MAIN AND DEVELOPMENT ESTIMATES OF SINGAPORE FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1ST APRIL, 1982 TO 31ST MARCH, 1983

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

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Head Q (cont.) - 3.16 p.m.

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

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

In moving this amendment, I would like to highlight once again in this House the problem of safety on our roads. About two years ago when I spoke on the same topic I suggested that perhaps we could learn from other countries which had a better record of road safety and to see how we could apply their methods to our own road safety programme. Last night I was very happy to hear the Hon. Minister saying that he had already sent a team to Japan and following that he hoped to introduce a comprehensive road safety programme for Singapore. Although I would say that it is better late than never, I feel that this study should have been undertaken much earlier to check what I believe is an alarming situation.

Sir, the statistics will bear me out. Last year, there were a total of 12,692 road casualties. In other words, there were about an average of 35 road casualties a day and this compares unfavourably with the figure of 12,013 road casualties the year before, i.e. 1980. Last year, a total of 273 persons died on our roads compared to 257 the year before. This means that every 1 1/2 days somebody dies on the road in Singapore.

Sir, our road safety campaigns have always been a two-prong approach. One is the education part and the other is law enforcement. On the education front, we have a lot of localized campaigns in the last few years. We directed road safety campaigns in the Housing Board estates. We enlisted the help of Residents' Committees to spread the message and we even directed the campaign towards school children by going to the schools. However, Sir, in view of the rising figures of road casualties and road deaths, I am wondering if the education part has been slackening and whether the law enforcement aspect of our road safety campaign has not been as intensive as it should be.

Sir, two categories of road users come to my attention when I saw the figures. The two biggest categories of road casualties are the motor-cyclists and the pedestrians. Motor-cyclists account for 43% of the road casualties last year. I am wondering if we could again not do more to reduce the figures. Last year I made a suggestion that there should be compulsory training for motor-cyclists before they are given their licences by the Registry of Vehicles. As I pointed out then, and the situation is still the same, all it takes for somebody to be able to ride a motor-bike on the road is to get a provisional driving licence and to buy a licence plate.

There is also the problem of hell drivers which, I think, is still prevalent in Singapore. With the construction of new expressways there are more opportunities for these hell drivers to tear down the roads with impunity and without regard for other road users. These hell drivers are most active, especially on week-ends. I myself have had the experience of being frightened out of my wits to suddenly see a gang of motor-cyclists tearing past me, and it is at times like this that I wonder where the Traffic Police are.

The other group of road users who form a substantial majority of casualties and road deaths are the pedestrians. Here I would like to say that somehow the vigilance with which we used to monitor pedestrian crossings seems to have been lost and that probably accounts for the fact that 109 pedestrians died on our roads last year compared to 96 the year before. All in all, I hope I am wrong when I say that the national road safety campaign seems to have lost some steam. Otherwise these would not have been the figures. Perhaps it is time for us, while carrying on the localized campaigns, to bring back the national road safety campaign which has not been held for quite some years.

The other matter I would like to raise under this amendment concerns the use of the expressways. We now have two very long major expressways, the Pan-island Expressway (PIE) and the East Coast Parkway (ECP). Expressways like these are new to Singaporeans and my opinion is that quite a majority of road users in Singapore do not know how to use expressways, and I think we have to teach people how to use such roads before proceeding further.

Expressways can be put to maximum use if people know how to use them, drive at the correct speed, but unfortunately there is a lot of road hogging at the moment by slow-moving vehicles and by heavy vehicles, especially on the fast righthand lane. I am a frequent user of the PIE and ECP and it has been my experience to see a lot of heavy vehicles occupying the left slow lane as well as the right fast lane, and if there is a centre lane they are also there. If you travel along the PIE, especially during the peak hours, i.e. in the early morning if you are going in the direction of Jurong and in the evening hours if you are coming back from Jurong, you will find quite often that traffic has to move at a snail's pace. I think that some education for motorists is necessary.

Encik Saidi Haji Shariff: Sir, during my twice-weekly visits to my constituents in their flats, I always receive two common complaints. Firstly, illegal parking of cars along Bedok North Street 3, Bedok North Avenues 1, 2 and 3. Secondly, motorcyclists speeding along these roads and emitting fumes in the car parks and making an irritating noise. I believe these are common occurrences in other HDB estates, and they are of grave concern to residents living in the flats.

Illegal parking has caused unnecessary traffic congestion and also a lot of inconvenience to residents and their children. Speeding motor-cyclists not only pose a danger but also disturb the peace and quiet of the estate. When these complaints are brought to the attention of the Police, they will normally carry out an intensive exercise of issuing summons but this action has not so far solved the problem. Instead, I receive complaints from residents affected, pointing out the unsympathetic manner by which the Police issues these summonses.

My question is: does the Ministry of Home Affairs or the Police have a specific plan or remedial measures or an alternative method to solve this problem to the satisfaction of both motorists, scooterists or motor-cyclists and the residents?

The Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Chua Sian Chin): Sir, may I answer the Member for Alexandra first? He quoted figures of accident rates and the number of fatalities on our roads, and he said that 1981 was a bad year. I agree with him entirely. But it is not for want of effort on the part of the Police to curb traffic accidents and death on our roads. They have done everything within their means to do so, both in terms of education as well as enforcement. It is also true that most of the fatalities on the road involve pedestrians and motorcyclists. These two groups, i.e. the pedestrians and motor-cyclists, account for 68% of the fatalities. In the group of pedestrians, most of those killed on the road are below 15 years old, i.e. children, and old people above 60 years old. These are the two most vulnerable groups of pedestrians on the road.

The Traffic Accidents Study Section conducted a statistical study of pedestrians and motor-cycle related accidents last year. The findings are as follows:

1. Pedestrian-related accidents. Most accidents occur on straight roads and in light traffic, contrary to the belief that accidents occur only in crowded streets.

2. Accidents usually occur as a result of the misjudgment on the part of the pedestrian or as a result of excessive speed or lack of attention on the part of the driver.

3. Unaccompanied pedestrians were more prone to accidents than those accompanied.

With regard to motor-cycle related accidents, the causes of such accidents are: (a) usually excessive speed, inattention and lack of skills; (b) the riders who are involved in serious or fatal accidents are mostly in the age group 20 to 29 years old, i.e. young people; and (c) causes of death are usually head injuries or multiple injuries. 3.30 p.m.

Since pedestrians and motor-cyclists are the most vulnerable road users, remedial measures are constantly directed towards alleviating this problem, that is, to concentrate on this category of road users. The measures are, first, the provision of pedestrian bridges and signalized crossings, Currently there is an on-going programme to build pedestrian bridges and signalized crossings which the Government is giving very high priority. All these facilities will be included in the new towns and housing estates and are in addition to the following projects completed last year:-

(i) Sidewalks to segregate pedestrian traffic at eight locations.

(ii) 40 pedestrian bridges.

(iii) Pedestrian crossing signals at 13 locations.

Although there was no National Safety First or Road Safety Campaign last year, there were many on-going campaigns in the constituencies at grassroots levels. Because of our concern for the predicament of the aged pedestrians, the Help the Aged to Cross campaign was conducted in eight constituencies since February 1981. Perhaps we will have one in Alexandra. A total of 26 road safety exhibitions were held in 1981, and these included six exhibitions at community centres, two at shopping complexes, three at factories, eight in schools, four in HDB estates and three in SAF camps.

With regard to education, a comprehensive educational programme is being directed towards inculcating road safety awareness in school children through lectures and traffic games at the Road Safety Park in East Coast Parkway. Since the opening of the Park in January 1981, 82,000 students between the ages of nine and 12 years have undergone road safety training. In addition, a total of 63 talks on road safety were given to primary and secondary students in 1981. In other words, there was no let-up in the education of children. It is a long term plan. We cannot get overnight results on this score.

With regard to motor-cyclists, we have conducted safe riding courses for them. In order to promote road safety consciousness among motor-cyclists, the Traffic Police organized four safe riding courses for motor-cyclists in 1991 to improve their riding skills. There were voluntary courses for motor-cyclists. Applications were made through the Residents' Committees and community centres. Altogether, 240 motor-cyclists took part in this programme. We also took measures to upgrade the skills of the motor-cyclists.

With the taking-over of the drivers' licensing function of the Registry of Vehicles in September 1981, the Traffic Police are studying schemes to upgrade the skills of motor-cyclists through a more comprehensive training programme for learner riders. We are considering the suggestion of the Member for Alexandra that before motor-cyclists are allowed to be on the road, there should be some form of training. On that score, we propose to test all present holders of motor-cycle provisional driving licence (PDL). We are trying to test as many of them as possible. The objective is to phase out all PDL holders. Only those with qualified driving licences will eventually be allowed on the road. We propose to build a riding circuit for use for learner riders at Ang Mo Kio. These are some of the long-term plans we are working on.

We are also finalizing a new system of Improved Points Demerit System to replace the present Points Demerit System. This new system will emphasize correction rather than punishment. As I have said, it will be called the Improved Points Demerit System. High-risk drivers will be identified and rehabilitated through participation in a comprehensive retraining programme. As I have stated yesterday, a study team has been sent to Japan to see how the Japanese managed to reduce by half the accident rate over the last 10 years even though the number of motor vehicles has increased by 2 1/2 times. On their return, the information will be processed and new measures will be incorporated in a national road safety plan which is now being finalized.

It is true that we had no National Safety First Campaign last year. But we had one the previous year, that is, in 1980. Therefore, we are planning to have one National Road Safety campaign in September this year. Ultimately, the solution to the traffic accident problem lies in the adoption of an overall strategy and not ad hoc, piecemeal measures. This strategy should encompass enforcement action, road engineering and the education of all road users.

I come now to expressways. I agree with the Member for Alexandra that expressways are a new phenomenon in Singapore. Because they are designed for faster commuting, vehicles move along these expressways at high speeds and drivers cannot afford much room for error. These drivers and other road users must anticipate well in advance of what other road users in the expressway intend to do. Otherwise there is bound to be an accident.

The main causes of road accidents on expressways are poor lane discipline, road hogging, failure to give way and inconsiderate driving. When the first expressway was opened, many drivers did not know how it should be used. They treated expressways as normal roads when, in fact, they are not. The police launched a campaign to teach the "dos" and "don'ts" to users of these expressways. This education programme was launched from August to October last year. During that time, intensive publicity, followed by enforcement, was implemented. All the newspapers publicized the campaign. At regular intervals, articles on the proper use of expressways were publicized in news- papers. As for enforcement, they were carried out by a specialist squad of Traffic Police who concentrated on offences, such as careless driving, speeding, road hogging and illegal parking along the East Coast Parkway and the Pan Island Expressway. Errant drivers were not only booked but they were also given a pamphlet containing tips on how to drive safely at high speed. Following the campaign, 1,514 motorists were booked, 284 were warned for various traffic violations on the expressways. As a result, there was a better appreciation among most motorists on the use of the highway.

However, there is still a large group of drivers who do not know how to use the expressways properly. Therefore, a similar education campaign or programme on the proper use of expressways will be repeated later this year when the Expressway Rules are brought into force. I believe the Second Reading of the Bill which was just passed in Parliament to amend the Road Traffic Act would enable the Expressway Rules to be brought into force. The main features of the Rules are that stopping and parking at expressways will not be allowed and that learner drivers and pedestrians will be banned from using the expressways. The only exception to the Rules of not stopping are vehicle breakdowns in emergencies and maintenance. The Traffic Police, together with the PWD and the National Safety First Council, will be conducting a wide publicity on expressway usage.

The police are also preparing an illustrated booklet on safe driving on the expressways and, when ready, this would be made available to the public. We hope that through the efforts put in to educate road users, there will be better and more careful drivers on the roads and expressways.

Turning to the Member for Kaki Bukit, he has made some points about booking traffic offenders, whether it is for illegal parking or speeding by motor-cyclists, and whether we have done enough enforcement to curb violations of the traffic law. May I inform him that, in 1981, a total of 166,931 vehicles were booked and summonses were issued for various parking offences. These were: parking on grass verge, 1,554; causing unnecessary obstruction, 15,975; parking against white/ yellow lines, 128,774; other parking offences, 20,688, making a total of 166,991. In other words, we have been enforcing the illegal parking law, contrary to the impression that we have been lax in that respect. In the same period, Mobile Squad officers issued 6,129 warnings for parking offences, 2,404 for obstruction. 3.45 p.m.

Some probable causes of illegal parking are: members of the public do not wish to pay for the parking and would rather take the risk of being booked; inadequate parking facilities in some areas; and existing HDB policy which limits night parking to season ticket holders only. As far as the police are concerned, they will continue to take enforcement action against illegal parking, particularly when there are complaints. However, it must be appreciated that with the limited manpower that it has, the police cannot place priority on this aspect of enforcement.

With regard to noise pollution caused by motor-cyclists, Members will recall that on 16th March 1982 an answer was given to the Member for Delta on the question of noise pollution. In 1981, the Traffic Police conducted 63 operations at regular intervals and at different times of the day against motor-cyclists causing noise problems. During these operations, 1,500 machines were impounded for inspection by the ROV and action taken against 1,147 of them for having noisy exhausts or illegal modifications under the provisions of Regulation 90 of the Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) Rules, 1974. Further, motor-cycles have to satisfy certain noise control standards before they are registered by the ROV. When they are on the road, enforcement action against noisy machines is a matter of detection and prosecution. This action will continue.

As far as hell drivers are concerned, I think I have mentioned about it in last evening's debate.

Encik Saidi Haji Shariff: Sir, I wish to thank the Minister for the very elaborate information on the efficiency of the police in taking enforcement action.

My point is this. No matter what enforcement action has been taken - in my Kaki Bukit Constituency, I was told that last month 600 summonses were issued the problem is still not solved. It appears to me that enforcement action is the only solution that is taken by the police. The Minister has given many reasons why traffic offences are being committed. My point is: is there an alternative method other than taking enforcement action to solve the problem?

Mr Chua Sian Chin: Mr Speaker, Sir, there is not just one way in which we can solve the problem. Traffic violation is a problem which requires a multi-disciplinary approach in solving the problem and enforcement is only one of them. As I have said, there is education. Perhaps the Member for Kaki Bukit can help us to educate some of his constituents who have been violating traffic laws not to do so. Of course, for those offenders who remain recalcitrant there is no way out but to take enforcement action against them. As I have explained, we must have a two- or three-pronged attack on the problem - enforcement, education and perhaps even retraining if they happen to be drivers or riders of motor-cycles.

Encik Saidi Haji Shariff: Sir, may I suggest that instead of issuing summonses or warning letters, probably the police can send a letter, may be a love letter, telling them, "You have a problem. Let us see what we can do for you."

Mr Chua Sian Chin: Sir, love letters may solve the problem of lovers but do not solve the problem of traffic violators.

Mr Tan Soo Khoon: Sir, I hope the move to make driving courses compulsory for motor-cyclists takes place soon because last year, when I made the suggestion, the Minister told the House that it was under consideration and this year it is still under consideration.

Before I withdraw my amendment, can I also add my appreciation to the Traffic Police for the effort they are putting in to make our roads safer?

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 Q be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead 01-02 of the Main Estimates.

This Subhead concerns Drug Enforcement and Rehabilitation Programme. The objective is to prevent and reduce drug abuse. Towards this end, may I ask the Hon. Minister what is the regime the Government has adopted to combat drug addiction and drug trafficking? What progress has been made? What are the problems encountered and how would they tackle this problem?

Sir, in asking these questions of the Hon. Minister, may I relate three examples? (1) Some parents came to see me at one of my Meet-the-People sessions for assistance concerning their sons' involvement in drug-taking at a certain place. In one case, one of the youths, a national serviceman, was subsequently court martialled and sentenced to imprisonment. Whilst his mother was very upset, however, his father appreciated Mindef's action as it gave their son an opportunity to be rehabilitated and to begin a new lease of life.

In the second example, one SAF instructor came to see me about his elder brother, a technician, who was in a drug rehabilitation centre, and he requested for an early release on the grounds that his elder brother was helping to maintain the family. He told me that his brother was hooked on drugs as a result of merely wanting to get a kick, to feel what it is like to take drugs. I referred the matter to the Ministry concerned and was later informed that this particular person cannot be released as the DRC was of the view that he had not been fully rehabilitated. I passed on this explanation to this young SAF instructor; he understood and accepted the decision.

The third is the case of a younger brother of a hawker, who had already kicked off the drug addiction but went back to it again. In other words, he became addicted again and was suffering from recidivism. So the elder brother sought my assistance to get his younger brother sent to the DRC again as his younger brother had resorted to other means of getting more money to pay for the drugs.

Sir, in narrating these three cases, I would like to ask the Hon. Minister whether he would agree with my view that there are people who are grateful to the Government for being bold enough to do the unpleasant job of rehabilitating drug addicts.

If I may, Sir, add a last point that neither the Central Narcotics Bureau nor the Police would like to cause unnecessary inconvenience to anybody by simply pulling him in on suspicion of drug addiction. One morning, Sir, I got a call from one of my community leaders informing me that the police had rounded up a group of longhaired youths on suspicion of having taken drugs and he wanted me to look into the matter as the parents were rather disturbed. I promised to look into the matter and accordingly I informed the complainant that the police had given the assurance that if those rounded up were not found to have taken drugs, they would be released. Subsequently, all of them were released.

Sir, I would like to end by saying that Singapore can ill-afford to allow drug pedlars and drug traffickers to drain away our only resource, i.e. human resource, and that rehabilitation of drug addicts has got to be carried out for the future well-being of this young nation.

The Minister of State for Law and Home Affairs (Prof. S. Jayakumar): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have been asked by my Minister to answer the points raised. I wish to thank the Member for Punggol for raising what are actually very serious issues in our country relating directly to the quality of our population and the future quality of our youth. He has asked, before citing specific cases, what strategies we have adopted to combat the drug problem and drug addiction and trafficking, what progress has been achieved, and what problems have we encountered.

Perhaps I would begin with the preliminary question, and that is: how should the question of drug addiction and drug trafficking be viewed in our nation? Should we view it as a mere social problem which will fade away with the passing of time? My answer to that question is: definitely not.

Here, I would like to point out that it is not just we, the Ministry of Home Affairs, or Singapore, that take a very serious view. In fact, the region takes a very serious view of this matter. At repeated meetings of ASEAN countries and officials dealing with drugs in ASEAN countries, they have pronounced that the drug addiction and drug trafficking is not a mere social problem but is a problem which can even threaten one's national security and stability. This is very significant. 4.00 p.m.

If other countries in the region, endowed with much more resources, take such a serious view of the matter, what more our own country where, as the hon. Member for Punggol quite rightly pointed out, our most precious resource is our people, and when we look into the future, our most precious resource is our young people.

So I am absolutely in agreement with him that it is important that the Government does not stinge in its effort to combat the drug trafficking problem and the drug addiction problem.

Having made the preliminary remark, let me now quickly summarize the measures which the Government has taken over the past many years in response to the problem. Now, first, what was the problem? I think Members will recall that prior to 1970 there was no serious drug addiction or trafficking problem. And whatever problem existed related really to the taking of opium or similar drugs by the elderly people. But in the early seventies we began to see a problem arising where young persons, including school children, were resorting to certain kinds of drugs, including MX pills. In 1971 the Central Narcotics Bureau was established, especially to tackle the problem of drug addiction among the young persons. In 1973 the Misuse of Drugs Act was enacted in response to what was perceived to be a serious problem, for in 1974 we had in Singapore a heroin addiction epidemic. Just to show how rapidly the problem of drug addiction arose and (est there be any misunderstanding of any soft treatment of the problem of drugs, in 1972 four persons were apprehended for drug addiction; in 1973 ten persons; in 1974 110 persons; 1975 2,263 persons and in 1976 5,683 persons. Those figures are given to illustrate the enormity of the problem and the danger of the problem if not checked swiftly and effectively.

To summarize the measures, I would say that the measures that the Government has taken to combat the problem of drug addiction and drug trafficking has been manyfold, multifaceted, preventive as well as remedial measures which are designed to reduce demand as well as to reduce the supply of the drugs.

To quickly go through some of these measures. First, we have a system of preventive drug education for our youngsters. In this regard the assistance of the Ministry of Education has been obtained to reach the children in the schools on the dangers of drug addiction. Special booklets have been prepared to assist the teachers. The Institute of Education has revised its curriculum so that trainee teachers would also have some guidance on drug education.

Secondly, as I have mentioned previously in this Chamber in response to a question by the Member for Delta, we also have resorted to preventive detention under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act where the normal processes of the Criminal Law are unable to effectively meet the drug trafficking problem.

Thirdly, we have introduced in our laws mandatory death penalty for trafficking of certain amounts of heroin and morphine. We also have imprisonment and mandatory caning for certain offences.

Fourthly, we have the treatment and rehabilitation of drug addicts. This was alluded to in detail the other day when I responded to another Question for Oral Answer. This is an integral part of our policy so that it will help to reduce the demand for drugs.

Fifthly, we have a two-year supervision period for those released from the drug rehabilitation centres.

Sixthly, foreigners who engage in drug trafficking are charged in court and served with the Prohibition of Entry Order so that they will not come into Singapore again.

Seventhly, strict controls are enforced at Immigration entry points to keep a check on persons coming in to engage in drug trafficking. Furthermore, under our regulations, the Controller of Immigration can deny passport facilities for those who have been convicted of drug trafficking offences or are under supervision orders.

Eighthly, we have a system of counselling and aftercare services, which is important so that those released from the drug rehabilitation centres could adjust to society, reintegrate with normal life upon release. This is carried out by the Singapore Anti-Narcotics Association (SANA), with their aftercare programme. It includes many voluntary aftercare officers.

Finally, we have the Day Release Scheme which is also intended to assist persons who have been treated in drug rehabilitation centres to readjust to society.

Turning to the third part of the Member for Punggol's question, what progress has been achieved? I think a considerable measure of progress has been achieved. Due to the effective employment of these measures, I am glad to report that the drug trafficking network has been smashed in terms of the major drug syndicates. Secondly, the estimated addiction population in Singapore has been reduced from 13,000 in 1977 to 6,100 in 1982. Thirdly, because of the effective policies for a reduction in the demand and a reduction in the supply, there is a scarce availability of drugs in Singapore. In fact, this is demonstrated by the increase in price at the street level. Five years ago, it cost $7 per straw of 0.2 grammes of heroin. Now it is $20 for a straw of 0.05 grammes. Another indication of our progress is the percentage of young persons who are addicts under 20 years of age. In 1977 an alarming rate of 31.4% of addicts were 20 years of age. Now, at the end of 1981, the number of addicts who are under 20 years of age, is 7%. Another indicator is what we could call the "infection" rate. In 1977 out of three persons admitted to the DRC, there were two new addicts to one old addict. In 1981 out of five persons admitted to the DRC there was one new addict to four old addicts. So, while we can say that a considerable measure of progress has been reached, I would caution Members of the House that we cannot afford to relax. We must be vigilant, for drug addiction, once unchecked, spreads maliciously and rapidly.

Turning to the last part of the Member's first general question as to what problems we have, the major problem that we have, as detailed in a speech by the Minister a few weeks ago, is that of hardcore addicts. Hardcore addicts are those who have been admitted to the DRC for a third, or more, occasion. In 1981 24% of those admitted to the DRCs were hardcore addicts in the sense that they had been repeated addicts. This is a problem for it shows that the normal approach of denying them drugs for a sustained period and the process of detoxification does not work with this category of hardcore addicts. The Ministry is now therefore focusing its attention on the problem of hardcore drug addicts with a view to working out a special regime of treatment and rehabilitation for these hardcore addicts so that they would go for more intensive rehabilitation which will be directed to an examination of the psychological make-up so that they too would be able to get rid of the addiction problem.

Finally, with regard to the specific point mentioned by the Member for Ponggol, let me say that I understand the appeals made by parents to Members of Parliament. Indeed, if I may say so, as a Member of Parliament, I have also faced requests by anxious parents who naturally as parents, like any other parents, would want to be reunited with their children. There is no intention on the part of the Ministry to deliberately separate the addicts from the parents for longer than is necessary. So the answer I would give is that I understand the problem, but what is important is this: that if an addict is released prematurely, i.e. before he has been fully treated and before he has kicked off the habit, then the danger, and a high prob- ability, is that he will relapse before long, and this means that early release encourages the making of more hardcore addicts. In this sense, in the longer run it is in the interest of the addict and in the interest of the family that we ensure that the addict is fully rehabilitated and treated before release.

As to the three cases he has mentioned, I found them to be of great interest for it shows that, as we have seen in other places, there is a growing awareness and appreciation of the important work that is being done by the Ministry, although the work may not be a pleasant one. It is never pleasant to put somebody in the rehabilitation centre. But as the Member for Punggol pointed out, this is a duty which we have to carry out, unpleasant though it may be; we cannot stinge, for if we want to insulate future generations from the scourge of drug addiction, there is no other course.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Sir, of the three examples that I cited, the third is a case where the drug addict has relapsed, and it is precisely this hardcore case that I am referring to. Whilst we treat these addicts, there must also be action against the source of supply. Towards this end, may I know from the Hon. Minister of State what progress has been made by the Central Narcotics Bureau in suppressing the sources of supply of such drugs to the hardcore addicts.

The Hon. Minister of State also touched on the discussion held at the ASEAN conferences. I take it that this is AIPO - the ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Organization Conferences. Yes, I remember discussing this problem. So towards this end, can the Hon. Minister of State enlighten this House on the joint measures taken with our other ASEAN counterparts to root out this menace, that is, the source of supply, as well as the addiction? 4.15 p.m.

Prof. Jayakumar: Sir, responding to the first part of the supplementary question, I do not have with me the exact figures to show the reduction in heroin seizures over the years. But I can assure the Member for Punggol that the figures show that the amount of heroin seized over the years has been decreasing. This is because of effective detection at the Causeway and other points of entry through the use of various methods of surveillance as well as detection, including the deployment of dogs for this purpose. I think this has generally been well publicised.

Big-time trafficking has been reduced. Let me give an illustration. Between 1976 and 1978, 50 persons were charged for offences under the Misuse of Drugs Act which could carry the death penalty. We are talking of large amounts of drugs. From 1979 to 1981, 15 persons were charged. This demonstrates two things. First, that the measure of mandatory death penalty has worked as an effective deterrent. Secondly, big-time major trafficking has been reduced. Our problem now is reduced to that of ant-trafficking in small amounts.

If I may turn to the second part of the Member's question as to cooperation with ASEAN countries. First, the drug experts of the ASEAN countries hold regular meetings to exchange views on methods of enforcement, treatment and rehabilitation, for different countries have different approaches and it is always useful to compare notes. Secondly, there is also exchange of information between the countries on known traffickers and suppliers and this is important when these traffickers are, in fact, moving from country to country, The cooperation that I am talking about involves supplying information to neighbouring countries when we know that a trafficker is in another country. This kind of cooperation is essential, for drug trafficking often involves international syndicates operating in the region.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Sir, I am satisfied with the Minister's reply and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head Q be reduced by the whole sum in respect of Subhead QI-02 of the Main Estimates.

Sir, in moving this amendment, let me make it quite clear to the Members of this House that I am aware of the menace that is posed to this country by the drug problem and I am in no way criticizing the active steps taken by the Government to deal with this problem. I am fully in agreement with what has been said by the hon. Member for Punggol about the problem and by the Minister about the threat that this problem poses not only as a social problem but also, as I see it, perhaps an economic problem and also a problem to the security of this country.

But, having said that, Sir, may I make a plea that in all our efforts to combat this drug problem we must also take care that innocent persons are not caught in the net and incarcerated for up to 36 months. Persons who are not drug addicts are incarcerated for 36 months, I hope it will not be necessary for me in this House to speak of the value of personal liberty and freedom and that before we can interfere with a man's personal freedom and liberty for as long as up to a period of 36 months, we must be sure as reasonably as we can that the man should be incarcerated for 36 months. In the normal process of law this often is done through the courts which inquire into the charge or offence which requires that the man be incarcerated - receives the evidence, makes a finding of guilt on evidence produced before the court, and then puts him away.

The position is different when we come to the drug addict. Under the Misuse of Drugs Act, Sir, the Director, i.e. the Director of the Central Narcotics Bureau, may require anyone reasonably suspected of being a drug addict to be medically examined. In practice, what happens is that the Police round up persons whom they think may be drug addicts and they make a request to the Director of the Central Narcotics Bureau for an Order, and the Director makes the Order and the man is then taken to the drug rehabilitation centre. He is then kept there for a period of days - I think three or four days - when he is required to undergo medical observation and any other scientific test that it is possible.

The Minister, responding to my question two days ago in this House, Sir, said that the examination was conducted by two doctors and they would then report - I hope I have got him correct and I do not want to misquote him - that they would make a report of their findings to the Director of Central Narcotics Bureau who would then make the Order.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have with me the report made by the doctor, and it is a single doctor who has made the report to the Director of Central Narcotics Bureau. His report - I propose to read it. There are two reports. They are identical. It says:

'In the course of my examinations and observations of the subject I found that he had definite clinical evidence of drug withdrawal syndrome consistent with heroin addiction. In my opinion, he is a heroin addict.'

That is all we have - "I found that he had definite clinical evidence of drug withdrawal syndrome consistent with heroin addiction, and in my opinion he is a heroin addict." On that, an Order was made by the Director of Central Narcotics Bureau. It is not signed by two doctors. It is signed by just one doctor, and the examinations that he talks about consisted of three, over three days, each lasting for a period of about five minutes. No blood test was taken, no urine test was taken, to confirm the presence of drugs either in the urine or in the blood. On that, as I said, the Director of Central Narcotics Bureau made the Order for detention.

This was looked at by another man, a doctor, who has had years of experience in the Government service and who knows something about the treatment of drug addicts. This is what he has to say about the report:

'The report does not set out the nature of the withdrawal syndrome, what symptoms were observed upon which there was a finding that the applicant was a heroin addict at the time of observation. In any case, withdrawal symptoms are not pathognomonic [I understand from that, Mr Speaker, Sir, you will probably be able to guide us better on this - that it is not conclusive pathologically] and if they are to be relied upon, should be supplemented by urine and/or blood tests or the employment of special techniques such as specific drug supplement or antagonist.'

And then he ends up by saying:

'It is my considered view that the report does not disclose that the applicant was a drug addict at the time of the observation.'

Sir, I suggested when I asked my question at the last sitting that there could be a possibility of a wrong diagnosis. The Minister of State immediately took it to mean that I was suggesting collusion. As I said, you do not have to have collusion for the possibility of an error of diagnosis. One single doctor may make a mistake. We know this.

My plea to this House is that we must take the necessary safeguards to see that persons who are not drug addicts are not detained, because if we do not, then it will only lead to disrespect for the law and the law will fall into disrepute. We must make sure that before a man is put away, he is put away because he has been proven or found guilty on evidence which will be accepted and which can be reasonably accepted to be conclusive. Anything falling short of that would be an invasion of the liberty of the individual.

The Chairman: You have half a minute more.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Thank you, Sir. May 1, before I sit down, refer the House to another Act, the Mental Disorders and Treatment Act. If one goes through that there are sufficient safeguards. You got to have, first of all, one doctor, then two doctors to certify, and then finally if the man is to be detained for more than one month he must be certified by a psychiatrist from outside the hospital that the man should be detained.

The Chairman: Your time is up.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I beg to move, Mr Speaker, Sir. I ask that there should be sufficient safeguards.

Prof. Jayakumar: Sir, the point raised by the Member for Anson was, in fact, raised in a supplementary question when I answered his Question for Oral Answer on 16th March. However, I will not insist on the technicality of Standing Order 47(3) which seems to frown upon raising of matters which had already been dealt with at previous sittings of Parliament. But since the matter is important and since the Member for Anson feels that repetition may establish a valid proposition, let me also reiterate the points that have been mentioned.

First of all, I stressed the other day that the treatment and rehabilitation of addicts is quite different from an approach where persons are charged for an offence, convicted, sentenced and imprisoned, which seems to be the approach the Member for Anson is harping upon as a preferred approach whenever he keeps on repeating that there is a parallel between this and the other criminal process approach where people are charged. It would be very easy for this Government to do that. Charge everybody who is a drug addict, for consuming drugs, and close our eyes to the consequence when he has served his sentence. That will never solve the problem. That is why we have taken the approach of treatment and rehabilitation so that we tackle the problem of addiction without causing the man to have a stigma for the rest of his life. 4.30 p.m.

Secondly, the Member for Anson again repeats that there is only one doctor who signs. For the record, since the Member has obviously not heard what I said, what I said on 16th March was to refute his claim that in the drug rehabilitation centre there was only one doctor. And I stood up to say that that was inaccurate for there were two full-time doctors. I never said that the report was signed by two doctors. One can check with the Hansard to verify the truth of my recollection.

Thirdly, his point, again a repetition, is: why is it that no urine test is made and why is it that the medical examination report is so brief? Now, here let me recall that he has made this same point in the courts of law in order to establish a proposition that the detention may be contrary to law. The Court of Appeal has rejected his proposition and said that the Director of CNB was entitled to rely on that report as worded by the doctor, which was read out just now. Whether it is necessary for the doctor signing the report to spell out in the whole series of pages in medical jargon - whether that is necessary or not - may be of interest to practitioners of medicine who are specialized in the treatment of drug addicts. But what we are concerned here is satisfying the provisions of the law where the law requires that a person be medically examined. The law requires a medical observation and examination, and that is precisely what the doctor has certified. He has not prepared that medical report for scrutiny by a private medical practitioner who may be employed by the Member for Anson. We are familiar that, in the courts of law, it is fashionable to pit one medical expert against another medical expert and each claiming that the other is not having the same expertise as he. But for the purposes of the Misuse of Drugs Act, the courts have held that that medical certificate is sufficient.

Let me now proceed to reiterate the points that I have made. Why is it necessary to have a medical examination? Why is the urine test not good enough? I have explained that there were three good reasons why this may be so. First, certain addictive drugs cannot be seen in the urine test. I thought I have made that clear. Secondly, if the urine test is administered after six days from the date of consumption of the drug, the urine test will not show it. Thirdly, the medical doctor would be able to see from the medical examination and observance of the patient whether or not he is a drug addict.

Let me add, since the Member for Anson has raised the spectre of abuse and, as established by the Member for Anson's own remarks, it is not just one medical examination. The doctor in charge sees the addict on three different occasions. Now that is a point to ponder - an addict is seen on three different occasions before the medical doctor arrives at his finding that the person concerned is an addict.

Again, the Member for Anson asked: is it not possible that there could be a wrong diagnosis? Is it not possible? I think that is not the question. The question is: is there a serious probability that there will be a wrong diagnosis? Anything is possible in this world. To draw a parallel: is it possible that the Member for Anson tomorrow will resign from the Workers' Party and join the PAP? [Laughter] On the theoretical level, it is possible. Whether we will accept him is a different matter. [Laughter] But is there a serious probability that he will join our party? I would say, and I guess he will agree, that there is no serious probability.

But this is no laughing matter. The future of our younger generation is at stake. I have recounted all the safeguards beginning with the elaborate urine test; the medical examination which I have now shown is on three different occasions. I have also informed the House of the Review Committee which meets every six months. I have informed the House of the provisions in the Act which enable the addict to complain to a Magistrate and, finally, of course, over and above this, he can have recourse to the courts of law.

If the Member for Anson has a better plan for dealing with the treatment and rehabilitation of drug addicts, let him come out and tell us what his plans are.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Sir, as they say in court, with respect, I am afraid the Minister completely misunderstood the point of my objections in this House. I was not asking that drug addicts be charged in court. I appreciate that they require treatment or cure more than punishment. I was not asking that. I am also aware of the Court of Appeal decision. It is because of that that I am making a plea in this House, because it is for the Legislature to provide safeguards where the safeguards are not adequate enough as already provided in the law, because the courts are there only to declare the law.

I have drawn attention to the Mental Disorders and Treatment Act. What is the insuperable difficulty, Sir, of providing for an appeal from this finding of the doctor? May I say about the examination that the Hon. Minister of State talked about. Three days. As I indicated, each period only lasted for about five minutes. There is no urine test, no blood test, to antagonistic test, as the other doctor has said in his report. What is the insuperable difficulty of allowing that medical report to be looked at by two other doctors outside, as is provided in the Mental Disorders and Treatment Act? In that way we can assure the man who grievously feels that he has been innocently detained, incarcerated for 36 months, that we have taken steps, all reasonable steps to satisfy ourselves that there was no reasonable possibility of a mistake in the diagnosis of the doctor. I think we owe it to our citizens to see that we are taking safeguards, the necessary safeguards, before we deprive them of their liberty.

The Hon. Minister of State talks about the Magistrate's Court. I am sure the Minister is not suggesting that the Magistrate will order the release of the man if he complains to the Magistrate that he has been wrongly detained. I have looked at that section and I know what the section means. All that the Magistrate will ask is: "Is there an order from the Director of CNB?" And if you tell him that there is an order from the Director of CNB, he will go no further. Just as what the Court of Appeal said. Just as long as you have the Order of the Director of CNB, ordering the man to be detained, it is not for us to inquire into this medical report or to ask the doctor to expand it at length.

I am making a plea in this House for persons, and let me assure the Minister and this House that I have received several complaints from people who feel that they have been wrongly detained. It is not just them. It is their parents. It is their relations. Some of them say, "My son has never touched any drug at all in his life."

An hon. Member: Of course, he will say that.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Yes, of course, he will say that. But you have to satisfy them. You cannot leave them with a sense of grievance. That is important. You cannot leave your citizens nursing a sense of grievance against the administration of law and justice. They must be satisfied that the Administration is just and fair and has taken every step to exclude the possibility of any injustice or miscarriage of justice.

I would ask that the Minister consider taking steps to provide an adequate safeguard, a further safeguard, for people who feel that they have been wrongly detained, or allow somebody else to have a look at this man, the man who complains about it, and to satisfy himself that the man is really a drug addict.

Prof. Jayakumar: Sir, the Member for Anson asked whether there are any insuperable difficulties in providing further appeals. This raises the question which I asked at the Sitting of 16th March. Does he really believe that this Government would condone abuse, would want to spend such a great deal of resources in confining, feeding and caring for the addict, when I pointed out that the money spent, the manpower utilized, could be put to better uses in Singapore where we have a labour shortage?

Secondly, does the Member feel that we are doing all this for any reason other than the national interest of protecting and insulating our people from the scourge of drug addiction? He wants a further appeal. It is not whether it is insuperable to add further ladders of appeal.

Surely the question is: does the Member for Anson have any cases or experience? Does he have any evidence to suggest that there indeed has been an abuse and that people have been wrongly confined in the drug rehabilitation centre despite all these safeguards? If he has, then he has the duty to inform the relevant Minister and inform this House. It is not so much that he has received representations. I too have received representations from Members of Parliament as well as those from my own constituents, for it is natural that any parent would believe that his or her child is an innocent man, whether he has been charged for drug addiction or convicted for trafficking, or whether he has been charged for any criminal offence. It is natural, from our own experience, that the parents will be protective. They may genuinely believe that the child is not an addict for they are not able to keep a watchful eye on the child 24 hours of the day. Let us be a bit realistic about this matter. The child is not going to consume drugs in the house.

I think sometimes listening to these questions I get the impression that we are living in an ivory tower. I was always accused of living in an ivory tower in the university but I find that others have rose-coloured spectacles. People who consume drugs do so among their own cohort, not in the confines of their house in the presence of their family. It is natural and understandable that parents will always complain and make representations.

I have outlined the safeguards. If the Member for Anson has evidence - not complaints made to him which are not evidence - has he evidence that there has been abuse of the Misuse of Drugs Act? Does he have any evidence that any doctor in the DRC has wrongfully certified a person as a drug addict when he was not a drug addict? If he has, then we have a case. Only then do we have a case for adding further ladders in the process. 4.45 p.m.

Dr Augustine H.H. Tan (Whampoa): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Anson seems to be championing a lot of causes in this House. But I can tell him that I have been an MP for 12 years and I have seen many more cases than he has in the short few months that he has been an MP. I have had cases where parents have complained about their children being wrongly detained for drug abuse. And in each and every case, I have written to the authorities concerned and I have received a lengthy reply with proper evidence that the person has been examined properly, and in each case I have shown the letter and its contents to the parents concerned and they have shut up. At the most, they will say, "Will you please appeal for my son to be released sooner." I said, "That, I can do." And I write in an appeal in due course and then a reply comes back saying, "We will evaluate the case. We will watch the progress." I can assure the Member for Anson that all due safeguards are being taken, and I give him that guarantee on the basis of my 12 years' experience as an MP.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Sir, the Minister asks whether I could provide evidence of a wrongful diagnosis having been made by the doctor at the rehabilitation centre. Evidence can only be forthcoming if the man who complained is allowed to be examined by somebody outside. If you do not allow that, how can evidence be forthcoming? So it is idle to ask me whether I can produce evidence about any wrongful diagnosis.

This is what I am asking: why is it not possible for a man who complains, and who wants to be taken seriously that he is not a drug addict, to produce that evidence and to make it possible for him to produce that evidence by saying, "All right, you complain that this diagnosis is wrong. We will allow you to be examined by a proper medical officer outside." I am sure doctors will be carrying out their professional duties. They would not be colluding with the man. We must credit them with that intelligence and honesty. Why do we not provide the man with the opportunity to adduce this evidence? It is no good asking me, "Will the Member adduce evidence of wrong diagnosis?"

Prof. Jayakumar: Sir, we could go on and on with this debate. I take the view that the Member for Anson, in his most recent response, does not have evidence. If he does not have evidence that there has been mala fide exercise of discretion by the Director of CNB or by the medical doctor, then I think there is no case whatsoever to suggest that the procedures I have outlined are inadequate and warrant certain additional safeguards.

The Chairman: Mr Jeyaretnam, do you wish to withdraw your amendment?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Sir, I do not wish to say more. I am not withdrawing my amendment.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

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

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

This particular Subhead concerns the Immigration Department. One of the objectives is to regulate the entry of persons into Singapore and the duration of their stay. In this respect, Sir, I have just one question to ask the Hon. Minister, whether he could further elaborate on the tight immigration policy that Singapore adopts. Though I have asked the Hon. Minister this question concerning the rigid enforcement of Government immigration policy, I would like to cite two examples.

Sometime ago, an elderly constituent brought a family to my house and sought my assistance to allow the family of six (husband, wife and four children) to stay in Singapore. I asked why? I was told that they had been discovered to be illegal immigrants, i.e. they came into Singapore illegally without the proper travel documents and they had managed all these several years to escape detection by the Immigration authorities. This came to light only when the eldest child wanted to apply for an identity card, for which he had to produce documents to prove that he was born in Singapore, who his parents were, etc. So the Immigration Department took action and asked them to leave Singapore. This old constituent of mine pleaded with me to take up the case. I referred the matter to the proper authorities, and subsequently they were allowed on what is known as special visit pass for a short duration of time during which they had to make arrangements to leave Singapore.

In another case, an illegal immigrant was apprehended by the immigration authorities and told to leave Singapore. This illegal immigrant had been living in Singapore for some years after having illegally come to Singapore. Despite my plea for an extension of stay, the Immigration Department refused, and subsequently this person decided to go back to China. The reason given by the Controller of Immigration was that this particular person could not be allowed to continue to stay in Singapore as he had no proper travel documents. Moreover, when he was questioned as to where he came from, he refused to disclose except to say that he was born in China. So he had to go back to China.

Rightly, the Immigration Department politely but firmly refused my two requests. It goes on to show that the Government does carry out its Immigration policy fairly but firmly in disallowing in these two instances continued indefinite stay in Singapore. May I submit that we cannot let Singapore become a haven for refugees nor allow illegal immigrants to enter Singapore? Needless to say, we do not have the capacity for such acts of humanitarianism. I am sure our citizens will not allow this.

We must not forget to note the fact that when the so-called champions of human rights were asked to help in getting their governments to allow such people, be they refugees or illegal immigrants, to go into their own countries, they did little or nothing at all. Perhaps here the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) can give a clearer picture of this position, i.e. among those countries that champion such rights, what is the number of such cases they have allowed.

More recently, Sir, we read in numerous press reports, not just one or two, that the United States Coast Guard have had to turn away thousands of refugees fleeing from Cuba. How about that. Let me therefore ask this House to face one cold fact - that the world does not owe us a living. We must make our own living not only for ourselves but also for our children and our children's children. In other words, Sir, I mean that the policies carried out by the Government must be in the interest of Singapore and her people.

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am replying on behalf of my Minister. In fact, I am indebted to the Member for Punggol because, after having asked the question, he has very lucidly and eloquently informed the House what would have been my answer. So I will consider my response to be a supplement. 5.00 p.m.

Sir, what the Member for Punggol said towards the end of his remarks about the United States Coast Guard turning away refugees, sad though it may be from the point of view of the refugees, I think it is a good point with which I could start, for it demonstrates that in the ultimate analysis each country has to take care of its people first and foremost. He may describe the Immigration policy as strict or tough, not liberal or liberal, relaxed, but these terms -

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Inhuman!

Prof. Jayakumar: Or inhuman. But these terms, of course, are relative. They are relative depending on the country concerned, its economic situation, its size, its population, to some extent its geography, and so on.

Therefore, what should be the overriding consideration in shaping our Immigration policy? What has been the over-riding consideration? Like all the other methods of governmental policy in Singapore, the over-riding consideration or Immigration policy has been national interest. And rightly so, for we must take into account our country and the welfare and interest of the vast majority of our people and succeeding generations. In terms of translating this element of national interest to Immigration policy, we must bear in mind that the forces of history and geography, and to some extent politics, have made us an independent nation, which is small in size, dense!y populated, bereft of mineral or agricultural resources.

But what we have in our nation is people of determination and resourcefulness combined with a government that is dedicated and willing to harness the people to work so that we can galvanize ourselves, advance, modernize our country so as to be an economically successful, viable nation. In order to do this, we have invested heavily in education, other infrastructure, invested in quality of our youths, brought our birth rate to tolerable levels, so that, all in all, our population will enjoy decent standards of living. All this was pointed out by the Minister for Trade and Industry in his Budget speech. We also have a very large imported labour force who are here for limited purposes to solve the unemployment shortage.

Whatever successes we have achieved must not be negated by any other policy, especially Immigration policy. Bearing all this in mind, Immigration policy in terms of national interest means that we have to take into account whether the people that we are letting in to settle in Singapore as permanent residents will be able to contribute to our economic development or well being. Or to put it in a negative way, at least they must not be a burden or a strain on our limited resources. We have no other choice.

We cannot view Immigration in abstract terms or, as the Member for Punggol has also pointed out, in purely humanitarian terms. If we ignore the interests of the overwhelming majority and have a free-for-all policy, it will be disastrous, particularly when we bear in mind the people who come and settle here as permanent residents will be a step towards citizenship with all the consequential rights. It leads to privileges in the area of housing. For every 10,000 permanent residents each of them is entitled upon marriage to a citizen to form the nucleus for application to HDB. We must bear that in mind. It brings privileges and eligibility for social welfare, education, medical facilities which are not available to other foreigners.

Lest there be any misunderstanding of the problem, let me highlight the fact that people find it very attractive to come to Singapore. Let us look at some figures. In 1981, 12 1/2 million people obtained social visit passes to enter Singapore. Of these, 198,842 (nearly 200,000) have repeatedly been renewing their social visit passes, i.e. indicating a desire to stay here for a long, if not indefinite, period. Let us ponder over this. There are these many people who like to stay in Singapore, repeatedly applying for renewal of social visit passes, even though it has been reported in a foreign newspaper that people are starving in Singapore. That is for social visit passes. Let us take applications for permanent residence. Last year alone, there were 8,719 applications for permanent residence in Singapore, of which, if Members are interested, more than 87% were approved. Members might want to conclude whether we had been excessively brutal in our Immigration policy or not. Apart from this, in 1981 alone there were 34,816 people (nearly 35,000 people) who came into Singapore and overstayed and were detected. There may be many more who have not been detected.

The point I want to make with these figures is an inescapable conclusion that there are a lot of people who want to come to Singapore and to stay here. We cannot take a humanitarian approach and say, "Fine, all of you stay here." It will be suicidal for the future of our country. We have to be selective. Other countries are doing it. Other countries take into account the national interest. We too have to take into account our national interest, consider whether they will be contributing to our economy, our future well-being or at least whether they will be a burden to our society.

So, Sir, that in a nutshell sums up the rationale for my supplementary answer.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Sir, I was not in any way trying to answer for the Hon. Minister of State. I was just highlighting by the two examples the rigidity of the Immigration policy that is closely adhered to by the Immigration Department.

But since he has mentioned the question of work permit holders, is he not aware that we have granted many thousands of work permits? Does this not, therefore, bring about more than a social problem in time to come? Fortunately we are plugging the loophole that foreign workers will be out by 1984.

Therefore, the other part of the question is what will the Ministry do, in conjunction with the Ministry of Labour, in regard to those work permit holders who have worked here for quite some time but who have not complied with the rules and conditions governing contracting of marriages outside Singapore with Singapore citizens and then saying, "Look, I have been working in Singapore for some time. Can I bring my spouse in?" "Spouse" is a neutral gender that embraces both the male and female. So I would be grateful if the Hon. Minister of State can elaborate on this.

Prof. Jayakumar: Sir, I am tempted to answer but, as I explained on the 16th March, the Immigration Department's role with respect to work permit holders is, as he suggested, in close conjunction with the Ministry of Labour. Where a work permit is granted by the Commissioner for Employment, then that person who is a holder of a work permit will be granted the necessary Immigration pass to stay in Singapore. If for any reason the work permit is cancelled or terminated, then under the Immigration regulations that pass which entitles a person to stay in Singapore is also cancelled.

He has raised an important point but if I may with respect ask the Member for Punggol to be a bit patient until we reach the Ministry of Labour - I think this is a question of policy which the Minister for Labour would not like me to pre-empt him from replying.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Sir, in view of the not so unsatisfactory reply of the Hon. Minister of State, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman: I propose to take the Suspension now.

Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House.

Mr Speaker: Order. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at a quarter to six.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 5.12 p.m. until 5.45 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.45 p.m.