what would be the result? Initially, the Minister might reply, "Look. After all, we only lose two years." Yes, but these are two important years because if a young boy is streamed into the normal course and subsequently undertakes a three-year course in pre-university, he will be about 20 years old by the time he is ready for national service. So this would account for a drop in the number of national servicemen.

In a nutshell, the other side of the security of the country would also depend on what other weaponry and equipment we have got. Of course, here I can only ask a general question because I think we have under the Ministry's Development Estimates a provision of $150 million which, I think, is grossly insufficient.

If we look at the region around us, the Vietnamese had moved into Kampuchea and, despite two UN resolutions which were passed and overwhelmingly supported, saying that they should withdraw and pull our their forces, numbering more than 200,000, from Kampuchea, and let the Kampucheans choose their own form of government, they had refused to do so. They are pressing on, and the latest reports from the press indicate the intensity of skirmishes in the Thai and Kampuchean borders.

In conclusion, I would ask the Minister of Defence what plans have we got to maintain our defence capability in the light of the observations I have just enumerated.

The Minister of Defence (Mr Howe Yoon Chong): Sir, the Presidential Address also mentions and I quote:

'Our citizens must not regard the defence of Singapore as a two- or three-year affair, after which the national serviceman can put aside his uniform and leave it to others to carry on. No one will defend Singapore except Singaporeans. No one will fight for us except ourselves. This is the stark truth.' I hope that answers the Member for Punggol regarding Mindef's attitude towards national service. We in Mindef have never at any one point considered national service to be just the training of our young men from the age of 18 to 20 or 21 and ho d that he would have finished his obligation to defend the country. We look upon national service as a long-term life-long affair where he will be required to shoulder his responsibility right up to the age of 40 or 50 years, depending on the rank that he attains in the service.

I would like to pick three words that have been used by the Member for Punggol in his illuminating address to the House. The first one is Reservist. It is unfortunate that the quirk of the English language has permitted the use of the word "reservist" to connote a certain meaning, and we have been accepting its usage to apply to our national service. The public thinks of a reservist as the twelfth man in the football team where if one of the other 11 members is injured or overtired the twelfth man comes in. 4.30 p.m.

In our Singapore context, reservists are in fact front-line soldiers, as the Member for Punggol has mentioned. Our whole defence is based on a national service army which has to fight to defend us. Nay, I would go one step further. Our whole defence is built on the basis that, when it comes to defending Singapore, it will be a total mobilization. Every man, woman and child has a part to play. So I hope I have disabused the interpretation of the word "reservist" to mean that reservists are only required when those on active duty or the regulars can no longer fight or when they require support or reinforcement.

Now, the Member for Punggol has suggested that we should inculcate a sense of "commitment" and "dedication" in the reservists. In this regard I would say that this is a long-term measure requiring basic changes in our social values, our thinking, our nationalistic and patriotic ideals and fervour. Without these changes, it is not easy to build a strong sense of "commitment" and "dedication" in the reservists, I would remind the Member for Punggol that, here, reservists mean front-line soldiers. Unfortunately for us, our independence is but only 15 years old or slightly more, and the build-up of our national service or our defence forces is only one or two years less than that. We have no long- standing militaristic traditions. Our people, in fact, do not consider the Military with any respectable status. "Hau nan bu dang bing" ( ).

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Hao tie bu da ding ( )

Mr Howe Yoon Chong: I am glad the Member knows it. Therefore, it has been up till now an uphill climb.

Because our resources are limited we cannot, as the Member has said, build a strong standing army of big numbers. We have to rely on national service to be our main defending force. But, at the same time, it is not easy, in a period of economic expansion where everybody can get a job, to get good candidates to come in to become officers so that at least the officer-cadre of the defence forces can be strengthened. So in the initial years we have the difficulty of having to build our national service by using the framework that we have inherited from the past - either the infantry regiments that were there or the volunteers that were used to train the local militia. Neither of these is suitable for the type of military structure that we need for our defence.

In the early 70s, special care was taken to divert groups of our more intelligent youngsters into the SAF through scholarships, training awards, and overseas training, in order to build up this cadre. When we have built up this cadre, it is possible that slowly, and gradually over a period of years, we will improve the framework within which the quality of our national service and of our defence forces can be raised.

The Member for Punggol has mentioned Switzerland. May I remind him that in the case of Switzerland their national service has been built up over 500 years. We hope that we do not need 500 years to build a national service as good as Switzerland has got. But give us a chance. Give us a bit more time.

He has suggested that the reservists take their training lightly. That is true. All these fall back on the problem that we do not have a very highly professional military cadre of officers backed up by a strong military tradition and, if possible, reinforced by a considerable number of victories over a period of time. Ours is a total start-off from scratch in a hostile environment. We should be very glad that today we have the numbers, Give us a little bit more time in order to build up the quality.

In this respect I would appeal, through the Members of this House, to the population of Singapore that they have a part to play. It is no point criticizing our youngsters who are bearing the brunt of the defence by saying that they are not good soldiers. It is not their fault. It is the fault of our inheritance. Give us a bit of time. Give these youngsters the encouragement, the support, the assistance, to bolster up their spirit so that when they have tried and tried well, give them at least the respect and kind of praise that is due to them, and not to run them down and say that they are not very good soldiers, or that they are not as good as the Japanese or the Germans we have seen in whatever wars, or as good as the Israelis who won the fight in the Six-Day War. We have not got the same kind of circumstances on which to build a national army. Please encourage our youngsters, praise them. Give them more support so that their spirit, their enthusiasm and their pride in belonging to either the SAF or to the reservists can be properly sustained.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Sir, if I may pick up the last part of the Hon. Minister's reply. If he will recall, during the time of his predecessor when national service was introduced in 1967, Members of Parliament were present to send off the national servicemen at the send-off parties held at community centres. I can recall very vividly the occasions when parents turned up at these send-off parties. Initially, they had qualms and were sceptical about national service. Of course, as Members of Parliament, we realize the harsh realities that the sooner we build up our defence capability the better the security of Singapore. We gave them all the encouragement. In fact, we visited some of the training camps.

I would also like to echo the words of the Hon. Minister of Defence to the House - that Members of Parliament, not only during the meet-the-people sessions but also on other occasions, should be given the opportunity to talk and meet with the national servicemen or reservists. I for one would be too happy to join in such fraternization.

However, I would leave my other remarks to the second amendment that I shall be moving in less than a minute's time. On that note, I must thank the Minister of Defence for his kind words and the message that can be put across, namely the importance of defence to Singapore. Sir, I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment by leave, withdrawn.

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

That the sum to be allocated for Head K be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead KB-02 Object Group 3110 of the Main Estimates.

Sir, this subhead concerns welfare services. It is a grant to the Singapore Armed Forces Reservists' Association. I notice that there has been a sharp decrease in the grant. Last year the appropriation was $37,740 and this year it is only $11,000. I am not going to pick a bone of contention with the Minister of Defence on a matter of dollars and cents. What I am more concerned with is that the Singapore Armed Forces Reservists' Association is housed in Toa Payoh. With more and more reservists, I do not think one building is adequate. I am given to understand that another centre is being built somewhere in Bukit Merah or Queenstown.

The Acting Minister for Social Affairs (Dr Ahmad Mattar): Brickworks.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: I thank the Member for Brickworks. Surely the Ministry of Defence should look into the welfare of the reservists. Just now the Hon. Minister mentioned that we have got to show our appreciation for what they have done and we will continue to do this. I think this is very necessary. One of the ways, Sir, to manifest it is by providing more amenities and better facilities for the reservists so that more of them can come together at the various places. The Toa Payoh centre is too small a place. So will be the new place in Brickworks. What about the other places? My point is that they will continue to build up and maintain from a feeling of esprit de corps to camaraderie so that they can jell together and become one.

An hon. Member: Where did you get the word "jell" from?

Mr Ng Kah Ting: This word is not taken from the Hon. Prime Minister. This is a common word. They must learn how to jell, and that takes time. I entirely agree with him when he mentioned about the Swiss army. I am aware of the fact that the Swiss army took more than five centuries, more than 500 years to build up. But we do not went to see that kind of a situation happening in Singapore. Heaven forbid if that should happen! Whether we like it or not, all of us will have to take up arms to defend Singapore. If anybody comes in and tries to take us on, I think we will choose to die standing and not kneeling. That is the message. Therefore, is the Minister doing something more for the reservists? What is another building? It is not enough. So the crux of the matter is in dollars and cents. I am glad the Hon. Minister for Finance is here. I wish he was here yesterday when we debated on the police headquarters. I think he has a soft spot. He has a soft heart. It takes time to convince him, to let out a little secret -

Mr Yeo Choo Kok (Delta): How do you know?

Mr Ng Kah Ting: I know it. Let me tell a secret since the Member for Delta wants to know. It is about community centres. When subsidy grants were not sufficient, we pleaded with him. And I think we had something more. We are grateful because he has a listening ear. In this particular case, the reservists need to be looked after, just the same. If they are given more facilities, more amenities and places where they can congregate, it will go a long, long way to quicken the pace of developing something along the Swiss line, which I can only hope.

4.45 p.m.

Mr Seah Mui Kok (Bukit Ho Swee): Mr Speaker, Sir, Members of this House have heard the Hon. Minister of Defence saying that our Singapore military reservists are actually front-line soldiers. I fully agree with him and I support him. May I suggest to the Hon. Minister that instead of calling them "reservists", let us call them front-line soldiers. And this will definitely encourage them and they will be very happy. Rather than "Reservists' Association", call it "Front-Line Soldiers Association".

Encik Mansor Haji Sukaimi: Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to join the Member for Punggol on the issue of SAFRA. If the proposal of the Member for Bu kit Ho Swee is accepted by the Minister, the word "SAFRA" will have to be changed.

For the time being, I would like to know whether it would be possible for the Minister to intensify efforts, through the SAFRA infrastructure, to provide not only healthy recreations for the reservists but also to use the institution to create a more positive relationship between the senior officers of the SAF and the subordinate officers. I think it is imperative, if we really want to develop that strength of commitment and dedication amongst our soldiers, that there must develop a kind of environment where the feeling of comradeship between the subordinate officers and the senior officers is a strong one. Within the military structure, we have that innate difficulty because rank counts. Sir, if you are a colonel and I am a major, tradition requires that I have to be more condescending to you in my dealings with you and it would be difficult for you to also be more informal with your subordinate officers.

Secondly, national service emanates from the legal obligation in that we are required by law to serve national service. This creates some degree of enforced service which makes abiding loyalty difficult to come by. I feel that these two factors may aggravate the problem of bringing about that positive relationship we hope to have between the senior officers and the junior officers. For this reason, it is imperative that we should look for all possible ways and make use of the amenities, like SAFRA, to bring about this greater feeling of camaraderie, as the hon. Member for Punggol has mentioned. I think this SAFRA institution provides tremendous potential for this purpose. I hope that the Minister could look into this possibility and take efforts to intensify the programme to bring about a more profound sense of camaraderie in SAF.

Dr Tay Eng Soon (River Valley): Mr Speaker, may I join in this debate on reservists? I am very glad to hear the Hon Minister putting a great emphasis, as he should and as we all should, on the reservists as being our front-line troops because they are the mainstay of the Army. I read somewhere that before the American marines went into battle against the Japanese in the Pacific islands, they spent more than a year in physical training to get themselves fit, because experience has shown that not only are physically fit soldiers able to win wars but they are also able to survive better.

Somebody made a remark, during one of our National Day parades, that the SAFRA contingent had a few people who had a paunch, indicative of the lack of physical fitness. I know that MINDEF has been active in promoting physical fitness. The question I want to ask the Minister is: what has MINDEF's programme been to improve the physical fitness of reservists, and what results have been achieved by these physical fitness programmes for the reservists?

Dr Tan Cheng Bock (Ayer Rajah): Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the Member for Punggol, in his long talk, has forgotten that the Minister of Defence has not answered one of his questions, and that is, how will national service be affected by the streaming of students.

Mr Howe Yoon Chong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I will take the last question first. I admit being slightly amiss in not dealing with the Member for Punggol's question regarding streaming of students in the schools and how this will affect the eventual intake of people into the national service. There will be some problems with regard to people who eventually make the grade to go to the 'A' levels. Up to the 'O' level, there will be no problem. But I do not foresee very great difficulties there and if such difficulties do crop up in the years to come, there will be no difficulty in ironing them out with the Ministry of Education to defer those few who want to go for further studies or do their 'A' levels. So I do not expect much difficulty there. The numbers are there and we are well able to continue the kind of national service training that we have been doing, adjusting it all the time. That deals with the problem.

Coming back to the Member for Punggol's query regarding the reduction of the provision for welfare services from $37,000-odd to $11,000, this is not the real item that is set aside for welfare services. We have been able, with the indulgence of the Minister for Finance, to work out other systems whereby there are welfare funds available for this purpose. And our request to the Minister for Finance for funds to build SAFRA club-houses have also been met with reasonably good support from the Minister for Finance. So I do not have much difficulty convincing my colleague, the Minister for Finance, regarding the need for funds for welfare services for our reservists.

The Member for Bukit Ho Swee suggested that we call our reservists front-line soldiers. If they are to be true to their name, they will have to be soldiers and they will not be able to work in the factories or in the other institutions and our economic wealth will probably decline. I do not think we can name them front-line soldiers. It is like one of the oddities of the English language that we meet, where the public school is a private school. So we may have to live with this word since we have inherited this language, and I hope when we jell, we will not be jellied but we will be real tempered steel.

As regards SAFRA clubhouses which both the Member for Punggol and the Member for Kampong Kembangan are so anxious that we provide for the various areas, I can assure the House that, as the need arises, SAFRA club- houses will be developed. I do not think it is possible for me to convince the Minister for Finance that we should have one clubhouse for every constituency. We probably have to make-do with one clubhouse for a big group of housing estates where our reservists can go to a central place.

Up to now, we only have six years of experience in running SAFRA clubhouses. Although the articles of association of SAFRA lay down the need to bring in the spirit of comradeship, the bond of friendship, the various encouragements for people to take pride in belonging to the society and to look after each other's welfare and the like, we have no earlier experience, and the people who are appointed to manage and run and to cater for the needs of members of the SAFRA clubhouses have all had their experiences from the community centres. And the result has been that most of the activities in SAFRA clubhouses are a duplication of the activities of certain community centres, depending on where the organizing people first had their earlier experience. This, I admit, is not ideal but has to be improved.

Therefore, we will be slowly training different groups of people to concentrate not only on the welfare and recreational needs of SAFRA members and their families but also to provide certain activities that will encourage them to improve in the military areas. I am not very sure this will eventually be the result, but I can think of four or five possible activities. One is building up of physical fitness which the Member for River Valley has mentioned. The other one is to encourage aggressive spirit like taekwondo, karate, judo, jujitsu or maybe kendo, activities that are more associated with the military. And also to have military games so that they apply their minds to activities that are military so that from the SAFRA clubhouses there will develop a whole series of new activities relevant to the expected duties and responsibilities of reservist members.

Members of the House may wish to know that in addition to the Toa Payoh SAFRA clubhouse, one new clubhouse is being developed to serve Brickworks, Bukit Merah, Queenstown and the surrounding areas. Planning approval is being awaited for a third clubhouse at Bedok/Tampines/Changi area. A fourth clubhouse is likely to come up in Ang Mo Kio. Hopefully, it will not be too far away from Hou Gang New Town. We are having a fifth clubhouse in mind for Woodlands. So I hope Members of the House will bear with me, and that we will make haste in this direction gradually.

I thoroughly agree with the Member for Kampong Kembangan when he said that much more should be done in order to encourage a mixing of the various members of our national service, be they officers or other ranks or junior members. This has to be done and has to be consciously encouraged because we inherited, as I said earlier, from the past where the system was totally rigid, when the officer was a gentleman and the other ranks were not so that even when they go to messes and clubs, they were thoroughly distinct. They are slowly trying to unwind the battlements and hopefully to do away with all these differences that are brought about by differences in ranks in order to encourage greater cooperation among all ranks. 5.00 p.m.

On the question regarding the encouragement to build up physical fitness, we have a very detailed programme to require every member of the reservists to be examined regarding this physical fitness twice a year. That has produced certain results.

The Member for River Valley did say that they have a paunch. I think the paunch is not so much due to a lack of training but due to the affluence of our society. We will try to bring them back for physical examination and hope to be able to bring down their paunch. We will pay greater attention to physical fitness.

In this respect we are working closely with the Ministry of Education to catch them young, to get them to be physically-fit conscious, right at an early age even before they are due for enlistment. And having got them, to persuade them to improve their physical fitness during the two or three years of national service and continue to keep themselves physically fit during their reservist years so that, in toto, we are able to make every citizen, every young person, conscious that physical fitness is a life-long commitment. I do not know whether we can succeed but the Ministry of Defence will give it every support and make every effort to bring this about.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Unlike the Hon. Minister of Defence, I do not like to play on words or pun. There is a great world of difference between the words "jell" and "jelly". I am happy he does not want to see his army made of jelly, but to jell. I would seem ungrateful to the hon. Member for Ayer Rajah for pointing out that the Hon. Minister has not replied to my question, but it is because upon a quick calculation in my mind I know that the Minister would, in his answer, say that they will make some kind of arrangement. That ii why I have let him off the hook.

However, he has not answered the other question, i.e. the appropriation of $150 million in the Development Estimates. I asked him whether that was sufficient. He has indicated to the House that the Minister for Finance is easy to get along with. With such generous apportioning of public funds for defence, I hope the Hon. Minister can enlighten this House whether last year's appropriation of $150 million is sufficient for this year, in view of the escalation of prices of weaponry and whatnot.

Mr Howe Yoon Chong: Sir, in answer to the Minister for Punggol's question -

An hon. Member: Member for Punggol.

Mr Howe Yoon Chong: Sorry, Sir, Member for Punggol. He has been mentioning too many Ministers. The Ministry of Defence has an arrangement with the Minister for Finance whereby the Ministry of Defence will justify those requirements necessary for the Ministry, and when all the procedures are thoroughly gone through, if the provision is found inadequate, measures will be taken to supplement it. This arrangement has been working satisfactorily for a number of years now, and I do not see any difficulty in the future.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Sir, I am, of course, elated to be elevated to "Minister for Punggol". But if I am elevated to the rank of "Minister for Punggol", the hon. Member for Potong Pasir will become "Minister for Potong Pasir". He is the Minister of Defence. I had earlier pulled his leg when I said that he should not mince words, the difference between "jell", and "jelly". In any case, his answer has been quite satisfactory and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $1,347,500,000 for Head K ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates.

The sum of $150,000,000 for Head K ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.

Head T -

Mr Eric Cheong Yuen Chee: Sir, I beg to move,

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

*The same amendment also stood in the names of Messrs Tan Soo Khoon and Lai Tha Chai.

Sir, the acrobatic policy changes made by the HUDC is a subject of much discussion, both inside and outside this House. The general public is fed to the teeth over the way the HUDC treats its applicants. May I ask the Hon. Minister whether the persons in charge of the administration of the HUDC are members of opposition parties? It appears that they are doing everything in their power to unscramble the good work of the PAP Government. First, the HUDC built some penthouses for more gracious living. Then they label those who bought them as snobs. Secondly, to cater to the needs of this income group, they encourage single applicants to apply for HUDC flats. Later some of them were disqualified on some flimsy grounds. Sir, these applicants were played out by the HUDC. I am astounded to note that the HUDC wants to weed out frivolous applications. Then those who accepted such applications must have accepted them in frivolity. Sir, there is a Malay word for this sort of frivolity - OTC which stands for Otak ta' centre.

I would seriously suggest to the Hon. Minister that, when the HUDC seeks to make any policy changes, they should first take into consideration the plight of applicants. Most of them have made domestic, personal and financial arrangements when their applications were accepted in the first instance. The HUDC should have a cut-off date so that only new applicants would be affected by any changes in policy.

The second point I would like to raise is on the Housing and Development Board. In last year's Budget debate, I brought up the question of the need for the HDB to set up special units in its Area Offices to look after the social problems of residents. I am, therefore, glad to hear that the HDB has finally decided to set up such units. Sir, residents in HDB estates, especially in rented properties, face many social problems: overcrowding, domestic problems, arrears in rentals and service facilities, etc.

I was very disappointed with the reply given by the Hon. Minister to the Member for Boon Teck concerning the provision of separate refuse chutes for one-room flats. He apparently does not appreciate the problems faced by residents in one-room flats. I understand that the HDB has introduced a scheme for some of their officers to stay in some Housing Board flats to gauge the residents' demands and responses. It would be a good idea for the Hon. Minister to set a good example by living in an HDB one-room flat for, say, about a week to gauge the reactions of residents in these units. One must not assume that the volume of refuse in one-room flats is less than those in larger flats and, therefore, a common chute for this type of flats will be adequate. He must also take into consideration the number of persons per household. It would not be surprising to find that there are more persons to a flat in a one- room unit than there are in a larger unit. Surely some alternative measures can be found to solve this problem.

Sir, I would now like to touch on the provision of better amenities for residents in some of the older HDB estates. Members of Parliament should be briefed before improvements are made, so that they can contribute ideas. In some instances funds have been wasted as the improvements made are under-utilized, wrongly utilized, or do not serve the purpose. Take, for example, the large scale reconstruction of some carparks by resurfacing the existing carparks with aeration slabs. I believe that these aeration slabs laid at some carparks are superfluous as the adjacent areas are already well-turfed. Therefore, it defeats the purpose of providing better aeration to surrounding turfed areas or plants.

The HDB should also look into the possibility of converting one- and two-room flats into larger units to meet the demand of people who cannot afford to purchase HDB flats under the Home Ownership Scheme. There are still many people who, for various reasons, cannot afford to purchase the larger flats. This is evident by the number of applicants still on the waiting list for HDB three-room rented flats.

Mr Tan Soo Khoon (Alexandra): Sir, I think the Member for Toa Payoh is being kind to the Hon. Minister when he said that applicants for HUDC housing are fed up, I think they are more than fed up. They are disgusted, and they are seething with anger today. If there is ever a group of people in Singapore today who are very frustrated, very mystified and very desperate, they are the 6,200 applicants for HUDC housing. I must declare at this stage that I happen to be one such person but, may I add, a bona fide applicant and certainly not a frivolous one.

These people are very mystified because when they submit an application, they know not when they will get the flat, where will their flat be and how much it is going to cost them. They are very frustrated too because every now and then the HUDC changes its policy. They can wake up one day to find themselves further down the waiting list because another group of persons have suddenly been accorded priority over them. They are very desperate because, in spite of being so mystified and so very frustrated, they are really faced with a Hobson's choice. They have to fork out $18,000 as deposit, without knowing what they are paying for, what the full price will be, and when the goods will be delivered.

Sir, the HUDC was established in 1975 and its objective at that time, I hope it still is, was to provide housing for middle income people. How well has the HUDC succeeded in doing this? In the seven years of its existence, only two phases in its building programme have been built. These comprise a total of 2,086 units, that is to say, an average of less than 300 units per year, since 1974. If you were to ask me, I would say this is a very shameful figure. It illustrates the very lethargic and snail's pace at which the HUDC is proceeding with its building programme. All we hear is an announcement once in a blue moon that there would be a building phase of a few hundred units, at most a thousand units. It is small wonder some applicants have to wait for up to four years.

Suddenly the HUDC has waved a magic wand. Two days ago it came out with an announcement that henceforth applicants need not wait for more than 2 1/2 years. So overnight, from four years you find yourself able to get a flat in 2 1/2 years. All I can see in this announcement is that it is a desperate attempt to take the heat off the issue because they know that we are debating the issue today.

The announcement, in fact, raises more questions than answers. How do they propose to carry out this so-called reduction in waiting time? The HUDC has come out with a very simple solution by eliminating people on the waiting list, people whom the HUDC considers frivolous and not bona fide. Sir, I would have stood up today to give a pat on the HUDC if, in its announcement, it had come up with concrete plans as to what it intends to build or how it intends to go about it, or when the new flats will be ready. The HUDC should build more flats to shorten the waiting time, not shorten the waiting time by eliminating people from the waiting list. Can you imagine, Sir, the HDB doing the same thing - telling its applicants, "Look. Half of you get off the list so that the other half can get their flats within a year." There would be a great public uproar. This, Sir, in my mind, is not efficiency on the part of the HUDC but frivolity.

The announcement also goes on to say that the housing scheme for civil servants and NUS staff is a separate one with different conditions. Then in the next breath, the statement adds that this scheme comes under the HUDC umbrella. Anybody knows that any scheme under HUDC, whether it is a separate one or one with different conditions, is still an HUDC project, and that means HUDC is building the flats for these people. And if these people get special priority, the general public applicants must suffer.

I have already spoken briefly on the HUDC's discriminating policy towards applicants who are single, and today I would like to add further. The HUDC has very brilliantly superseded all previously known definitions of a single person, and today a single person has been defined by the HUDC as an applicant who is frivolous and who is not a bona fide buyer. But, according to the HUDC, if you are still single by the time you are 40 years old, then you are no longer frivolous and you are a genuine buyer. On the other hand, it seems very simple - get married first and you get a flat. Sir, I suddenly remember this. The other day, when my good Friend, the Member for Delta, asked the Minister for Social Affairs whether he would start a marriage bureau, he should have properly directed the question to the Minister for National Development as to whether he would start a marriage bureau in the HUDC and then perhaps he could match the single applicants together so that they can get their flats faster!

Sir, why do single persons want to apply for a flat? The fact that they want to live on their own can be regarded as a sign of maturity and responsibility. Many of them are at the stage of life where they are building up their careers.

An hon. Member: They want to be alone!

Mr Tan Soo Khoon: Yes, they do not want to get married first because they are prudent enough to plan ahead.

Sir, let me illustrate further with an example. MPs normally get requests from young constituents, asking them to try to get HDB flats for them faster, and a lot of them come to the MPs just after they have got married. All of us sympathize with such people but there is really nothing much we can do. And here HUDC single applicants are, in fact, trying to avoid such a problem and I think we should give them credit for their sense of responsibility and prudence. As the Minister has said, Sir, all 10 members of a family do not all arrive suddenly, and so be prepared with proper housing. Then why does he fault these young people who are doing exactly what he has said?

Sir, the other premise which the HUDC seems to have based on is that single applicants are less responsible than married persons in their responsibility and duty to their parents. Sir, I know, in fact, of some parents who urge their children to move out and find a home of their own, not because parent and child love each other less, but because the home is already overcrowded and some parents know that the only way to get their single sons or daughters married is to make sure that they get their homes first. In fact, knowing the overcrowded conditions under which some families live in and the friction that can sometimes arise as a result of overcrowding, we may be doing them a favour by allowing some of these people to live out on their own. We may be fostering closer ties eventually and promoting better harmony amongst members of the family. Indeed, when their children move out to live on their own, some parents see this as a time when they themselves could finally get some privacy in their old age, free from respon- sibility towards their children who are now grown-up and who, they believe, are in a position to take care of themselves. Sir, I am all for filial piety towards our older folks but just because a single person wants to start his own family by first ensuring a roof over his head so that he does not have to go house-hunting with his new bride and baby, it does not make him any less filial towards his parents.

The other part of the HUDC magic is, of course, its sudden ruling that $18,000 deposit must be paid by all applicants if they want to remain on the waiting list. I have already stated earlier the very unfair conditions under which an HUDC applicant makes his application. This kind of "no money, no talk" attitude is not typical of a PAP socialist Government. $18,000 is a very large sum of money and not everybody can afford it, not to say having to cough out the money in the next three months. Let us take the case of a single person aged 26 years old. I use "26 years old" because the other day we were told that 51% of the single applicants were in this age group. If this single applicant has to wait until he is 40 years old before he could get a flat, he will be losing a tremendous amount of interest on this money. I compounded this sum over 14 years at the interest rate of 6 1/2% paid quarterly, because that is what the CPF pays us and we already know that the CPF pays below the market rate. But it may interest Members to know that by the time this single applicant reaches the age of 40 years, $18,000 becomes $43,693. So he loses, in fact, $25,096 in interest. Sir, does the HUDC intend to pay up this amount of interest to each single applicant, or is it simply raking in the money?

Lastly, I would like to say that HUDC applicants are middle-class people. They are educated people, be they civil servants, professionals or young executives. These are the people who contribute in no small way to nation-building and who constitute a very strong pillar in our society. They are here because they love this country and they, together with their fathers, have laid a strong foundation on which they and their families, and their children after, hope to build further and to live upon. This is therefore no laughing or trivial matter. 6,200 frustrated but well-educated, well-meaning, middle-class applicants plus their brothers and sisters can be a focal point of social discontent: and all it takes is for somebody to rally them round and I think, as the Government, we will be in for a lot of political problems. There would be social discontent because this group of people then finds that they are unable to get a roof over their heads. No amount of tax rebates, tax cuts, whatever privileges you may call it, will stop the brain drain if these people find that for all their talents, their brains, their professionalism and the contributions that they make to our country and our economy, in the end they cannot even own a home of their own. Sir, I rest my case and that of 6,200 other persons.

Mr Lai Tha Chai (Henderson): Sir, we have heard Members of this House talking a lot about the housing problem and we have also heard over the last few days the Minister for National Development repeatedly emphasizing his housing policy. It seems to me, Sir, that he is very happy about his housing policy. I am very proud of our Government's achievements on its housing projects. I believe not only me, Sir, but you and the other Members of this House share my view. I would like to go further by saying that if there were no PAP Government or the PAP lost in the 1963 general elections and in the

1965 Hong Lim by-election, there would not be such a beautiful Singapore as we see it today. I strongly believe that no other Government, except the PAP Government, could solve the housing problem in the 1960s. That is why today we have about 70% of the population living in HUDC/HDB/JTC flats. But, Sir, we must not only look at the past, we must also look at the present and think of the future.

On the present housing policy, may I, Sir, give you only one example. On the one hand, the Hon. Minister allows a single person like the hon. Member for Alexandra to apply for a HUDC flat which costs from $100,000 to $200,000 or maybe $300,000 in the next few years. But, on the other hand, he does not allow an old HDB flat dweller with a big family of about 10 persons to apply for a one-room, two-room or three-room flat, the reason being that the total income of the tenant and his wife's may exceed more than $800. Where is the logic? I know the reason but it is not very convincing. 5.30 p.m.

We know now that the HDB is building less and less one-room and two-room flats. That is why about 40% of the housing units in the old housing estates like Henderson are one-room and two-room flats. But there are no one-room flats in a new town like Clementi. Am I right? I do not know. Perhaps many of my colleagues can tell the Minister or maybe he knows better. Of course, the Minister has his reasons. I know the reasons too. I support his idea that we should not build any more one-room flats. I am not suggesting that we should build more one-room flats.

Sir, what I am trying to point out is that the Hon. Minister should encourage people to save money for a rainy day and, therefore, encourage the people to live in smaller but comfortable flats, like the three-room flats or even the four-room flats, rather than to encourage people to live in luxurious and bigger flats like in HUDC flats. Sir, I would like the Hon. Minister to enlighten this House why he adopts such a policy.

Dr Yeo Ning Hong: Sir, I rise to support the hon. Member for Henderson. In my Kim Seng constituency, there are people earning a combined income of more than $800, and some of them definitely wish to live in a one-room flat because they have family commitments that are much larger than they are able to take care of if they were to live in a flat much larger than a one-room flat. I also share the sentiments of the Member for Henderson that it is a good thing if people, who wish to save and to prepare for a rainy day, are allowed to do so. I would seriously urge the Hon. Minister for National Development to reconsider the ceiling of $800 for the one-room rental flats.

Mr Liew Kok Pun: Sir, first, may I express my thanks to the Member for Toa Payoh for initiating a discussion on the subject of communal dustbins. Sir, I think it may be too much to ask the Minister for National Development to stay in a one-room flat for a day. Perhaps the Members for Toa Payoh, Kuo Chuan and even Khe Bong may want to organize a conducted tour, perhaps for just a half-hour, to let the Minister see for himself what are some of the problems confronting those residents living in one-room flats.

Sir, the communal dustbins are centres of social disgrace. They are also an eyesore. The stench from these communal dustbins on a warm day is nauseating. It is also unhealthy. Residents of one-room flats already have enough problems trying to make both ends meet, and more so with the rising cost of bus fares. This problem should be looked into so that they can have a good night's rest.

I do not think this is entirely the problem of my residents in the one-room flats. The mouth of the communal dustbin is too small. It is a simple technical problem which can be solved by widening it. May I also suggest that as an interim measure we could perhaps convert the one-room flats adjacent to communal dustbins into tutorial centres or libraries. In this way we can kill two birds with one stone.

An hon. Member: They can't study!

Mr Liew Kok Pun: I think it is a feasible solution. I sincerely urge the Minister for National Development to consider my suggestion, otherwise I would definitely lose more than 5,000 votes in the next election.

Mr Yeo Choo Kok: Mr Speaker, Sir, in replying to a question, the Minister of Defence has said that the paunch evident in the reservists is the result of affluence in our society. The same affluence is going to force us to raise the income ceiling of the HDB and HUDC applicants. Would the Minister again consider raising the income ceiling of the HDB and HUDC applicants?

Dr Tan Cheng Bock: Mr Speaker, Sir, on hearing the Member for Alexandra airing his anger and frustration at the policy of the HUDC, I have decided to ask this question now instead of by way of an Oral Question to the Minister for National Development. I would like to ask the Minister what was the basic objective of setting up the HUDC, and whether the basic rules of the company have been undermined when it recently allowed itself to be used as a panacea for solving personnel management problems among the various public institutions and services to the extent of allowing queue jumping. Can he enlighten the House on the purpose of the continued existence of the company?

The Minister for National Development (Mr Teh Cheang Wan): Mr Speaker, Sir, several Members have spoken on the HUDC. I therefore intend to make my answers brief.

An hon. Member: Less trouble!

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: On the question of the cut-off date in the implementation of new HUDC rules raised by the Member for Toa Payoh, my answer is that I generally agree that the cut-off date in the implementation of new rules is desirable, but it is not always possible to do so in all cases. In the particular case of single applicants, I think it will lose the impact we intend to achieve. For example, single applicants for HUDC flats comprise 46% of the total applicants on the waiting list.

The majority of these single applicants have indicated that only one person is going to occupy the flat. If we are going to sustain the policy of allowing single applicants to occupy one flat, then every year the HUDC will have to build several thousand units because the number of single applicants applying HUDC flats has increased tremendously. I have said before that in 1977 there were 207 single applicants. This number has increased almost seven times in 1980. It will increase further if we allow this policy to continue.

I must say that our building construction capacity cannot cope and land in Singapore for housing is not sufficient to be able to sustain such a policy. If the number of single applicants applying HUDC flats had been maintained in previous years at around 200 applicants (in other words, 3,000 bachelors or sustain that policy. But if it is going to increase to 1,000 or 2,000 applicants and possibly with increasing affluence it may increase to 3,000 or 4,000 applicants, then we cannot sustain that policy.

I can give a simple example of the problem of building HUDC flats. The construction of one unit of HUDC flat is equivalent to building three units of public housing. So the Government is faced with a choice. The number of single HUDC applicants may increase to 3,000 a year, and this is quite possible if we do not stop it because from 200 applicants a year the number has gone up to 1,400 applicants in three years. And in another one or two years it may possibly go up to 3,000 applicants. The number of 3,000 units of HUDC flats is equivalent to 10,000 units of public housing. Therefore, we are faced with a choice, either we build 3,000 units of HUDC housing for 3,000 single applicants (in other words, 3,000 bachelors or spinsters to live in these 3,000 flats) or we build 10,000 units of public housing for 10,000 families. I am quite sure that all Members of this House will agree with me that we should opt for 10,000 units for 10,000 families rather than for the 3,000 bachelors or spinsters. I hope that the Member for Alexandra is convinced of this, in spite of the fact that he is still single and he may or he may not suffer as a consequence of this policy.

But I must emphasize that it is essential that we change the policy because there is no way we can sustain it as we do not have the construction capacity and we do not have the land. It is a question of priority: to build a large HUDC flat for a single occupant or build three HDB flats for three families. I opt for three HDB flats for three families. If I am wrong I stand to be criticized. I am prepared to accept full responsibility for building three units of HDB flats for three families and deny the single person his HUDC flat which he or she wants to occupy for himself or herself.

On the general question of applications for HUDC flats, from our records all applicants who applied for flats up to October 1977 have been allocated flats. I have given an assurance outside the House and I would like to give an assurance in this House that all applicants who qualify for HUDC flats and have registered by the end of 1980 will be offered HUDC flats within 2 1/2 years. This means that I will have to pool the resources of the HDB and the URA. In fact, the HUDC itself does not have the organization to build HUDC flats. 5.45 p.m.

On the question of the 10% deposit for HUDC flats, I think it is not unreasonable because an HDB applicant who is in the lower-income group is asked to pay a 20% deposit for his house. Therefore, I think it is not unreasonable to ask the higher-income group to pay a 10% deposit for their HUDC flat. Let me explain how we have arrived at the 10% deposit of $18,000. We have taken the average selling price of an HUDC flat at $180,000. Some may be cheaper than $180,000 and some may be more than $180,000. This depends on the locality and the type of flats. But we are taking the average price of $180,000 per unit, and therefore 10% comes to $18,000. If the applicant finds difficulty in paying the 10%, then I am just wondering how he is going to pay the balance. If he says that he has difficulty in paying the deposit of 10%, then I think it is not unreasonable to call him a frivolous applicant.

The Member for Alexandra raised a point about the interest on the $18,000. He quoted the example of a person who is single at the age of 26, paying $18,000 deposit and having to wait until he is 40 years old before he could get a flat. I doubt there will be such cases. If that person does not intend to get married, the chances are that he would not apply for a flat at the age of 26 years and wait until he is 40 years old to get the flat. It is rather unlikely. But I think a likely case would be a person who is 39 years may come to the HUDC and pay the deposit, and a year or two later he gets the HUDC flat. If he puts the deposit at the age of 39 years old, then I think he is not going to lose that much interest for the HUDC flat.

The Member for Toa Payoh has also spoken about the communal refuse chute in the Boon Teck Constituency.

An hon. Member: In Toa Payoh.

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: No, in Boon Teck Constituency. Or in Toa Payoh also. I thought the discussion was confined to Boon Teck Constituency. I will just briefly explain that in the early 1960s our resources were very limited. In 1960, when I was appointed the Chief Architect of the Housing and Development Board, I was very happy to be given $25 million to build public housing because at that time $25 million was a lot of money. The Singapore Government had very limited resources then. So in the early 60s, the HDB's philosophy on public housing was not like the philosophy of today, i.e. how to provide the best possible housing for our people, how to provide more gardens, how to provide more children's playgrounds, how to provide more swimming pools. At that time, when we had very limited financial resources, our policy was how to use this money to build as many units of public housing as possible, to build as quickly as possible and to build as cheaply as possible. When we had to build the cheapest possible flat, then we could not possibly think of the luxuries and the additional amenities. So when the first generation one-room flats were built, we built the one-room emergency flats, that means six-storey buildings. We did not even provide lifts because at that time lifts were expensive. We expected our people to climb up the six storeys.

But the people who had been allocated the emergency flats were very happy. Why were they happy? Because they were comparing their flats with the type of housing they had in the city centre where one shophouse unit was shared by 10 families. And the 10 families shared the same kitchen and the same toilet. Of course, the toilet was inadequate. In 1960, if one were to go around the backlanes of Chinatown, one would find children lining up along the backlanes because the toilets were occupied by the adults and they had no chance of using the toilets. So at that time when we designed this one-room emergency flat, we considered them as very good because it provided one kitchen to a family, whilst in Chinatown, five to 10 families shared a kitchen and a toilet. But we provided one kitchen and one WC to a family compared to five to 10 families sharing one WC in Chinatown. That is why the communal chute has been designed for the one-room emergency flats. So when we designed the first generation one-room improved flats in Toa Payoh, we continued to provide the communal chute. And subsequently we improved it to individual chutes.

But once we use today's design of the flats built as the norm against those built in 1960, of course, we will say that it is most ridiculous and that "We should put the Minister next to the chute so that he will be able to experience the result of his design." I have been associated with the Housing Board since 1960, and I was the leader of the team designing the flats. I say this not because I think that that design was wonderful. At that time, when we were given $25 million, we were trying to build the one-room emergency flats at a cost of only $1,500 per flat And for the one-room improved flat, we tried to keep the cost down to about $3,000 per flat. At the cost of $3,000 per flat, we could not have a lot of luxuries. There would have to be very great limitations. In fact, the architect had tremendous limitations in designing those buildings. It is not an unthinking concept. In today's context, of course, Members say it is ridiculous. In 1960, I think those flats were wonderful flats. There were a lot of applicants and those people who managed to get the one-room flats were very happy. This has been proved. In the 1963 elections, the opposition candidate who stood in Toa Payoh got elected. After we built those one-room flats, the Member for Toa Payoh got elected and has since remained as the Member for Toa Payoh up to today. [Laughter] This is a clear proof in itself that the people are happy, much happier than when they were staying in attap huts. But I am not going to rely on this illustration as being a satisfactory explanation for building those flats. I am just stating the historical consequence of how we arrived at these types of flats.

I will ask the HDB architects to look at those flats to see how they can be improved. The HDB is in the process of demolishing all the one-room emergency flats because they have served their useful purpose and their standard is considered too low today. So these types of flats are now being demolished. We are, in fact, hoping that by the middle of the 1980s, maybe we can demolish or convert the one-room improved flats. Since the Member for Toa Payoh and the Member for Boon Teck have made such a strong representation, I will ask the HDB architects to look at those flats to see how we can introduce improvements and to minimize the unhappiness of the occupants.

I will now deal with the various points together as they are inter-related. On raising the income ceiling for HDB flats, we have fixed the income ceiling for rental flats at $800. In fact, if I remember correctly, I have explained in this House that the reason is that the Government's policy is to try and encourage home ownership because we believe that people who save their money to buy HDB flats will eventually be benefited by their investment. So we are trying to encourage our people to buy flats, although some of them are still insisting that they want to rent. We have fixed the income ceiling at $800 because we believe that any family which earns about $800 is in a position to buy a three-room flat. That is the reason why we do not want to raise the ceiling in order to encourage or even force people to buy three-room flats. I think this is a good policy and we should not change the ceiling. We should continue to encourage the people to own their own homes.

However, on the purchase of flats, the ceiling has been continuously revised and I think with the increase in the selling price of flats, with inflation and with the increase in incomes, HDB income ceiling will continue to be revised upwards. At the last revision, the ceiling for purchase of HDB flats was raised to $2,500 and I expect this ceiling will be further raised in future.

On allowing people with incomes of more than $500 to rent one- and two-room flats, if I remember correctly, I have answered the hon. Member for Khe Bong that the HDB has, in fact, already relaxed for two groups of people, that is to say, those who live in one-room flats could transfer to two-room flats, even if the family income exceeds $500. In resettlement cases, however, they usually have a larger number of persons in a household and their incomes exceed $500, but we also allow them to rent one- and two-room flats. But we are not able to relax our policy for public applicants. The reason is that we do not have sufficient two-room flats to go round for everybody. So we have restricted them. 6.00 p.m.

But in future when the demand for two-room flats is reduced, then we may relax our policy because the trend of HDB registrations is that (again, if I might bring in the situation in the early 60s) the number of people who applied for one-room flats was about one-third, two-room flats about one-third and three-room flats about one-third. Today the majority of our applicants go for three, four or five-room flats. At one time the largest number of applicants were those buying three-room flats. Today, there are more people who register to buy four-room, five-room and other larger flats. So the income has improved. Applications for one-room and two-room flats have been dropping. If the applications for the two-room flats drop further, in a few years' time we may be able to relax our policy to allow people with incomes of more than $500 to apply for two-room flats. But for the time being we cannot because we do not have enough flats.

The Member for Ayer Rajah raised the point about civil servants and the National University staff wanting to buy or use the HUDC flats as their quarters. The Government has two choices. One is to build HUDC flats as a separate entity and then build housing estates for the University staff and the civil servants. So all these groups will be living in their own enclaves. That means they do not mix with one another. There is no problem for Government to do that, because if it does, there will be less complaints. We will say. "These are the civil servants' quarters and we will build the flats in this particular area. These are the University staff's quarters and we will build the flats near Kent Ridge." Therefore, nobody will complain. Then the HUDC will build separate HUDC flats. However, we thought that if we mix them together, i.e. make the public live with the civil servants, it will achieve a better mix of the community. In other words, civil servants do not just live all on their own; University staff do not just live all on their own. We thought that by mixing them in one housing estate, there would be greater social mixing, and that would provide a better make-up of the community. But this will not, in any way, allow the civil servants to jump the queue and the HUDC applicants pushed back. People are worried that if the process goes on they will never get their flats. This is not the case. The case is that we will find out how many HUDC applicants there are altogether, and how many civil servants and university staff require accommodation. We put all the three groups together and we hope to come up with a housing programme which will be able to cater for all the three groups so that they will be able to live together, as a community. I gave the promise earlier, and I would like to repeat the promise, that all HUDC applicants who have applied by the end of 1980 will get the offer of their flats in 2 1/2 years' time.

Mr Liew Kok Pun: Sir, just a point of clarification. I think both the Member for Toa Payoh and I did not press for an explanation of building one-room flats with communal chutes. We fully understand the imperative, the dire need for housing at that time. There is no doubt about it. What we are pressing for is an improvement of existing one-room flats. Times have changed. We have a new generation of voters who are more vociferous, more articulate, more demanding. Hence, our request to make improvements to the communal chutes.

I am afraid the Minister for National Development did not answer my suggestion whether it is possible to allow the flats next to the communal chute be left vacant and convert them into tutorial rooms or a library? We have plenty of spare rooms in one-room flats in Toa Payoh. We allow Thai workers to use them and this is creating a lot of problems. I will let Members know what problems we face outside the House. But would the Minister first consider my suggestion that flats adjacent to communal chutes be left vacant and be converted into a tutorial room or a library?

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: I did not avoid answering the specific question of the Member for Boon Teck. I said that I would ask the HDB architects to look into it. In fact, we will look into all the suggestions of Members. My officials will go and see the Member for Boon Teck and he can make all his suggestions. They will then make a study and suggest how best to go about it.

What I want to say is this: I feel that in about five to ten years' time we will convert the one-room flats. So the more we spend on their conversion now, it actually means that more money is going down the drain because these blocks of one-room flats will again be converted in five to ten. years' time and in certain cases they will be demolished. So our architects will make a study of the suggestions and they will take all these factors into consideration. Then we will arrive at a decision.

Mr Tan Soo Khoon: Sir, I think it is unfair of the Minister to say that if an applicant cannot come up with $18,000 now, how can he be expected to pay for the balance of the flat? Sir, $18,000, as I said, is a rather big sum. Applicants have been given a very short time to come up with this money. This is the result of a sudden change in policy. All these years they have been on the waiting list and they have never been told at all that they have to make a deposit payment. Suddenly this policy is announced.

I must also say that it is not fair to draw a comparison between the HDB and HUDC, because HDB flats are heavily subsidized. I agree that HUDC flats are subsidized a little, to the extent of the cost of the land, but HUDC flats generally cost so much more. May I remind Members that HUDC flats are sold at a profit whereas HDB flats are not.

I also cannot see the rationale behind the argument that for every one HUDC flat the same resources could be used to build three HDB flats. I agree that our resources are limited. I am not an economist but if I could recall. I think there is a word for this and we call it the "opportunity cost", deciding what are the alternative uses to which our resources could be applied.

Sir, here we are talking of a very special group of people, people who are not qualified to buy HDB flats because they are too rich. But at the same time they cannot afford to buy houses built by private developers because they are too poor. This then was the objective of the HUDC when it was first formed. I maintain that the HUDC has not met its objective fully.

On the point about single applicants again, I have already mentioned earlier that I put forth the case for single persons and I have already mentioned that single persons need not remain single all the time; neither will they remain single when they finally get their flats. If, as the Minister has said, that he does not have enough resources to sustain the policy to meet the demand of all single persons, then why in the first place did he allow single applicants to apply? Secondly, Sir, why was it that as close as December last year, just three months ago, the Ministry allowed single applicants to use their full CPF contributions, i.e. their employer's contributions as well as their own, when previously they could only use their own contributions? Why did he allow them to use their full contributions to pay for HUDC flats, if it was against the policy to give flats to singles?

Mr Eric Cheong Yuen Chee: Sir, I am not at all satisfied with the explanation given by the Minister with regard to the application of the cut-off date. In view of the fact that the HUDC has been consistently changing its policies in such a short period of time, I think it is fair that those whose applications have been accepted should be offered a cut-off date. We are not quarrelling with any future changes in policy. We are only saying that those whose applications have been accepted should not be deprived of an opportunity to own an HUDC flat.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock: Sir, I hope the principle of mixing applies equally well to our schools.

The Minister has brushed aside the HUDC question by appealing to the emotions of the Members of this House when he puts the question: who gets preference, the single person or a family? While I agree that consideration must be given to families, the point here is that a number of principles have been violated in this HUDC issue. First is the question of contractual agreement between the buyer and the HUDC. I think this principle has already been violated. There is also the violation of the principle of orderly queueing. Let us practise what we preach. If NUS needs housing, for example, let them start building their own. Do not just pinch. Then there is the question of inconsistency in policy. Lastly, and this is very important, there is also the question of credibility.

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: Sir, I would like to try to avoid having to repeat the same thing myself. I would reiterate that Government has been making these policy changes, but not without giving careful thought. In fact, the public housing policy has been changing continuously. There is no question that our housing policy has remained static and unchanged. When the HDB started its housing programme in 1960, the number of public housing available was very small. So we said, "Who should get it?" A family unit must have a minimum of five persons. A family with less than five persons was not allowed to apply for the HDB housing. As we built more houses, we reduced this to four.

If the Member for Ayer Rajah's principle is applied, then are we breaking the promise when we changed our policy of a family unit from five persons in the 1960s to four persons today? We are not. With changing circumstances, the policy has to be changed.

When we introduced family planning, we reduced the minimum number of people in the family to be eligible. So a family of two persons could apply.

Now we are trying to encourage people to stay with their parents. So we introduce this joint balloting system. If one of the children got an HDB flat, the parents would be automatically entitled to jump the queue to have this joint balloting. In fact, parents have been jumping the queue. This is the policy of the Government. We thought that by having this policy of joint balloting, we can achieve the Government's policy of keeping the family together. In fact, we allowed one of the members to jump the queue. We have the first-come-first-served policy. But because we have allowed joint balloting, in fact, we break the first-come-first-served policy. Therefore, we are not following our policy. We admit it. But we think that that is achieving our objective of keeping the family together. So the same thing applies to our policy changes on the single applicants. 6.15 p.m.

The main reason, as I have said earlier, is that we do not have the building capacity to sustain a policy whereby we could allow several thousand single applicants a year to apply and to occupy the flats for themselves only. The second reason is that our policy is to try to keep the family together. If we allow .single persons to apply for HUDC flats, there is the tendency of breaking up the family prematurely. We think that is not a good policy, and therefore we are introducing this new policy.

The Member for Toa Payoh said that we should have allowed those applicants already on the waiting list to be allocated flats. We think this is undesirable because that would be a compromise of our policy and would not be effective, and, therefore, in the words of the Member for Ayer Rajah, we would be breaking our promise in a way. For all the Government policies that have been formulated, the main point is that we have not changed our policy frivolously. All policy changes have been carefully considered and if we consider it good for the society we will change the policy, for example, by keeping the family together.

Personally, I do not think much hardship would be caused to the single persons if they are unable to get their flats early, because they are in the middle-income group and usually they can live with their family. I think their parents would be most happy to allow them to continue living with them. Also, if they feel that they really want to get away from the family then, most probably, they can share a flat with their friends, relatives or somebody else or they can even be a subtenant by renting a room either in a private house or in an HDB flat. HDB has allowed the sub-letting of its flats. So I do not think any hardship would be caused to the single applicants.

Mr Eric Cheong Yuen Chee: Sir, I would agree with the Minister that it would not create any hardship, but it has created disappointment and frustration amongst the applicants. It is not hardship that we are arguing about. I think all of us are not quarrelling with the Minister with regard to the necessary policy changes. But what we are arguing is that the policy change should not be made retrospective. From my observation of the policy changes of the Housing and Development Board, there were never any policy changes that were made with retrospective effect. For example, if an applicant with a certain income limit applies for a flat on that particular date and should there be any eventual policy change, his application remains valid. This is what we are asking for, i.e. the change should not be made retrospective.

Dr Chau Sik Ting (Thomson): Sir, the Hon. Minister has just mentioned the fact that we must keep the family together. However, I would like to ask him whether he is prepared to consider each case on its own merit. In other words, I am about to relate the case of one of my constituents, a young female professional who has just returned from her post-graduate studies. She was shocked that her application was no longer valid. She has no parents because both of them passed away years ago. She has got no family nucleus and unless, of course, I match her with the hon. Member for Alexandra, it would not solve the problem. By the way, she is quite attractive.

The Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Chua Sian Chin): Why not?

Dr Chau Sik Ting: This is just one case where I think perhaps the Minister would consider. I fully agree with the Member for Toa Payoh when he suggested that there should be a cut-off date for the application of this new set of rules and regulations. It is only fair.

Mr Lai Tha Chai: Sir, I entirely agree with the Member for Toa Payoh when he said that we are not arguing with the policy changes which are made from time to time and that most of the policies adopted by the Ministry are right. But I want to emphasize one point, Sir. Sometimes the Hon. Minister for National Development may make mistakes. I will give him an example. Only a few days ago he said that the two types of parking coupons, one issued by the URA and the other by the HDB, could be used for either car-park. We know that he has rightly changed the policy because it was a mistake to issue two different types of parking coupons to the motorists. There is also another example. CCC members or CCMC members sometimes use the parking lots when they go to their constituency. Some of them have been given convenience, and some have not. I do not see the logic. I think the Hon. Minister should look into this. Sometimes he thinks correctly and he makes the right policy. I hope he will ask his officers to study any policy changes carefully, as he has repeatedly said so just now.

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: Sir, I think the HUDC will look into the case mentioned by the Member for Thomson, because there are exceptions to the general rule. If certain single applicants warrant special consideration, such as the case brought up by the Member, we will look into it and if it is justified we will allow her to apply even though she has not reached the age of 40 years.

To the Member for Toa Payoh, I must say that I am very sorry that I cannot reverse this policy. This is a very important policy and we cannot reverse it. This policy has, in fact, been studied very carefully and it took us several months of study before we eventually arrived at the conclusion that we would not be able to sustain this policy and therefore we have to change it. I am sorry we have to change the policy with retrospective effect. I do it most reluctantly, but it is essential that we change the policy.

Mr Tan Soo Khoon: Sir, will the Hon. Minister consider whether it is possible for a single applicant to retain his position on the waiting list if, like in the case of the HDB, such an applicant submits the name of his or her spouse-to-be?

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: Again, this was considered and we did not adopt it because HUDC and HDB have their own policies to follow. In the case of HDB, those people who have given the name of their spouse-to-be will be allocated a flat subject to the condition that they produce their marriage certificates within three months after allocation. But if we allow this for HUDC applicants, we will run into difficulties. In the case of HUDC, the applicant selects his flat. When he has selected his flat, he starts making progress payments. When the full payment has been made and we discover that he is a fake - e.g. he says, "quarrelled with my fiancee. She has left me." - we will have great difficulty in taking back the flat because all the legal documents for the sale of the flat would have been signed. We will then have a lot of complications.

In the case of HDB, the applicants are from the lower-income group and if we do not allow this arrangement, a person may not get married at all. But for the HUDC applicants, they belong to the higher-income group and I think they can always manage somehow. I have great confidence in them.

Mr Tan Soo Khoon: Sir, nowadays it seems that the better-off you are the more difficult it is for you, insofar as housing is concerned. Now I see there is one set of rules for HDB applicants and another set of rules for HUDC. Sir, I would not like to add further to this debate except to express to the Minister how dissatisfied I am with his explanations today.

Mr Eric Cheong Yuen Chee: Sir, in view of the Minister's reluctance to concede, I most reluctantly withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.