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 [5th Allotted Day].

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

2.35 p.m.

Head R (cont.) -

Resumption of Debate on Question [22nd March, 1982],

"That the sum to be allocated for Head R be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead RD-02 Object Group 1210 of the Main Estimates." - [Mr Lim Boon Heng].

Question again proposed.

Dr Wan Soon Bee (West Coast): Mr Speaker, Sir, I must commend the Ministry of Labour for setting up statutory requirements for compensation to be paid to an injured workman or to his dependant if he is deceased as a result of an accident which occurred during the course of his work. One can easily imagine the misery that would befall the dependants if such a move was not initiated. However, I would be pleased if it could be explained to this House the rationale for setting the ceiling of $1,250 for monthly earnings beyond which a workman cannot claim compensation. I would like to recommend to the Ministry of Labour to periodically review this ceiling, especially with rising wages due to the restructuring of our economy.

The other point I would like to raise is whether the Hon. Minister for Communications and Minister for Labour would let this House know whether the quantum of compensation is sufficient, especially with continuously increasing cost of living. I would also like to know how the quantum of compensation compares with those of the advanced countries.

The Chairman: Encik Abbas, you have an amendment* on the same subhead.

Encik Abbas Abu Amin (Pasir Panjang): Mr Speaker, Sir, it is gratifying to note from the Ministry of Labour Annual Report for 1980 that the Workmen's Compensation Act was reviewed and amended to increase compensation to injured workers and dependants of deceased workers.

I would now like to comment on the disbursement of workmen's compensation. I understand that the payment of compensation is slow and sometimes disbursed in instalments. Sir, when workmen's compensation is to be paid, either the worker has already suffered permanent injury or he has already died. It seems only proper that compensation be paid as speedily as possible so as not to aggravate the sufferings of the worker or the sufferings of his family as the case may be.

With changing trends in employment as a result of newer techniques, lists of occupational diseases should be reviewed constantly. Newer areas of hazards to be looked into could possibly be noise, vibrations, visual fatigue, scope work and work on display terminals in the work environment.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in the 1980s we have begun concentrating on tertiary industries on the so-called brain services like medical specialists, engineering consultancy, computer software and other professional services. Occupational hazards in these areas would be different and employees employed in this sector need to be adequately protected.

Perhaps a committee could assist in monitoring the prevalence of these new industrial diseases as new chemicals are introduced in the work places. I would like to recommend that such a committee be a tripartite advisory committee composed of representatives of the Government, unions and management. Representatives of professional associations could also be included for expert advice.

I would like now, Sir, to touch briefly on the welfare of the workers. The Workmen's Compensation Act does not cover injury sustained whilst an employee, representing the enterprise or company, participates in organized activities, such as games, tournaments, etc. after working hours. As part of the welfare benefits for workers, it is my considered view that provision should be made in the Act for this. I feel that this would further promote a deep sense of pride and loyalty to the company.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour (Mr Eugene Yap Giau Cheng): Mr Speaker, Sir, may I answer on behalf of the Minister? I would like to thank the hon. Members for Kebun Baru, West Coast and Pasir Panjang for the various points they have raised regarding workmen's compensation and their concern for the workers' health.

May I just deal with the points raised by the Member for Kebun Baru first? The hon. Member is concerned with the short period of 36 months after leaving employment after which a worker who has developed certain industrial diseases, such as, asbestosis, cannot claim compensation. The Second Schedule to the Workmen's Compensation Act gives a list of occupaional diseases which are compensable.

Section 4 of the Act provides for a workman to claim compensation for any one of these diseases if he is employed in any occupation which is prescribed in the Second Schedule in relation to such diseases or if he has been in such occupation within 12 months prior to his making the claim. However, in the case of silicosis and asbestosis, this period was extended from 12 months to 36 months in 1976. This was because both these diseases may be developed over a period of years and in the early stages may be asymptomatic. Thus, the longer period allows for a workman with silicosis or asbestosis to make a claim of up to three years after he has left the employment which gave rise to his disease.

However, an important point to note here is that workers who are exposed to silica hazard in granite quarries and those exposed to asbestos are required by law under the Sand and Granite Quarries Act and the Factories (Asbestos) Regulations to undergo yearly chest X-rays to be paid for by the employer. With such yearly chest X-rays, it is less likely for a workman to contract the diseases and not be detected. Thus a vast majority of the cases would be detected during their employment and not after. I hope that the hon. Member would agree with me that this move to have an early detection programme in order to prevent further complications is better than to allow the disease to develop and only be detected later on. By then it would also be rather difficult to assist the worker in his disease and cure him.

Another important point here also is that a worker must have had a number of years working in the asbestos industry in order to run the risk. But during the number of years that he was in employment, he would have had his annual chest X-rays and, therefore, the chances of detecting the disease at its early stages are that much greater. The 36 months' period for making a claim after a worker has left the employment is just an additional precaution. This is to enable workers with the disease to make the claim. To extend this period may have some technical difficulties, especially as factories are privately insured and may even change their insurers from year to year. However, as all workers exposed to silica or asbestos hazard are required to undergo yearly chest X-rays, it may not be really necessary to extend this period forever. I will, however, assure the hon. Member that the Ministry will look further into his suggestion. 2.45 p.m.

The Member for West Coast wants to know the rationale as to how the Ministry arrived at the ceiling of $1,250 per month for non-manual workers. In the derivation of this quantum, the Ministry took into account rising wages and inflation. However, even if we do not make a distinction between manual and non-manual workers, hon. Members of this House may like to know from the 1980 Labour Force Survey results that this quantum of $1,250 per month covers 994,696 manual as well as non-manual workers. This constitutes 93.05% of the total workforce. Those earning above $1,250 per month constitutes only 6.95% of the total workforce. Many in this income bracket are holding managerial, executive and confidential positions, Our work accident statistics show that non-manual workers are less subject to work accidents when compared to manual workers. It is likely that nonmanual workers in the income bracket of above $1,250 per month are even less likely to suffer from work accidents. Such workers in this bracket who are likely to meet with work injuries are those in the technical field holding professional qualifications, for example, technicians and engineers. These are the people usually covered by personal accident insurance schemes under their contracts of employment.

As for the quantum of compensation, the present rates were revised at the end of 1980 as a result of repeated representations by hon. Members of this House. They represented an increase of 30% when compared to the pre-1980 rates. The increase took into account changes in the cost of living and median monthly incomes during the period 1975 to 1979. Today, the maximum compensation of $45,000 for death is equivalent to 108 months of the present median monthly income of workers.

For injury resulting in permanent total incapacity, the maximum compensation of $60,000 is equivalent to 12 years' loss of earnings of the injured workman. Therefore, the present quantum of compensation is considered sufficient. However, the maximum compensation will be reviewed from time to time and adjusted every few years to take into account the effects of rising wages and inflation.

With regard to the Member's query regarding how our workmen's compensation quantum compares with those of the more advanced countries, I would like to say that it compares very favourably. However, bearing in mind that the cost of living is higher in these countries, it is not correct to make a straight comparison of quantum of compensation. One has therefore to look at the various schemes and make the comparison in terms of the following:

(1) the rates of payment against workers' earnings;

(2) when payments are made, for example, in Singapore, they are made during the period the worker is receiving treatment and is incapacitated from work. In developed countries such as Germany, the payment commences only from the seventh week of incapacity. This is for temporary incapacity.

In the case of a fatal accident in Singapore, compensation for death is computed as a lump sum payment and paid to the dependants of the deceased immediately. However, in the case of some advanced countries like Canada, Germany and Sweden, if the surviving spouse happens to be a man, then he is only entitled to a pension if he is an invalid and depended on his late wife for support at the time of her death.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not propose to go through the list of comparisons between our workmen's compensation and those of the advanced countries. But if the Member for West Coast would like it, we would be too pleased to send him the complete set of our research study for his perusal.

The Member for Pasir Panjang raised the question of disbursement of compensation in instalments. I would like to assure the hon. Member that this is designed to protect the interest of the injured worker or the dependants in the case of a deceased worker. The hon. Member must be referring to the POSB workmen's compensation savings scheme for injured workers and their families. This was started in June 1977. Under this scheme, the beneficiaries who are in receipt of a substantial sum of compensation usually above $10,000 are not given the full lump sum. They are paid an initial lump sum of $5,000 and the balance deposited with the POSB savings account and it is opened in their name. The POSB workmen's compensation savings account operates like any other ordinary POSB savings account except that the account holder is only allowed once a month withdrawal, the sum being determined by the Commissioner for Labour.

For dependants of a deceased workman, the monthly sum that can be withdrawn is equivalent to the last monthly earnings of the deceased workman at the time of the accident. For account holders who are injured they are allowed to withdraw a monthly sum equivalent to twice their monthly earnings as at the time of the accident during the first year and then a sum equivalent to their monthly earnings for subsequent years.

The purpose of this scheme is to ensure that beneficiaries do not squander their compensation money and thus possibly end up seeking public assistance within a few months after receiving compensation.

Another reason is to avoid the possibility that beneficiaries could be victimized or the payments dissipated if they were paid a single lump sum. Finally, the continuing needs of the disabled workman and his dependants or his surviving dependants would be better met if the benefits were of periodic payments which was based on the workman's earnings instead of a lump sum.

The hon. Member also raised the question of slowness in the disbursement of compensation to an injured worker or to the dependants of a deceased worker. The complete process of securing compensation for an injured worker starts with registration, followed by assessing the quantum of compensation, filing the claim and concluded by securing payment of compensation to the injured worker or to the dependants of a deceased worker.

The Ministry has done all it can to facilitate and to hasten payment of compensation to workers. For instance, the Workmen's Compensation Act of 1975 again was passed as a result of representation by hon. Members of this House to eradicate certain time-consuming procedures. Dependency is no longer a bone of contention under this Act. Unlike the 1971 Act under which full compensation was payable only if there had been full dependency, the 1975 Act assumes the full amount of assessed compensation will be paid regardless of whether dependency is full or partial.

Under the 1975 amendment, the Commissioner is also empowered to hear disputes and hand down an order accordingly. Previously, such cases were referred to the arbitrator for a decision which took a long time. Insurance coverage for employers liability was unsatisfactory under the 1971 Act. Often we found that insurance companies repudiated liabilities on the ground that there was a breach of insurance policy. In this respect, the 1975 Act provides a provision to attach the insurer as if he were the employer.

Interest at the rate of 1 1/2% per month was also imposed for late payments. To make employers and the insurance companies pay compensation on time, interest for late payment was increased in the 1980 amendment at the rate of 1 1/2% per month for the first six months and 3% thereafter. Again, this is the result of representation of hon. Members of this House.

Some of the trickiest problems in workmen's compensation are medical rather than legal. The medical aspect, therefore, is an important part of the administration in workmen's compensation procedures. It is the physician who can determine that the disability is the direct result of an injury sustained in the course of employment and whether treatment is necessary or not. The cases involving serious injuries, for example, crushed limbs, cannot be assessed until the injuries have healed. The physician is the competent person to determine whether the disablement is temporary or permanent. This is one factor which is outside the control of the Ministry and the delay involved is unavoidable. However, the Ministry will certainly carry on looking at ways and means to see if any action can be taken to reduce the waiting period. 3.00 p.m.

The Member for Pasir Panjang also raised the question of the need to review the list of occupational diseases in the light of changing trends in employment, as a result of newer techniques introduced into our industries. I share his sentiments. I would like to assure him that the list is certainly not exhausted, neither is the list static. For example, noise-induced deafness and industrial dermatitis were two occupational diseases which were added to the list in 1975. Other occupational diseases will be added to the list as and when they pose hazards to our workers.

We appreciate the hon. Member's suggestion that the Ministry of Labour set up an advisory committee to look into the areas of occupational health hazards. However, the hon. Member may wish to know that the Ministry already has a programme to identify new industrial health hazards. The programme consists of the following:

(a) Inspection of plans before new factories are registered to ensure that there are no environmental health hazards and sufficient precautionary measures are taken. This is carried out by our Industrial Health Unit.

(b) Regular inspection of factories which pose high health risks through periodical surveys and studies and investigation into complaints.

Besides this programme, the National Productivity Board also has an advisory committee on occupational safety and health with representatives from employers, the NTUC and professionals in the private sector and the Labour Ministry. This committee may make recommendations to the Ministry from time to time on occupational health measures. In view of these measures, we feel that setting up another advisory committee would not be really necessary. Nevertheless I would like to thank the hon. Member for his suggestion.

As regards the Member's proposal that provision be made in the Workmen's Compensation Act to cover injuries sustained by a workman representing the company in organized games after working hours, I would like to point out that the underlying principle of the Workmen's Compensation Act is to compensate the injured workman or his dependants for all work-related injuries. Participation in organized games cannot be deemed to be strictly work related. Besides they are organized as part of the welfare benefits for the recreation of workers. In most cases participation is voluntary. Therefore, the employers should not be made liable for injuries sustained in such recreational activities. However, with our move towards company welfarism, the Member may like to take the suggestion to the National Productivity Board for their consideration.

Mr Lim Boon Heng (Kebun Baru): Sir, I am in complete agreement with the Parliamentary Secretary (Labour) that early detection is preferred. However, in the case of silicosis and asbestosis, it does sometimes take a long time before the disease develops. For example, if a worker has been working in a granite quarry for five to ten years, it may well be that after another five years the symptoms of silicosis would arise. So these X-rays may not detect the disease early enough for the worker to claim compensation.

Furthermore, as far as exposure to asbestos is concerned, there is the risk of contracting the various cancers which I mentioned yesterday. These cancers take a long time to develop. So under the present Workmen's Compensation Act, those unfortunate workers who develop these diseases after the expiry of 36 months will have no recourse for compensation. So I would urge the Parliamentary Secretary to look more seriously into this matter, as he has indicated that he would.

The Parliamentary Secretary also mentioned that the assessment of compensation depends on medical opinion. The present method of assessment is based on an award given by a medical practitioner. Is this fair and equitable? Would not a panel of medical practitioners be preferred so that a fair assessment can be made?

Mr Eugene Yap Giau Cheng: Sir, first, I must profess that I am no medical practitioner. I am no expert in this field. Suffice it to say that I have received some advice from the medical doctors from the Industrial Health Unit.

The Member for Kebun Baru might like to know that, in the case of asbestosis, this industrial disease develops out of an exposure to working in the asbestos industry. There are two serious issues here. One is asbestosis and the other is cancer, as he quite correctly said. I am advised that in the case of cancer, it is very difficult in the end to say what is the cause of it because it is widely known that lung cancer is due to cigarette smoking. So when a worker develops cancer in the end, it is very difficult to tell whether he has got cancer out of exposure to asbestos or whether he has been smoking cigarettes. But I think the occupational cancer prevention programme is a more effective programme in the sense that it emphasizes prevention rather than cure. I agree that one can develop asbestosis, say, this year and it can only be detected six months later. But I think it is still best to have early detection rather than wait for it to develop fully.

Anyway I do not propose to go into a full discussion with the hon. Member for Kebun Baru on this particular topic. We have got the Industrial Health Unit. If he wants to have more details, we would be most obliged to enlighten him.

Where the award is concerned, all this boils down to whether the medical practitioner has sufficient guidelines to make a fair award when assessing injury for workmen's compensation. The existing Workmen's Compensation Act has sufficient guidelines for awarding permanent loss. If the Member for Kebun Baru looks at the First Schedule, he will find that it lists out the rates for loss of earning capacity. There have been some variations in awards made by doctors where the injury sustained results in a partial dysfunction of the limbs. The Ministry has issued guidelines for assessment to ensure that the awards given by doctors are fair and uniform.

Mr Lim Boon Heng: Sir, since the Parliamentary Secretary has indicated that he would like to continue with the debate outside this House, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Encik Abbas Abu Amin: Sir, I beg to move,

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

Sir, the importance of safety of the workers in industry need no further elaboration. Any accident in the workplace would not only cost the loss of manhours, thus affecting productivity but also the lives of the workers. It is inevitable, therefore, that there is a need to continue to maintain a high standard of safety consciousness among all concerned, management, supervisors and workers.

In this respect, I would like to commend the efforts of the Inspectorate of the Ministry of Labour for constantly striving to upgrade safety measures in the industrial environment. I understand that in some shipyards, safety consciousness is so ingrained in the employees that a safety committee is formed for every vessel under repair. I feel that this idea of self-regulatory measure is praiseworthy and should be extended to the woodwork, construction and metal industries which are heavily accident prone.

At this juncture, I would like to know if there are sufficient inspectors available to check and monitor the effectiveness of the safety measures implemented at the various factories or industries.

It is vital that courses on industrial safety be conducted to enhance the level of safety consciousness among workers and man- agement. In this connection, I gather that the Inspectorate from the Labour Ministry had done yeomen's services, especially to Advisory Committees, to plan and organize safety instruction courses. Unions have also been conducting on-going courses on safety. But due to the large number of personnel involved, the courses could not possibly be conducted with the desired intensity. May I suggest perhaps the Ministry of Labour could consider requesting the National Productivity Board to assist in conducting courses on safety.

Sir, I would now like to touch on the question of safety officers. I believe certain categories of heavy industries are required to have safety officers. But some of these industries are unable to get suitable personnel as the qualifications stipulated in the Factories (Qualifications and Training of Safety Officers) Regulations 1975 are extremely high. I would like to know what steps are being taken to improve or increase the number of safety officers. In the meantime, perhaps safety officers who do not possess the necessary paper qualifications but have the relevant working and ground experience could be considered for registration. These officers could then supervise and improve on the safety aspects of the industries, thus offering confidence and assurance to the workers that their welfare and safety is always being taken care of by all concerned.

The Minister of State for Labour (Dr Wong Kwei Cheong): Sir, I would like to thank the hon. Member for Pasir Panjang for his concern over the industrial safety of our workers. On the point made that the formation of safety committees be extended to the woodworking, construction and metal-working industries, the hon. Member may wish to know that the Factories Act does provide for the formation of safety committees at any factory which employs more than 50 members. This provision covers the woodworking, metal-working and construction industries. 3.15 p.m.

I also share the hon. Member's concern over the sufficiency of inspectors available to check and monitor the effectiveness of the safety measures at workplaces. The Factory Inspectorate presently has an established strength of 64 inspectors, It manages to effectively monitor safety measures at workplaces through a scheme of selective enforcement. In this -scheme, factories and industries which have been identified to be hazardous are inspected more frequently than those that are less hazardous. For instance, large shipyards are inspected as frequently as once a week. To maintain the present level of surveillance, the Inspectorate is sufficiently staffed.

The Member also asked about safety officers. Under the current legislation, about 240 safety officers are needed to meet the demand of factories which are required to employ safety officers. At present, the Ministry has registered about 150 safety officers. The shortage of 90 safety officers is expected to be overcome in the near future when the trainees from the next few batches of the National Productivity Board's safety officers training courses successfully complete the course. To enable safety personnel who do not possess the requisite academic qualifications but with the relevant experience to be trained as safety officers, the National Productivity Board has also conducted a pre-qualifying examination in January this year. Successful candidates will be accepted for the safety officers training course and will be eligible for registration on completion of the training. In addition, to ensure an adequate supply of safety officers, the National Productivity Board will step up the training of safety officers.

The Ministry is also reviewing the need for the services of safety officers for the various industries and the legislation on the requirements of prerequisite qualifications and duties of safety officers to be employed by the various industries.

The Member for Pasir Panjang also mentioned about safety courses to be run for workers by the National Productivity Board. I am pleased to inform the hon. Member that the NPB is already conducting safety courses for managers, supervisors and workers as follows.

In 1980, a total of 20 training programmes were conducted for a total of 572 participants. Last year, in 1981 a total of 229 training programmes were conducted for a total of 11,555 participants.

Encik Abbas Abu Amin: Sir, in view of the assurance given by the Minister of State, I beg to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Dr Chau Sik Ting (Thomson): 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*.

Before I speak on this amendment, Sir, I wish to state that I am involved in industrial medical practice as well as in the National University of Singapore Post-Graduate M.Sc. course on Occupational medicine.

Sir, last year in my maiden speech I raised the question of widening the scope of statutory medical examination from the present four to include two or more areas of risk, and also the question of introducing a system of designated factory doctors who would be competent to perform this statutory medical examination. The Minister for Labour indicated that he would look into them. Since then, a year has passed and I would like to know what has happened to the follow-up of these two items.

What I stated last year in brief is this. As far as I knew, statutory medical examinations were required for four areas of risk, namely, exposure to ionizing radiation, asbestos, silicosis and benzene. There were, however, other important areas of risk which were glaringly left out. The 1980 figures of notifiable industrial diseases showed that industrial dermatitis headed the list with 255 cases and noise-induced deafness a close second with 229 cases, and compressed air illness ranking third with 25 cases. For 1981, I believe the pattern is the same with perhaps far more cases of industrial dermatitis notified.

I mentioned that these areas of risk, namely, workers exposed to industrial der- matitis and noise-induced deafness should have the protection of statutory medical examinations. I also mentioned that statutory medical examinations of workers should be done by professionally competent doctors. At present, the majority of doctors looking after industries are general practitioners with little training in dealing with occupational diseases. They are mainly concerned with treatment of common ailments and they lack the essential skills to institute preventive measures. There is therefore a need for these general practitioners to receive further training in occupational health so that they can become designated factory doctors (DFDs) required for statutory medical examinations.

Sir, I have proposed that such a designated factory doctor system should be introduced. Having said that, my question therefore is: after a lapse of one year, what has really happened to the follow-up of this item? Sometime last year the Minister for Health mooted a long-term 20-year national health plan for Singapore. More recently the idea of company welfarism, which included medical care for employees as one of its basic tenets, was promoted. These plans are very commend- able for its foresight and aims.

What I want to do now is to underline the growing importance of looking after the health of the ever-expanding industrial population. It is not necessary to belabour the point that since we began to industrialize in the early sixties our industrial population in the manufacturing sector has increased substantially. Higher technology, and newer materials and newer industries have introduced into the workplace new materials, new chemicals, new processes in the form of heat, dust, vapours, fumes, noise, vibration and radiation. Workers are subject to the exposure of such hazards for six to eight hours a day and every day of their working lives. It is fortunate that the industrial disease figures for the past five years do not give a grim picture of the situation. But this is largely because of the fact that many occupational diseases have a long latency period of between five, 10 and even 20 years after initial exposure before they begin to appear.

There is the lack of recognition of dangers of certain industrial exposure. For example, most people can perceive the imminent danger from an unguarded blade of a rotary saw but it is not so easy to perceive the latent danger contained in a brief exposure to asbestos dust for it may take 15 to 20 years for the asbestos to cause a lung tumour and finally death. The probability of dying from lung cancer due to exposure to asbestos dust is just as great as dying from an accident with an unguarded rotary saw. I would therefore like to inquire from the Ministry of Labour, which is responsible for the health of workers, whether it has taken a similar 20-year long range look at the health care for the most important segment of our population, namely, the industrial population, and if it has done so, whether it would make public the profile of the plan and the directions the health care of workers should take so that it could be included in the 20-year national health plan when its details are formally announced by the Ministry of Health in the near future.

Dr Ang Kok Peng (Buona Vista): Sir, like the hon. Member for Pasir Panjang and the hon. Member for Thomson, I attach great importance to the occupational safety and health of our workers. I share their concern regarding the various matters raised by them and wish to seek clarification on one other matter and, that is, the reason for not going ahead with the original proposal to establish an Institute of Occupational Safety and Health.

I believe sometime last year the idea of an Institute was dropped and the functions of the proposed institute were assigned to the National Productivity Board. Now that the promotion of the occupational safety and health of our workers comes under the purview of the National Productivity Board I would like to ask the Minister what has the NPB done so far and what plans are in the pipeline for discharging this responsibility and whether there are enough experts available in Singapore for implementing his plans.

Dr Wong Kwei Cheong: Sir, the Member for Thomson touched upon compulsory medical examinations as well as designated factory doctors. However, I have to clarify that the health of workers is the responsibility of the Ministry of Health. The Ministry of Labour will take care of the industrial health and safety of workers.

The Ministry of Labour intends to introduce compulsory medical examinations, as suggested by the Member, so as to cover a range of industrial occupations with specific health hazards, such as work involving exposure to arsenic, cadmium, cotton and lead. The Member for Thomson is correct in saying that many industrial diseases, such as noise-induced deafness, silicosis and asbestosis, develop gradually over a number of years. Thus, regular periodical medical examinations of workers exposed to such hazards would detect the diseases in the early stages when remedial action could be taken. Singapore will not be unique in introducing compulsory medical examination. In other countries, such as the US, the UK and several European countries, compulsory medical examinations have been in practice for years. In Australia there is also prescribed examination for specific occupations. 3.30 p.m.

With the introduction of compulsory medical examinations, the Ministry agrees with the Member for Thomson that certain doctors be designated factory doctors for the purpose of carrying out such examinations. The Ministry plans to arrange with the National Productivity Board and the National University of Singapore to run short part-time training courses to equip doctors in the carrying out of the prescribed examinations, interpretation of results, and in advising factory occupiers on the prevention of occupational diseases. From time to time the Ministry will also be issuing guidelines to assist doctors in their role in advising industry on occupational health.

The reason why we have to designate doctors and to provide them with additional training is that the curriculum for the under-graduate training of doctors is inadequate in the field of occupational health. This is found to be so even in other countries, for example, in Scandinavian countries, training is provided to doctors who want to specialize in occupational health. However, even with designated factory doctors, doctors who have not undergone any training in occupational health can continue to assist in providing curative services to the workers. Amendments to the Factories Act are now being drafted. Following these amendments, regulations for such statutory medical examinations will be introduced.

Coming now to the Member for Buona Vista on his queries on the Singapore Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (SINOSH). SINOSH was to be established to promote awareness of industrial safety and health and to provide training, consultancy and research in industrial safety and health. A study of other institutes in the United States, France, Japan and India showed that such institutes undertook mainly research in industrial health and safety problems. Promotion, training and consultancy were secondary activities which were undertaken by governments, voluntary private institutions and private employers. In view of this, it was considered not necessary to establish an institute to undertake promotion, training, consultancy and research in industrial safety and health. Moreover, the National Productivity Board is already undertaking a large part of training in industrial safety and health. It was, therefore, decided not to proceed with the setting up of SINOSH and to allow NPB to discharge the functions of SINOSH.

The Ministry of Labour, therefore, in November 1981 transferred the approved posts, and planned activities for SINOSH to NPB. Since then, NPB has established a new unit, the Occupational Safety & Health Unit to undertake the activities envisaged for SINOSH. In addition, an Advisory Committee on Occupational Safety & Health has been formed to advise and assist NPB in the planning and implementation of these activities. In 1981, NPB conducted safety training courses for managers and supervisors in the shipyard, construction and general manufacturing industries. A one-day safety instruction course was also mounted for shipyard workers to educate them on safe working habits while at work. About 6,900 workers were trained, Besides this, a top management seminar on safety in petrochemical plan operations was organized in November 1981 for 63 management executives. NPB also hosted a regional seminar on industrial safety and health sponsored by the Asian Productivity Organization. Twenty-five participants from the member countries and Singapore participated in the week-long seminar.

In the coming years, NPB will further upgrade its safety training programmes. 300 safety officers will be trained over the next five years. The training of Safety Committee members will be introduced. NPB is also in the process of recruiting medical personnel for its occupational health activities and is looking for suitable premises to house its occupational health laboratory and facilities. The target is to train 120 Industrial Hygienists, 19 nurses and 100 workers working in industries within the next five years. Promotional activities, such as seminars, campaigns and publications, will be launched to create a conducive atmosphere for the adoption of safe work procedures.

Dr Chau Sik Ting: Mr Speaker, Sir, first, do I understand that workers exposed to noise-induced deafness will soon have the protection of statutory medical examinations? Adding this on to the list of occupational diseases does not mean that it has the protection of statutory medical examinations.

Secondly, since the Hon. Minister of State has not indicated any long-range plan for preventive health care for workers similar to the proposed 20-year National Health Plan, is the Ministry of Labour in close touch with the Ministry of Health in the formulation of a preventive health care programme for workers so that it can be reflected in the 20-year National Health Plan?

Dr Ang Kok Peng: Mr Speaker, Sir, would the Minister of State consider the formation of an association for the prevention of industrial accidents to facilitate liaison and dialogue among all interested parties?

Dr Wong Kwei Cheong: Mr Speaker, Sir, in Singapore, 2,184 cases of noise-induced deafness have, so far, been confirmed. The Ministry certainly feels that noise-induced deafness should have the protection of a statutory medical examination.

As regards the second question by the Member for Thomson, we believe that the Ministry of Health is taking into account the preventive health care of workers in its 20-year National Health Plan and the Ministry of Labour will certainly consult with them on this subject.

Coming to the Member for Buona Vista on his suggestion of forming an association for the prevention of industrial accidents, the Ministry will certainly look into this matter.

Dr Chau Sik Ting: Sir, in view of the Hon. Minister of State's brief but very positive answers, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Bernard Chen (Clementi): Sir, I beg to move,

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

Sir, the Minister for Trade and Industry in his Budget Statement this year indicated that that there is a slackening of labour demand because of both the economic downturn in Singapore as well as policies arising from economic restructuring. The annual Economic Survey also shows that the unemployment registration rate has increased by 1% over last year to 3.9% at the end of 1981.

We are in an enviable position as being one of the few countries in the world which worries about a rise in unemployment rate of 1%, while other countries more endowed than us have to worry about increases ranging from 5 to 10%, which is also a demonstration that our workers are much well looked after than those in other countries.

In an overheated economic situation, the tightness of the labour market is detrimental to economic progress because it induces high wages without a corresponding increase in productivity as well as frustrating training attempts by employers who want to impart better skills and higher skills to their workers. The present trend of a slight rise in the unemployment rate is, ironically, a welcome relief to both employers and workers. It is also quite possible that part of the productivity improvement in 1981 was due to workers having to worry about their jobs and, therefore, stayed longer in their particular workplaces.

What I would like to address the Ministry of Labour is, where does this slackening of labour occur? Is it in the trained labour area or does it involve relatively unskilled labour? How much of it is due to economic downturn influenced by world recession and how much of it is due to our policy on economic restructuring? Arising from this slack, is there any requirement or need for retraining because we cannot assume that labour is completely mobile? In particular, workers who have been displaced from the lower skill industries may require retraining before they can be absorbed by industries which have a higher skill content. This is important, otherwise we may find pools of workers who do not belong to either the labour-intensive industries or the relatively higher skill industries. If this pool of labour, if it exists, is not completely substitutable in terms of skill and experience, we would have to depend on the import of certain categories of foreign labour for some time to come, especially those with higher skills who will have to continue to work in our factories. Is there, therefore, a policy by the Ministry of Labour to differentiate foreign labour according to their skill levels? This is especially so at the artisan and technician levels where because of the long time needed for the training programmes that we ourselves are implementing, it will be some time before we can meet the supply or demand by our various industries. I hope the Minister of State for Labour can enlighten the House on these various matters.

Mr Eugene Yap Giau Cheng: Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to reply on behalf of the Minister? First, I would like to thank the Member for Clementi for raising some very relevant points regarding the employment of skilled workers in the light of the easing off of the labour market. The unemployment rate of 3.9%, as has been mentioned in the 1981 Economic Survey report, was estimated by the Ministry of Trade and Industry. The Survey did not provide any indication of whether the rise in unemployment was in the skilled or the unskilled area. However, the data from the Ministry of Labour Force Survey conducted in 1981 will be available soon. My Ministry will be pleased to provide the Member for Clementi with the information on the unemployment figures which will be of interest to him. 3.45 p.m.

On the question of whether our training programmes can produce sufficient skilled workers to meet the demand, the hon. Member may wish to know that our training facilities have been expanded over the years. I would like to assure the hon. Member that the Government will spare no effort in providing facilities for the training and the retraining of workers. I understand from my colleague, the Minister of State of Education, that firms are sending employees to the VITB for further training under the NTC2 apprenticeship scheme. This scheme is supported up to 70% of the employee's salary by the Skills Development Fund. Some of these people are sent for upgrading. Others for retraining to new skills.

I must also thank the Member for Clementi for his suggestion regarding dependence on some higher skilled foreign workers. The Ministry is working out a comprehensive long-term policy on foreign workers in Singapore. We will certainly bear his suggestion in mind.

Mr Bernard Chen: Mr Speaker, Sir, find it strange to see that the Ministry of Trade and Industry can produce the statistics on 2nd March on the unemployment rate and we have to wait till June to see the Labour Force Survey. But I look forward to receiving a copy of it from the Parliamentary Secretary should and when it is ready.

Sir, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The following amendments stood on the Order Paper Supplement -

Mr M.K.A. Jabbar: (10) That the sum to be allocated for Head R be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead RE-02 of the Main Estimates.

Mr S. Chandra Das:

Encik Saidi Haji Shariff: (11) That the sum to be allocated for Head R be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead RE-02 of the Main Estimates.

The Chairman: Mr Jabbar has withdrawn amendment (10). Amendment (11), Mr Chandra Das is not moving. Encik Saidi.

Encik Saidi Haji Shariff (Kaki Bukit): I am not moving, Sir.

The Chairman: Amendment (12), Encik Othman.

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

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

With the drive towards higher productivity in the 80's, the increase in the provision for the National Productivity Board is encouraging. Increased productivity will ensure that our goods will still be competitive in price and quality in the international market. However, the Board's training programme should not be geared towards management and supervisory staff training only. More attention should be given to the training of junior staff and line workers. The Board has started training programmes for quality control circle members and work excellence committee members. These training courses will involve the managers, the supervisors and workers. Training them together will help to promote team work and team spirit and in the long run will help to create better labour-management relations at the various workplaces.

I would like to ask the Board to consider allocating more of its resources to the organization of these types of training courses.

Dr Wong Kwei Cheong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am replying on behalf of my Minister.

The National Productivity Board emphasizes on skills training and its training courses cover not only management and supervisory staff but also different levels of workers as suggested by the Member for Geylang Serai. For example, the NPB has a supervisory development programme designed for line supervisors and section leaders to upgrade their skills in supervising and motivating workers. It has also developed training programmes to promote team spirit and better labour-management relations, for example, quality control circles and work excellence committees which are meant not only for managers but also supervisors and workers.

The NPB also offers a series of courses for workers in occupational safety and health. However, training resources can be best utilized through the training of trainers to achieve a multiplier effect. The NPB therefore aims to train the core management and supervisory personnel from companies and, in turn, these people will provide the necessary in-house training or on-the-job training for the other personnel and workers within their companies.

Encik Othman bin Haron Eusofe: Sir, does the NPB monitor whether the supervisors whom they have trained continue to train other workers at the various workplaces?

Dr Wong Kwei Cheong: Sir, the answer is yes.

Encik Othman bin Haron Eusofe: Sir, I would like to thank the Hon. Minister of State for Labour. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman: May I indicate to hon. Members that the guillotine time for this Head is 4.40 p.m. Four Members have given notice to speak on the next Amendment (13)* Mr Lim.

Mr Lim Boon Heng: Sir, I beg to move,

That the total sum to be allocated for Head R of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100.*

Yesterday in this House, the Hon. Minister in reply to the Member for West Coast stated that the Ministry of Labour is currently examining existing labour legislations with a view to making amendments to reflect the current situation in Singapore. I would like to take this opportunity to highlight some of the areas which the Ministry could look into.

First, the Trade Unions Act presently defines a trade union as an organization. which has one or more of the following objects:

'(a) the regulation of relations between workmen and employers, or between workmen and workmen or between employers and employers; or

(b) the imposing of restrictive conditions on the conduct of any trade or business; or

(c) the representation of either workmen or employers in trade disputes; or

(d) the promotion or organization or financing of strikes or lock-outs in any trade or industry or the provision of pay or other benefits for its members during a strike or lock-out.'

Sir, I think it is time that we examined these objects. Take the last one, for example. The right to strike is the ultimate right of workers to seek redress of any industrial dispute. However, the promotion or organization of strikes cannot be the sole objective of a trade union. It is inconceivable that a trade union is formed purely for the promotion or organization of strikes. A strike is a means to an end and not an object to be pursued for its own sake. Therefore, this section of the Trade Unions Act would require amendment. While the Ministry is looking into this area, they should also take the opportunity to redefine correctly the objects of a trade union, which is to protect and enhance the welfare of employees. In connection with this, another object of the trade union should be the promotion of team work and better industrial relations within the enterprise.

Secondly, our labour legislation defines an employee as a person who works under a contract of service and if he is not a manager or an executive or doing confidential work. By and large, the practice in Singapore is that so long as a person is holding managerial or executive post or doing confidential work, that person is debarred from joining a trade union. Sir, an industrial enterprise comprises of three elements: employees who put in the work; capital owners who provide the machinery, equipment and so on; and management whose function is to combine labour and capital to a productive and profitable unit. We may therefore define an employee as one who works for another for a salary. The employees of a company include both the management as well as the workers. Each employee has a function in the company and this function is dependent on his position in the company. As such, every person employed in the company is an employee.

The present definition of bargainable employees who are eligible to join trade union is therefore unnecessarily restrictive. I am afraid that the definition results in the polarisation of perceived roles in the company encouraging the "them" and "us" attitude. If we are to foster teamwork in the enterprise, it is necessary for us to blur this distinction. This idea is not a new one. In Western Germany, anybody who works for somebody else and earns a salary is defined as an employee and he has a right to join a trade union. In fact, the person can remain a member of the trade union even if he holds a managerial position. A classic example of a person remaining in a trade union is that of the Chief of Police. The Chief of Police was a union member and a union official until the day he was appointed the Chief of Police and he had to step down because of conflict of interest. I think for us to achieve this kind of identification with workers would take some time. But the first step that we can take is to redefine the employee so that the composition of trade union members can include at least the lower management level. It is when employees in a company are able to identify themselves as colleagues that we will succeed in fostering teamwork. I hope the Minister will seriously consider taking steps to redefine the scope of trade union membership.

My next suggestion is to ask the Ministry to look into the problems arising from termination of contract of service. Sir, under the existing legislation, i.e. the Employment Act and the Industrial Relations Act, workers who are dismissed or whose services are terminated by their employers other than on grounds of retrenchment are allowed to appeal to the Minister for Labour for reinstatement. Although such rights are given under the law, some unscrupulous employers could take advantage of the provisions in the laws by terminating the service of the employee without valid reason. As far as termination of contract of service is concerned, theoretically speaking, both parties are free to do so if they wish to terminate such contract. However, the individual employee is in a much weaker position compared with the employer. When the employee leaves the service of the company, it is not a serious problem for the employer as he can always engage another worker to replace him. They have the human and financial resources to easily overcome this setback. 4.00 p.m.

However, if the employer terminates the service of the employee, it would be a very serious affair for the employee concerned as his livelihood would be adversely affected, especially if he is also the sole breadwinner.

It is with this social and economic consideration that greater care should be given by the Minister to employees whose services are terminated by the employers without valid ground. If an employee's service is terminated because of misconduct, redundancy or retrenchment, these cases are already covered by other provisions in the laws.

I am more concerned with cases where an employee's service is terminated without valid reasons. For such cases, I would like to suggest to the Hon. Minister for Labour to carefully examine the appeal cases to ensure that the employers do not abuse their prerogative and that the interests of the workers are safeguarded. Further, I would like to suggest that if a termination case is made without valid reasons, the employee should be accorded compensation no less favourable than retrenchment cases. I think it is time that we looked into this area to see whether we could protect the interests of workers by instituting legislation.

Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam (Anson): Sir, in view of questions that have been asked of me, I suppose I should tell you that I am at the moment acting in cases of wrongful dismissal by employers. I take it that that would not preclude me from moving this amendment.

The Chairman: So long as you declare your pecuniary interest.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. I myself do not think there is direct pecuniary interest. But be that as it may.

Sir, I do not wish to go over all the matters that have been raised by the various speakers in moving their amendments but, as the last hon. Member said, I would like to present to the Minister certain considerations that he should have when it comes to amending the labour legislation which he says his Ministry has in mind.

Sir, let us not forget in this House the debt that we owe to our workers. It has been said not by any left-wing organization but by a right-wing paper, the Economist, that the trade union movement in Singapore, the workers comprising the trade unions, were the cradle of the independence movement in Singapore. They spearheaded the drive for our independence. So it is largely through what they did that Singapore was able to get its independence. In those days, Sir, there were people who championed the rights of the workers and among them was our Prime Minister. He was in the forefront of the workers' rights, championing them, pleading for a better cause for our workers in Singapore.

It is my thesis in this short time that I have, to try and show that after 1959 and beginning particularly from the year 1968, there has been a steady erosion of our workers' rights and their privileges and benefits. They have been whittled down to such a state that today our workers are largely at the mercy of their employers.

I am sorry to say that there is a general feeling among our workers that the Ministry of Labour is not holding the scales firmly when it comes to any dispute between the employer and the employee. I have heard of these grievances from many a quarter, of the dissatisfaction felt on the part played by the Ministry of Labour in solving their disputes. It has often been said that the Ministry is only too ready to lend its ear to whatever is said by the employer and the companies but not to what is said by the worker.

I have said about the erosion of the rights of the workers, and I said it began in 1968. In that year, Sir, we saw the removal from the area of negotiations in collective agreement a number of matters that pertained to the welfare and rights of workers. The trade unions were no longer given any right to include, in their memoranda to the employers for the collective agreement, matters which pertained to the right of termination, dismissal and a number of other matters which were set out.

In that same year, Sir, we saw the passing of the Employment Act, which should perhaps be called the Employers Act, which, together with the Industrial Relations Act, allowed the employer to hire and fire workers at their will. Workers lost their tenure of employment with these changes. We have seen gradually over the years the emasculation of the trade union movement in Singapore.

Singapore is unique in that it must be the only country - I may be wrong, I would like to be told where else this practice prevails - where the head of the trade union movement, the Secretary-General who leads the workers, is also a Minister of the Government. I should have thought there was an apparent conflict of interest, the Government being the biggest employer of labour.

But be that as it may, the trade unions have been reduced to going along very largely with whatever has been dictated or decided upon elsewhere. Is it any wonder that the trade unions have now departed from their traditional role of protecting the welfare of their workers whom they represent, to venture into businesses and other areas? Their role is to look after the workers, and perhaps they feel that there is nothing they can do in Singapore about this.

Attention has been drawn in this House to the insecurity of tenure of employment. I have myself drawn attention to this. I do not propose to repeat this. But I would just like to say this. The Minister was candid enough to say yesterday, in reply to this question about the man who was dismissed for having the same name as the employer, that the employer had indicated to the Ministry that he was not prepared to reinstate him.

Mr Ong Teng Cheong: The employee did not want to go back.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I thought it was the employer, you said.

Mr Ong Teng Cheong: The employee.

Mr Jeyaretnam: The employee did not want to go back? Oh, I am sorry, I withdraw that.

This power that has been given to the Minister is all very well, Sir, provided also that the employee is notified of the representations made by the employer to the Minister and the reasons why the Minister is unable, having looked at the representations made by the employer and the em- ployee, to order reinstatement. I do not know at the present time that the representations of the company are supplied to the employee, where there is an appeal.

The Chairman: You have one more minute, Mr Jeyaretnam.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Sir, that is one. And the Minister spoke of the powers that there are in the various Acts against employers who try and stand in the way of the workers. Of course, there are these provisions but the question is, what is the Ministry doing to enforce all these provisions? I have yet to see a prosecution in Singapore of an employer for thwarting any union formation in the company or for victimising employees for joining unions. We were told about the raids that were made on worksites. We were told that no one has been prosecuted.

The Chairman: Your time is up, Mr Jeyaretnam. Mr Sia.

Mr Sia Khoon Seong (Moulmein): Sir, the Member for Anson has chosen this occasion to attack the trade union movement of which I am an official. So I thought I might as well take the opportunity to answer some of his criticisms rather than leaving it to the Minister for Labour to do so.

The Chairman: All right. Carry on.

Mr Sia Khoon Seong: I think the Member has said that the trade union movement since 1968 has departed from its traditional role of protecting and advancing the workers' interests and has gone into business ventures. I think he has got it quite wrong. Since 1968 the trade union movement has expanded its role. It has not departed from its traditional role. The fundamental role of the trade union movement today, as represented by the NTUC, is still to protect, to advance and to safeguard the interests of the workers. But it believes that in addition to this role of a bargaining institution, it should also expand its role to that of a social institution. It should also have a place to play and an influential role to play in the various social, political and economic spheres in Singapore's development. It has expanded this role to meet this new challenge in this new era in which the trade union movement in Singapore has been given that challenge, and the right to participate.

I think the comment about the Secretary-General being a Minister in the Govern- ment has been explained quite explicitly by the Prime Minister, accepted by the trade union movement -

An hon. Member: By the leaders.

Mr Sia Khoon Seong: By the leaders. The Secretary-General of the NTUC is subject to a triennial delegates' conference of the NTUC and the delegates are elected by the trade unions through a secret ballot, and once in three years they elect the office bearers. The Secretary-General of the NTUC, like any official of the NTUC has got to subject himself to all the rigours of a secret ballot. There is no doubt about the bona fides of its decision and the reason why we should have a Minister there is simple - that the interests and the welfare of the workers can be best advanced at the Cabinet meetings where decisions are made on matters relating to labour. What better place than at the very place where the decisions are made? I think there is this advantage. And if the Secretary-General of the NTUC does not fulfil that role properly, he will be rejected by the trade union movement, and to his credit he has so far acquitted himself well and he has enjoyed the support of the trade union movement. What is so wrong about it? 4.15 p.m.

The Member says that since 1968 there has been a steady erosion of the workers' rights. This is his opinion. But what is important is not only the opinion of the trade union leaders but also that of the workers in Singapore. Let us go by the statistics. In 1968 there were something like 85,000 workers who belonged to trade unions affiliated to NTUC and, as everybody in Singapore knows, nobody is compelled to join a trade union. You can join as freely as you can resign from a trade union movement. Today it has got 220,000 members and workers in Singapore today are sophisticated enough to know whether the leaders who lead them are working in their interest or working against their interest, and they would show their support for their leaders by identifying themselves with their movement. The fact that today the membership of the trade union movement has increased from 85,000 to 220,000 -

Mr Jeyaretnam: Compulsory deduction from the pay packet.

Mr Sia Khoon Seong: That has got nothing to do with a worker's decision to join or not to join the trade union. And there is no compulsory deduction. He has got to give his authorization to indicate that he wants his subscriptions to be deducted through the check-off system. If he does not give that authorization, it is not done so. There is no compulsion there. There is a willingness on the part of the workers to do so. No one is compelled to do so. It is on the volition of the workers that all these things are happening. If these are not clear indications that the trade union movement has enjoyed the support of the workers, what other indications there are.

On this question of the right to hire and fire, I think an explanation was also given when the Employment Act was introduced in 1968. The trade unions did express some reservations about the possible abuse but they were given assurances by the then Minister for Labour and the Prime Minister that the Ministry of Labour would observe and monitor the enforcement of this employment legislation with respect to this particular feature of the employment legislation to hire and fire and that there would be no abuse. I was just reading through some reports and I found that over the last 10 years the various Ministers for Labour had made something like 39 ministerial orders ordering some 100-odd reinstatements and there were about over 100 cases where unions and managements negotiated over dismissals and quite a number of them were reinstated whereas the others were given compensation.

With the trade union movement, I think there was some measure of protection. The NTUC has fulfilled its role religiously and has not, as accused by the Member for Anson, failed the workers. In fact, as an indication of their support, members of the trade unions affiliated to NTUC have shown their approval of the leaders of the trade union movement cooperating with the Government, with the employers, so that Singapore can be made more favourable as a place for investment, that we can continue with our industrialization expansion, and that every worker and every son and daughter of every worker will have a future security of employment. It is with this very great and noble national objective that the trade unions have gone into cooperation with the Government and employers towards creating a harmonious atmosphere in Singapore.

Of course, we are not always in agreement with the Government in all that they do. We have privately, sometimes through official meetings and sometimes in Parliament and, as indicated by the Member for Kebun Baru and the Member for West Coast who are trade union MPs, they have even at this stage brought up reservations and the need for certain reviews to be made. We are constantly aware that sometimes there could be abuses and we have always never failed to bring this to the attention of the Minister for Labour or the Ministry officials. Nothing is perfect. We are aware that there are certain shortcomings. We are aware that the trade union movement is not at a most ideal stage of development. But I think the NTUC today, though it is small as compared to many trade union movements in the world, has got every reason to be proud of its achievements.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Sia Khoon Seong: And we are proud to have a Secretary-General who is a Minister in the Cabinet, and we know that the present Secretary-General would not betray the workers in the Cabinet because if he does that - it is not in his nature to do this but if someone like him were to do that - the workers finally will reject him. Every three years the Secretary-General must subject himself to a secret ballot to get himself to be in that position and to enjoy the confidence of the workers.

Mr Lim Chee Onn (Bukit Merah) (Minister): Sir, although my name is not down on the speaking list, I beg your indulgence for me to intervene at this juncture.

I would like to respond to the remarks made by the Member for Anson but in view of the rather short time I have - I have to divide 20 minutes between myself and the Minister for Labour - I would just touch on two points briefly.

First, it is very clear to everyone here and to all those who follow the proceedings in Parliament, that the Member for Anson is really more concerned about the form rather than the substance in many, if not all, of the issues he has brought up. In this particular case, he was very concerned about the types of legislation we have, the types of unions we have, the rights and the privileges. He did not mention anything about obligations, mind you.

I would like to ask him: Is the form more important than the substance? Surely, legislation is there to serve us, not the other way round. If we say, and if he does assert, that workers from the past - he claims from 1959 or 1968 - to the present had laboured under the burden of oppressive legislation and controlled unions, then may I ask him: Is it really true that workers throughout the past 23 years have not benefited, not just in creature comforts but in the trade union movement itself; in the capacity of the unions, the workers and unionists to participate in our economic development?

He, I presume, although he has not said so specifically, was comparing our system with the British system just as he did yesterday when the quoted reports made by some British Labour Party Councillors. I would like to alert him, if he has not found out yet, that workers and unionists in Britain today are fed up to the teeth about the British style of unionism, In fact, according to one of the reports published recently, the workers themselves are making a move to change the whole structure of the union movement and make it conform to something more akin to what we have in Singapore.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Lim Chee Onn: And here we have a Member of Parliament, someone who presumably is not short of grey matter, advocating that we should follow the British and go down the drain the way they are going. Is he really speaking out for the workers? I dare say he is not. Probably he is just looking for publicity.

Some hon. Members: Yes.

Mr Jeyaretnam: On a point of order, Sir.

The Chairman: On what point of order, Mr Jeyaretnam?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Sir, is it proper for the speaker to impute motives that I am here for the sake of publicity? Is that in order under the Standing Orders, Sir?

Mr Lim Chee Onn: Sir, I did not say he was here for publicity. I thought I said he made a point for publicity, to gain the attention of the workers. Sir, may I speak because time is running out? I do not know whether this is part of his delaying tactics.

Sir, I would like to refer you to a table which I have showing that workers and Singaporeans in general have progressed during the past 20 years. It shows that workers not only have jobs but they have better jobs under the regime we are practising. The Table (Cols. 1503 - 1504) I have indicates the contributors to the CPF by wage levels. Just as a very broad guideline, in 1965 - I think that is about the period the Member for Anson was referring to - workers earning below $200 made up some 63%. Workers earning over $500 in 1965 accounted for only 8.1% of all those who were contributing to CPF. In 1980, those earning under $200 made up only 7.4% while those earning over $500 numbered over 45%. Of course, for the levels in between I think he can work out the figures. To me this is a very clear indication that workers have indeed progressed. Table - Contributors to the Central Provident Fund by Wage Level (Cols. 1503 - 1504)

The other point I would like to touch on in the three minutes I have left is this preoccupation with the legislation. If job creation, a better standard of living, and a better way of life can be achieved by a simple change of the law, then I would say that workers in Sri Lanka, in India, in Jamaica and a variety of nations now currently struggling to provide a better standard of living for their workers, ought not to be in any trouble. All they have to do is to just change the law, as advocated by the Member for Anson. Perhaps if the Member so offers himself, he may even get a job to draft the legislation. Whatever he said has been said, I think, with some malice because if he asserts that workers have not succeeded in acquiring a better standard of living, can he show figures? Up to now, during the sittings over the past six days,[ believe, he has made assertions time and time again without a single figure being shown.

I would like to challenge him to produce figures, whether it is his Party's figures or his personal figures - I hope he will go back to his favourite housewife for a quick check - to show that workers indeed today are worse off than in 1959 or 1965.

Finally, I would like to add to what my colleague, the Member for Moulmein has said although it may be a bit odd for me to say so on my own behalf, and that is, I am subject to election in the NTUC, and for his information, the next election is on 27th April. I would welcome any challenge which any member of the Workers Party or any friends or workers who are close to the Member for Anson, to stand for election and then do something about it since he is so disenchanted with the present labour movement. I will stand too and let us see who the workers will select. [Applause].

Dr Wan Soon Bee: Sir, I am just a little bit concerned after hearing what the Member for Anson has said. I think our Minister without Portfolio has been rather kind to him when he said that the Member is more concerned about the form than the substance. From my point of view, it appears to me that either he does not really understand the meaning of industrial peace and orderly conduct of industrial relations and cooperation between labour and management or he has the habit to mislead the people, and in this case, he is trying to mislead the workers so that he can create confusion in the interest of the opposition party because only in those circumstances there is a hope that they may emerge the victor. 4.30 p.m.

But I am confident that our workers are not so stupid as to believe what he has said. They have seen the results of the legislation passed and the raising of the standard of living over the years. They will not be so easily misled by him just because of his opportunity to say what he wants in this House.

The Chairman: Mr Ong, you have exactly 10 minutes.

Mr Ong Teng Cheong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am afraid I have little time to answer the points raised by the Member for Anson. I think it has already been answered by my colleagues in this House. I only wish to tell him that since he is interested in legislation, there are a number of labour legislation amendment Bills that are being tabled in the British Houses of Parliament presently. If he is interested to know what these are, I would suggest that the Mem- ber for Anson write to the Secretary of Employment in Britain. In case he does not know who he is, he is Mr Norman Tebbit, who can give him more information about what is going on there.

On the point raised by the Member for Kebun Baru regarding the objective of labour legislation, I agree entirely with him that the objective of labour legislation is to promote, protect and enhance the welfare of workers and not strike. The promotion or organization of strikes cannot be the objective of our labour legislation or of our union. In this regard, I agree that the objectives of the trade unions in the legislation need to be redefined. My Ministry will consider amendments to the various sections of the Trade Unions Act to bring it up todate and in line with our current policy to promote teamwork and better industrial relations within the enterprises.

The Member for Kebun Baru has also touched on labour legislation to cover the junior management staff. He would like to see the scope of trade union membership redefined. The term "junior management staff" can be used differently under the Employment Act and the Industrial Relations Act. The Employment Act covers all workmen and other employees, including junior management staff whose salaries are below $1,250 per month. The question is whether we should raise the ceiling of $1,250 per month. Under the Industrial Relations Act, only managerial, executive and confidential staff are not covered. Therefore, the question of whether or not the junior management staff are covered is a matter for negotiations, and if no agreement is reached between the parties, then the President of the Industrial Arbitration Court will decide. Perhaps the Member for Kebun Baru can provide more specific details of his request so that my Ministry will be able to look into his suggestion. But ultimately, if the matter is referred to the Industrial Arbitration Court, then the President of the IAC will decide.

The Member for Kebun Baru has also proposed that employers who terminate the services of employees who have long years of service and who are old should pay some form of compensation to the employees. The fundamental feature of a contract of employment is that either party may terminate the contract with appropriate notice. To require an employer to compensate an employee for termination on account of old age and service would change this basic principle and it would work only in favour of the employee. The Member's argument would probably be that by virtue of the employee's old age, he would find it difficult to find employment and ought to be compensated. The employer could equally argue that he would suffer a loss, especially if the worker has been trained and has gained useful experience. Cases of employees, for example, sales personnel and skilled workers, who leave their employers to set up their own business are not uncommon. These employees take away part of the employers' business and clients. If there is a case for an employee to claim compensation from an employer for termination after long years of service, there is equally a case for the employer to request for similar consideration.

From our experience of termination cases in the past, by and large, employers have not abused the right to terminate. In a tight labour situation, employers are unlikely to abuse this right, as it will only work against their own interest. However, there may be isolated cases of abuse of this right. For such cases, it is best to deal with them administratively and to publicize these employers who abused their right as a deterrent to other employers. There is nothing to prevent unions from negotiating for such compensation and incorporating them in a collective agreement. Since the Member for Kebun Baru feels strongly on this issue, I shall request my officials in the Labour Relations Department to take another look at the matter.

Mr Lim Boon Heng: Sir, I regret that we do not have more time to debate this very interesting issue. But I would just like to make a comment for the benefit of the Member for Anson. He does not appear to have been listening very carefully during the proceedings of this House. He has claimed that the rights of the workers have been eroded.

The Chairman: Mr Lim, are you going to withdraw our amendment?

Mr Lim Boon Heng: Sir, I would suggest that he refer again to the Minister for Trade and Industry's reply to him. On that note, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $21,155,850 for Head R ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates.

The sum of $40,000 for Head R ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.

The Chairman: I propose to take the Suspension now.

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

Mr Speaker: Order. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 5.10 p.m.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 4.39 p.m. until 5.10 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.10 p.m.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate in Committee of Supply resumed.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Head T -

The Chairman: Order. May I indicate to hon. Members that unless they have filed their amendments, I will not allow them to speak, with only one exception, and that is Dr Toh Chin Chye because he has been away on holiday.

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

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

Sir, in mid-September 1981, most of the hawkers at Block 724, Ang Mo Kio Town Centre, were issued with summonses to attend court for failing to display price tags on their goods. Sir, I am not against the Ministry of National Development for issuing the summonses if the hawkers had committed a serious offence and needed to be prosecuted in court. However, I feel strongly that such a course of action should not be imposed on first-time offenders who have committed minor offences. If there should be summonses issued by the headquarters enforcement staff during their random inspections, then the estate officers in charge at the HDB area office should be informed. As a matter of fact, I personally feel that these headquarters inspections are not necessary as the HDB area office is already doing all these checkings.

The market at Block 724 is selling mainly market-produce goods. Business there has been poor. When more than 30 hawkers came to see me with their summonses, I was most disturbed by the manner in which the summonses were issued. Most of the hawkers were first-time offenders. No prior warnings were given to them. Instead, summonses to appear in court were slapped on them. In addition, there were no proper addresses in the summonses in which to refer to. I believe that there are also other enforcement units in the various Ministries besides the Ministry of National Development.

Sir, the hawkers who came to see me have learned a bitter lesson and they were willing to pay the fine imposed by the Ministry for their mistakes. But the Ministry's enforcement staff refused to accede to their request and insisted that they must appear in court. Sir, this sort of action not only resulted in the loss of one day's earnings for the hawkers who had to appear in court in the morning but also a loss of faith in the Ministry's staff. They felt that the enforcement staff were against them and ever ready to bring them to court for the slightest mistake. Sir, if this is the general feeling among the hawkers, then I am sad to say that all our efforts in promoting teamwork and neighbourliness in the housing estates will be affected besides affecting the existing good image and working relationship between the hawkers' representatives, community leaders and the staff in the HDB area office.

Sir, in order not to disrupt the hawkers' daily earnings, I would like to suggest that the Minister should allow those hawkers who have committed minor offences to pay a fine direct to the Ministry and that the first-time offenders be issued with a warning instead of insisting that they have to appear in court.

Another point is that the summonses to attend court should bear the proper name, designation and the address of the issuing offices so that a person who intends to take up the matter further may not have to go round knocking on the wrong doors.

I hope the Minister will look into this suggestion. 5.15 p.m.

Dr Toh Chin Chye (Rochore): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for the opportunity you have given me this afternoon to speak in committee. In my 22 years as Member of Parliament for Rochore, I have witnessed the dramatic change in my constituency and we must give the Ministry of National Development its kudos which they deserve and admit that urban renewal is a great success. Unfortunately, the Ministry is engrossed in the physical planning of Singapore but appears to take very little interest in the side effects which urban renewal has brought about.

I would like to speak on one specific point, namely, the disruption of those entrepreneurs who are in the service trades, for example, plumbers, electricians, hairdressers, barbers, carpenters, masons, not excluding doctors, dentists, opticians and so on. Year by year, it is becoming very obvious that all those who are offering these services have been dislocated, partly because they have been relocated to other constituencies but mainly because of their inability to pay increasing rentals for HDB shops. Where alternative premises have been given to those in the service trades, rentals are so high that it is inevitable that the rentals are passed on to the consumers. Where those in these trades have not been given alternative premises, they have been dispensed out of business. The end-sum of it all, (if course, is that there is a rise in prices.

It is not simple or easy enough these days to get a carpenter to come to the house to patch up a broken door or a glazer to patch up a broken window, nor is it easy to get an electrician to rewire a house, and so on. I speak on behalf of these little tradesmen who were offering services to consumers in Singapore. Now it is necessary that, in order to do these little jobs, one either learns how to do these things by one-self or to approach a contractor. And no contractor, to my knowledge, will want to do a job unless there is a minimum sum attached to the job.

All this, of course, adds up to the cost of living. In particular, doctors and dentists have regarded that rentals constitute 20% to 30% of their overhead expenses. For a young medical graduate to start private practice - let us assume in HDB premises because private sector premises are just beyond his ability - it will be necessary that the young practitioner should not be loaded with high overheads or his patients will not be able to pay for it. Here, we have a clear example that urban renewal, while successful in the physical aspects of making, Singapore a brighter and cleaner city, has neglected the study of what the side effects are.

There is some degree of insecurity and uncertainty about the tenancy agreement which is signed by those who have tendered for Housing and Development Board shops. It is a monthly tenancy and it seems odd to me that those in business should be doing business on a monthly tenancy, without any security of tenure. To be truthful, although the HDB does not wield a heavy hand in stalking out its tenants, nonetheless from a legal aspect, it is possible for the HDB to do so. But more important is this: The monthly tenancy does not also guarantee that the tenant can work into his cost how much of his overheads are due to rentals and how it should be passed to the consumers. Perhaps the Minister for National Development might want to study this proposition which I have put forward once before, namely, that balloting be allowed to those in the service trades.

The Housing Board, in its long years of history, will by now have a very good idea of rentals in the different districts of Singapore. No sensible person, of course, believes that rentals would be static. Rentals would depend on location of premises as well as on inflation rates. But it is possible for the HDB to have the data to calculate or estimate what are fair rentals in the different locations of Singapore and reserve some of these shops for the service trades.

There are two ways to do this. One is balloting among those who are in these service trades. The second way - assuming that there would be a free market and the HDB being the biggest landlord in Singapore - is to allow those in the service trades to tender. For example, doctors can tender for a certain number of shops in a specific area reserved for doctors or general practitioners who wish to practise. Likewise, plumbers, electricians and so on. Because it is not possible for those in the service trades to compete in a tender system against those who are running larger business enterprises.

So on the one hand, while we see a very successful HDB system in the Waterloo housing estate where all the motor-car spare parts businesses are located, on the other hand, a follow-up has not been done for the service trades. I would like to speak on their behalf and hope that the Minister for National Development will look into this proposal to make life much easier for all of us and in this way also help to cut down the cost of living.

The Minister of State for National Development (Mr Lee Yock Suan): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am replying on behalf of my Minister. First, concerning the point raised by the hon. Member for Ang Mo Kio, I would like to thank him for bringing this matter to the attention of my Ministry. To my knowledge, it is usual for the HDB hawker inspectors to give warnings first before they issue summonses. Usually it is only after repeated warnings that the summonses are issued. So I am a bit surprised to hear about this incident. There might have been some misunderstanding. I will ask the HDB hawker inspectors to be more cautious in future.

As the hon. Member may be aware, the HDB hawker liaison officers are delegated with authority by the Commissioner of Public Health of the Environment Ministry to take enforcement action against hawkers who contravene the Environmental Public Health (Markets) Regulations. In exercising their duties, the HDB officers issue notices to errant hawkers under the Environmental Public Health Act.

The incident cited by the hon. Member for Ang Mo Kio involves 25 stallholders who had breached the regulations for non-display of price tags. They were served with notices to attend court. The HDB records reveal that the notices bore the names and designations of the issuing HDB officers. However, the address of the issuing office was not indicated in the notices. It is regretted that this has given rise to some inconvenience to the hawkers concerned. The HDB will consult the Commissioner of Public Health to revise the format of the notice to include the address of the issuing authority.

However, I regret to inform the hon. Member that offences under the Environmental Public Health Act and its regulations are not compoundable. The HDB is merely carrying out the policy of the Ministry of the Environment in this regard. If the hon. Member feels strongly that the offences should be compounded, I would suggest that he take this up with the Ministry of the Environment.

As regards the points raised by the Member for Rochore, as it concerns the HDB, my Minister will be replying later when he responds to the cut in the HDB budget. I hope he will bear with me.

The Minister for National Development (Mr Teh Cheang Wan): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would only like to reply to the Member for Rochore's points. On the dislocation of shopkeepers which the Member has raised in this House, at present under the HDB policy, the affected shopkeepers are given three choices. One is that the small shop-keepers who, for various reasons, either shortage of capital, old age or other things, would like to give up the business, they will be paid a cash grant.

For those tradesmen who want to carry on with the business, they will have the choice of either accepting alternative accommodation in the shopping centres in the city area built either by the URA or by the HDB, or alternatively they can have a shop in an HDB estate. For those in the urban areas, as the Member for Rochore has quite rightly pointed out just now, the URA has made a study and it tries to group the various trades into centres, for example, the Waterloo Centre is for motor-car spare parts. Bras Basah Complex is a centre for book shops. So shopkeepers who are resettlement cases will be allocated shops in accordance with the resettlement policy which means that they will be able to get rental concession for five years. In the first year, they need to pay only 50% of the rental. They only pay the full rental on the sixth year as the rental is graduated at the rate of 10% per year.

Those in the service trades usually like to move to the new HDB estates because the population has moved to the HDB estates. Here again, if they are resettlement cases, they will have a choice of getting shops in the new HDB estates at concessionary rentals. 5.30 p.m.

For those doctors who want to start a clinic, which the hon. Member for Rochore has mentioned, they may find the rentals too high. But the system of the HDB's distribution of shops for services is something like this. We know that in a HDB town centre or neighbourhood we need various types of trades, ranging from those who are able to pay very high rentals like, for example, the branch of a bank or the POSB, down to those who cannot afford to pay very high rental, for example, the barbers or the tailors. So in the HDB tendering system, it is not the barber, the tailor or the hairdresser competing with the banks. If the barber has to compete in the public tender for a shop with the bank, then the barber has no chance. But there are in the HDB tender system various units of shops set aside for the hairdresser, barber and the tailor. They will compete among themselves. In other words, if we say this premises is to be a tailor shop or a barber shop, it means that all those barbers or tailors compete for this shop and the one who offers the highest rental will get it. So they compete among themselves. We also set aside shop premises for the banks and the competition will be among the banks. Quite often the Singapore Turf Club offers the highest rental, they even beat the banks, and so they get the premises.

In almost all the HDB new towns, in the shopping centres and neighbourhood centres, there are various types of shops providing various types of services. So those people who are affected by the urban renewal are offered alternative accommodation in the new towns under the resettlement policy or under the public tender system.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Mr Speaker, I am sure the Minister has looked into the problem of keeping alive the service trades. May I ask him whether he will look into the possibility of offering a longer lease of tenure to those who are in the service trades? As of this moment they are all signing a monthly tenancy.

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: Sir, I think HDB at present is reviewing the letting of shops, including the period of tenancy. I will ask the HDB to look into the suggestion proposed by the hon. Member for Rochore. The point I want to make is that although the shops in an HDB estate are on a monthly tenancy, the HDB does not actually terminate the tenancy unless the shopkeeper has committed a breach in the tenancy agreement.

Mr Yeo Toon Chia: Sir, there are 20,000 hawkers in Singapore. For their convenience, I hope that the Minister can take up the matter with the Ministry of the Environment to allow the offences of these hawkers to be compounded instead of requiring them to attend court. Offences under traffic regulations and car parks are allowed to be compounded. I cannot see why a hawker who commits an offence, which is not a criminal offence but more or less a civil case, cannot be allowed to have his offence compounded. Since the HDB is one of the departments that issues these summonses against the hawkers, can the Minister take up the matter with the Ministry of the Environment so that in future a hawker who has committed an offence can pay the fine direct, instead of having to attend court?

The Chairman: Mr Yeo, are you withdrawing your amendment?

Mr Yeo Toon Chia: May I hear something from the Minister of State?

Mr Lee Yock Suan: Sir, my Ministry has taken note of the comments. I believe the Ministry of the Environment has its own reasons for not making the offence compoundable. The views put forward by the hon. Member appear very reasonable and I hope the Ministry of the Environment will take note of his views.

Mr Yeo Toon Chia: Sir, it looks as if the Minister of State is passing the buck to the Ministry of the Environment. However, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Dr Wan Soon Bee: Sir, I beg to move,

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

Sir, when I first visited Neighbourhood 6 and Neighbourhood 7 of West Coast constituency in early 1981, there were requests from the residents for an overhead bridge across West Coast Road, which separates Neighbourhood 6 and Neighbourhood 7 into two distinct areas. I was told there were a few fatal accidents in that area. The HDB Area Officer in charge of the estate was also convinced that an overhead bridge was necessary. He informed me that an earlier proposal sent by him to PWD was rejected on the ground that the traffic volume was insufficient. After considering all the factors, I felt that an overhead bridge was justifiable. I made another request to the PWD and the standard answer was given.

Sir, in Neighbourhood 7 there are 31 blocks of flats and Neighbourhood 6, 9 blocks of flats, with a total population of about 20,000. There is a market-cum-hawker centre in Neighbourhood 7 and most of the shops are also located in Neighbourhood 7. Having failed to get an overhead bridge, I downgraded my request to a pedestrian crossing and the request was similarly rejected.

I was rather amazed at the bureaucratic and inflexible attitude of the Department concerned. The only reason for the rejection was that the traffic volume was insufficient. They seem to have forgotten to take into consideration other factors such as the number of pedestrians crossing the road, the environmental factor in that area, the type of traffic and the road condition.

I do agree that there must be guidelines but complete inflexibility certainly is not in the interest of the citizens. I do hope that the Department will study future requests more carefully, taking into consideration all the important factors so that deserving cases are not rejected unnecessarily.

Finally, I hope the Hon. Minister will also look into my request once again, and I hope to have more luck this time.

Mr Lee Yock Suan: Sir, I am surprised to learn that the hon. Member for West Coast appears to be having some difficulties with the PWD. Since joining this Ministry in September last year, I have answered many questions in this House concerning overhead bridges and other pedestrian crossings. In every case the answer has been positive. My impression therefore is that the PWD has been extremely accommodating to requests from Members and their residents.

I am told that the PWD does not reject requests for pedestrian crossing facilities if there are sufficient grounds for them. PWD will generally consider the traffic volume, the pedestrian volume and other relevant factors. The PWD is currently having a programme to complete 104 pedestrian bridges by the end of this year. In addition, pedestrian signalized crossings, zebra crossings and red-and-green-man signals at the various junctions are being installed all over the island.

In the West Coast constituency, for instance, the PWD provided an overhead bridge across Ayer Rajah Road near the school at Jubilee Road in June 1979, and a signalized crossing at the junction of Clementi Avenue 2 with Avenue 5 in February 1982. Three more crossing points at West Coast Road between Blocks 513 and 609 are being planned. Work on two of these signalized crossings at Jalan Mas Puteh near Block 513, and another signalized crossing near Block 609 at Clementi West Street 1, will begin in the next financial year.

I hope I have answered the Member's question.

Dr Wan Soon Bee: Sir, the Hon. Minister of State has mentioned a few overhead bridges which are not in my constituency. They are in Ayer Rajah constituency. He has not answered my question yet. Anyway, I hope the Ministry of National Development will look into my case, and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Sia Khoon Seong: Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head T be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead TC-02 of the Main Estimates.

In moving this amendment, I am taking the opportunity to draw the Minister's attention to the deteriorating traffic condition along Balestier Road in my constituency. I wish to enquire from the Minister if the PWD is taking steps to improve the flow of traffic there. The widening of Thomson Road recently has not helped to ease the traffic congestion at the junction where Balestier Road meets Thomson Road. In fact, the flow of traffic has somewhat been impeded to some extent because there is now a heavier traffic along Thomson Road, especially during peak periods, thereby slowing down the flow of traffic from Balestier Road to Thomson Road.

Soon the PWD will be widening Moulmein Road and linking Moulmein Road to the Central Expressway. When that happens, the traffic along the other end of Balestier Road where it meets Moulmein Road will likewise be impeded to some extent. The increase in traffic volume along Moulmein Road is more than expected. The end-result of the widening of Thomson Road and Moulmein Road, which are both ends of Balestier Road, will be that the traffic along Balestier Road will be trapped in between. The traffic congestion is compounded further by the fact that the areas surrounding Balestier Road are now undergoing intensive development of flats as well as shopping complexes and offices.

As a measure to ease the flow of traffic along Balestier Road, will the Minister ask the PWD to review the overall traffic plan in the vicinity of Balestier Road with a view to improving and easing the flow of traffic along Balestier Road, particularly during peak periods? If the Minister wants any confirmation from any one concerning the deteriorating traffic congestion in Balestier Road, I suggest he ask the Member for Clementi who happens to be a constituent of mine living in that area.

Mr Lee Yock Suan: The PWD is aware that Balestier Road is heavily congested, partly because it is the only access road to the St. Michael's and Whampoa Housing Estates. The traffic congestion is further aggravated by commercial activities such as loading and unloading along the road which is lined with old shophouses.

To improve the traffic situation, the PWD has implemented a number of traffic management measures along Balestier Road, such as banning right-turns from Whampoa Drive to Balestier Road at their junction and linking the traffic signals along Balestier Road at Kim Keat Road and Whampoa Drive to provide better coordination. Drains have been slabbed over to provide footpaths so that pedestrians do not walk on the road and hinder the traffic flow. These measures have provided some relief to the traffic congestion along Balestier Road.

The Central Expressway which will run from Jalan Toa Payoh to Thomson Road is scheduled for completion by 1984, and access from the Expressway to the St. Michael and Whampoa Housing Estates will take away some traffic from Balestier Road and provide some relief to the congestion along Balestier Road. The widen- ing of Moulmein Road is not expected to adversely affect the traffic conditions along Balestier Road. At present only 30% of the traffic turn left from Moulmein Road to Balestier Road. These volumes will drop when a new access is provided from the Central Expressway to the housing estates. Moreover, in widening Moulmein Road, the junction of Balestier Road and Moulmein Road will be improved. This will increase the capacity of the junction. 5.45 p.m.

A suggestion has been made to convert Balestier Road into a one-way system. However, I am told that in order for this to be done, an efficient return one-way road is necessary. Otherwise motorists may have to make circuitous routes to reach their destination along the road. Bus commuters will also be badly affected. In the case of Balestier Road there is no possible return pair. The PWD has therefore recommended that the one-way system will not be appropriate.

Mr Sia Khoon Seong: In view of the Minister's reply, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Bernard Chen: Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head T be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead TC-04 Project 8105 of the Development Estimates.

Unlike the Member for West Coast, I have much more cooperation from the Public Works Department than he has and some of the projects mentioned by the Minister of State for National Development have, in fact, come to my constituency. Perhaps the PWD has mistaken Clementi for West Coast! But in the age of computers the Public Works Department has not fallen behind and it has introduced the computerized Area Traffic Control System costing some $12 million.

What I would like to know from the Ministry of National Development is whether there has been any substantial relief in traffic congestion in the city with the implementation of this computerized area traffic control system, especially at major junctions. Are there any indicators that can show this improvement or otherwise?

We all know that sometimes at these major traffic junctions when human beings take over in the form of traffic policemen, the congestion got worse. I wonder whether the computer has got any luck in doing better than the human beings. Also, if the system is successful in the city area, whether there is any plan to extend this control system beyond the inner city limit and, as the Member for Moulmein has suggested, perhaps we can extend this traffic control system to Moulmein constituency so that the traffic congestion can also be alleviated.

Mr Lee Yock Suan: Sir, I wish to thank the Member for Clementi for his interest in the computerized area traffic control system and also for his remarks concerning the PWD. Just for clarification, when I checked with the Member for West Coast yesterday with the map showing the various locations of the crossings, I was told they were in his constituency. I was a bit surprised that they are not. I will ask PWD to look into this matter further.

The computerized Area Traffic Control (ATC) system was put into operation in August 1981. Minor teething problems, such as signal timing, were rectified within the first three months. There has been no problem since. The ATC system provides coordination between traffic signals to improve traffic flow. It also allows the timing of signals to be regulated to suit varying traffic conditions throughout the day. Traffic flow has improved and traffic congestion has decreased within the ATC area since its implementation.

The ATC system is designed to serve only the CBD. It has a capacity to handle 200 traffic signals and presently controls 151 signals. It is not desirable to extend the ATC system to cover areas outside the CBD. There are two main reasons for this. Firstly, the traffic signals are more widely dispersed outside the CBD, thereby making linking less effective. Secondly, the central computer is unable to communicate effectively with traffic controllers at junctions which are too far away as the transmission along telephone lines deteriorates with distance.

The reserve capacity of the system is to cater for new signals to be installed within the city and Marina Centre. In areas outside the CBD where there are groups of signalized junctions close enough to be effectively linked, independent microprocessor systems will be installed. For example, along Sims Avenue, Geylang Road and Changi Road, a microprocessor was installed recently to control 27 traffic signals. Such independent systems are also effective in linking traffic signals to improve traffic flow. There are plans to progressively install more microprocessor systems in other areas of heavy traffic where traffic lights can be linked.

Mr Bernard Chen: I would like to thank the Minister of State for his reply, and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

That the sum to be allocated for Head T be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead TD-02 of the Main Estimates.

Sir, the purpose of moving the amendment is to seek information from the Minister. Some two years ago, I suggested to the Minister that a portion of a hill along Telok Blangah Heights, fronting Block 71, popularly known as Mount Washington, be converted into a park of sorts as it was an eyesore due to the soil erosion that was taking place. It is obvious that the project has been approved because there are visible signs of construction. Would the Minister therefore please provide details of this project as the residents are naturally anxious to see its completion and what are the facilities that would be made available for the residents?

Mr Lee Yock Suan: Sir, the Parks and Recreation Department is presently developing a one-hectare site beside Telok Blangah Heights into a garden for the recreation of residents in the area. Facilities to be provided include park furniture and bird-cage hangers. The garden is being constructed at a cost of about $95,000 and will be completed by this month.

In addition to the garden, the Parks and Recreation Department will be developing adjacent areas into a regional park in the latter part of this year. Facilities which will be provided include look-out points, children's playground, fitness course, refreshment kiosks, park furniture, foot-paths, park lightings, car parks and improvements to the existing road. The project is expected to take two years to complete.

Mr Rohan bin Kamis: I thank the Minister for his reply and beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Dr Ow Chin Hock (Leng Kee): ( In Mandarin): Sir, I beg to move,

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

Sir, in China during the Tang Dynasty a famous poet Du Fu made a plea in a poem that thousands of houses be built to accommodate the poor under heaven. Under the PAP Government the achievements of the Housing Board in housing the people far surpass that in China during the Tang Dynasty when the Chinese poet made such a plea. By the end of 1980, the Housing Board had built 372,000 flats housing 70% of the population and in the next eight years the HDB will build 290,000 units of flats. Our public housing achievement is second to none in the whole world.

The Sunday Times of 14th March reported an interview by the Minister for National Development touching on land use and future development of public housing. His speech should be studied by every citizen, especially those applying for HDB flats. Two points raised by him deserve attention. First, according to the Prime Minister, 'If a three-generation family is allowed to break up, then we shall not have enough land to build the number of flats required.' Secondly, if applicants are too choosy about the flats allotted, (except a few applicants), the longer they wait the further will be their flats away from the city.

But what worries the applicants more is whether they can afford to buy HDB flats in the coming years. Therefore, HDB will be facing two challenges. Firstly, how to speed up the building of 290,000 units of flats in the next eight years. This is 78% of all the flats built during the past 20 years. I believe that the HDB will be able to achieve this target. The o;her challenge is how are we going to make it possible for the middle and lower income groups to purchase flats in the coming years. We know that we cannot further raise our contribution rate to the CPF in order to meet the demand for purchase of houses because the present contribution rate is already as high as 42 1/2%. Therefore, the HDB must think of all means and ways, such as raising productivity, simplifying the design of flats and modernizing the building techniques to reduce the increase in unit cost.

On 15th June last year the Member for Punggol, in his adjournment speech talked about the HDB's announcement on 16th May 1981 on increase of flat prices and its housing policy. Together with other MPs, they made much contribution. The Member for Clementi said then that the HDB had improved the quality of housing estates by way of better space, better roads, drains, open space and parks and upgrading of various amenities, which led to increased costs. The Member for Punggol also asked what was wrong with building flats of simple designs. I also feel that although novel designs add to the beauty of the housing estates so that there will be less drab and monotony, however, as we are faced with a shortage of labour and escalating costs in building materials, the HDB should consider carefully which should be accorded priority, basic need or beauty? Moreover, with the rising expectations, HDB's burden for building will increase further.

At that sitting, the Member for Whampoa in his speech talked sensibly about the HDB accounting system and land cost in the costing of flats, and the Minister for National Development in his reply also touched on the difficulty of assessing land value. He also mentioned that the price HDB pay for building materials is much cheaper than that paid by the private developers and about increasing wage bills. I agree with what the Minister of State had said on 22nd December 1981 that "The subject of concern is really the selling price, which is dictated by the construction cost, and not the HDB accounting system per se." [Hansard, Vol. 41, Col. 311.] However, if the HDB could reveal the unit cost per flat, it will give the people a better understanding as to why the prices of HDB flats must be increased. It will also show how much the Government is subsidizing towards building cost and maintenance cost of the HDB flats. We are an enlightened, honest and uncorrupt Government. We can open the books so that our people will have an idea as to how much the Government has subsidized towards housing for the lower and middle income groups. This will also prevent the opposition parties and people with ulterior motives from exploiting the situation to fish in troubled waters and fabricating rumours. 6.00 p.m.

We understand that to improve the budgeting and accounting system of such a huge statutory organization like the HDB is not something which can be done overnight. However, we can make known the various components of the cost of various units. We can, first of all, show what is the labour cost per square metre, what are the material cost and the other variable costs per square metre of floor space. The HDB can also publish the building cost of each estate in the provision of public amenities like car parks, lifts, hawker centres, recreation centres, etc. and their maintenance costs and how the people have benefited from them before arriving at a reasonable assessment of the price of land and the cost of land per unit flat. Thank you.

Mr Tan Soo Khoon (Alexandra): Mr Speaker, Sir, in speaking on this amendment, I want to raise the problem of low water pressure in my constituency. It is a problem that is very evident on the upper floors of HDB blocks. I believe it is not a problem peculiar to my constituency but it happens throughout Singapore, particularly in the older housing estates. Some of my constituents have spent their own money to improve the situation by changing the pipes in the flats. But water still flows out of their taps in slow trickles.

Sir, I understand that there is an on-going programme now on an island-wide basis to improve the water pressure in HDB flats. Would the Hon. Minister give us more details of this plan, in particular when it will be implemented in my constituency?

There is another problem which is also peculiar to my constituency. There used to be a No entry sign at the junction of Commonwealth Drive and Tanglin Halt Road, prohibiting the entry of vehicles, with the exception of buses, into Commonwealth Drive and leading into a block of flats. Sometime in May last year, this sign was removed so that the whole stretch of the road became a two-way street. There are historical reasons why the No entry sign was installed. It was installed at the request of my predecessor, Dr Wong Lin Ken, as a result of complaints from residents. There have been traffic accidents occurring along that particular stretch of Commonwealth Drive which is in the shape of a bend. The residents crossing the road could not see traffic coming round the bend. An effective way to reduce this hazard was to prohibit the entry of vehicles into Commonwealth Drive from its intersection with Tanglin Halt Road. For many years the problem was solved in this manner.

Then suddenly out of the blue, the No entry sign was removed. Traffic began to flow two ways again, and the pedestrians once again face the difficulty of crossing that particular stretch of road. The Citizens' Consultative Committee and the Residents' Committee immediately made a representation to the proper authorities, through the HDB area office, expressing the unhappiness of this action and requested for the re-installation of the No entry sign. Further inquiries finally revealed that the culprit was the Public Works Department which had authorized the removal of the sign because it believed that it was causing inconvenience to motorists. It was claimed that the No entry sign meant that motorists at the Tanglin Halt Road intersection with Commonwealth Drive, in wanting to get to certain blocks of flats at the end of Commonwealth Drive, had to make a long detour to get there. And what was the basis of this reasoning? It was an anonymous letter, unsigned, from someone who was obviously inconvenienced by the long distance he had to drive to get home. The action taken was quite mysterious.

First, before removing the No entry sign, the Department concerned failed to consult the community leaders of the constituency. It failed to take into consideration the rationale for putting up the sign in the first place. Secondly, it acted solely on the basis of an anonymous letter. This is a very strange procedure because I have never known it to be a policy of the Singapore Government to act on the basis of anonymous letters without proper investigations. Thirdly, in spite of representations made by the community leaders and in spite of letters written to the press by members of the public, the PWD chose to ignore the sentiments of the people living there and stubbornly clung to its decision to remove the sign.

We have often talked of the insensitivity and mindless bureaucracy on the part of the Civil Service. I can think of no better example than this of a Government department choosing to ignore local feelings - the sentiments of the community leaders and quite a number of the residents over their safety. I suspect that the PWD, having acted foolishly on the basis of an anonymous letter, has realized its bungling, but it has chosen not to accede to the present request to have the sign reinstalled because it would be an admission of its blunder, something which quite obviously they are not prepared to do.

I, therefore, urge the Minister to take action to remedy the situation in the interests of the residents and to ask the PWD to stop dragging its feet on what is obviously a feeble attempt on their part to salvage its lost pride.

Mr M.K.A. Jabbar (Radin Mas): ( In Tamil): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Ministry of National Development has to speed up its activities, otherwise the unnecessary delays will cause suffering to the people. I wish to bring up one or two issues to the attention of the Minister in this House. There are some blocks of rented flats in my constituency. The tenants have long ago expressed their wish to purchase the flats. I brought this matter to the attention of the Minister and he promised to look into it. He said that the flats would be sold if the tenants complied with the HDB regulations. Members of my Residents' Committees, Citizens' Consultative Committee and I have explained this to the residents. They were pleased. But up to today no decision has been conveyed to them. In my opinion there is an unnecessary delay and as a result they are disheartened. I do not know the reason for this delay. If nothing is done soon, it will give an opportunity to self-interested people to spread rumours. Some have even said that the HDB is waiting for the next price increase in order to make a profit. Would the Minister clarify this matter? The Minister should say whether or not this is true. Why is the Ministry causing unnecessary delay?

There is also another problem. The residents in this area are people from the middle income group. They own motorcars but they have no place to park their cars near their homes. They have complained about this matter and the HDB should look into it.

Mr Sia Khoon Seong: Mr Speaker, Sir, in speaking on this amendment, I am merely asking the Minister if he would ask the HDB to construct public toilets in the HDB void decks in view of the fact that the void decks are frequently being used by the residents for weddings, funerals and other functions. As a matter of fact, not a single day passes by without something going on in one or several of the void decks in an HDB housing estate, perhaps a wedding, a funeral or some other functions, all functioning at the same time. These functions normally attract visitors from areas outside the estate. As attendance at these functions usually last several hours, it is natural for visitors to answer the call of nature. At present, there is no public convenience for them to answer the call of nature. There are also people who visit the housing estate for other purposes and would at times find themselves in a similiar situation. Would it not be a good idea, therefore, for the HDB to construct public toilets in HDB void decks, not just for the convenience of visitors to the HDB estates but also as a positive measure to discourage urinating in lifts?

I would also like to take this opportunity to ask the Minister whether it is possible for the HDB to erect shades for funeral rites at designated areas in the housing estate, for instance, near a temple or open space away from the residential units. At the moment, many void decks are heavily used. On one occasion there was a funeral ceremony at one end of a void deck and a wedding ceremony at the other end. At the wedding ceremony a musical band was employed together with a singer. She sang songs like "Crocodile tears", etc. [Laughter] It may be a laughing matter to us, but it was certainly not a laughing matter to the families who were involved in the wedding ceremony or in the funeral ceremony. To one family it was a solemn, sad occasion, but punctuated with all the light-hearted entertainment. To the other family, it was a happy occasion, only to be reminded that life is too short. I think it would perhaps be a good idea to erect shades for such purposes where possible. I am not saying that it is possible to do it in all housing estates and that it should be done immediately. But I know that in my constituency and in some, small housing estates, there are definitely areas which could be designated as areas for funeral ceremonies and for which shades can be constructed.

Encik Abbas Abu Amin: Mr Speaker, Sir, many residents in HDB estates face the problem of disposing bulky items, e.g., broken-down TV sets beyond repair or broken and old furniture. These items cannot be thrown down the rubbish chute. They must be taken down to the ground and transported to approved dumping sites. The cost of entering a dumping site is approximately $100 per entry, regardless of the quantity to be dumped. The inconvenience and cost of proper disposal has inevitably led to residents in HDB flats simply abandoning bulky items in common corridors or lift landings, posing a fire hazard and causing obstruction.

Some residents have been a little more enterprising and are considerate enough to bring unwanted items down to the ground to be abandoned. They then complain, or wait for others to complain, to the Residents' Committees, who would then draw the attention of the HDB to the offending items. HDB would then clear the items.

Instead of providing a service in this circuitous way, could the HDB not do it for the convenience of all HDB residents? I understand that in most Japanese cities, the public cleansing department designates a specific day of the month, for exam- ple the first Monday of the month, when they will collect such bulky items. If the HDB can offer a regular service, I am sure that residents will cooperate by bringing bulky items down to the ground level and place them at designated collection points.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is heartening to note that positive steps are being taken to build more flats in the next two years to meet increasing demands. However, in this pursuit I would like to urge the HDB to give due consideration to building sufficient 2 or 3-room flats to cater for the lower income group. This group of workers cannot afford to purchase bigger flats due to the high cost.

I also share the views expressed by the hon. Member for Leng Kee on this matter.

Since the problem of low-water pressure has been mentioned by the hon. Member for Alexandra, I would just like to add that a similar situation occurs in Dover East, especially in Blocks 12, 13 and 14. Perhaps the HDB could take remedial action to solve this problem. 6.15 p.m.

Mr Lai Tha Chai (Henderson): ( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, having heard the views of my colleagues, I have this impression. It seems to me that when we have more and more HDB flats, we also have more and more problems. This is a natural phenomenon. In the 1960s, we did not build many flats. It was stipulated that only families with five members were eligible to apply for flats. Subsequently, when we promoted the concept of small families, only families with two children were allowed to apply. A few years ago, we even extended our offer to single applicants to apply for middle-income housing, the HUDC flats. But now there seems to be a reversal of this trend and we are now encouraging the three-generation families.

Sir, I believe there are reasons for these changes and I support these reasons. I am not saying that these changes are unreasonable. Our people will support these changes. However, not everybody is able to adjust himself to these changes. A few who could not adapt to these changes will feel the pinch. Let me cite two examples.

First of all, there are people who have been living in HDB flats for 10 years or more. They are three-generation families and they have many children and children's children. They find that the flat is too small and they have to apply for a bigger flat. But they have to compete with the resettlement cases and, as a result, they cannot obtain a flat for their children. They have to take the alternative, i.e. to apply for a one-room rental flat so that their young married children can have a place to themselves. But, as the Minister without portfolio has stated earlier, the income of our workers has increased substantially. The family income therefore exceeds the ceiling of $500 per month and they cannot also apply for a flat. Then how are they going to live in a small flat with so many members in the family? They have no alternative but to try their luck outside; to rent a room somewhere so that they can have a matrimonial home of their own. With more and more new houses being built, the number of old houses becomes more and more limited. And if these old houses are available for rent, the owners would rather rent out their rooms to Malaysian single persons than to young couples with children or expecting children because it would be too noisy. This is a real problem. I believe this problem is faced not only in my constituency but also in Alexandra constituency. So I hope that the Minister will seriously consider this matter and help to solve these problems.

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me now cite another example. Not all those who are affected by resettlement can afford to pay the deposit for a 3-room, 4-room or 5-room flat. Some cannot afford it, and so they have to rent a house or a flat. The Member for Radin Mas has said that there are residents who are living in rented flats and, after some years, the HDB decides to sell the flats. Similarly in my constituency, there are people who rent flats. When the flats were built, they cost about $9,000 per unit but now they are selling at about $30,000. As the Minister of State explained on 22nd March, in principle, the flats have to be sold at market prices. Nobody can quarrel with that. I agree. But there are two sides to a coin. The Minister must also look at the other side of the coin. I feel that the Minister should be more realistic and give a helping hand to these people in the lower income group so that they will realize that although our Government acts according to the law, it could also be reasonable, considerate and, where possible, even humane.

Sir, over the past few years, our Society has become less and less humane. I am not saying that we are not humane but we are becoming less humane now. We are becoming very snobbish. Some people remark that we have smiling "friends" everywhere. But it is very difficult to find a real close friend, someone who understands us. This is not an attitude to adopt if we are to progress. More than 70% of our population live in HDB flats. If the Government could plan far ahead, we have to be more practical. While we have to deal with the immediate task before us, we must not lose sight of our distant goal. We do not have to shower kindness when it is apparently unnecessary. But, the Government should lend a helping hand in a moment of need. I feel that in this way, it would help to unite the people and foster in them a sense of mutual concern, a love for the country and a responsibility for mutual achievement.

The Chairman: Dr Wan, are you speaking?

Dr Wan Soon Bee: I am not speaking, sir.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, may I start by saying that it would be completely uncharitable on my part if I did not acknowledge the contribution that has been made to the housing problem in Singapore by this Government and by the HDB after it has been set up.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Jeyaretnam: Contrary to what hon. Members may think, I am not here to criticise and find fault at every turn. I am here to try and give my reasonable, constructive views to this Government, and I hope they will be accepted in that spirit.

Turning to this problem of housing, may I say that it is the biggest problem in Singapore today, as it concerns most of our people. In my Meet-the-People sessions, the one recurring problem is the problem of housing. People have been waiting for years to get a roof over their heads and they have not been allocated a flat yet.

The HDB, as I have said, has a very good record. But over the last two years, it seems to have lost its momentum. We know from the report that was furnished for the year ending March 1981, it built fewer houses. It housed less people, and somehow the whole thing seems to have slowed down. I wonder whether we are not witnessing the Peter Principle in action. For Members of the House, the Peter Principle is that every person or organization will rise to his level of incompetence. Is it possible that, after all this spurt of activity, the HDB has risen to its level of incompetence? And that something should be done now to examine this machine and see what is clogging up its efficiency and do something about it?

As I said, Mr Speaker, Sir, the biggest problem is allocation, people waiting to get a flat. Speaking in this House on 16th March 1981, the Minister said in answer to a question that there were more than 70,000 applicants on the waiting list for HDB flats, and he said it would be unfair to these applicants if priority to purchase is given to existing HDB tenants who are already enjoying the benefits of subsidized housing. He went on to say:

'I want to reiterate here that the HDB's allocation policy is based on registration priority, i.e. first come, first served. No queue jumping on whatever grounds will be allowed even if such requests are made through Members of Parliament, Parliamentary Secretaries, Ministers of State and Ministers.'

He went on to say:

'The waiting time for HDB flats .... was 2 1/2 years and now it is about three years.' [Hansard, 16.3.81, Vol. 40, Cols. 633 & 634]

Sir, as I have indicated, I have had several complaints made to me of persons who waited much longer than three years. There are persons who have waited for nine years, ten years, and have still not been provided with a flat. I can well understand the frustration of these persons. They apply and they do not hear anything. Then they apply again and they are told, "If you move your application to this zone, you might get a better chance." So immediately they comply, however inconvenient it may be to them. And then they wait. Nothing is heard. Then they go again and they are told, "No, this area is closed. If you like to move your application to another area, you might get another chance." So we go on, in a merry go round, running around the bush trying to get a flat.

Sir, the Minister has said that there is no jumping the queue. But instances have been brought to my notice where persons who have already been allocated HDB flats and who got the benefit of subsidized housing have been allowed to sell their flats and move on to a larger flat. I know of at least two or three cases of this sort. I would like the Minister to explain how, in spite of his statement about no queue-jumping, people already in occupation of a flat are now being allowed to move on to another HDB flat. How has this been made possible? If he wants me to give him particulars, I will supply it to him later.

Mr Speaker, Sir, is it not time that perhaps we looked at the whole system of allocation? Is it not time that the allocation system that is being followed by the HDB be thoroughly gone into? Should we not examine the priorities? Should we not see what is wrong with the system that is causing so much dissatisfaction among applicants? I would ask that the Minister consider very seriously a thorough examination of the allocation priorities at the moment. I would indeed go further - I would ask that the Government now appoint a commission to look into this whole system of allocation of the HDB and see whether it is fair and equitable to our people.

I know time is running out, Mr Speaker, Sir; you will soon be pulling me up. But there are one or two other matters that I want to talk about and that is the question of the accounts. 6.30 p.m.

The Auditor-General drew attention to the presentation of the HDB accounts in 1980 - that it did not comply with the Act, that the accounts did not present the true costing per unit of the flats built by the HDB. In 1981 some modification was made to the accounts to meet the criticism of the Auditor-General, but not far enough. The Auditor-General still continued to make his reservations about the way the accounts had been presented. We still do not know whether the accounts that will be presented for the year under review will satisfy the Auditor-General.

I would like to know what is the reason for the delay in revising the accounts to meet with the statutory requirements. I am sure that if any company outside did not meet with the statutory requirements in presenting its accounts to the Registrar of Companies, they would have been dealt with severely. Why is the HDB exempted? Why is the HDB above the law? There is the conservancy charge. I pointed out sometime ago that if one looked at the accounts, the HDB was making a huge profit out of these conservancy charges. The Minister says, "Well, you just cannot look at the accounts. There are other things." If you present the accounts, they must tell the story. If they do not tell the whole story, then they are not proper accounts. Should not the HDB now be made to present its accounts and, as has been said by the Member for Leng Kee, "Let them open their books; let the public know the true picture" -

The Chairman: One minute left.

Mr Jeyaretnam: - instead of presenting an account which does not tell the picture. May I finally end about the red tape that is tying up the HDB in knots. May I just give one illustration?

The Chairman: Forty seconds.

Mr Jeyaretnam: There were two applicants who came to see me. They were successful in the balloting of flats. One of them applied for a five-room flat and the other one applied for a four-room flat, in the same zone. The one who applied for a five-room flat was allocated a four-room flat and the one who applied for a four-room flat was allocated a five-room flat. So they wanted to swap the flats. They came to see me. So I wrote a letter to the HDB and the answer was, "Oh, no, you can't do that. It is our policy."

The Chairman: Five seconds.

Mr Jeyaretnam: So is this not perhaps complete insensitiveness on the part of the HDB? There is too much of red tape. Should we not take into account the needs of the people?

The Chairman: Your time is up, Mr Jeyaretnam. Encik Saidi.

Encik Saidi Haji Shariff: Sir, in speaking on this amendment, I would like to reflect the views, the feelings and the frustration of my constituents, particularly on two issues pertaining to the HDB. These issues are not new but I feel that they are worth repeating so that I would be able to at least ask the Minister to consider the requests made by my constituents.

The HDB allocates flats based on the combined gross income of the family. Those whose total family gross income is between $501 and $800 p.m. can only rent a 3-room flat. Those with a family income of less than $500 and $400 p.m. are eligible for 2-room flats and 1-room flats respectively - Gross income includes overtime pay and allowances, and these are not fixed income. May I request the Hon. Minister to consider reviewing the income ceiling and to allow those applicants with a total family income above $800 p.m. to apply for rental flats.

At the same time, I have encountered young families with a total family income just above $500 p.m. being asked to rent 3-room flats. They are not in a position to maintain a 3-room rental flat. Although their income is above $500, in actual fact their real income is below $500 after deductions for CPF contributions and moreover their overtime allowances are not permanent. Consideration should be given to allow such families to rent 2-room or 1-room flats.

I remember the Hon. Minister in his Oral Answer to a question raised in this House, pointed out that it is the policy of the HDB to encourage citizens to own their own flats. Therefore, the income ceiling will not be raised. But I feel that in view of the spiralling cost of flats there may be many families who are not in a position to purchase flats yet despite the fact that their income is more than $800 and therefore for the time being they need to stay in rental flats. I am aware that there is an Allocation Committee to consider waiving this rule, where necessary, on an appeal made by the Member of Parliament to allow real hardship cases or borderline cases of hardship to rent flats. May I appeal to the Minister to review this ruling and make the necessary changes in view of the present situation?

Next, I would like to raise an issue which has caused a furore among the residents of Bedok North HDB Estate, particularly the HDB decision to build shops in the void deck of one of the blocks. I do not dispute the right of HDB to construct whatever it likes in the void deck for it belongs, in the strictest sense, to the HDB. The HDB contract stipulates that the void deck is a public area and the residents only purchase the actual space in which he resides. I do not even wish to dispute the necessity for some conversion of this nature for in the overall assessment it may be deemed necessary. However, is it not possible for HDB to determine the areas where conversion will take place, so that the residents can be informed beforehand? In this way the residents are able to exercise personal choice when purchasing their flats. This will avoid a lot of personal unhappiness. I feel pre-planning by the authorities concerned can stop the source of any grouses that may arise.

Mr Rohan bin Kamis: Sir, after a gentle rap on its knuckles last year at the Budget session by me, the HDB has done a very good job to date. They have made a positive effort to correct the deficiency in their services to the residents of Telok Blangah, and it is about time that I should with all sincerity congratulate the HDB and its officers for a job well done up to date. The reason I say this is that the problem of water seepage, for instance, has been solved with the painting of all the flats in Telok Blangah; additional recreational facilities have been provided; even the bin centres are currently undergoing major alterations to minimize the problem of unsightliness and smell. Sir, a bouquet for the HDB and its officers.

However, Sir, I do not want to appear to be ungrateful for all these good facilities provided by HDB. I only wish to highlight a few areas which I feel would require the HDB's attention this year at least. These are by no means complaints. They are purely suggestions for further improvement in the interest of my constituents. There are three in number, and they are:

(1) Resident car park owners have made representations to me suggesting that the HDB send them reminders to renew their car parking coupons. It is not difficult in the hustle and bustle of Singapore life to forget, say, after six months or more the priority date for renewal of the car parking coupon. Sir, with the HDB's usual efficiency and with computerization, I hope the Minister will consider sending reminders to such car owners, particularly those families who own their first car and whose parking period for car park coupons is more than, say, three months.

(2) As you are aware, Telok Blangah constituency is a pleasant urban constituency and when any new block of flats, particularly the five-room ones, are built, it immediately becomes the centre of attraction because naturally, like all other Singaporeans, residents of Telok Blangah would like to have the first chance to purchase it. There is such a block of flats; it is Block 84 at Telok Blangah Heights. But unfortunately it is being used as rented accommodation for foreigners. Therefore, I would appreciate it very much if the Minister could explain the rationale of the policy to offer recently-completed HDB flats to foreigners for rental. How does he reconcile this policy with the policy to house Singapore citizens as quickly as possible when there are many citizens on the waiting list to purchase HDB flats?

(3) The third situation is even more interesting. Nobody likes to be awakened as early as 3.30 in the morning by noise. This is the case of residents in Depot Road, particularly those in Block 110 and Block 111. As early as 3.30 in the morning every day they would be awakened without fail by the quacking of ducks from the duck stall in the market. This problem started only about a year ago, when the owner of this stall must have suddenly gone into wholesale duck-slaughtering business. I do not blame the ducks for quacking, especially when you are trying to take its life.

Sir, I assure you this is not a rumour. It is not even based on hearsay because I personally, with some Citizens' Consultative Committee members and Residents' Committee members, went to the stall at 3.15 in the morning on Sunday, 14th March, 1982, to see what was going on. The ducks' quacking was disturbing. I have experience with roosters and cockerels, Sir, but very little experience with ducks. So I appeal on behalf of these residents who are disturbed daily in the morning that should HDB build such market stalls in future in any new housing estates, they should be built as far away as possible. Furthermore, would it be possible for the owner of this slaughter-house in the course of his business to start slaughtering his ducks a bit later at a more respectable hour of the morning, say, 5.30 in the morning?

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: Sir, before I answer the various Members' points raised on HDB, I would like to reply to the hon. Member for Whampoa (unfortunately he just left a bit earlier) on his criticisms of my Ministry on the building industry and the property market during the Budget debate last week. During the debate on the Budget last week, the hon. Member for Whampoa spoke about the lack of control by the Government in regulating the volume of the construction work. He appeared to have held a simplistic view that the rise in property prices was largely due to what the Government had done or had not done. In fact, this type of view is shared by many people, not just by the Member for Whampoa. [The Member for Whampoa just took his seat.] The Government is conscious of the limitations of the building industry and has tried its best to regulate the volume of construction work to match the capacity. However, in a system of free enterprise such as ours, it is impossible to exercise complete regulation. Even in a country with centrally planned economies, like Poland for example, where the State has full powers, complete control of economy is an elusive goal. 6.45 p.m.

The property market and the building industry in Singapore follow a cyclic pattern. Between 1970 and 1973 there was a building boom. The boom collapsed in 1974 as a result of the first oil crisis and the consequent world-wide recession. A construction slump set in and lasted until the first half of 1979. From the second half of 1979 construction activity began to pick up with the recovery of property prices and reached its peak in the middle of last year.

During the long slump between 1974 and 1979 the Government launched several huge public projects. In June 1975 the decision was made to develop Changi Airport and work started almost immediately after that. By the third quarter of 1975 contracts had been awarded for the Passenger Terminal Building and the first runway. Reclamation work for the airport commenced in March 1976. In October 1976 the contract for the Benjamin Sheares Bridge was awarded. Another big project, the building of the Singapore General Hospital, started in late 1975. The development of Kent Ridge campus commenced earlier when the Phase I contract was awarded in late 1973. This was followed by Phase 2 contract in early 1978. Similarly, the development of Singapore Polytechnic campus began in late 1974 and finished in 1978. During the same period the HDB also accelerated its building programme. The number of HDB flats completed in the five years from 1975 to 1979 increased to a record of 146,000 units in five years. This is the highest record ever achieved by the HDB. It has enabled the HDB to bring down the waiting list from 104,669 in 1973 to 59,303 in 1978. So you can see the volume of the HDB programme.

The big projects which I mentioned each took four to six years to complete. Kent Ridge campus took even longer and they are still building. Towards the tail-end of the construction of these projects, there was a -clash with the growing building boom. This has probably given the Member .for Whampoa the mistaken impression that the public sector projects were badly timed. In fact, they were very well timed but unfortunately there was overlapping. In fact, the Government had grasped the opportunity offered by the full in the building industry during 1974 to 1979 to construct several major projects at favourable tender prices which are probably half of what we would have paid if we had started these projects in 1980.

Looking back, the Government can proudly claim to have achieved almost perfect timing in implementing these major public sector projects. Where the private sector is concerned, control is most difficult. At any time, a large number of planning approval is given for private projects. Construction of approved projects, however, does not always proceed. Some developers face difficulties in clearing squatters or rent-controlled tenants. Others are unable to arrange for financial facilities and yet others hold back because of the unfavourable market conditions.

During a slump many developers slow down or stop their projects completely. In fact, we have seen a building built up to three or four storeys high and it stopped altogether. If the Member had passed through Mountbatten Road a few years ago he would have witnessed this project in the housing estate called Maryland Park. During a slump many developers stopped their projects completely and this is one of the examples.

The HUDC was able to purchase 95 units of terrace houses at Pasir Ris at the extremely low price of $68,000 per unit when the developers could not sell these properties for several years after their completion. However, during the boom time all the developers started construction at once and this overstrained and overheated the building industry and created a severe shortage of labour and materials amid sky-rocketing costs. I think this answers several hon. Members' question on why HDB slowed down its building projects. Because of the building boom in the last three years, a lot of the HDB contractors just simply refrained from undertaking any HDB contract.

As private sector development depends very much on market forces, there is relatively little that the Government can do. For instance, at the peak of the property market last year people were queueing up overnight at booking offices to purchase a property. Today the same property is offered at a reduced price of 30% and yet there are not enough takers. Thus, as long as we operate a free market economy we have to accept booms and slumps in the property market. In this connection, the property market is not unlike the stock market. The Government has no power to stop people from rushing in to buy what they think they can make a quick profit. Conversely, the Government cannot force the people to buy what they do not want to. Therefore, there is a limitation on the Government's power of regulation over the private sector.

The Member for Whampoa also made the point that Government could have helped to stabilize property prices if the Urban Redevelopment Authority had sold the land cheaply. The URA's open tender system is a fair system to establish the market value of the land. Developers sell their properties at the highest price the market can bear, Any savings by developers due to reduced land cost are not necessarily passed on to the end-purchaser, and I think we all know that.

Finally, the Member has spoken of the unnecessary frills in the private condominiums. Whether the facilities like swimming pools and tennis courts are provided or not have no bearing on the property market. Developers provide recreational facilities because they believe this will help them sell their properties. The omission of these facilities reduces building cost only very marginally. It is doubtful that the deletion of the so-called frills would reduce selling prices significantly.

As regards the Member's comments about clubs and recreational facilities for the general public, this is quite a separate matter from the issue of condominium development. On the part of the Ministry of National Development, adequate land has been set aside for the use of recreational areas.

Sir, I would like to come back to the points raised by the Member for Leng Kee. The Member has touched on the increase in selling prices of HDB flats and also the concern of the public of a further increase in cost. They are afraid that the HDB flats may be priced out of the reach of the applicants. He also mentioned about the costing of HDB flats. All the complaints made in this House and outside about the high selling price of HDB flats are most unjustified.

In the Budget debate last Tuesday the Minister for Trade and Industry has vividly demonstrated the difference between the selling prices of public housing in Hong Kong and in Singapore and he has informed the House that in Hong Kong the housing authorities are selling public housing at $177 per square foot of the floor area while the HDB is now selling a three-room new generation flat in the new town zone, with the successive increases in prices, at $36 per square foot. In other words, our price is 20% of the Hong Kong price. We all know that the income level of the people in Singapore and Hong Kong is roughly about the same. I would like the Clerk of Parliament to distribute a Table (Cols. 1505 - 1506) showing the selling price of HDB flats as well as the subsidy provided by HDB so that hon. Members will have a clearer picture. [Copies distributed to hon. Members] Table - SUBSIDY FOR 3-ROOM NEW GENERATION FLATS (Cols. 1505 - 1506)

The current construction cost of a three-room new generation flat is $37,500. This figure is today's actual tender price and we are looking for more contractors to build these flats. If any of the Members think that maybe this figure is cooked up and the account is incorrect, and that the flats can be built very much cheaply, I would welcome hon. Members to come to the HDB office so that a big contract can be awarded to them. We need more contractors to build flats. So I welcome any Members in this House or their friends who are able to build a three-room new generation flat at this price to come to the HDB office and we will talk business.

Mr Jeyaretnam: You must see the accounts as it is presented. 7.00 p.m.

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: This is the accounts that you are looking at. This is an extremely low price which the HDB is able to achieve mainly because of the supply of cheap locally-produced materials by HDB and the concessions given to its con- tractors, such as interest-free loans for the purchase of machinery. For every unit of 3-room flat sold in the new town, HDB subsidizes the construction cost, land and clear- ance cost, salaries of the professional staff who designed the flats and the interest charged during the period of construction. This subsidy is estimated to be not less than $34,779 per unit. This has been circulated to hon. Members. The subsidy is bigger for flats in the Central area because land resettlement and construction costs are higher.

Any rational person will appreciate how low HDB selling prices are when compared to the asking price of flats offered for resale by HDB flat owners. A random sample of advertisements in the local newspapers between 15th March and 19th March shows that among the highest prices advertised, a 3-room flat at Beach Road was offered for $95,000, the owner of a 4-room unit in Ang Mo Kio demanded $165,000 for his flat, while a 5-room unit in Sims Drive was advertised for $180,000. Privately developed flats cost more. Even in today's slump conditions private flats do not sell for less than $200 per square foot. We can compare them with the HDB's selling price at $36 per square foot. Hon. Members representing the people are complaining that the price is too high and that the people cannot afford it. The Hong Kong Housing Authority is selling at $177 per square foot, five times more. Our own private enterprise is selling at not less than $200 per square foot, which is six times more. The Straits Times of 17th March carried an advertisement for a project of 288 units of 3-room flats, each with an area of 1,200 square feet. In fact, it was also advertised yesterday. The cheapest flat in this development project is selling for $288,000 or $240 per square foot. Members can see the extremely low price of HDB flats.

In the years of low inflation between 1974 and the first half of 1979, the Government seized the opportunity to complete the construction of 146,000 units of flats which I mentioned earlier. These were offered for sale to residents in Ang Mo Kio, Bedok, Clementi, and Telok Blangah New Towns and other areas. There was no increase in the price of flats during this period as the Government could absorb the small margin of inflation. However, following the second oil crisis in 1979 after the revolution in Iran and the building boom in Singapore from late 1979 to 1981, construction costs skyrocketed. The HDB simply could not avoid increasing the selling price of these flats. Even with the big increase in prices, the HDB cannot completely cover its construction costs, as we can see from the Table that the HDB construction cost is $37,500 but the selling price is $26,700. So it is quite obvious that there is a very heavy subsidy.

Despite the escalation in costs, it is the Government's policy to continue to offer public housing at affordable price to all the eligible buyers to enable Singaporeans to enjoy the fruits of our economic progress brought about by two decades of PAP administration. Singaporeans should not succumb to the lies spread by malicious rumour-mongers that the Government is not subsidizing public housing and that the HDB is a profit-making organization.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Let us have the accounts.

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: It has the accounts, of course. As regards the HDB's accounting system, this has been explained at the Budget sitting last year. We can refer to it in the Hansard. The HDB's accounting system has followed the old Singapore Improvement Trust's accounting system, and it has remained so till today. The accounting system is not an invention of the HDB to confuse the public.

Mr Jeyaretnam: It is against the Act.

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: I am not too certain that the accounting system is contravening the Act. At present, I can say this much. The HDB is discussing with the Auditor-General as to how the HDB's accounting system is to be changed. As we all understand, the HDB is a very big statutory board. Every year the HDB is spending $2 or $3 billion. It is a very big organization. The change involved in the accounting system is enormous. For this parti- cular reason the HDB is discussing with the Auditor-General to see what is the best way of switching the accounting system without upsetting the administrative system. Hon. Members must bear in mind that if the HDB's accounting system is very simple like that of a political party, which has only $18.47 in the bank, then I think the accounting system is very simple. We can just discuss it with the Auditor-General today and tomorrow the problem will be settled. Unfortunately, the HDB is involved with millions of dollars. So it will take quite some time before the accounting system can be sorted out.

I think the Member for Alexandra has raised two points: first, the low water pressure in the top floor flats and, secondly, the No entry sign. On the question of low water pressure, I understand that the HDB has embarked on a programme to improve the water pressure in the top two floors of the tall blocks of flats where low water pressure has been experienced. Several hon. Members have raised the same point. Under this programme, the water pressure in the top two floors will be improved by the installation of additional mains and separate down-feed pipes. A total of 1,975 apartment blocks are affected by this programme. Tenders for improvement work have to be spread out over a period of 15 months, from August 1981 to October 1982, in batches of about 125 apartment blocks per contract. To-date, improvement work has been completed for about 555 apartment blocks and the remaining 1,420 blocks will be completed by the end of next year. I hope that after the improvement work has been completed, there will be no more complaints about the low water pressure.

[Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair]

7.10 p.m.

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: As regards the No entry sign which was removed by the PWD, I wish to assure the hon. Member for Alexandra that I will ask the Public Works Department to make a study and, perhaps with the Traffic Police, to monitor the traffic situation in that area. I would like to assure the hon. Member that if the traffic condition warrants it, the No entry sign will be put back in spite of what the Member has said regarding the PWD's fear of losing face.

On the point raised by the hon. Member for Henderson, I wish to thank the hon. Member for supporting the Government's policy on public housing. But on the question of residents who have been living in HDB flats for ten years and are experiencing congestion in the flats, I find that this situation is rather odd. Usually the increase in the number of members in the family comes slowly. It cannot be very fast. If there are about 10 children in a family, at the very best, that can only happen if there are twins in five successive years. I think this feat is rather difficult to achieve!

As the hon. Member for Anson has rightly read out from Hansard, a few years ago anybody who applied for an HDB flat had to wait for only 2 1/2 years. In fact, a lot of people in Ang Mo Kio, Clementi and Toa Payoh waited for less than two years. I am sure the Members who represent the respective constituencies will bear me up. That is a fact - they waited for less than two years. The constituents in Henderson should have no difficulty in getting the new flats. I really do not understand why they waited for so many years and allowed the size of their families to increase to such an extent as to cause overcrowding.

On the question of people earning more than $1,000 per month and wishing to rent an HDB flat, I think if they are earning $1,000 a month they can certainly afford to buy a flat. The policy of the Government is to encourage people to own their own homes. There are a lot of advantages in this policy. One reason is that the home owned by the people is not an item of consumption. That is why the Government is heavily subsidizing the people to own their own homes. Government is not subsidizing consumption services, such as subsidizing transport by way of lower bus fares or lower PUB charges. In other words, the cheaper the electricity, the more the people will use the electricity. If you give people free electricity, everybody will install three airconditioners in the house, just because it is free. But to own a home is not consumption. The Government is encouraging people to own their own homes. For this reason, I think a family with an income of $1,000 should own their own home and not compete for the limited number of rented flats which the Government is reserving for the lower income group who cannot afford to own a home. I am quite sure those people who are staying in the HDB 1-room flats, if their income permits, they would also like to be house owners. 7.15 p.m.

On the question of resettlement cases raised by the hon. Member for Henderson as well as the Member for Pasir Panjang, the Government has allowed the resettlement families a choice. If their income is high and the compensation is large, then they should buy a flat. But for those in the lower income group, the compensation is relatively small and they cannot afford to buy an HDB flat. These people will be allowed to rent HDB flats. If they are resettlement cases, they will have priority to rent HDB flats. There should not be any difficulty or hardship.

I now come to the hon. Member for Anson. I wish to thank the hon. Member for his show of appreciation for the achievements of the PAP Government in providing housing for 70% of the population of Singapore, although I can see that he gave it rather grudgingly. But nevertheless I would like to say thank you.

The hon. Member has mentioned that his constituents have waited five to 10 years for a flat.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Other places as well.

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: Other places as well. I am not going to say that there is not such a case. But as I have mentioned earlier, I think most of the people now living in Telok Blangah, Clementi, Ang Mo Kio and other areas, got their flats after having waited for two to three years. As regards the people who waited for nine years, then it is because they specifically want a certain area. I will just give an example. In my Meet-the-People sessions, my own constituent came to see me and said, "I have waited for more than 10 years?" I said, "How can it be? You should have been able to get a flat very much earlier." He said, "No. I want a flat only in Old Kallang Airport. I do not want a flat elsewhere." That explains the reason why he has to wait for so long. The HDB built four blocks of 3-room flats at Old Kallang Airport in 1962. After that there was a lapse of almost 16 years before the HDB built flats again at Old Kallang Airport. My constituent insists on going to Old Kallang Airport and so he has waited for more than 10 years. People who have waited for nine or 10 years usually are the people who insist on flats in a specific estate where either there is no flat available or where there is a very limited number of flats available. A lot of such people are waiting and those who are in front of the queue get a flat and those who are at the back of the queue are unable to get flats. But if a person is not so choosy, I think he should get a flat in two or three years.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Why should he be at the back of the queue when he has waited for nine years?

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: It is because, as I have mentioned, there are people who have waited for 10 years, 11 years, 12 years. So he is at the back of the queue.

The hon. Member for Anson does not realize that the Government's policy not only encourages Singapore citizens to own flats but also encourages our citizens to upgrade the quality of their flats. For example, a person whose income at the time when he bought a 3-room HDB flat was relatively low. In the last five or 10 years because of the prosperity and because of economic development in Singapore, his income improved considerably and he is in a position to afford a 4-room or 5-room flat, just for argument's sake. The Government allows him to sell his old 3-room flat to a person of his own choice provided the purchaser qualifies to buy an HDB flat. The reason is that the price of the flat has increased and if we insist that he should sell his old 3-room flat at the original price, most probably he is unwilling to sell and that will prevent him from upgrading. The Government policy is to allow him, if he has stayed in that flat for more than five years, to sell his old flat to anyone he likes provided the person qualifies to purchase an HDB flat. And therefore he can buy a bigger flat. In this way, the Government is encouraging people to upgrade the standard of housing.

Another reason is that the Government is at present encouraging families to stay near one another to prevent a further breaking up of the extended families. Take the case of a married couple with teenage children staying in an HDB flat. The son or daughter may want to get married and the family would like to stay together. The Government has made the policy that they are allowed to sell their old flat at a higher price to any person who is qualified to buy an HDB flat. This family can then apply for two flats because now that the son or daughter is married, they become two family units. Under the Government's joint balloting policy, the two families can get two flats, next door to each other. The father and mother are in one flat and the married son or married daughter stay in the flat next door. In this way, we keep the families together so that the families will not break up. And they make some money by selling the old flat. There is no question about it. But we believe that they are making good use of the profit by buying two flats and the families stay together. This achieves our social objective of keeping the families together.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I will send you the case.

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: On the question of somebody who applied for a 4-room flat but got a 5-room flat, and of somebody else who applied for a 5-room flat but got a 4-room flat - this is most amazing. I shall be obliged if the hon. Member can send this case to me.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I wrote in to the HDB.

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: This is a very serious malfunction of the HDB administration - giving a 5-room flat to a person who applied for a 4-room flat. It is just like somebody telling me that he went to buy a Toyota motorcar but was given a Rolls Royce.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I will send you the case.

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: Yes, please, I shall be much obliged.

The Chairman: On a point of order. Mr Teh, can I remind you that you should correctly address yourself to the Chair and not engage in a private conversation with the Member?

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: Yes, Sir. The point raised by the hon. Member for Kaki Bukit about income on rentals has already been dealt with.

The hon. Member also mentioned that shops have been built in the void decks. It appears that the hon. Member misunderstood the use of the void decks. In fact, the void deck provided by the HDB is for the construction of additional facilities for the residents. As the hon. Member may probably be aware, the HDB has built kindergartens, community centres and, in this particular case, shops in the void decks. The idea of having the void decks is that we have additional space for future use, including shops although it is rarely used for shops. Perhaps it is because of this that the Member has misunderstood.

The hon. Member for Telok Blangah has raised three points. One point is that the HDB should send reminders for the renewal of season parking tickets. At the back of the season parking ticket, I think there is a chop stating the expiry date. When a person sticks this ticket on his windscreen, in fact, it reminds him everyday of the expiry date. With that sort of a reminder, if he still does not remember, then I do not think there is any use for the HDB to send him another reminder.

On his second point about why some of the HDB flats have been occupied by foreigners, I think the reason is this. The civil service started a scheme in January 1971, i.e. 11 years ago, to recruit foreign professionals and technical staff to work in the civil service and statutory boards. To-date, only about 1,200 units of 3-, 4- and 5-room flats have been rented out to this group of employees. This includes Block 84 at Telok Blangah Heights with 76 units of 5-room flats.

The hon. Member will realize that in Singapore if one wants to rent a private flat he has to pay a very high rent. And with the salary paid by the Government, a young professional getting $1,000 or $2,000 a month is in no position to rent a private flat or a private house. If the Singapore Government does not provide HDB accommodation, these professionals will not come to Singapore and it will adversely affect our civil service and also our economic development.

The HDB is now launching a very large building programme. As the hon. Member for Leng Kee has said, the HDB is going to build 290,000 units of flats in the next eight years. Therefore, this very small number of flats rented out to foreigners is good for economic development and I do not think it will seriously affect the chances of Singapore citizens from getting their flats. I think the programme to build 290,000 units of flats in the next eight years is an important programme. And if we implement that programme, I think the waiting period will be very much shortened in three or four years.

The other point is about the quacking of ducks. The HDB has informed me that there are four poultry stalls in the Depot Road market in Block 109. From the recent investigation by the Area Office, one of the stalls has been used for slaughtering ducks as early as 4.00 a.m. This could be the source of noise nuisance and the HDB Area Office has advised the stallholders not to slaughter ducks in the early hours of the morning in order to minimize the noise nuisance. The HDB Area Office will continue to monitor the situation.

The other point which I have missed out is the point raised by the Member for Radin Mas. The Member said that the HDB has conducted a survey of the rental flats which are being offered for sale and also said that he is afraid that a rumour is going around that the HDB is purposely delaying the sale of the old flats in order to wait for an increase in price. 7.30 p.m.

I would like to assure the Member for Radin Mas that when the survey is conducted, the selling price of the flat is included in the form of survey. That is the fixed price. This price will not be affected by future increases, if any. So I think the Member can assure his constituents that they have nothing to worry and nothing to fear. As long as the overwhelming majority of the tenants want to buy the flats, the flats will be sold to them at the price indicated in the survey form.

The hon. Member for Moulmein has raised the point on the use of the void decks for holding funeral rites. HDB has conducted a survey in Sin Ming Estate from June 1980 to July 1981. Among the 190 bereaved families, 184 of them made use of the void decks, and only six of them used the vacant land. They preferred void decks to vacant land for holding the rites. In fact, HDB has constructed two funeral parlours in Sin Ming Estate, but somehow the residents prefer to use void decks rather than funeral parlours, for the simple reason that the funeral parlours are some distance away from their flats.

On the question of toilet facilities, in fact HDB is rather concerned about providing toilet facilities in the void decks. This is because they have the difficulty of keeping the toilets clean. HDB carried out an experiment of providing toilet facilities in Bukit Ho Swee about 10 years ago. The toilet was located in front of a particular lift in which urine was constantly found. So HDB carried out an experiment. We said, "All right. We will build a toilet opposite this lift so that people who used to urinate inside the lift will not do so now as there is a toilet provided." But the end-result is that that particular toilet became a source of nuisance because people just threw rubbish and even a cigarette tin into the toilet. The basin was broken. The tap was stolen. The toilet was continuously not functioning because immediately after it had been repaired somebody would damage it again. And the problem of urine in the lift remained as bad as ever. So the end-result was that they demolished the public toilet. Because of this experience we are rather concerned about providing toilet facilities in the void decks.

We provide toilets in the markets and hawker centres because they are heavily used and we station attendants to carry out regular cleansing of these facilities. If we provide individual toilets in the void decks, it may become a source of nuisance. For this reason, HDB will only build public toilets either in the kiosks, the market or hawker centres, in the eating house or in the shops. From our survey, some of these bereaved families had rented portable toilet facilities from the Ministry of the Environment for those occasions.

I think the Government will earmark some of the land and offer for sale to those people who are interested in setting up proper funeral facilities, such as the Singapore Casket. What we have discovered is that the funeral parlour organized along the lines of the old Kreta Ayer Funeral Parlour has not been very popular. People usually avoid going there because, I think, the parlour does not provide sufficient facilities for a funeral to be conducted there. But the Singapore Casket-type of facility seems to be quite popular. So most probably the Government will set aside land, not immediately within a New Town, for the setting up of these parlours. If we set up a funeral parlour right in the middle of a town, then we may face the difficulty of people rejecting the flats around that funeral parlour because of superstition and for various other reasons. People usually do not like to live next to a funeral parlour. So we will sell land to those who are interested in setting up facilities like the Singapore Casket. I think that will be a better arrangement.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Culture (Mr S. Dhanabalan): Sir, I am sure that my colleague, the Minister for National Development, will not mind if I were to try and supplement the answers that he has just given.

The Member for Anson, in passing, mentioned once again the subject of conservancy charges which he dealt with at some length, I think, at the first meeting that he attended here. I remember at that meeting he quoted from the accounts of the HDB that, according to the latest accounts, the expenditure, under the Expenditure column, on service and conservancy charges was $67.8 million, and under Income, service and conservancy charges was shown as $100.7 million. Therefore, by a simple deduction of expenditure from income he arrived at a conclusion that the Housing Board was making something like $32 million profit out of the conservancy charges. In spite of my colleague's explanation that one should not read such conclusions from these accounts, the Member insisted on repeating this point.

It reminds me, Mr Speaker, Sir, of somebody who reads, let us say, the accounts of a cinema operator. He sees under the Expenditure column, cost of printing tickets and, of course, there are a lot of other expenditure - salaries, film hire, rentals and so on. Under Income, you have sale of tickets. So you just take away cost of printing tickets from sale of tickets and you arrive, of course, at a huge profit. [Interruption]. Of course, it applies. Because under this expenditure, there are other items - management of housing estates and land, maintenance of repairs of buildings, ground works etc., and some of these items are covered from the conservancy charges. What is important is that at the bottom of the accounts, it clearly shows that the Housing and Development Board has a deficit of $39.5 million. So there is no question of HDB making profits out of conservancy charges. I think he should stop going about repeating these half-truths or jumping to conclusions. I am reminded, Mr Speaker, Sir, of the advice of James Thurber that you should not jump to conclusions because the conclusions you jump to may be your own.

Dr Augustine H.H. Tan (Whampoa): Sir, I beg your indulgence to speak because the Minister referred to what I said in my comments on the Budget address.

The Chairman: Please keep it brief.

Dr Augustine Tan: Yes, I will. Thank you. Sir, I agree with the Minister that the booms and slumps in the building industry are unavoidable and I said so in my speech, but the question is whether we could not have moderated the boom that we experienced over the last 2 1/2 years. He mentioned too that the Government took advantage of the 1975-79 property slump to launch a number of projects. He mentioned that it was perfect timing. I may not agree with the word "perfect" but it was good timing.

The real question was whether, in the course of taking advantage of a slump, we did not over do it, i.e. did we not launch too many projects that we overheated the property market, especially the construction sector? And I gave evidence in my speech of the overheating. Even from the national accounts, we see that in 1980 the construction sector grew by 10% in real terms, 1981 by 17%. He mentioned that there were 146,000 Housing Board flats built, and Changi Airport, Kent Ridge, General Hospital among other projects. I drew attention to the third quarter of 1981, and that was at the peak of the property market where the Government launched twice as many contracts in value terms as in previous quarters. He did not reply to that.

Furthermore, I also made reference to the URA withdrawing two choice sites in its 10th sale. I asked for the reason why and he did not give the reason. I also made allusions to building regulations and so on which may unwittingly have raised the prices of apartments.

Coming now, to the HDB. Sir, I am beginning to regret having raised the matter about HDB accounts in this House. Sir, it seems that there are people who are parroting me, whatever I say in this House. There is a big difference between the way I say it and the way people repeat it! [Laughter] My job in this House is to raise matters in such a way that the Government, although it has done extremely well, can do even better. Whereas when people parrot me, they are concerned with pulling down what the Government has built. So it is a matter of motivation, that is the real difference. In future, I will carefully qualify what I say in this House so that people will not misquote me.

On the matter of the long wait for HDB housing, I too have come across cases where people have waited eight years, nine years, or even longer. But in each case they had been offered at least two or three times flats in locations where they were too choosy. Now they cannot get them even if they want to because other people have already got into those flats. So that should dispose of what the Member for Anson was trying to say.

Sir, I think we should note that nowhere else in the world can people buy flats so easily, so cheaply, and so painlessly. I think Government has made it really too easy for our people, so much so that our people have become overly dependent upon the Government for providing accommodation. They have come to expect such high standards of the Government that should we just slow down a little bit, as we did over the last two years, there is a hue and cry. And the Member for Anson becomes the champion of these people.

I think we ought to place this matter in proper perspective for the people of Singapore. Nobody likes rising prices. I do not like them. But sometimes they are inevitable. I am glad for one reason that the Member for Anson is here, and that is, that I can sometimes take the position of the Government and defend it.

Mr Jeyaretnam: May I just briefly deal with this conservancy charges matter that has been brought up by the Minister for Foreign Affairs? I am afraid, as was said a number of times in the Budget Statement about me, that he was comparing oranges with apples, whatever that may mean.

Conservancy charges are collected for a specific purpose. If you are going to include, in those charges, other costs, then will you please tell that to the residents? Don't say these are just conservancy charges which are being collected for the maintenance of the flats for the upkeep and for the lighting - and then when they see that you are making a huge profit, you say, "Oh, no, no, we are also including other things into this." The point is, you go to the people and tell them exactly what it is you are collecting.

The other thing, Sir - may I ask a supplementary question? In view of the considerable concern about the pricing of HDB flats, would the Minister say whether there are any plans at the moment for any increase in the prices of HDB flats this year?

7.45 p.m.

Mr Dhanabalan: I think the Member for Anson should look carefully at the accounts. By his own definition, maintenance, repairs and upkeep appears under more than one item under Expenditure. If he looks at it carefully, he will find that the word "conservancy", though used in both Expenditure and Income, does not cover exactly the same items under both accounts. As I said, by his own definition, he is jumping to conclusions by just deducting two items, just because the same word happens to be used under Expenditure and Income. So please look carefully at the total accounts, look at the problem as a whole and not just one particular figure and jump to conclusions.

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: Sir, I will take the second speaker, the hon. Member for Anson, first. He has made misleading statements about the service and conservancy charges. In fact, in the last issue of Our Home magazine the HDB has clarified this and every tenant and owner of HDB flats has a statement on the service and conservancy charges. All the HDB residents have been informed that for FY 79-80 - it is in the Annual Report which hon. Members have - the HDB suffered a deficit of $15.7 million for the service and conservancy charges. In other words, we lost $15.7 million. That is also from the same account. If hon. Members have any doubt, they can write to the Auditor-General who will be able to confirm that the HDB has lost $15.7 million in the service and conservancy charges in FY 79-80.

The Member for Whampoa - unfortunately he is not here again - raised three points. The first point is why the Government started a huge building project last year. This is because in the second half of last year HDB managed to round up its contractors and got them back to start building public housing. So HDB awarded a very large number of housing contracts in the second half of last year and put the construction programme back to its normal course. That is why it is reflected in the huge public programme which appears in the second half of 1981.

Another point is why the Government did not sell the three urban renewal sites. Since the Member has been persistent on this, I had better clarify the position. These three URA sites were not awarded to the two successful tenderers who may be the biggest developers in Singapore. One developer who was successful in tendering for two sites offered as low as less than $5 per square foot because he was the only tenderer. The tender price of the other site was also very low. My reasoning is very simple. These two developers have-also got other lands in which to build. So if we sell them these lands cheaply, they will say, "Thank you very much." They will stop their other developments and build flats on this land which was bought cheaply. The end-result is that we do not increase the supply of flats. Suppose they have got a site which requires them to build 500 flats. Since they have just bought this land cheaply from the Government, they will build 500 flats on it and stop developing one of their other projects also for 500 or 600 flats in another piece of land. The end-result is that the supply of flats is not increased. A piece of land has been sold very cheaply to the developers but the flats are not going to be offered for sale to the public at a low price later on. They will sell at the highest market price when the flats are ready for sale. I do not think it is right for the Government to sell this land cheaply to the developers because it will not result in an increase in the supply of flats.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Sir, could the Minister answer my question?

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: Yes, the Member asked about a possible increase in the selling price of HDB flats. At present, the Government has set up a committee to look not only into whether there will be an increase in the selling price of HDB flats this year but also on a fairly long term basis and the new policies. The Prime Minister has made a statement on that and it has been published in the newspapers. The Prime Minister has assured Singapore citizens that the PAP Government will make sure that the future price of HDB flats will be within their reach and the committee is now looking into that. I presume that after the committee has studied this matter a statement will be made by Government.

Encik Abbas Abu Amin: Sir, I think the Minister has not answered my query, especially on the disposal of bulky items.

Mr Rohan bin Kamis: Sir, can I be of assistance about this accounting system? I know a little about accounts.

The Chairman: Mr Rohan Kamis, I do not think I can allow you to go into that. Have you got any queries not answered?

Mr Rohan bin Kamis: No.

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: Sir, on this disposal of bulky materials, at present the HDB is in fact advising the residents that if they have got bulky materials which cannot be thrown into the rubbish chute, they can take them to the refuse bin and from there the HDB cleansing workers will make arrangements for the Ministry of the Environment lorries to cart them away. I hope the Member will pass this message round: Do not throw these bulky materials either in the corridor or in the void deck. Please take these bulky materials or discarded things to the refuse bin and the HDB will make arrangement for these to be carted away.

Encik Abbas Abu Amin: Sir, is it possible for the HDB to allocate one day of the week or any day of the month where residents could put all their bulky items at one place so that arrangements could be made to dispose them? This is for the convenience of the residents as well as the HDB.

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: I thought my suggestion is more convenient. Anybody who wants to dispose of bulky materials can choose his own time, either in the morning, afternoon or evening, and take them to the refuse bin and from there they will be removed. I think this is very much more convenient than to fix a day for collection.

Mr Tan Soo Khoon: Sir, I am not satisfied with the Minister's answer to my query, so can I beg your indulgence, please.

On this question of 'No Entry' sign, the problem is that, within one month after the anonymous letter was written, the PWD took immediate action. But now 10 months after the community leaders have raised this problem to reinstate the sign, the answer that the Minister has given me is exactly the same as that which the PWD has given all the time, and that is, they want to monitor the traffic situation. The PWD was so quick in removing the sign and yet they are still procrastinating when they are asked to put it back, ignoring all the old reasons for having the sign there in the first place. If this is not dragging the feet, what is it? And surely the safety of the residents is of pal-amount importance and the community leaders are the ones who know best what is good for the people there.

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: Sir, perhaps I did not make my point very clear. I said that the PWD has informed me that they are monitoring the traffic condition there. I assure the hon. Member that after this parliamentary session I will see what is the result of the monitoring and they will let me know immediately. If they cannot come out with a good reason why the sign should not be restored, then I will give instruction for the sign to be put back, irrespective of whether PWD will lose its face or not.

Dr Ow Chin Hock: Sir, with your indulgence, may I make a quick observation before I withdraw my amendment? I seem to have the rare and doubtful honour of being supported by the Member for Anson twice, once yesterday on PARF and again today on the HDB accounting system. Consequently, I have to receive some fire and ammunition meant for the Member for Anson. Reluctantly, Sir, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Ho See Beng: Sir, I beg to move,

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

Sir, I would like to crave your indulgence for me to raise a different point altogether. You will recollect that on 19th March, 1982, the Member for Anson offered me the list of Blair Plain residents to enable me to look into whether the residents are Singaporeans or Malaysians, but I have yet to receive -

The Chairman: What has that got to do with the financing of HDB, Mr Ho?

Mr Ho See Beng: Of course it has got to do with this.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I did not mention that. You can come to my office to inspect.

Mr Ho See Beng: I did not ask for that list. You yourself said that you were going to give it to me. That is why I am now reminding you.

Mr Jeyaretnam: You come to my office to inspect it.

Mr Ho See Beng: No. You said you were going to offer it to me.

The Chairman: Order. Could I remind the hon. Gentlemen that they are not supposed to engage in private conversation. It is the moment of interruption.

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

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply has made further progress on the Main and Development Estimates for the financial year 1st April, 1982 to 31st March, 1983 and ask leave to sit again tomorrow.

Mr Deputy Speaker: So be it.