MAIN AND DEVELOPMENT ESTIMATES OF SINGAPORE FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1ST APRIL, 1983 TO 31ST MARCH, 1984

Order read for resumed consideration in Committee of Supply [5th Allotted Day].

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

3.12 p.m.

Head R (cont.) -

Resumption of Debate on Question [21st March, 1983].

"That the sum to be allocated for Head R be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead RD-03 of the Main Estimates." - [Dr Chau Sik Ting].

Question again proposed

Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam (Anson): Mr Speaker, Sir, before I speak on this Sub-head, may I again, in view of your ruling, say that my firm does act for workmen in industrial accidents, but I have no direct personal pecuniary interest in any of the matters that I am raising in this House today.

Sir, this Subhead is concerned with Industrial Safety, and it is about that that I wish to speak this afternoon. At the sitting of this House on the 4th March, I asked the Hon. Minister of State whether he would give me some figures on the accidents at work places for the year 1982. The figures were given to me yesterday, and I have them here. I see from here, Sir, that there were 5,760 accidents in the manufacturing and construction industries alone. And then there are another 131 accidents in the other industries and trades. We were told on 4th March, 1983, that deaths in the building industry had gone up by about 75%, 49 deaths, in 1982. But from the figures given to me, I see that there were a total of 80 deaths for the whole of the year at work places. I see that these 5,760 accidents in these two industries work out to more than 15 accidents per day, assuming that the workers work a full 365 days a year. That, may I say respectfully, Sir, would appear to me to be a very high rate of accident in these two industries.

I asked then how many had been prosecuted in the courts, and we were told that only 33 employers were prosecuted for violation of the provisions of the Factories Act in 1982. I understand from the figures given to me by the Ministry of Labour that in 19% of the accidents, the fault lay solely with the employers. 19% of the figure of 5,760 works out to 1,094. In 16% of the accidents, the fault lay with both employers and employees. Again, for 5,760, 16% works out to 921, making a total of 2,016 accidents where the employers were wholly or partly to blame.

I understood from the Minister of State that his department had imposed fines upon employers or suspended work for periods of time as sanctions for the violation of the safety precautions by employers. But what I do want to appeal to the Ministry is that the Ministry should consider prosecuting more of these employers who violate safety precautions in court. As I said, 1982 only saw 33 prosecutions in court and if you base that on the 2,016 accidents for which employers were wholly and partly responsible, it works out to only 1.6%. I do not know what is the reluctance or the difficulty that the Ministry has in prosecuting more of these employers in court. May I suggest to the Ministry that a prosecution in court will be far more salutary because it will bring to the attention of the public those companies or employers who are disregarding the safety of their workers. I think publicity itself would be a salutary effect apart from the fines or punishment that may be inflicted by the court.

There were 80 deaths. I do not know whether any employer had been prosecuted for any of these deaths. There are sections in the Penal Code which make a person liable if he causes the death of another by a negligent act. And not providing proper safety for the workers would be a negligent act. Has the Ministry considered prosecuting any of the employers or persons responsible for the safety under the sections of the Penal Code which carry greater sanctions? Where a person is prosecuted for causing the death of another by a negligent act, there is a prison term of two years if he is found guilty. Has the Ministry considered using the provisions in the Penal Code against employers? It may be that the provisions in the Factories Act do not allow for prosecutions in all cases where the employers have violated the safety code or requirements.

Yesterday reference was made by a Member about the legislation in other countries. Has the Ministry any plans to bring in new legislation? For example, Safety in Work Places Act, laying down comprehensive rules and guidance for the safety of workers and then providing penal sanctions against employers who violate these codes or requirements laid down in the Act? I think the Ministry should think along these lines. I would urge the Ministry to consider that the safety of our workers must rank as a high priority with the Ministry more than anything else. I do not think the health and safety of our workers must be regarded as expendable in our pursuit of economic progress or industrial progress in our society. Workers must never be regarded as human fodder in our pursuit of all this success economically or industrially. I would like the Minister to state whether there have been any prosecutions of employers for the deaths that had occurred last year and the results of these prosecutions.

The Minister for Communications and Minister for Labour (Mr Ong Teng Cheong): Sir, first of all, let me answer the points raised by the Member for Thomson. The purpose of the Factories Act is to safeguard the safety, health and welfare of the persons employed in work places which fall under the meaning of "factories" in the Factories Act. The Act already covers most, if not, all hazardous work places because such work places usually fall within the meaning of factories under the Act. The Act, however, does not extend to non-industrial work places, such as banks and offices where the safety and health hazards are minimal.

I myself had a good look at a dental workshop recently and I must say that the work processes and machinery used are no less hazardous than those used in many manufacturing establishments, such as factories producing garments and factories producing electronic goods. There is therefore a strong case for the requirements of the Factories Act to apply to such workshops if workers are employed so that the safety and health of the workers can be protected.

In dental workshops where the dentist himself fabricates or repairs dentures without employees, he need not be registered under the Factories Act. Also, the registration under the Factories Act is only confined to the dental workshop and not the entire dental surgery. Dental surgery which does not operate a dental workshop need not be registered at all.

I have not seen the British Health and Safety at Work Act, Sir. The title implies that the Act has a very wide coverage. I suspect that the scope covers self-employed people and even those working in so-called white-collar jobs. Its coverage may be too extensive for our purpose. It may even cover this Chamber, Sir, including the press gallery upstairs where you see the reporters are busy at work. It may even cover your Speaker's Chamber, Sir. You may be required to register your Speaker's Chamber, Sir. Nevertheless, I will ask my officers to study the British legislation to see whether we could adopt it for Singapore.

The Member for Anson was questioning the industrial accident figures. I agree with him that the two most accident-prone industries are the shipbuilding and ship-repairing industry and the construction industry. But it is not true to say that the industrial accident rate in Singapore is high. The figures that have been compiled by my Ministry show that the occupational injuries caused by industrial accidents in Singapore, for example, in 1981 was 22,041 with a total working population of 1,112,800. This works out to about 19.8 injuries per thousand workers compared to 56.4 in the US or even 84 injuries per thousand workers in West Germany. I think our figure is not really that high. But, of course, I have to be honest and caution Members in this House that it is sometimes dangerous to depend on figures like this without examining the definition of the statistics. Also, there could be under-reporting in our situation here. But compared to Hong Kong, our figure of 19.8 as against Hong Kong's 33.6 injuries per thousand working population is not that high.

Every effort is made to reduce industrial accidents in Singapore. But it is not possible to say that all the faults of accidents are due to employers. They are due to both the employers and employees, My Ministry enforces the law fairly against anyone who violates the law, regardless of whether he is the employer or the employee. The Ministry will prosecute anyone who commits a serious offence. Where the offence discloses gross negligence, the Ministry will cause the offender to be prosecuted for criminal negligence under the Penal Code. 3.30 p.m.

But inspections and enforcement are only one way to prevent accidents. We can build up an army of inspectors but inspectors alone will not solve all the problems. A more lasting solution lies in employers and employees changing their attitude towards safety and practise self-regulation. In this respect, safety must be worked into the system of work. For example, in the construction industry, a safer system of work is to use metal scaffoldings instead of wooden scaffoldings. As a matter of fact, with more effective and efficient way of enforcement carried out by my Ministry, there has been a substantial drop in the number of accidents in the shipbuilding and ship-repairing industry and industrial accidents generally. The number of industrial accidents was reduced by 2.6%, from 6,046 in 1981 to 5,891 in 1982. Although the number of fatal accidents has increased from 60 cases in 1981 to 75 cases in 1982, which resulted in 80 deaths, it cannot be regarded as a worsening of the situation if we take into account the increase in the construction volume in 1982.

I can assure Members in the House that the safety and health of workers is top priority in the minds of my officials in the Ministry. We will spare no effort to bring the industrial accident figures down wherever we can, but we need the full cooperation of employers and workers to achieve this objective.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Sir, I am indebted to the Minister for his statement, but I heard him say that the Ministry will not hesitate to prosecute anyone for criminal negligence if it is found that the death was caused by criminal negligence. I would like to know whether there has been any prosecution, either in 1982 or even before that, for criminal negligence under the Penal Code.

There is one other case that I was going to bring up when I spoke but I overlooked it. There was a case - I do not know whether it was two years ago - of a worker falling to his death whilst window-cleaning the OCBC Centre at Chulia Street. As I understood from the report, his death was caused solely by the defective state of the hook or bracket which was affixed to the wall and to which he had attached his safety belt. I understand that it snapped, which sent the man hurtling down to his death. I would like to know whether any thing was done in that case to prosecute anybody. I should have thought that there was a clear case because anyone who is responsible for that building should be responsible for maintaining the building so that it does not present itself as a danger to anyone working either outside or inside the building. May I know whether there was any prosecution in that case.

Dr Chau Sik Ting (Thomson): Sir, I should perhaps at the outset say that I had wanted to speak on this subject in the Committee of Supply last year, but there was no particular opportunity then. The current dispute between the Ministry of Labour and the Singapore Dental Association, however, has focused attention on this subject. It is, therefore, appropriate for me to direct the Hon. Minister's attention to this area.

The Hon. Minister has just said that he visited a Government dental workshop to see if it needed to be registered under the Factories Act. A Health and Safety at Work Act will, in fact, enable the Hon. Minister to require any workplace which, in his opinion, has more than acceptable occupational health and safety risks to be registered without any misunderstanding whatsoever.

Sir, the registration of dental workshops or clinics under the Factories Act, for example, is possible under section 6 of the Act. But it is like squeezing square pegs into round holes. A dental workshop within a shopping centre is a factory, but I am sure the Building Control Division will not have a factory in a shopping centre. Under the proposed Health and Safety at Work Act, not only will all the existing registered factories be included but all the other priority areas with more than the acceptable risk will also be registered. in other words, the scope of coverage will be widened from time to time at the discretion of the Hon. Minister. It is, however, not necessary to register all work places. It is an enabling legislation.

Sir, understandably, the Hon. Minister does not sound enthusiastic about the proposal, particularly in view of the limited resources in the Factory Inspectorate, among whose important duties, Members of this House will recall, the Hon. Member for Anson would like to include regular inspection of factory toilets. Sir, that is not the priority area I mean. Safety, as the Hon. Minister has indicated, is the priority. Nevertheless, I hope that at the appropriate time when circumstances warrant it, the Hon. Minister will bring about such a change.

Mr Ong Teng Cheong: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Anson has asked whether anyone has been prosecuted under the Penal Code for gross negligence for causing the death of workers. The answer is yes. The Ministry has caused persons to be prosecuted under the Penal Code. But I am not in a position at this stage to tell how many, when, and so on. If the Member would send in a question, I would be happy to give him the information.

Cases of construction workers who fell to their death from heights are not uncommon. The case that the Member cited happened about one or two years ago. I cannot recall offhand what the outcome of that particular case is. But in practice, the problem or the difficulty is always in attributing blame, that is, who is responsible for the accident. Was it the contractor who fixed the hook, the engineer who designed it or the owner who maintains the building. And if it is the owner, who would be liable - the management, the caretaker, the property manager or the Chairman of the Board? These are some of the practical problems. I thought I should just mention this. I cannot tell him offhand the details of the case.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Sir, by way of clarificaton, to assist the Minister, may I say that I should have thought the occupier would be liable.

Mr Ong Teng Cheong: Sir, that is not entirely correct because if the building is still under a maintenance contract with the contractor, then the contractor would be liable.

Dr Chau Sik Ting: Sir, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr S. Chandra Das (Chong Boon): Sir, I beg to move,

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

Sir, according to the Labour Ministry, there were 577 reported cases of industrial occupational diseases last year. I am told that this represents an increase from 174 cases reported in the year 1979. More importantly, we may not know the extent of industrial diseases among our workers, possibly for two reasons. First, I am sure that not all cases are reported. Secondly, there may not be enough specialists to detect such diseases.

Sir, the recent move by the National Productivity Board to introduce a part-time 95 hours certificate course for doctors to attain specialist skill is indeed welcome. I am sure this will go a long way to fulfilling the present shortage of specially trained doctors for industrial health. Sir, whilst this short-term measure is necessary, I am a little concerned whether this short certificate course of 95 hours is really adequate. Perhaps the Hon. Minister for Labour would inform this House whether this is the practice in other countries.

Would the Minister also like to assure this House that the long-term health and safety of our workers could not be compromised by this short-term measure?

Mr Lim Boon Heng (Kebun Baru): Mr Speaker, Sir, yesterday several Members spoke in this House on industrial health and safety. In speaking on this amendment, I wish to join them in asking the Minister what is the philosophy and strategy of the Ministry of Labour to ensure that the health of workers exposed to industrial health hazards is protected. What preventive measures at factories and other work places would the Ministry enforce to minimize these hazards?

Although the Ministry has from time to time made announcements of measures to be taken to protect workers, I feel it is time that the Ministry made a comprehensive statement of its philosophy and strategy. Since it is the workers who are directly affected by industrial health hazards, our trade unions would be only too pleased to organize a forum for the Minister to explain his Ministry's philosophy, strategy and plans. I believe this would help prevent little storms from brewing, such as the current battle over the registration of dental clinics as factories, or the minor dispute that arose out of the subject of Designated Factory Doctors.

On the question of Designated Factory Doctors, I must say that I am a layman and cannot decide from the reports of the verbal battle between the NPB and the medical practitioners who is right and who is wrong. However, I would be failing in my duty if I do not express the concern of my fellow workers on this subject.

First of all, is there any disagreement over the objective of appointing DFDs? It appears to the ordinary workers that the NPB's objective is a good one. Why did the medical practitioners object? I believe the medical practitioners do support the objective of the NPB. 3.45 p.m.

Is there something lacking in the NPB's course? The hon. Member for Chong Boon has questioned whether the 95 hours would not be too short. Therefore, is the part-time course to be conducted by NPB adequate to equip doctors with the required skill? Is the course on par with those run by other industrialized countries for factory doctors?

The NPB wants to conduct a part-time course on industrial medicine. I understand that there is a full-time Masters course on Industrial Health at the National University of Singapore. Does this mean that the undergraduate training of doctors is insufficient to equip them with the skills necessary to treat industrial diseases and advise on preventive measures to the extent that NPB has to conduct an additional course? Would the Ministry of Labour not be wiser to point out the deficiencies to the Minister for Health, and the Minister of Education, and could they not ask their respective officers to form a WIT's team to solve this deficiency?

I hope that in the near future the Minister for Labour will be able to assure this House and our workers that our doctors will be adequately trained to handle the list of industrial diseases requiring statutory medical examination.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock (Ayer Rajah): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Ministry of Labour has this notion that creating Designated Factory Doctors (DFDs) and allowing only DFDs to do this examination called the Statutory Medical Examination (SME) will solve the problems of the high-risk prone workers. They seem to think that this move will work like a magic wand - one wave and everything will be all right. I think the Ministry is looking at the wrong end of the stick to solve this complex problem. The Ministry is tackling this problem from the doctors' end. I think they should be looking at this problem from the workers' end.

Like the Minister, I agree with him that we should all be concerned with the health and safety of our workers. I am afraid, Mr Speaker, Sir, this is where we part company. I disagree with the Ministry's way of tackling these workers' health problems.

Before I proceed, Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to say that I am not a company doctor to any factory. I do not practise industrial medicine and I am only a family doctor. I am not representing the doctors and I am speaking as an MP. It so happens that I am a doctor and I have a more intimate knowledge of the matter and the issues involved. I would like to offer my views on this matter to the Minister.

I would like to begin by explaining this term Statutory Medical Examination and why factory doctors who are now doing this particular examination are disturbed by the latest Ministry of Labour's move to appoint only specially Designated Factory Doctors to do this examination. However, let us see what is so special about this examination called statutory medical examination that requires only specially trained doctors.

Statutory medical examination is a compulsory annual examination conducted on workers working in certain high-risk occupations. There are four such SMEs for lead, ionizing radiation, asbestos, silica and, lately, I believe they added three more. There are two parts in this examination:

(1) Physical medical examination, and (2) Supportive evidence. The first part is like any ordinary medical examination that one would have gone through during a medical check-up, except the doctor pays more attention to certain signs and symptoms related to the particular risk the worker is subjected to. There is nothing special about this examination. The second part is biochemical, involving the taking of blood or special investigations like sending the patient for audiometric test for detecting deafness or radiological, i.e. sending patients for X-Ray to rule out silicosis.

The point is this. The first part can be done by any doctor and the second part is not usually done by a doctor or even a DFD. It is dependent on other disciplines like the biochemist, the pathologist or the radiologist. Therefore, this examination can be done by any competent doctor. Even an industrial health doctor cannot do more than he. So why create DFDs? This is more unproductive.

The Ministry of Labour has come out with two pieces of statistics in support of the creation of DFDs to do SME. For the past nine years, in 1973, there were 13 cases and in 1982, there were 18 cases of toxic jaundice misdiagnosed as viral hepatitis. This works out to be about 3.5 cases per year. There must be within this period hundreds or even thousands of cases of jaundice seen by these doctors and in my opinion an average of 3.5 cases per year is not a bad record. Yet for this small number, the Ministry has decided to create a category of DFDs and later to legislate to only allow them to do SME. The impression I got is that the Labour Ministry has ignored the criticism and feedback from people involved in the field. They intend to proceed as planned. They are either misinformed or they refuse to understand.

The creation of this category of doctors called DFDs will benefit the DFDs more than the workers. It will benefit the doctors, not the workers. The Labour Ministry need not be a big Father Christmas to help the doctors to make money. They are all doing all right. Why do I say so? First, DFDs will have to be paid more for the examinations because they have undergone a special course conducted by the National Productivity Board. Who pays? The company pays. But in this recession period, why should they spend more on an examination that can be done by any factory doctor as in the past and also in the present? Secondly, those doctors who "graduate" earlier from this course or those specializing in Industrial Health will enjoy the benefits of this scheme more than those who are trained later and how about those new graduates. We will soon have a cartel similar to the OPEC countries.

In the meantime, while the Labour Ministry is concerned about the doctors, the poor worker will continue to have jaundice, to suffer from ionizing radiation, lead poisoning, etc. Why? Because he has been left out of this whole exercise.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the most important consideration in this prevention exercise is not DFD or legislation but simply the worker must be informed in the first place. I am sure those 18 cases in 1982 and those 13 cases in 1973/74 would not have been missed if the workers knew from the start that their working environment carries with it the risk of getting toxic jaundice.

Mr Speaker, Sir, while I would like to put the onus on the Labour Ministry, I think bosses and doctors are also partly to blame. Bosses must not take advantage of the ignorance of such workers who belong to the less-informed and less-educated sector. They must be told from the day they join the company; unions must help to convey this and the Labour Ministry must brief such workers.

Sir, I am equally concerned about the health of the workers as the Minister is. I am not against statutory medical examination nor am I against designated factory doctors. But I do not think that it is wise to have the type of designated factory doctors that the Ministry wants.

I think designated factory doctors must be very qualified industrial health doctors, not just doctors with three months' training at the National Productivity Board. These doctors must be full-time doctors and not be practising in private clinics of their own. The designated factory doctors must work within the Ministry of Labour in the Industrial Health Unit. And their role is to monitor the industrial health scene, conduct courses for doctors, looking after factories and to upgrade them, produce a regular bulletin for workers and doctors, provide feedback to the National University of Singapore so that they can incorporate this into the University's undergraduate medical course.

The designated factory doctors must visit factories. But when they visit the factories, they must bring along those doctors who are in charge of the factories. And, together with the industrial hygienists and, of course, the industrial nurses, they can advise these doctors who are in charge of the factories. Moreover, they can police these factories more effectively.

The designated factory doctor must assist the factory doctor by providing him with a medical profile of the factory he is in charge so that the factory doctor is aware of what to look for. As for the worker, he must be informed and he must carry an identification card or tag, like Medik Awas, to show this to any doctor he sees, whether company or otherwise. This will immediately alert the doctor to the possible health risk confronting the worker.

As for the statutory medical examinations, allow the present factory doctors to continue what they are doing now. But guide them by issuing appropriately designed proformas with the relevant information pertaining to the risk involved, similar to those proformas provided by the Work Permit Department and the Registry of Vehicles. If the Ministry considers the present problem urgent, then they should extend the list of SMEs, if necessary to include as many industrial hazards as possible.

Lastly, all factory doctors must register with the Ministry of Labour, and if any of them is found wanting in standards in the conduct of SMEs, appropriate action can be taken by the Ministry.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I know the Minister is not a medical man. I have tried to present the case in a different light and I hope he will consider what I have said in this House very carefully before he implements the type of designated factory doctors he has in mind and also legislation. He must make use of the full medical potential, not just a few, because he must remember the worker also sees non-company doctors.

The Chairman: Dr Tan, your time is up.

Mr Ong Teng Cheong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Members for their contribution on this subject of statutory medical examination and designated factory doctors. I admit that I am not a doctor and I will try and do my best to explain.

My Ministry has announced that it intends to introduce legislation to require workers in certain specified hazardous occupations to undergo periodic medical examinations to be paid for by their employers. These examinations are to be carried out by doctors who have some training in occupational medicine and who are registered with the Ministry as designated factory doctors. To enable doctors to acquire the necessary knowledge and expertise to carry out the statutory medical examination (SME), the National Productivity Board is organizing a part-time course to provide doctors with the basic knowledge of occupational diseases and their prevention.

Some doctors, whilst supporting the introduction of SME, are of the view that any medical doctor is able to carry out clinical examinations without the need for any further training. This opinion may have arisen out of some misunderstanding on the part of the Singapore Medical Association. 4.00 p.m.

The SME is more than just a clinical examination. The basic objective of the SME is not only the early detection of specific occupational diseases, but also their prevention.

To conduct an SME, the Designated Factory Doctor (DFD) has to consider not only the occupational history, but also the medical history. Besides doing a clinical examination, he has to arrange for special laboratory tests and he also needs to know the interpretation of the results from these tests. Where abnormality is detected in the examination, the DFD has to advise the employer and the worker concerned. Before he does this, however, he may have to visit the factory or work place to see for himself the environmental factors which the worker is subjected to. In this way the DFD would be able to link the occupational disease to the work environment and suggest possible changes to remove the hazards. For example, he would advise on the proper type of protective equipment to be used or propose adequate washing facilities to reduce the worker's exposure to certain hazards. He may also advise the factory occupier or employer to call in experts to assess the fumes or dust level that may seem excessive or to redesign the work stations.

The DFD may also be given statutory powers to advise the employer to transfer a worker with abnormality to another section while further investigations are being carried out. In some cases, the DFD may even advise the employer that the worker be given a permanent change of job. The detection of workers with abnormal health conditions would also draw attention to specific work places where control measures should be intensified to prevent other workers from being affected. The function of the DFD is therefore not simply to do a clinical examination on workers.

I wish to reiterate that the objective of the whole proposed system is the prevention of occupational diseases which entails visits to the work place of workers so that correct advice may be given to both employers and workers. The undergraduate medical training does not adequately cover this aspect as the curriculum provides doctors with a broad knowledge of many medical disciplines. Additional training would therefore be necessary for special areas like Occupational Health.

The Member for Chong Boon and the Member for Kebun Baru asked about overseas examples. In several industrialized countries, it has also been recognized that the undergraduate medical curriculum is inadequate for occupational health. Postgraduate courses on occupational medicine are conducted in, for example, the UK, USA, Sweden and other industrial countries. In the UK, there is a three-month full-time course leading to a Diploma in Indus- trial Health (DIH). This course caters for practising industrial doctors. In Sweden, the National Board of Occupational Health also runs training courses for doctors. Work-place occupational health clinics in Sweden are run jointly by the employers' organization and the trade union. In practice, they would not engage any doctor without the necessary training.

Some countries have enacted legislation specifying that doctors who look after workers and conduct periodic medical examinations on them must have appropriate training in occupational medicine, e.g. in Finland and West Germany. In West Germany, factory doctors must undergo at least a four weeks' course of training. Presently, the authority in West Germany is considering imposing a miniMLIM of one year's specialized training in occupational health instead of a 4-week training course.

I share the concern of the Member for Chong Boon and the Member for Kebun Baru that for the sake of our workers' health our DFDs must be properly trained. There is, as mentioned by the Member for Kebun Baru, a one-year postgraduate course conducted by the National University of Singapore, leading to a degree of M.Sc. in occupational medicine which our doctors could attend. But few doctors have been able to do so because it is a full-time course. In fact, from what I was told, no doctors in private practice have gone through this course. Because it is a full-time course and since there is no requirement to conduct SME, no one goes to this course.

Much as we would like our DFD course to be as intensive as the M.Sc. course or even those courses conducted in overseas couritries, we realize that our factory doctors have a full-time practice to operate. An intensive full-time course would adversely affect their practice. We have therefore asked the NPB to conduct a part-time course to minimize disruption to their practice. Even so, doctors are expected to make some personal sacrifices having to attend these courses. The course does not aim to produce occupational health "specialists" but to provide factory doctors with the basic knowledge and skills to carry out their role as DFDs. Higher standards may be necessary later on after review and we may consider upgrading the course in future when needed.

To ensure that the DFD course meet with professional requirements, a governing Board has been formed to oversee the running of the course, the curriculum and the examination. The members on the governing Board include representatives from the Ministries of Labour and Health, NPB, Academy of Medicine, National University of Singapore (School of Postgraduate Medical Studies) and the Asso- ciation of Private Medical Practitioners and the private sector.

The NPB will conduct the course for as long as there are doctors who wish to be trained. Legislation will be promulgated for the registration of doctors only when sufficient doctors have been trained. With the introduction of SMEs for additional occupational diseases and the training of DFDs, the health of our workers will be further protected and improved.

With due respect to the Member for Ayer Rajah, though I am not a medical practitioner, I am advised by competent medical practitioners, inside and outside my Ministry, who have gone through all this training and who have travelled round the world to examine the various sytems that are in operation in these countries. If the Member has any suggestion on how this could be further improved, I will be very happy to receive them. But from what he has said, I think he is not against SME in principle. He is not against DFD. He is only concerned about the way it is being done. But as I have mentioned earlier, it is a question of implementation, the practical aspect of this whole exercise. Much as we would like to have very qualified DFDs to do the work to safeguard the health and safety of our workers, we do not have these doctors now. This is the first step, as I have mentioned, to provide them with the basic knowledge. We are not turning them into specialists but we will improve as we go along.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock: Sir, the Minister mentioned about Sweden, and he said that statutory medical examinations are done by designated factory doctors. Sir, I produce to you a report I have just received, which states very clearly that the National Board of Occupational Safety and Health is the central authority in Sweden for matters as mentioned above (concerning those health matters). According to the Board the medical examination can be performed by any medical doctor who is registered in Sweden. So I hope the Minister's experts told him correctly.

There is one point I would like to touch on, Sir, and that is legislation. I am very concerned about legislation because I feel legislation will not solve this problem. As such, people outside this House are already complaining that we are over-governing. They feel harassed by legislation, because when you impose legislation they react to it as a veiled threat. Surely the Minister could have explained this thoroughly even before mentioning legislation. Take the question of the dentists, for example. There are already three pieces of legislation to cover the air receivers - the Dentists Registration Act, the Private Hospitals and Medical Clinics Act, and even the Factories Act. They are reacting hostilely because they feel very harassed, as I said. We must not be too quick to slam the door on them. I am not saying that they are right in this issue, but I think legislation must be the last resort in this issue. I for one will come back to this House to press for legislation if the doctors conduct SME incompetently.

Sir, let me remind this House that the West, as quoted by the Minister, has DFDs. But the West has this division of labour to such an extent that many of their jobs are superfluous. If we continue to imitate the West blindly, then we will go their way. A day will come when changing our electric bulbs will require a specialist electrician. And NPB will have to organize a specialized course for nurses to carry the bags of the factory designated doctors!

Mr Ong Teng Cheong: Sir, I agree with the Member that we should not imitate the West blindly. That is why we are not following entirely what is being practised in the West. That is why we have our DFDs going through the courses conducted by NPB. 4.15 p.m.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock: But your DFDs are so limited in numbers. You are only confining them to a few doctors, which is not right. The whole medical potential must be utilized. To reach out to all the workers, you have got to utilize whatever manpower, whatever medical power that you have and whatever medical potential that you have.

Mr Ong Teng Cheong: Sir, the DFD course organized by NPB is open to all doctors. We are not creating a special and exclusive group of DFDs. All doctors who have gone through this course will become DFDs, and my Ministry officials will be very happy if all doctors go through this part-time course to become DFDs.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock: Sir, I think the Minister is not realistic. It is not possible for all doctors to go through this DFD course. What is most important is that the Industrial Health Unit must be the coordinating body. They must improve the whole organization. They must inform the workers. They must have contacts with the bosses. They must have contacts with the doctors. You must establish this link. If you do not have this link, the workers will continue to suffer, as I said, from jaundice and whatever diseases.

Mr Ong Teng Cheong: Sir, I do not know whether there is anything more for me to add. The Member for Ayer Rajah is against legislation. I agree with him that we should not over-rule. But this piece of legislation is for the safety and health of workers. For the safety and health of the workers, which is given top priority in my Ministry, we want all doctors and employers to cooperate to ensure that the scarce resource that we have, which is manpower, is well protected and will continue to give us that high productivity that we expect to get from them.

Mr Chandra Das: Sir, if the Member for Ayer Rajah is still dissatisfied, I suggest he continue the debate outside the House. Sir, with your permission, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

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

Mr Lim Boon Heng: (9) That the sum to be allocated for Head R be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead RE-01 of the Main Estimates.

Mr Lim Boon Heng: Sir, I am not moving.

The Chairman: Amendment No. (10) has been dealt with. The following amendment stood on the Order Paper Supplement -

Mr Sia Khoon Seong:

Encik Othman bin Haron Eusofe:

Dr Wan Soon Bee: (11) That the sum to be allocated for Head R be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead RF-01 of the Main Estimates.

Mr Sia Khoon Seong: Sir, I am not moving.

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.

Sir, about 37.4% of the Ministry of Labour's budget is allocated to the National Productivity Board. The sum to be allocated for FY 83 represents an increase of 77% over the FY 82 grant. However, the House has not been given much information on NPB's activities and programmes. Only a brief account of the Board's activities is given in the Memorandum on the Budget. Could the Minister concerned therefore elaborate on NPB's plans and programmes? For example, the Board is pushing ahead with its work excellence committee programme. How is this programme progressing at this stage? Are the managements of companies giving their wholehearted support to this programme? Could the Minister also elaborate on the NPB's plan to encourage and expand small group activities like the Quality Control Circles at the various work places?

I would also like to touch on the various NPB training programmes. For the training of senior management personnel, the Board has sought and secured international expertise from Japan, USA, the United Kingdom, Holland and Australia. How does the Board gauge the cost-effectiveness of this programme? Is the Board subsidizing the training courses and seminars? The NPB should also give more attention to the training of supervisors and line workers. Could the Minister inform the House how much resources have been allocated to the training of these two groups of workers?

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

Dr Wong Kwei Cheong: Sir, since the beginning of 1981, the National Productivity Board has embarked on a programme to increase the productivity of our workforce through promotional activities, training and consultancy. In our promotional activities we were assisted by the National Productivity Council which was formed in September 1981. The NPC consists of representatives from the various employer groups, senior Government officials and the NTUC representatives. We have organized many seminars and exhibitions in promoting the concept of productivity and much support has been given by the employer groups, especially during the productivity month in November last year.

In a survey carried out recently by the Times Organization, it showed that about 94% of the workers surveyed were aware of the importance of productivity to Singapore. Productivity awareness, however, is only the first stage of our programme. The next stage is training. As indicated by the Minister for Finance, there has been a big increase in applications to the Skills Development Fund and many companies are turning to training, especially in these recessionary times. For those companies that do not have in-house training facilities, they have sent their workers for training in institutions, like the National Productivity Board.

The Member for Geylang Serai has enquired about the subsidies for the training courses organized by NPB. For all our training courses, we charge to recover our full operating expenses. The subsidies that companies do receive will be subsidies from the Skills Development Fund. In fact, there was a large increase in the training programmes organized for managers and supervisors by the NPB. In 1982, a total of 6,204 participants enrolled for our management and supervisory courses compared to 3,157 participants who enrolled for similar courses in 1981.For the seminars and workshops organized by NPB, a total of 7,073 participants went through those seminars and workshops in 1982 compared to a total of 1,552 in 1981.

NPB has a total of 48 full-time trainers and relies heavily on external trainers for most of the courses. In 1982, a total of 243 external trainers were engaged. These external trainers came from industries, Government ministries, the University and the Polytechnics, and overseas organizations.

As to consultancy, the NPB concentrates its efforts in helping companies to set up QC circles and work excellence committees. In 1982, a national registration centre was set up by the NPB and, to-date, 760 QC circles were registered. These QC circles came from about 68 organizations and a total of 5,629 workers participated in these QC circles. Our efforts in the training of supervisors and workers were mainly directed towards the training of such personnel in forming QC circles and in the forma- tion of work excellence committees. To-date, about six companies have already successfully set up work excellence committees and three other companies are in the process of forming their own work excellence committees.

As to the effectiveness of our training courses it is difficult to measure directly but NPB carries out industry surveys regularly and in a recent industry survey we certainly found an improvement in the cooperation, trust and teamwork between the workers and the employers in the companies surveyed. On a national level, there has been a drop in industrial disputes. I would say this is partly a result of our promotional effort on the emphasis of good human relationship, cooperation and trust that leads to higher productivity. In 1980, there were a total of 484 industrial disputes referred to the Ministry of Labour. This dropped to 392 in 1981 and in 1982 the figure was further reduced to 311.

Encik Othman bin Haron Eusofe: Sir, I would like to thank the Minister and beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $29,006,470 for Head R ordered to stand part of the Main 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 5.00 p.m.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 4.27 p.m. until 5.00 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.00 p.m.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate in Committee of Supply resumed.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Head P - The following amendment stood on the Order Paper Supplement -

Mr Eric Cheong Yuen Chee:

Dr Toh Chin Chye:

Dr Tan Cheng Bock:

Dr Augustine H.H. Tan: (1) That the sum to be allocated for Head P be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead PA-01 of the Main Estimates.

The Chairman: Mr Eric Cheong Yuen Chee is not here. Dr Toh Chin Chye.

Dr Toh Chin Chye (Rochore): Sir, I beg to move,

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

Sir, I was going to question the Minister for Health about the invasion of his Ministry by the Minister for Labour, but as this has been ably taken up by the Member for Ayer Rajah, I will confine myself to the budget specifics of the Ministry of Health, except for the Central Provident Fund and what can be used with the contributions.

Singapore has really no social security system as complex as what we have seen in advanced industrialized countries where they have pensions, unemployment allowance, free medical care, sickness allowance, food allowances, cost-of-living allowance for children, and so on. I think it is a mistake to try to examine the expenditure of the Ministry of Health against the practice of social security in the OECD countries. On the contrary, I suggest that it must be seen against its share of the budget for social and community services.

In 1982, the Ministry of the Environment's share of the total budget was 1.7%; in 1983 it is 3.4%. The Ministry of Education's share in 1982 was 10.8%; in 1983 it has grown to 12.1%. The Ministry of Health's share was 3.5% in 1982; it is 3.4% for 1983. Therefore, I am not feeling particularly alarmed about the amount that is to be spent by the Ministry of Health, not excited, as the Minister for Health would have us believe. Except for the down and out, there is no free medical care in Singapore as they have in the industrialized countries. In Singapore, the patient pays a certain percentage. The taxpayers pay the remaining percentage. In the United Kingdom, the National Health Service is paid for out of the payroll tax of 1.5%. Recently the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr Howe, reduced it to 1%.

Now, if we were to examine the payroll tax collection from 1978 to 1982, we find that in 1978 the payroll tax was $75 million. In 1982 it was $161 million. The expenditure of the Ministry of Health in 1978 was $202 million. In 1982 it was $321 million. If we divide the payroll tax collection by the expenditure of the Ministry of Health, we find that in 1978 it was 37.1%. In 1982, it was 50.2%. What does that mean? It means that the payroll tax has grown faster than the expenditure incurred by the Ministry of Health. Until 1982 half of the expenditure incurred by the Ministry can be budgetted for from the payroll tax collections.

Now, the Minister has assured us that we will be having a debate on Medisave. I will not go into the details of the national health plan of Medisave. But there are certain points which are related to this Budget and I think they should be taken up now, not three months later. First, let us take the idea that the expenditure of the Ministry of Health will have to be paid out of the Central Provident Fund contributions, that is, 6%, in other words, CPF contributions will be raised to a total of 50%, of which the employer will pay 25% and the employee will pay 25%. The example used in the Blue Book is a three-tier family, an extended nuclear family of two parents at 60 years old and a couple with a household income of $500 per month with two children below 10 years of age. If the working couple were to have their take-home pay reduced by 25% out of $500, they are going to take back $375. I wonder whether the Minister has seriously considered whether two parents, wife and husband, and two children can live on $375. In Hokkien they will say, Tionh lau see. I think this is most unrealistic.

I go to another page to explain why the budget of the Ministry has got to be scrutinized carefully and that we should not be taken by barn-storming. Here it is. This deals with patients who are in C class wards. It says:

'There are 70% of beds that are C Class in acute hospitals. Patients are increasingly opting for the more private Class A or B wards. There will not be enough Class A or B beds to meet patients' demand'.

That means Singapore is becoming more affluent and we will not be having Class C patients. But in the next paragraph, it says:

'in two or three years' time the Ministry intends to introduce a means test to restrict admissions to Class C wards.'

Patients who can clearly afford Class A facilities will not be admitted to the subsidized Class C wards. Mr Speaker, I have seen patients whose income allowed them to be admitted to Class A wards but not in Class C wards. The credibility of the Ministry is stretched when I see two contradictory paragraphs.

Now, let us go back to how he proposes to finance the expenditure of the Ministry of Health by using the Central Provident Fund contributions. Let us take the CPF collections. In 1978, the balance to the credit of contributing members was $5,981 million. The expenditure of the Ministry of Health was $202 million. So if we divide the expenditure of the Ministry of Health by the CPF balance, it is equal to 3.4%. In 1982, the CPF balance was $15,655 million. The Ministry of Health's expenditure was $321 million, that is 2.1%. In other words, there is more than enough money in the CPF balance to pay for the annual expenditure of the entire Ministry of Health, not to talk of calculating the cost of C Class beds only. If we were to assume that C Class beds were 80% of the total number of beds in the acute hospitals, it works out to 2.7% of the CPF balance in 1978 and 1.6% in 1982. Therefore, the need really to ask members to contribute more to the CPF does not really arise. There is money in the balance to pay for the budget of the Ministry of Health.

The Chairman: Seven seconds left, Dr Toh.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: I will wind up by reiterating that we should consider very carefully whether there is any need at all for further contributions to the CPF.

The Chairman: Your time is up.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock: Sir, looking at the budget for the Ministry of Health, I find that there is no allocation of funds for community hospitals. I would like to ask the Minister about the community hospitals. What are these community hospitals? How are they going to be run, where will they be sited, and why the need for this kind of hospital when there are so many general hospitals in the Republic? How are they going to relate to one another, and will it turn into chronic sick hospitals?

Dr Augustine H.H. Tan (Whampoa): Sir, with your permission, may I circulate copies of a table? [Copies of table circulated to Members.]

The Chairman: May I remind the Member that he has only 10 minutes.

Dr Augustine Tan: Sir, this table is obtained from the Singapore Family Planning and Population Board 1981, Chart No. 8. It shows the number of legalized abortions between 1971 and 1981. Members will note that the latest figure available for legalized abortions in Singapore is 15,275. This amounts to one abortion for every 2.8 live births, and if we include the cases of menstrual regulations of 3,615, the ratio is one abortion for 2.2 live births. On 28th November, 1980, when I spoke on abortion in this House, the total cumulative figure stood at 88,499 cases from the time the first Abortion Act was introduced in this House in 1969. The latest count as at the end of 1981 is a total of 116,352 cases. In 1970, the total live births in Singapore were 45,934. In 1981 the total live births were 42,250 and the crude birth rate had gone down from 22.1 per thousand to 17.3 per thousand, and this, Sir, despite the fact that the female population between the ages of 15 and 44 had risen from 446,000 in 1970 to 655,900 in 1981. We can see, Sir, the tremendous impact that legalized abortions have had on birth rates in Singapore. 5.15 p.m.

The Family Planning Report also says that the average age of women who had abortions was 28 and they had an average of 1.4 children. Sir, an average spans quite a distribution of ages and women with different numbers of children. Unfortunately, no information is given to us on the unmarried women who had abortions but it is also clear that there must have been cases where women had already had two children and had abortions. The question, Sir, is whether the women who had these abortions could have afforded to carry the babies and to rear the extra children. The Minister for Health in 1969 when he spoke in this House said the following [Hansard, 23rd December, 1969, Vol. 29, col. 2841:

'The basic aim of the Bill is to reform and liberalise the abortion law so that women with unwanted pregnancies may, on social and humanitarian grounds as well as on medical and eugenic considerations, have their pregnancies terminated safely and cheaply in approved institutions and by approved doctors.'

The emphasis was on social and humanitarian grounds. Sir, I suspect that it is not the case that people in Singapore cannot afford to have children but that we have imposed a lot of penalties on having more than two children and so if a woman has a third child on the way, she panics and the husband panics and gets an abortion done. I think this is something terrible that we have imposed upon our people.

Another point, Sir, and my question is whether or not this increased rate of abortion is a result of greater permissiveness in our society, in our culture. That is something which can only be discovered if the detailed statistics of the abortions which are carried out in Singapore are given to this House. Quite clearly, Sir, abortion seems to be rapidly accepted as a means of birth control.

On page 26 of the Family Planning Report, this is what we see. Table 16 on this page gives the number of new acceptors, revisits and total attendance at the family planning clinics. In 1977, the new acceptors were 16,158. In 1981, the figure dropped to 14,534. The total attendance in 1977 was 339,965. But this had dropped drastically to 250,075 in 1981. Something clearly is going on in this regard that people have adopted a very callous attitude towards abortion and using it as a means of contraception.

Furthermore, Sir, we have the Ministry of Education which is trying to inculcate moral education, moral values, in our school children and among the moral values that are being taught to children is respect for life. They are taught that to kill is wrong and yet we have the Ministry of Health providing all the facilities at public expense for the most part, of killing life in the womb. I know, Sir, that there is a lot of controversy on whether a foetus is a human being. But I ask you, Sir, and this House, what exactly is a foetus? Is it a vegetable, is it an inanimate object, is it a piece of pork or beef or some other animal meat, or is it a human being being created in the womb of a woman? If our women in Singapore can just tear out the unborn babies from their wombs or allow the doctors to do so so callously, what can we expect in terms of moral values? What can we expect in terms of moral attitudes on the part of Singaporeans?

What about the effects on the women? Many studies have been done to show that women who have had abortions suffer infertility subsequently, miscarriages, get menstrual problems, and get all kinds of growths in the womb. I say, serve them right. But this should be brought home to our people in Singapore that there is a very heavy price to be paid for doing this awful act, this crime against humanity. And yet we are told, when the Bill was introduced in this House, that it is on social and humanitarian grounds. We are excluding the rights of the unborn babies absolutely. This is not right, Sir.

The Minister for Health (Mr Howe Yoon Chong): Mr Speaker, Sir, I must first admit that there is a certain temerity on my part when faced with the Member for Rochore who was my predecessor, having held the job of Minister for Health for a very much longer time than I have and probably with a much greater wealth of experience in the financing of health systems than I will ever want to know.

I am also faced with a University don who speaks with great -

An hon. Member: Authority!

Mr Howe Yoon Chong: - not authority but fervour and vigour supported by fire and brimstone against abortion. I take these two Members first because the Member for Ayer Rajah's query is quite easy to answer.

With regard to the points raised by the Member for Rochore, I think all that he has said is to a certain extent valid if we are to provide free medical services to the people. But the point is, in our case we are not. As you will well appreciate, western countries have been providing medical and social security allowances, as the Member for Rochore has enumerated a whole list of them, ostensibly free out of the taxpayers, money.

What, in fact, has happened in the West is that the people have made the payment first, and this provided a system of insurance so that the enjoyment of the service or the special privilege is totally divorced from the payment for this service or privilege. Put simply, a certain amount of your income is deducted each month or each year, and from the total collections from the people, the money is used to pay various social security services, medical services, old age pensions, unemployment allowances, family allowances, the whole lot.

We, in Singapore, have among our earlier generation of leaders, those who were contemporaries of the Member for Rochore. They were bleary-eyed about all his utopia or paradise on earth that the social reforms first ushered in by Lord Beveridge would bring to our society. I think some of them went to England immediately after the war and came back very much convinced that that is the wave of the future. Fortunately for them, and for us, they did not get to be in charge of the government in the early days until 1959 and subsequently 1965. If they had been in charge of the government in the early 5Os or the late 40s, we might be in the same soup as all these western social democratic countries today are in. I for one do not in any way envy them. In fact, if one were to analyze the situation clearly, they are like people cliff-hanging on a rope, swinging around yelling for help. And some of our opposition members are even thinking that they are having a fine time on a swing and that we should also follow them.

Mr Jeyaretnam: What do you know about it?

Mr Howe Yoon Chong: As the Chinese say, the chap is hanging for dear life, and you think that they are swinging or that he is a swinger. These are the things that we should try and get away from.

The whole idea behind the National Health Plan is a simple one which our people will understand that it is no longer going to be an insurance policy, that what is going to be in the plan will be this: you pay for whatever services you get. But if you are unable to pay, because you are old, you are not working, you are an invalid, you are disabled, then the State will pick up the tabs.

In addition to this, what we are doing is to advise members of the public, "Please take good care of your health. Good health is not something that the State can legislate for you or the State can offer you. Look after it, safeguard it, protect it, spend some time on it. In the ultimate, if you do not fall sick, that money is not swallowed by the insurance company to pay other people. But that money goes back to you. Therefore, it is not money to be spent."

The Government using the taxpayers' money will continue to bear its share of the medical services and that is the reason why every year our votes for the Ministry of Health are increasing. But we must accept that in the years to come, things are going to change. The people's demand for medical services will be more sophisticated. Therefore, we will have to cater for this.

The new developments in medical science and technology will be much more advanced and necessarily much more costly. If everybody were to be able to get all the modern medical screening or medical treatment for free and they can demand it as of right, we will then fall into the same kind of situation as in America where everybody pays for insurance. And having paid for it, they go to the doctor and demand the full works, even though they have minor illnesses. The result is that insurance premiums go higher and higher. The costs for those who are provided by the state have been increasing over the years, so that today the American medical expenditure is something in the region of US$300 billion. And the medical service itself provides jobs for more than five million people. It is almost double in every respect to the amount that they spend on defence. All of us know how much the American defence bill is. 5.30 p.m.

We are not going to get into that soup. That is the reason why Medisave is being proposed. The 6% that we are going to put aside for Medisave in our calculation will meet only the Class C charges. The people who want to go to a higher class ward will have to either resort to their employer's medical provision or paying out of their own savings. If they do not fall sick, then all that is set aside for them can be handed down to their son or daughter at a later stage.

I am assured by my Second Minister who has been in charge of Medisave that there will be a further and more detailed debate on this subject. I would seek the indulgence of the Member for Rochore to reserve his final judgment on Medisave until that debate in May.

The Member for Whampoa is a very staunch advocate. I respect his moral and spiritual views but I would plead with him that his views as a member of one religion must take into account the views of other Members of the House and also other people in Singapore who may or may not be of the same faith. There may also be a lot of other people who have no faith but rather are agnostics.

What is important, and I think he probably will see this point, is that whatever the demerits of the Abortion Act or the practice of abortion, we are today having less in our population to the tune of 116,000-plus. I am not a lawyer. I am not a doctor. I am not a moralist and I therefore cannot argue with him whether abortion, the destruction of a foetus, is murder. But I think that question was raised when the House debated the amendment to the Abortion Bill and my predecessor did tell him as a lawyer that there is nowhere in the law to state that abortion is murder. And since we are still governed by Constitutional provisions, by the rule of law, I think that statement has to hold.

He makes the point that my predecessor, in introducing the Bill, had said that the provision of legalized abortion was for social and humanitarian purposes. I think that is so because even from 1969 when abortion was first legalized through 1974 when the Abortion Act came into being, this statement has always held - that abortion is a last stop, and there were talks about long shots and short shots. It is a last stop. We do advise every person who comes to our Family Planning offices for advice that they should not resort to abortion; that there are various other alternatives. But human errors are always possible and invariably it becomes necessary, and that is the area where we come in.

I probably share his views that we are going in for a permissive society. That is something we are not likely to be able to shelter ourselves from because we are at the crossroads of various influences, particularly films, glossy magazines, books, radio, T.V., and video tapes. If we want to have access to the world of the West, we are not able to cushion ourselves, to isolate our young people, from the other influences. It may be necessary that we should do more education; we should pay more attention to teachings, to moral and religious teachings, it may be necessary that we train our parents to take on greater responsibility. But we cannot blame all this on the Abortion law. It is just like saying that road accidents are happening and, therefore, the motor car is the cause. Therefore let us ban motor cars. The motor car is only one of the contributory factors to the increase in the number of accidents. But we do have this advantage in that by bringing abortion to the open there are more lives that are being saved than if we were to make it difficult and they go underground and seek unqualified, unskilled advice or assistance and end up as corpses. So we do have a plus point in our Abortion law.

I would plead with him. We have heard him many times. His arguments are cogent. But, as I say, it is his point of view. There are so many other points of view. The most important thing I would like to stress is that our Abortion law is to provide a service to people who voluntarily want to use it. There is no compulsion. There is no such thing as you must do it. It is the choice of the person. I do accept that it makes it easier, but to make it more difficult would be to chase it underground, with much more serious and deleterious results.

I come to the Member for Ayer Rajah. He wants to know more about community hospitals. I am grateful to him for giving me this opportunity to talk about community hospitals. Under the National Health Plan, in addition to advising the members of the public to look after themselves, that to exercise prevention is better than cure, we have envisaged a multi-line of delivery of health services. At the front line is the general practitioner and the Government clinics. We hope that eventually people in Singapore will get into the habit of having family practitioners. The family doctor will not only know the ailments of the family but also have an understanding of their psychological and family background, so that if anything happens to any member of that family, this general practitioner, who is the family doctor, will be the first to give them counsel and advice. In that way we will not get into the situation today where a young man who is a swinger, having spent the night before at the disco, has a headache the next morning and, instead of going to a doctor who will probably advise him to take two Panadols costing ten cents, will insist on going for a head scan which will cost $500. He can afford it and he wants it, because he wants the best of everything for himself. This is unnecessary.

If there is a family doctor, the family doctor will be able to counsel him. That is the first line of defence. We are hoping that the family doctor will spend more time with the family and understand the family better so that the delivery of the health service on the front line will be a health service of much higher quality than now. Today there is the arrangement that if you see a general practitioner and if your case is simple, you get treated with some pills. If your case is complicated, he refers you to a specialist or to the hospital. So his job is made very easy. I am quite sure a sincere and genuine doctor will not want that kind of a practice. He will want to practise his profession with great dignity and with great understanding of what medicine is all about. That is at the front line.

We notice that many doctors do not have clinics that can provide more than the simple treatment of simple cases. When a case is a complicated one, it is not that the doctor cannot treat the complicated case but he simply has not got the facilities to treat it. So what he does now is to refer the patient to the hospital.

For the good of the country this must change. The cost of a hospital bed is going up year by year. It started in the General Hospital in the mid-1970s, for instance, when a bed cost just under $150,000. Today when we are developing Kent Ridge, by the time Kent Ridge is completed, each hospital bed will cost nearer $350,000. If you have just an accident, it is not necessary that you must go to a hospital where a bed costs $350,000 or $400,000. A general practitioner can easily treat you, but you may need to be put in plaster and will require rest in a hospital and be attended to. That is the purpose of the community hospital. We ourselves have not yet fully crystallized this concept. We hope to be able to bring in a body of general practitioners who will give us their views on how a community hospital should best be operated. And I would welcome the Member for Ayer Rajah's contribution, if he so wishes to help us.

Dr Augustine Tan: Sir, the Hon. Minister asked whether having motor cars will make accidents more likely. There is a much more intimate relationship between abortions and permissiveness. The availability, the legalization of abortions, has definitely contributed to greater permissiveness in Singapore. Secondly, he said that the Family Planning Board does not encourage abortions. Let me prove him wrong. Page 27 of the Annual Report, 1981, of the Singapore Family Planning and Population Board, states:

'Staff of MCH & FP Clinics continued to assist women in obtaining appointments for menstrual regulation and abortion in Government hospitals.

During the year, 356 women were referred for menstrual regulation and 1,565 for abortion.'

Those are the cold facts.

Thirdly, Sir, the Minister accused me of being bigoted because I made the point against abortion. But I was very careful, Sir, to make my points on grounds of social morality and the kind of ethics that Singapore would like to see among its people. I pointed out that while it is expedient for the Government to take this measure, there are certain social consequences that we have to look at. If the moral fibre of our people is eroded, we are going to pay the price for it. We say we cannot afford those 116,352 unborn babies, but we are having work permit holders well in excess of the figure. There are certain inherent contradictions in our system here. One Ministry teaches something, another Ministry undo what the other Ministry is trying to do. I think maybe sometimes you people ought to get together and thrash out your problems.

One final word, Sir, and that is, when we try to have morality without God, without an absolute, we get into all this kind of contradictions. And on the day of Judgment, you will know who is right. 5.45 p.m.

Mr Howe Yoon Chong: Sir, I do not argue with the Member for Whampoa whether he is right or wrong. This is something for higher authority. If you take his figures of 15,000-odd abortions per year, and you look at the 300 women who were advised to do menstrual regulation and the 1,000-plus women who were advised to go for abortion, the figures probably are the ones where there is genuine error on the part of the pregnant women who need the help. It is not because our Maternity and Child Health people have carelessly, using his words, "advised them to go for abortion."

Dr Augustine Tan: Purposely.

Mr Howe Yoon Chong: Or purposely. I do not know whether it is possible or not possible, but not impossible. I have not accused the Member for Whampoa of being bigoted. I just said that it is his point of view and I respect his moral and religious principles.

As to whether or not permissiveness will bring with it interference with the moral fabric of our society, who are we to say? We, as I said to him, cannot cushion ourselves from the development. It was not very long ago that boys do not see girls until after the wedding. Today we put boys and girls together in the same school. What are we to do? Turn the clock back and at the same time demand that we should have modern technology? It may be that our religious teachings, our moral education, our education system itself and even higher education, have not kept pace with the development of modern science and technology. I do not know. I have no answers. We know that we have passed the Abortion Act in this House and, as far as the Ministry of Health is concerned, we are trying within the confines of this Act to provide the service as conscientiously as possible on social and humanitarian grounds. We do not force anybody to go for abortion. It is a voluntary choice. That is the point I would like to make.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock: Sir, I asked the Minister six seemingly easy questions. But the Minister has only answered three. The others must be very difficult. So he has cleverly thrown the ball at my feet. I accept the challenge and I will discuss with him in private.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Sir, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Sir, I beg to move,

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

Sir, this Subhead deals with Patient Care and that relates mainly to the hospitals. Before I come to talk about the recent increases for Ward C treatment, may I say a few things about our health service. May 1, first of all, enjoin upon the Minister and the Government that the health care of the community, perhaps together with the education of our children, must form the first priorities of any government and it is a sacred duty that is laid upon every government. Perhaps one can throw in with that, the housing of our people. But health care is vital and especially in our case where it has been repeated so often that our only resource is our people.

Two weeks ago I saw a report in the papers of the Director of Medical Services speaking at a seminar or conference that our health service had a long long way to go. He was not calling it a third rate service. But I thought that was what he was trying to say. He was talking about Singapore being a specialist medical centre. Are we, perhaps in our eagerness to promote Singapore as a specialist medical centre that will stand out in this region, caring for specialist treatment and attracting people from the neighbouring countries, neglecting the more important health service, and that is, caring for the greater part of our population in the treatment of their minor ailments? Are we giving our people, and particularly those who are unable to pay for themselves, the best medical care that is possible? Or are we treating them as we do with our workers, as I said, as recipients of charity, "Take this, or if you do not like it, you can leave it."? I think our people are entitled to something more.

We should not be running a colonial medical service which was run by the colonial government for the colonials. We have to run a medical service which is worthy of our people. I would ask the Minister whether he would enlarge on what the Director of Medical Services had in mind when he talked about our medical services having a long, long way to go. Perhaps could the Minister also tell us in this House what are the shortcomings of our medical service that the Director of Medical Services had in mind, and what does the Ministry propose to do?

Incidentally, I understand that there was a report from a British team of medical experts who were invited to look at our medical service when our new hospital was being built. I do not know whether this report has been made public. I would like to know whether it has been made public and whether it is available. If it is not, may I know whether this House will be presented with the report for Members to look at. I think it is important. It is not just a matter for the Ministry. It is a matter that concerns the whole of Singapore and we should see what these people had to say. They were probably brought here at some expense to advise.

May I turn, because of the limited time, to the increase in hospital charges that were announced to take effect from 1st January this year. Again, may I say that I am confining myself to the increases in the charges for Ward C. I see that the rates for Ward C have gone up from $7 to $10, an increase of 43%. We have been told for some months now that our times are bad. Everyone must tighten their belts, how people might be thrown out of jobs and that there might be less money. And yet we think it necessary to raise the charges to these people who can only afford Class C wards and raise the charges by 43%. Was that really necessary, Sir, I ask, particularly at this time when we are talking about bad times ahead?

This meant an increase of $3 per day for each patient in the hospital. I do not know how many Ward C beds there are altogether in our hospitals. But the Member for Rochore was talking about using the money collected from payroll tax to finance the hospital services. I am not going to go into the payroll tax. But only last week we handed back $1.4 million to the specially qualified women in the form of child relief. That is $1.4 million and a simple calculation will show that if you have a thousand C-class beds, the increase will only bring in just over $1 million. As I said, I do not know how many C-class beds are there. So we are collecting from these people a further million dollars, assuming there are a thousand beds, and we are handing back to people who do not really need the money, as I have said over and over again, $1.4 million. Is this an equitable distribution of our resources in Singapore? Is it not weighing very unfairly against those who are not able to pay for their medical services and for their other basic needs of life?

I see, Sir, that the $10 is made up of $6 for the bed, $2.50 for the daily treatment, prescription, and $1.50 for X-ray examination and medical and lab fee. But I understand that this $10 is collected as a flat fee regardless of whether you have had any X-ray examination or medical or lab examination. And it is not to be supposed that there will be an X-ray examination every day that the patient stays in the hospital. I want to know whether there is any rebate given where there is no X-ray examination or medical or lab examination for any particular day or days that the patient is in the hospital.

Then there is the Accidents and Emergency fee of $12 that is being charged. The reason, as I understood for this increase in the Accidents and Emergency fee, was that it was being abused. People are using the Accidents and Emergency Departments of the hospitals when they should really be going to the outpatient clinics. But I see that this charge is made even when people go to the Accidents and Emergency Department of the Hospital after 10.00 p.m. at night. Should there not be a consideration as to whether this fee should be paid by those who are forced to go to the Accidents and Emergency Department at night when they would not be able to go, to the outpatient clinics or the private practitioners? Should there not be some relief for them when they go to the Accidents and Emergency Department not by choice but because they are forced to because of some calamity or emergency in the night?

Then there is the question of the fee paid in accident cases. I think I raised this last year, Sir. 6.00 p.m.

The Chairman: Your 10 minutes are up, Mr Jeyaretnam.

Mr Howe Yoon Chong: Mr Speaker, Sir, as usual, from the Member for Anson, we get a hotchpotch of vote-catching ideas; they all mean nothing. He hears that there is a British report. But what report it is, he does not know. "If it is a report, it must be tabled in the House."

Mr Jeyaretnam: Was there a report or not?

Mr Howe Yoon Chong: There is no report. What report? We do not know what report you are referring to. You heard. You dreamed.

We are providing the best medical care that we can. Irrespective of A Class, B Class or C Class, the medical care is exactly the same. It is only when you go to a C class bed, that you are charged $7 a day. When you go to a B Class or A Class bed, you are charged very much more. If you go to a C Class bed, the total subsidy for your hospital bill is 90%. You go to a B2 Class, it is 80%; you go to Bl Class, there is no subsidy; you go to Al Class, you pay a little bit more than the running cost, so that we can recover some capital and development costs. It is as simple as that. From $7 to $10, by his very simple, superficial, facile argument, of course, it is a 43% increase. If it is $1, and we increase it to $2, it is 100% increase. If it is from zero, and we charge 50 cents, it is infinity increase. What stupidity! The $10 that he is now paying is for the bed plus the nursing service, the doctor service, the food - all for $10 a day. You [pointing at Mr Jeyaretnam] tell - me which lodging house can get you all those facilities for $10?

Mr Jeyaretnam: You don't point your finger at me.

Mr Howe Yoon Chong: That is to make the point. He is worried about our turning this place into a centre for medical excellence. He read about my Permanent Secretary saying that we have a long way to go. Yes, we have a long way to go. We have a very long way to go to be anywhere near a centre of medical excellence that is known worldwide.

Mr Jeyaretnam: We were talking about the medical health service, not about a specialist centre.

Mr Howe Yoon Chong: Again, you read your newspaper wrong, as usual. He was talking about our specialist doctors going out to practise to claim that they were as good as the best. Therefore, they charged more. His other illustration was that some of our specialists "are charging more and higher fees than Mayo clinic." I think Mayo clinic was mentioned. That is true. It is like a state player demanding a certain fee, but our estate player is demanding more. I think that kind of language he will understand. We have a long way to go. There is no doubt about it.

Then he says that the fee for A & E is now $12. Because it is $12, it is too much. The A & E fee is $10. But because the facilities in the General Hospital are much more modern and much more elaborate, in order to distinguish it from the ordinary hospital, we have raised the fee by $2. It is now $12. We agree with him - that is the only point we agree with him - that health care is a very important thing and we will provide the best health care possible, but not for free. You have to pay for it.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Sir, I am afraid the Minister has just been abusive in trying to reply. I do not know why it is necessary for him to be abusive. I know about this Minister's pompousness, even way back in 1952 or 1951 when he was sitting oh the Bench. Perhaps he has forgotten that.

But, be that as it may, Sir, he says there is no report. What I would like to know is this. I have heard this - that a British team was invited to look into our medical service and perhaps advise on the building of our new hospital. Is that true or not true? If it is not true, say so, because then I must relate it back !o the people who told me this. Did they present a report? That is all I am asking. There is no need to be abusive about this. One is entitled to ask for information in this House.

The other matter is about the charges. He says that for the A Class wards, they are just charging a little bit more than what it costs them. The highest charge, as I see it, is $100 and $120 in the new General Hospital. These are much less than those that are being charged in the private hospitals.

Mr Howe Yoon Chong: Increase it?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Oh yes, I say increase it for these private patients. Why charge them $100 for a one-bed room in the Government hospitals when they have to pay $180 at Mount Elizabeth and, I think $150 at Mount Alvernia Hospital, and $180 at the Thomson Medical Centre. I stand corrected on this. But that is what I think the figures are. By all means, increase it for these people, and I am sure they will still go to the Government hospitals. But why do you put the burden on the less well-to-do people, people that the Member for Rochore spoke about, people who are earning only $500 a month and have to give up 25% of that - not yet, but nearly that - now by way of CPF so that they take home less than $400. Why increase the burden on them? That is what I would like to know, instead of mouthing just abuse and saying, "You will not get anything free." There are some things that must be provided free in society, to those people who cannot afford to pay. It is no good coming with your high-sounding talk about "nothing is for free". Any government which is conscious of its responsibilities, of its obligations to the less well-to-do people in its midst will realize that it is the duty of the rest of the society to care for these people and to pay for them. It is as simple as that.

The Acting Minister for Social Affairs (Dr Ahmad Mattar): Sir, public assistance recipients do get free hospitalization.

Mr Howe Yoon Chong: Sir, I have for the last year or more restrained myself and bottled myself from being personal. But I see that the Member for Anson wants to be personal. He says -

The Chairman: There is no need for you to do that, Mr Howe.

Mr Howe Yoon Chong: There is no need for me to do that. I do not want to. He refers to me as having known me to be a bombastic fellow since the 1950s.

Some hon. Members: Pompous.

Mr Howe Yoon Chong: Pompous, since the 1950s, whatever word he may have used. But I have not been abusive towards him. I have just been educating him. But, of course, having been a teacher, I know that some people can be educated, others cannot. He may not have caught the point which I made in reply to the Member for Rochore that for those who are really poor and cannot pay, the Government picks up the tabs. But that will be after we have been able to establish that there is nobody to pay for him.

He says that we are undercharging the A Class. I do not know what he means by undercharging the A Class when we tell him:

(a) that the C Class ward is being subsidized to the tune of 90% for the same services, except that the bed is different;

(b) that the B2 Class wards are being subsidized up to 80%;

(c) but in the case of the Bl Class and the A Class wards, we recover the full amount, and

(d) that in the case of the A Class, we recover the full amount of the running cost plus a little bit that contributes to our capital and development costs.

He wants us to raise it. We will have to raise it for all, together, because these services are being used by our people. The A Class patient is still our citizen. The Bl Class patient is still our citizen. The B2 Class patient is still our citizen. The C Class patient is still our citizen. We treat all of them as citizens. But you want to level everybody to the C Class so that they will all be poor, so that they will support you. That is an action of total despair. You are preaching what is called, the message of despair. What the PAP has been preaching is the message of hope. You are all poor. We are all poor. Let us put our efforts together, work hard. We will only pay for what we can afford. Eventually when we work harder, we get more income; we will pay for more and more. But you do not want that. You want to catch votes by saying, "Take it from all those who have and give it to the poor." Singapore will be forever poor if you preach that. Yours is a message of despair. You do not understand it because you are like Rip van Winkle. Having learned something in the late '40s or the early '5Os in London about social welfare and the welfare state, you come back with that idea and, having got elected after seven attempts, you say, "Now I will apply it.", without knowing that 40 years have passed and all the people who have practised it are now on the road to perdition. And you want Singapore to follow that road. You must have your head examined by my doctors.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Sir, the Minister says that those people in the countries in the West who embarked on this are on the road to perdition. Does he know that even Mrs Thatcher's government, the government of which perhaps his Government would approve so much, has refused to cut back on social subsidies in spite of demands? It is not a message of despair that I am preaching. I am preaching a message of hope for our people. What you are preaching is this message of despair, "There is nothing for You, you poor people out there." I said, you give back $1.4 million to people who have got enough and to spare, and you take from those who do not have it, a million dollars, assuming that you have got a thousand C Class beds. Is that really necessary? Answer that question.

Mr Howe Yoon Chong: Sir, I will answer that, and more. I still owe him an answer as to whether or not there was a British team to help in the building of a hospital. That was not what he asked for. He asked whether there was a British team to review our medical service. There was none. If he had said, did we or did we not engage a consultant to help on the design of the hospital -

Mr Jeyaretnam: A British medical team.

Mr Howe Yoon Chong: It was not a medical team. The team that helped us in the design of the hospital was a British architectural team by the name of Llewellyn Davis. They helped in the design of the General Hospital. There was such a team but there was no report. You engage an architect, the architect does not give you a report.

He talks about the British and Mrs Thatcher. I think it will be invidious for me to say anything bad about a friendly government. So I would rather not say it. As to the real reason for the British not wanting to do away with the welfare services programme, even though their think tank has advised that it be done with, it is a political decision. It may be a decision like what our Member for Anson is always doing, to catch votes, "since the general election is on the way, you do not throw away votes." I think he can understand that.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

Mr Jeyaretnam: May it be recorded, Sir, that the Minister voted "Aye"?

The Chairman: Did he?

Mr Jeyaretnam: He voted "Aye". 6.15 p.m. The following amendments stood on the Order Paper Supplement:-

Mr Ng Kah Ting: (3) That the sum to be allocated for Head P be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead PC-02 Project 8103 of the Development Estimates. (4) That the sum to be allocated for Head P be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead PF-01 of the Development Estimates.

Encik Mansor Haji Sukaimi: (5) That the sum to be allocated for Head P be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead PF-03 of the Main Estimates.

The Chairman: Amendments (3) and (4) have been withdrawn. Amendment (5), Encik Mansor is not here.

The sum of $366,628,990 for Head P ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates.

The sum of $115,602,500 for Head P ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.

Head T -

Mr Tan Soo Khoon (Alexandra): Sir, before I proceed with my speech, may I first declare my interest on this matter?

The Chairman: Good.

Mr Tan Soo Khoon: 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 1100 of the Main Estimates.*

Sir, recently the HDB announced certain changes regarding its policies on HDB middle-income public housing. It was the latest in a series of changes which have been made to middle-income public housing policies since the early days of the HUDC, changes that have frustrated the many applicants on the waiting list. The most damaging of these latest changes is the new prices. Prices of new HUDC flats have been raised by as much as 148%. Next, a 30% levy is now imposed on any resale of these new HUDC flats. Thirdly, certain so-called exclusive estates are to be reserved for civil servants.

Sir, there are also a few other changes which have been announced but, for the purpose of today's discussion, I shall restrict myself to these three changes. It seems to me that the HUDC is bent on reducing the number of applicants or, in fact, eliminating applicants on its waiting list to make up for its shortcoming and failure to provide housing for middle-income people. This deliberate long-term strategy to deprive the people of middle-income housing started about two years ago when the HUDC first announced sudden changes to its policies. At that time, it made the announcement that applicants need only wait two and a half years for their flats. This was a very much welcome announcement. But then it showed us the magic formula by which this feat could be achieved:

(1) discriminate against single persons by telling them that they would have to wait till the age of 40 years before getting their flat;

(2) requiring applicants to deposit $18,000 without paying any interest, thereby getting rid of those who could not afford the deposit. But as we all know, this did not deter those desperately in need of housing, and only 931 out of a total of 6,456 applicants at that time withdrew their applications. So quite obviously, the HUDC had to come out with another scheme to get lid of more people on the waiting list so as to make up for its own inadequacy. Hence, the latest conditions, increase the prices again and levy 30% on any resale of flats. In other words, the HUDC makes it so unattractive that anyone would think twice before going ahead with purchasing an HUDC apartment.

Sir, there seems to be a misconception in Government that HUDC applicants desire to live in exclusive estates and are social snobs. Nothing could be further from the truth. Many, if not all, of the applicants are caught in a situation where they cannot qualify for subsidized HDB housing and they cannot buy anything on the private property market because prices there are beyond their reach. With the new prices of HUDC apartments shooting sky-high, most applicants will again find it difficult financially to pay for the new apartments. The Government is known for taking the lead in setting property prices. The latest price increase has had the effect of pushing up prices on the private property market so that even if an applicant, frustrated by the new prices and conditions, wanted to switch to private property, he would find that the prices of private properties have been pushed further beyond his reach. So applicants have suffered through no fault of their own, and an HUDC applicant is not told when he will get his flat, where he will get his flat, and how much he has to pay for his flat. He has to blindly fork out $18,000 and wait for the HUDC and its take-it-or-leave-it attitude.

Sir, nobody quarrels really with the idea that there should be a good social mix in our housing estates. But then, Sir, how do you explain that within the same estate, an HUDC flat will cost so much more than a HDB 5-room or executive flat? And if HUDC flats are not subsidized, then why should the Government levy a 30% fee on the resale of a flat?

Furthermore, if the Government does not want to create so-called exclusive social enclaves, why are flats in Pine Grove, Gillman Heights and Cairnhill being reserved for civil servants? If we are talking about eliminating class distinction and we say that our policy makers and policy implementers must set the example, and that they should know more about the community they serve by living within the community itself, then why are they being allotted houses in these exclusive areas?

I am not against Government providing housing for its employees. But this is wholesale queue-jumping. Why can the Government not have its own separate housing programme for civil servants? It has been done before. Is it not aware that there are so many condominiums coming on the market? There will probably be a surplus, and if the need is so urgent, why can the Government not provide for its own employees by buying these condominiums instead of depriving long-waiting applicants on the HUDC waiting list?

What is even more disturbing, Sir, is to read that while public applicants are being deprived as such, civil servants who jump the queue will get their flats at 17 1/2% discount. The way I see it, the whole exercise is designed to frustrate and discourage applicants on the HUDC list. One just wonders when the next series of changes will come about to make more people withdraw from the list.

Much has been bandied inside and outside this House about ensuring that our people have a stake in the country by allowing them to have their own homes. I feel that the latest policies of the HUDC run contrary to this thinking.

Mr P. Selvadurai (Kuo Chuan): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to raise two matters under this amendment. The first concerns the HDB's implementation of its policy on joint balloting. It involves a constituent bearing sales registration No. C4265912 who was eligible for joint balloting for adjoining flats in the Bras Basah Complex under the joint balloting scheme. Before the balloting for 4-room flats in the Bras Basah Complex on the 12th January 1980, the applicant found out from the Resettlement Department that his father's application had been recommended for the reserved flats in the Bras Basah Complex. The applicant further found out from the Sales Section that both his father's and his applications were Nos. 1 and 2 on the reserve list and that rejected flats would be offered to the applicants on the reserve list.

It must be pointed out that both applications were live applications at this stage and it was learnt that there were as many as seven rejected flats in the Bras Basah Complex. Indeed, it was confirmed in a letter dated the 2nd July 1980 by the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of National Development to the applicant that there were a few rejected flats in the Bras Basah Complex. Instead of being offered the said flats, the applicant and his father were offered three-room flats in Bukit Merah which were, however, rejected.

In March 1980, the applicant and his father were told that there was only one flat left in the Bras Basah Complex and they offered it to the father on condition that, on such allocation, the priority accorded to the applicant bearing sales registration No. C4265912 was to be cancelled.

The applicant was hence unfairly treated by the imposition of the said condition. But the more pertinent question is: why were the applicant and his father not allocated flats in the Bras Basah Complex when there were more than one flat for allocation in the said Complex?

The second case, Sir, concerns sales registration No. VDT 4199761. The applicant originally registered to purchase a three-room modified corner flat in July 1977. In May 1978, he transferred his application to the four-room register and a new registration number was issued to him. The HDB closed the register for three-room corner flats in August 1978 as it had ceased to build such flats and allowed those remaining on the three-room modified corner flat register to opt either for a three-room ordinary flat or a four-room flat without loss of priority. In other words, they retained their original registration numbers.

Since the applicant had earlier transferred his application to the four-room waiting list, he was not informed of the new policy as were those who had remained on the three-room list. So the constituent lost out.

However, as a concession to the applicants who have, like this applicant, transferred their applications to the four-room or bigger flats register, the HDB decided to reinstate the original registration numbers when such applicants were discovered during the HDB's course of work. The said reinstatement policy came into force in 1979 but the applicant's application was not discovered in the course of work till the 8th September 1981, a wait of two years.

In a letter dated 30th September 1981 written by the Assistant Estates Officer (Sales), Estates and Lands Division of the HDB, it was stated as follows:

'Reinstatement of the former registration number for applicants who have transferred their applications to a bigger flat prior to the implementation of the policy for modified corner flat applicants to transfer to four-room flats without loss of priority can only b? brought about either upon the request of the applicants themselves or is discovered during our normal course of work.'

It has taken the HDB more than two years to discover the applicant's application during its normal course of work. But at no time in the meanwhile was the applicant and those in his category informed by a general notification or otherwise of the said reinstatement policy in order to enable them to request such reinstatement. So the applicant was penalized both ways and is still waiting after more than five years for the allocation of a flat. What went wrong and what is the redress?

Dr Koh Lip Lin (Nee Soon): Mr Speaker, Sir, let me first support my colleague, the hon. Member for Alexandra, on his query on the HUDC prices. I remember two years ago in March 1981, in the Budget debate, the Minister for National Development said [Hansard, 20th March 1981, Vol. 40, col. 995]:

'We have taken the average selling price of an HUDC flat at $180,000. Some may be cheaper than $180,000 and some may be more than $180,000.'

Sir, I believe that in 1981 most of the contracts for the HUDC flats at Pine Grove and Pandan Valley had been awarded. So the Minister then would have known more or less what the costing price of the HUDC flat would be. I just want to find outwhy, in just two years' time, the price has doubled. Is it because of a miscalculation on his part, or is it because of a change of policy?

Sir, let me now turn to something else. In the debate on the Budget Statement on March 15th this year, the Member for Alexandra pointed out that there was, in general, a communication gap between the Government Ministries and the general public. I fully agree with his observation. My experience with my constituency and constituents indicates that there is this communication gap and lack of rapport between Government departments such as the Building Control Division, the Primary Production Department, the HDB and the general public. This communication gap inevitably leads to misunderstanding and unhappiness. On the one hand, the people at the grassroots level often do not understand the background of Government policies. On the other hand, the Government departments and HDB usually are not aware or do not understand the problems and grievances of the people who are affected by the implementation of the policies. Sir, I am not complaining about the Ministry of National Development or the HDB. In fact, they have been doing a great job in making Singapore one of the best places under the sun. But that does not mean that there is no room for improvement.

Sir, I think the communication gap exists because the Ministry and HDB are such huge organizations where bureaucracy and red tape prevail and where rules and regulations are adhered to with little flexibility. Take, as an example, an application for change of use of premises. In Nee Soon there are a number of people who were asked to cease their trades in bean curd, kway teow manufacturing, pig-farming, etc. because their trades were found to be polluting the Seletar catchment. It took some effort to convince them to stop their trades. They did stop. But when they later asked for permission to change the use of their premises to other non-pollutive trades, I would have thought the Ministry would give special assistance and consideration to these people who had given up their livelihood so that the rest of Singapore could have water of better quality. But their requests were never approved. I can understand that the BCD must be strict in enforcing the rules. If someone were to request to change his residential house into a store or a factory, approval should not be given. But for the cases I have mentioned, for someone who had to discontinue his trade so that the rest of Singapore can have better water, I do not see why his request for change of use of premises cannot be approved.

Another example is the compensation for fruit trees in resettlement cases. In the Budget debates in March 1981, I had commented on the unsatisfactory ways of computing the compensation for fruit trees. The rates have since been revised but the method remains unchanged. The inflexible way of classification of fruit trees has led to under-compensation for big trees and over-compensation for small trees, thus resulting in under-compensation in certain cases and abuses in other cases. I believe the Resettlement Department of HDB is now revising the fruit tree assessment and this has caused considerable delays in awarding compensation as well as a lot of unhappiness. All these delays and unhappiness could have been avoided if some commonsense had been used in formulating the rules or flexibility be allowed when implementing the rules. This example shows that the decision makers in the Ministry do not fully understand the problems at the grassroots. And the officers who implement the rules and regulations prefer to stick to the rules rather than question the suitability of the rules or making some flexible changes if necessary. This bureaucracy of rules and regulations resulted in a lot of unhappiness and misunderstanding.

Sir, our public officers are not people without initiative. For example, I used to receive letters from HDB addressing me as Member of Parliament for Yishun. I first thought that a Parliamentary Membership Bill has been passed without my knowledge and Nee Soon is going to become like Farrer Park or Upper Serangoon. In fact, it is because some officers who are enthusiastic in promoting the Hanyu Pinyin managed to change Nee Soon into Yishun. This shows that there are people with initiative and who are willing to make changes. I suppose if they can apply their initiative in things like resettlement compensation, it will be most welcome.

Coming back to the communication gap, Sir, often it becomes the duty of the Member of Parliament (of the ruling party, of course) to serve as a bridge to a gap, i.e. to act as interpreters of Government policies and advocates for the people. I think all PAP MPs enjoy playing this role but a lot of effort can be saved and unhappiness minimized if this gap can be reduced.

I would like to propose that a Council or a Committee, similar to that of the Schools Council in the Ministry of Education, be formed. Members of the Council may include senior officers from the Ministry or HD9, representatives from grassroots organizations, such as CCCs, CCMCs and RCs, and of course, the Minister, the Minister of State, Senior Parliamentary Secretaries and MPs can also sit in. The Council can meet regularly, say, bi-monthly or quarterly. During the meetings Government policies can be explained and discussed, problems and complaints from people can be looked into and queries can be answered. Because of the large number of constituencies, it would not be possible to have one council for each constituency. Perhaps one council for each district will be feasible. With the establishment of such a Council, I am sure the communication gap will be eliminated and the rapport between the Government and the people improved.

Sir, I hope the Minister will consider my proposal.

The Minister for National Development (Mr Teh Cheang Wan): Before I answer the queries raised by the Member for Alexandra on the HUDC flats, allow me to make some comments on the matters raised by the Members for Clementi and Whampoa during the debate on the Minister for Trade and Industry's Budget Statement. They have commented on the property development and the land alienation policy of the Government.

I recall telling the Member for Whampoa in last year's Budget debate that it was not possible for the Government to control the property market in a free economy such as Singapore's. It is the Government's desire to have an orderly property market where there are no violent fluctuations in prices, no great upswings and downswings and where supply closely matches demand But these are ideals which can never be attained. What the Government can do and has been doing to help developers is to release as much information as possible on the building construction industry in Singapore. In this connection my Ministry produces such publications as Building Statistics Quarterly which contains a wealth of construction statistics. From time to time my Ministry releases the findings of studies conducted on specific sectors of the building industry, and there are plans to collate these studies for publication and sale to the public. Private developers can also obtain the services of various private property consultants to produce market reviews, projections of supply and demand, and other studies. All these statistics and studies, however, are only information inputs for planning and decision making. Ultimately it is the developers themselves who will decide whether or not to proceed with a project. In view of the substantial capital outlay required to undertake any project, from several million dollars for small ones to several hundred million dollars for big ones, I believe developers do their sums very carefully before embarking on any development.

I am not convinced that civil servants have more knowledge and expertise on properties than developers and can therefore advise them whether and when to proceed. The property market in a free economy is the same as the stock market or the commodity market. It is difficult to direct private developers to start or stop, accelerate or decelerate development. Whilst the supply of property takes some years to complete, demand can surge overnight. Take hotels, for example. Although a large number of developers have been given planning approvals to construct hotels, some take shorter periods to deliver rooms while others take a longer time. There was one hotel developer who obtained planning permission in 1965 and completed construction only in 1980, i.e. 15 years. Projecting demand is an equally hazardous business, and this is undertaken by the Singapore Tourist Promotion Board. Based on the high average tourist growth of 11.4% over the period 1979 to 1981, we need to double our hotel rooms in 62 ' years. However, last year's tourist arrivals grew by only 4.5%, owing mainly to global recession. If this trend continues over the next few years, there will be a surplus of hotel rooms.

The point I am trying to make is that it is almost impossible to predict the supply and the demand for property with a high degree of accuracy. This applies to all types of property, whether residential, commercial or hotel. Numerous factors have a bearing on the property market, including the world and the country's economic situation, political stability and developments in the region and neighbouring countries. 6.45 p.m.

[Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair]

The Minister for National Development (Mr Teh Cheang Wan): In Singapore, the Government owns the biggest land bank. This is fortunate because it allows the Government to use land alienation as a stabilizing factor. Depending on the studies of demand, land is periodically released through URA sales of sites. For example, in accordance with the Tourist Promotion Board's forecast for hotel demand, the URA offered land for hotel development in 1979,1980 and 1981. Similarly, in response to residential property demand, the URA offered in 1981 sufficient land for development of 5,000 residential units. Other sales had made land available for office, shopping, warehousing and industrial development. Land offers in URA sales are sold by public tender. The prices are therefore dictated by market forces. I believe we can safely assume that developers place their bids only after due and careful calculations.

Now I come to the comments made during the Budget debate. The hon. Member for Chong Boon has said that HDB changes its policy too often. Just now the Member for Alexandra has very eloquently demonstrated that, in fact, the Government has all the time been changing the policy very drastically for HUDC flats. I have to point out that no Government policy can remain static for long periods of time. So Government policy must change and will continue to change. As external and internal environment changes, so also must Government policy change. Among them is the housing policy.

The former Housing and Urban Development Company was established in the early seventies to build homes for the middle-income group. The company set forth to fulfil its mission through a very liberal approach. For example, its rule permits single persons and permanent residents to apply for flats. Applicants were exempted from paying any initial deposit other than $200 registration fee. The flat could be resold freely after five years without a resale levy and flat owners could purchase private properties after five years. On top of all this, HUDC buyers could use their CPF money to pay for their flats. At that time the CPF Board had not liberalized its policy to allow withdrawals, as at present, to buy private flats. That was a very special privilege for the HUDC applicants.

The company did not realize that by adopting such a liberal policy, it was in effect taking over the role of the private sector in residential development. The only difference between a private property owner and an HUDC flat owner was the restriction on ownership of another property in the first five years. After five years, HUDC owners were on par with private property owners. The company's policy, in fact, was contrary to the Government's intention. The real objective of the middle-income housing scheme was and still is to provide homes at below market prices for the middle-income citizens who find prices of private residential homes beyond their reach. It was never the Government's intention to supplant the private sector in building homes for investment purposes. I would like to emphasize this point. If we maintain the HUDC's policy, then Government is, in fact, taking over the role of developing private residential properties. That is not what the Government wants. The Government wants an active private sector in developing residential property for investment. The Government has no intention of taking over this role. But the HUDC, by adopting a very liberal policy, has in fact been unwittingly taking over the role. I will illustrate afterwards what I mean.

The company's liberal policy has encouraged a large number of applicants for HUDC flats in the property boom years in 1980 and 1981. As property prices climbed, so did the demand for cheap HUDC flats, or at the time they believed to be cheap. At the height of the boom, HUDC applicants peaked to 600 applicants per month or 7,200 applicants per year. I think the year before last I said that the building materials and the labour involved for one unit of HUDC flat was equivalent to three units of HDB flat, on average. So if the Government had taken over the development of private property for investment, then Government would have to build 7,200 units of HUDC flats every year, and possibly even more, if we did not change the policy. Then Government would have to divert the resources for the construction of HDB flats, about 21,000 units of HDB flats a year, to build HUDC flats mainly for investment. As you can see, this is an untenable situation. The HDB building programme will collapse. We will not be able to build the necessary number of HDB flats to meet the demand of the public applicants and, at the same time, build enough HUDC flats to satisfy the demand for investment.

In fact, I have heard from people living in HUDC estates that there are Koreans and Japanese in their estates. The reason is that some bachelors had bought HUDC flats and had locked them up because they did not need the flats as they could stay with their parents or somewhere else for four or five years. After five years, they rented out their flats to Koreans and Japanese, for investment. I am just asking: Is this the purpose? This is certainly not the purpose of the Government, to build HUDC flats for investment by renting out to the foreigners. That certainly is not the correct policy.

The policy of HUDC is that the Government builds HUDC flats to meet the demand for homes for the middle-income group. That means they are for owner-occupiers, not for investors and not for the person who is going to rent his flat to other people. The huge demand for HUDC flats has generated, as I have said earlier, an untenable situation. Therefore, the policy has to be changed. The function of developing and management of the middle-income housing was thus transferred to the Housing Board on 1st May 1982.

HUDC housing now represents the apex of public housing. In other words, HUDC housing is now not developed by a private company. It is part of HDB's public housing programme. Therefore, HUDC flats were subjected to the same rules and conditions as other types of housing sold by HDB. This is a very rational approach towards attaining the Government's objective of providing a decent standard of housing and promoting home ownership among Singapore citizens whose incomes are less than $6,000 per month, i.e. the HUDC group of people. Their income ranges from $3,501 to $6,000. This income group is only allowed to buy HUDC flats. Therefore, there is a need to revise HUDC rules.

I would illustrate another example of why HDB has to consider changing the rules to attain certain Government objectives. For example, in line with our national goal of preserving traditional Asian values, like filial piety and preserving the family structure, HDB introduces the joint balloting and multi-tier family schemes. This, in fact, is the policy adopted by HDB to achieve that objective which we did not have earlier. And there are people who complain that because we allow multi-tier families to jump the queue they have to be pushed back. They are unhappy. But on balance the Government believes that this is a good policy. It will be good for society if we allow joint balloting so that the families can live next to one another and the younger generation can take care of the older generation in future. Also, in the multi-tier families, the younger people can live with the older people and look after their parents.

To promote security in HDB neighbourhoods, the HDB has accorded priority in the allocation of flats - I think it is 2% - to police personnel. This, again, allows the police personnel to jump the queue. This is a good objective of the Government because with the presence of police personnel in the neighbourhood I think the security will improve.

As you can see, the public housing policy will continue to change in response to social, economic and other changes both in Singapore and sometimes outside Singapore. However, I would like to assure the House that every change of HDB and HUDC policies is made with the good of the community and the country in mind. 7.00 p.m.

I have explained the general policy and, perhaps at this stage, I would like to answer in detail the various points raised by the hon. Member for Alexandra. He has talked about the increase of HUDC prices of up to 148%. This increase is reasonable based on two counts. One is inflation of the construction cost and the increase in land price. If you take the 1977 or 1978 private property prices and today's private property prices, the increase is not 148%. The increase is more likely to be 300% to 400%, that is, if you compare our increase with the private property price increase. If we compare them with the cost prices of Government housing, in other words, the construction cost and the land cost, the HUDC flats are still subsidized. They are subsidized in respect of the land cost. We cannot take the market land cost, because if we price the cost of the land for building HUDC flats at today's market price, then the HUDC price would have to be very much higher than what has been announced. As we all understand, in Bedok we are pricing HUDC flats at between $1,200 and $1,300 per sq metre, or about $120 per sq foot. I ask you, where can you buy a flat at $120 per sq foot in that area today? It is obvious that the HUDC prices are still subsidized to a great extent. They are still very much cheaper than the private flats by as much as 30% to 40%.

As regards the levy of 30% for the sale, I will just explain the principle of this levy. In HUDC flats, there is an element of subsidy by the Government. The levy is not in the form of a tax whereby the Government just collects the money. I would say that the Government is subsidizing HUDC flats maybe by 30% to 40%. If a person decides to sell his HUDC flat, the Government says, "This 30% to 40% Government subsidy, you return it to the Government, because you can then come back to buy another flat again." That is the basic principle, "So you can come back to buy a second flat." in the case of the first flat, the Government has subsidized a certain amount of money, so he returns it to the Government. When you say "circumstances change", i.e. the financial situation of the person has changed after he has sold the HUDC flat, then if he wants to come back to buy another unit, we will still give him the same subsidy. But if we do not ask him to pay a levy this time, it would mean that if he were to buy a second flat, then the Government would be giving him a second subsidy. That is the basis of this principle. So the Government says those who buy HUDC flats, Phase 1 and Phase 2, are not allowed to buy another flat again. It is the same principle, so that they will not enjoy a second subsidy. There are people who say that it is unfair that we should not allow the Phase I and Phase 2 buyers to buy another flat. Supposing a buyer's financial position is all right now. Then he sells his flat. Subsequently his financial situation is not so good and he needs to buy an HDB flat, and we do not allow him or debar him for the rest of his life from buying another HDB or HUDC flat, then he may be homeless. That seems to be the argument. I would say that if he is willing to voluntarily return the 30% of the selling price of his HUDC Phase 1 or 2 flat to Government - that is not required at present in his lease - but if he is willing to return the 30%, then I am prepared to consider allowing him to buy a second flat. I hope I have explained the basic principle.

Another point is about the civil servants. In fact, these two housing estates, Pine Grove and Gillman Heights - am I right?

Mr Tan Soo Khoon: Cairnhill.

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: You are talking about Cairnhill. As for the flats in Cairnhill, we have never, in fact, decided to build HUDC flats there. How the flats in Cairnhill are to be used has still not been decided up till today, honestly. The press release earlier mentioned that there was a committee discussing how to price HUDC flats. It comprises representatives from the Ministry of Trade and Industry, Ministry of Finance, HDB and the Ministry of National Development. The Committee said that there could be two alternatives. One is to take out the two estates at Pine Grove and Gillman Heights and give them to the civil servants, as was suggested by some of the Members, so that they become exclusively Civil Service estates. Another school of thought suggested that some of the HUDC applicants would like to go into these two estates and that they have waited for some time. Eventually there was a compromise. These estates were split up. Some of the flats were given to the civil servants whilst some were given to the HUDC applicants. That was how the decision was made. Whatever decision we make, there is bound to be some unhappiness, some grumbling. If we say we give these two estates completely to the civil servants, I think some HUDC applicants would be even more unhappy than they are now.

On the question of the 17% discount given to the civil servants, this is quite natural. The Government, an employer, gives a discount to its employees. It is a natural thing. For example, you are working in a departmental store or a motor-car company. Then if you buy a motor-car, or buy goods from a departmental store, your employer will give you a discount. I do not think this is being unreasonable.

Sir, with your permission I would like to ask my Minister of State to answer the queries raised by the Member for Kuo Chuan and the Member for Nee Soon.

The Minister of State for National Development (Mr Lee Yock Suan): Sir, as regards the cases brought up by the Member for Kuo Chuan, I shall first deal with the case of joint balloting which he has mentioned. When two applicants join the joint balloting scheme, both will normally be considered for allocation of adjoining units when either applicant is due for allocation. However, a situation may arise when only one rejected flat is available for allocation after a ballot. In such a situation the applicant who is first due for allocation may be offered the remaining flat on condition that the joint balloting priority for the other applicant is withdrawn. The HDB always ensures that the applicant accepting the one remaining unit is fully aware of, and agrees to, this condition.

In the case brought up by the Member for Kuo Chuan, the applicant's father-in-law was a resettlement case who was placed on the reserve list for rejected flats in the ballot for units in Bras Basah Complex, which is in the central area where there is a very high demand for flats. There were seven rejected flats. However, six were taken up by more urgent resettlement cases. The HDB offered the remaining unit to the applicant's father-in-law who accepted it, fully aware of the condition that the constituent would lose his joint balloting priority. If the applicant and his father-in-law were really more concerned about living together, they should have accepted the joint balloting of flats at Bukit Merah Town Centre a month later. In fact, the HDB did include them in the ballot but they rejected the offer of two adjoining flats at Bukit Merah.

Coming to the second case, the HDB ceased building 3-room modified corner flats and closed the register for such flats on 8th August, 1978. Consequently, existing applicants on the register were allowed to transfer to the 4-room register if they so wished and to retain their original registration numbers without losing their priority. This was a concession, as HDB's policy is that applicants transferring their applications to bigger flats must forgo their priority and obtain new registration numbers. The applicant concerned in this case had, however, transferred his 3-room application to the 4-room register two months before the HDB closed the register. Nevertheless, the HDB was prepared to give the same concession to applicants who had transferred their applications before the closure of the register but only at the request of the applicants or when such cases were discovered by the HDB in the normal course of their work. You must realise, Sir, that the HDB is not obliged to give this concession at all in the first place. Furthermore, there are 43,000 applications on the waiting list to purchase 4-room flats. It is, therefore, extremely difficult for the HDB to go through all these files to try and pick out the few cases who had transferred their applications before this change. What the HDB did was to make an announcement in the newspapers regarding the transfer, and indicating that all those who wanted to change would retain their priority. This announcement might have escaped the notice of this applicant in question because he did not come back to us, and we only discovered his case much later. Anyway, now that this case has been brought to our attention, we have given him back his own registration number and he will be getting his flat within the next 12 months based on the old registration number.

Sir, I would now like to move on to the points raised by the Member for Nee Soon or Yishun as he put it, or somebody else put it. He first spoke about the communication gap and the need for Government departments to improve their communication with the public. This is a point which I fully share with him, and is especially important for the HDB which provides housing and estate management for about 75% of our population.

I think Members are aware that we have RC liaison officers attached to the various HDB area offices to provide a close link between the HDB and the RCs. These area officers attend the RC meetings and functions and they help to explain HDB's policies to the members as well as to provide feedback to the HDB concerning the members' problems and suggestions. In addition, as Members well know, the RC, CCC and MC members usually do maintain very close touch with the various HDB area officers and their problems and views are given due consideration. 7.15 p.m.

Members may also recall that in December last year and also stretching over to January this year, the HDB organized a series of forums for CCC and RC members. These forums were chaired by my Minister and were widely publicized in the newspapers. I think the forums have been very useful in explaining policies and problems relating to public housing. This year the HDB is in the process of organiing a series of familiarization tours of area offices for members of RCs to promote better understanding and rapport.

Besides the HDB, other departments under my Ministry are also conscious of the importance of maintaining good communications with the public. For example, the Primary Production Department works very closely with the farmers and other residents in the rural constituencies. Members of the public as well as grassroots organizations are welcome to approach departments under my Ministry for information and clarification on matters affecting them. If necessary, forums and meetings could also be arranged to explain my Ministry's policies.

The hon. Member suggested that we form a council similar to the Schools Council. This is a new idea. I do not know whether it is workable because, as he said, there are so many constituencies involved. We would then be spending all our time attending council meetings. In the case of the Schools Council, the situation is rather more homogeneous because they are dealing with schools and school principals. But here we are a Ministry with which almost every Singaporean with all kinds of problems is involved, and there are 75 constituencies. So I think we can only try and improve rapport between the RCs and area officers, and so on, through meetings and forums where necessary. But I am not sure the idea of a council is a practical one.

In fact, Sir,l am a little surprised that the Member should move an amendment to reduce the estimates of my Ministry by $10. I think he should have instead moved an amendment to increase our estimates by at least a few hundred thousand dollars so that more expenditure can be put into fostering better communications with the public.

The other point that the Member raised concerns change of use. He has asked that the HDB and the various departments under my Ministry should be more sympathetic towards people such as farmers and small businessmen who are affected by resettlement. I would like to assure him that my Ministry is fully aware that resettlement is a painful process, and we do try to be as flexible and sympathetic as possible. For example, resettlement compensation rates have been increased three times since 1979 and, if I may say so, the rates are now on the generous side.

Most people affected by resettlement also qualify for HDB housing priority and alternative business premises. The public should understand that extensive resettlement and relocation is unavoidable because of our land constraints and the pressing need to optimize our land use to provide security, water supply, housing, jobs and recreation for our growing population. It has therefore been necessary for many small farmers to cease farming and to change to other means of livelihood. They can apply for shops at resettlement rentals.

Pollutive farms and industries in the water catchment areas have to be relocated or cease operations to preserve our scarce water resources. Squatters in large open tracts of land have to make way for higher density public housing. Those affected are adequately compensated and assisted to change to a new way of life, more compatible with land-hungry Singapore.

I think the Member already understands all this but I want to bring this up here to inform the public of the rationale and why they have to understand the situation.

The Member actually raised some questions on change of use, and I think he agrees with the policy that where the uses are pollutive, they have to be phased out. In those cases in the rural areas, we do allow temporary change of use to non-pollutive trades. I am not too sure what are the cases that the Member is referring to. If there are actual problems, he can bring them to my attention and I will look into them.

It is important to note that the intention is eventually to phase out all squatters, especially from the water catchment areas. Therefore, firm enforcement action is necessary to prevent further proliferation of squatters and to keep out gate-crashers who hope to gain from generous Government compensation when eventual resettlement takes place. In some cases, backyard industries try to cling on by setting up unauthorized and uncontrolled operations in rural areas. When such unauthorized uses are discovered, the Building Control Division has to take strict enforcement action, especially if the use is pollutive. Adequate grace periods are given for the unauthorized users to be relocated to proper premises. There are more than adequate facilities provided by the HDB, the JTC and the private sector to meet the demand for uses conforming to the Master Plan.

The Member also mentioned the question of compensation for fruit trees. His problem really concerns the recent policy change made in late 1982 by the Resettlement Department. At that time, the Resettlement Department decided to impose ceilings on the compensation for fruit trees. This was necessary because, without ceilings on such compensation, an increasing number of farmers and squatters in rural areas had taken advantage by planting excessive numbers of fruit trees solely to get more compensation. For instance, normal planting standards would allow for durian trees and jackfruit trees to be planted at densities of about 83 sq metres and 37 sq metres per tree respectively. But some farmers took advantage by planting them at densities of less than 5 sq metres per tree. The Primary Production Department will tell you that such trees cannot bear fruit. So the obvious objective of these farmers was to try and cash in on this loophole in our regulations, which originally did not have ceilings on compensation for fruit trees. It was therefore very obvious that the Government had to take action to curb this undesirable practice, Therefore, we had to impose ceilings on compensation for fruit trees. The ceilings ranged from $5,000 to $30,000 per hectare depending on the size of the trees. After this decision, the Resettlement Department deferred the payments of compensation for fruit trees which had earlier been assessed under the old policy. Compensations were reassessed according to the ceilings imposed.

Since this involved an abuse of public funds, I am afraid my Ministry has no alternative, although the farmers concerned are naturally very upset because they were expecting to get high compensation for trees planted earlier.

I would like to explain that the payment of resettlement compensation is ex gratia in nature. Changes in compensation rates can be applied to squatters even after compensation had earlier been assessed under old rates. For example, in the past, when compensation rates were revised upwards, squatters benefitted from higher compensation although their payments had already been assessed under the old rates. So the guideline we follow is that until you get your money, the rates may still be revised and if a farmer is so lucky as o be still waiting to be compensated when he rules are changed and the rates are revised upwards, he will get a higher compensation. But in a case where a farmer has been found trying to abuse the system, we have to clamp down despite the earlier assessments. I hope the Member for Nee Soon will understand this and explain to his constituents.

Dr Koh Lip Lin: Sir, I fully understand the situation and that is why I have brought up the matter. People who formulated the original rules should have some commonsense. As pointed out by the Minister, a durian tree would need about 80 sq metres and there are people who are planting durian trees at densities of 5 sq metres per tree. I know of cases where trees are planted at higher densities, maybe 2 sq metres per tree. But the problem is that they should have the foresight to anticipate that people are going to abuse these rules, and so they should have come out with a ceiling long ago and not as late as at the end of 1982.

An hon. Member: Yes.

Mr Lee Yock Suan: Sir, I think the point is well taken. Having discovered this, we have to take action and it is too bad for the farmers concerned.

Mr Selvadurai: Sir, there is only one clarification which I seek from the Hon. Minister of State, and that is with regard to the first case which I cited, i.e. the Bras Basah Complex case. If it was true that the applicant and his father-in-law were first and second on the reserve list, ready for allocation, and if there were seven vacancies, how come they were not allocated those flats in the Bras Basah Complex?

Mr Lee Yock Suan: Mr Chairman, Sir, this applicant happens to be an officer of the HDB and he must have found out from his friend where he stood. But the point really is this. For the central areas, where many people have been waiting for flats for many years and where the demand for flats is very high, the policy of the HDB is that resettlement cases have priority over joint balloting cases because, unless we give the flats to these resettlement cases, they would not move out to make way for development. So faced with this situation, our policy guideline is that the six resettlement cases had priority over this applicant who was trying to come in on the basis of joint balloting. His real interest was to get a flat in the central area, not so much to stay with his father-in-law. We did offer to him that if he wanted to be with his father-in-law, he could still have this joint balloting in a fairly good area, Bukit Merah Town Centre.

Mr Selvadurai: The father-in-law was the one who was insisting on getting a flat in the Bras Basah Complex, not the applicant.

Mr Lee Yock Suan: Whatever it is, we cannot be responsible for their decisions. But we did try to be fair by offering them an alternative, and they made their choice.

Mr Tan Soo Khoon: Sir, it was very heartening for me to hear from the Hon. Minister that it is Government policy to ensure that there is no violent upsurge in property prices. But on the other hand we have the HUDC putting up its prices by 143%. If 143% is not a violent upsurge, I just wonder what is.

Of course, Sir, Government must always change its policies and you will agree with me that I am one of those who have often raised this point - that a good government must always be alive to the changing needs and to amend its policies accordingly. But how can you justify the changes, in this case the changes of the policies of the HUDC? How do you justify them when these are intended to deprive people of housing? How can you justify these changes when they are meant to cause anguish and frustration to people on the waiting list?

Sir, I think the Hon. Minister still does not see the point as to why people apply for HUDC housing. I just want to point out that it is not the liberal policies, as he puts it, that have encouraged people to apply for HUDC housing, particularly during the years of the property boom. It is because that they could not qualify for HDB housing and at the same time they could not afford the higher prices in the private property market. 7.30 p.m.

We are not talking of the Government taking over the role of the private developer. We are talking of the Government providing a very basic need for people who are caught in such a situation, i.e. they cannot get HDB housing, neither can they afford anything on the private market. The Minister is entitled to his views, but on this matter of HUDC it will be quite a long time before we share the same view, and I see no further need to prolong this debate and, very reluctantly, I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Chandra Das: Sir, I beg to move,

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

Sir, I would like to touch on one aspect of the URA sales of land by tender. Sir, at the outset I must declare that I have been involved both in successful as well as unsuccessful URA tenders.

Sir, I am convinced that there is no fairer way to sell land than the present tender system adopted by the Urban Redevelopment Authority. However, tendering for the URA sales is rather expensive, and I strongly feel that the URA should not unduly add on to the already high cost that most tenderers have to fork out.

Sir, I would like to bring to the attention of the Hon. Minister one condition which I feel is rather unfair and unjustified. To participate in a URA tender, it can cost a tenderer anywhere from $100,000 to $500,000 depending on the size and scale of the project, with no guarantee of success. To add on to this cost, the URA, for some reasons of its own, insist that a 5% cash deposit be paid for each tender. I do not have to say what is the interest cost that the tenderer has to bear and at the same time the very high interest income the URA earns for a three-month period. Sir, I feel that the URA can easily accept a banker's guarantee and this will only cost a few thousand dollars to the tenderer as opposed to a couple of hundred thousand dollars in terms of the interest lost. It will be very interesting to know how much the URA has made in terms of interest earned from tender deposits.

Sir, the URA is not in the business of earning interest on deposits. It should be satisfied with collecting its fees as the agent for Government. I would seriously urge the Minister to consider this request of withdrawing cash deposits for tenders.

Encik Mansor Haji Sukaimi: I am not speaking, Sir.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock: Sir, it is a pity that our golf-playing Ministers are not around to listen to what I have to say.

Sir, land is a precious commodity, and even more so if it is reclaimed. Our Government has spent millions of dollars reclaiming chunks of land from the sea. Yet many of us are aware that some of these precious reclaimed lands have been leased to private clubs to operate as golf courses. I would like to ask the Minister how many such projects are on reclaimed land, and what are their terms of arrangement?

I think the public has a right to know why these public projects built from public funds at tremendous cost should now be used for projects designed for exclusive private membership use, and especially to develop the handicap of the golfers?

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: Sir, I agree fully with the view of the hon. Member for Chong Boon, and I will ask URA to accept the bank guarantees in lieu of the cash in future URA sales.

Sir, on the matter raised by the Member for Ayer Rajah, the Planning authority is aware of the cost of the reclamation of land. In some areas it can be very expensive, if the water is very deep. However, from the land use point of view, it is not possible to allocate all the reclaimed land only for commercial or residential or industrial purposes. If we do so, then we will totally have no recreational areas or green open space or park land. Therefore, some of the land will have to be set aside for open spaces and recreational development. In the case of East Coast Park, we have reserved very extensive areas for open spaces, stretching from Tanjong Rhu to Changi Airport. This is as necessary as the West Coast Park and Pasir Ris Park which are on reclaimed land.

The development of the golf courses for recreational purposes is considered appropriate because the golf course is also considered part of the open space. A portion of reclaimed land at Tanah Merah was allocated for development of a golf course and other recreational facilities. The land in the area which is next to the Changi Airport is, as we all know, under the flight path. With the development of the second runway, the golf course will be very near to the runway. Because of the noise and the constraints of height restriction, we cannot build any high structures near the flight path. Therefore, the area has been allocated for the development of a golf course. This golf course is partly on reclaimed land, or almost fully on reclaimed land. Another area where the golf course is on reclaimed land is the Sentosa Golf Course, which is partly on reclaimed land and partly on the island proper. As we all know, Sentosa Island is designated for recreational use. The development of the golf course is again considered very appropriate on this Island which has been designated as a recreational island.

The capital costs for the construction of these golf courses are provided by the golf clubs themselves, and the Government fund other than the reclamation at Tanah Merah and Sentosa is not being utilized for the development of golf courses and club houses.

The land value for leasing out the land or for the granting of TOL is usually based on use, and this again is a standard principle. It is just like the URA sale sites. If we sell a piece of land for office development, the tenderer, including the hon. Member for Chong Boon's firm, is willing to pay a very high price for the land because it has been designated for commercial development. On the other hand, for recreational development like a golf course, usually the charges are relatively low. The charges for golf clubs traditionally have been quite low. In the 1960s membership of golf clubs was not so prestigious and, in fact, a person needed to pay only a few hundred dollars to become a club member. Lately, because of the possibility of making a profit out of the transferable golf member- ship, the golf club membership entrance fee has been increased to quite a high figure.

However, the details of the TOL fee are issued by the Land Office and it is under the Ministry of Law and not under my Ministry. So if the Member is interested to know how the TOL fee is arrived at, perhaps in future Parliamentary sittings the Member would submit a Question for Oral Answer or for a Written Answer to the Minister for Law for an answer.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock: Sir, I would like to ask the Minister two simple questions, Since golf courses have been developed on these reclaimed lands, will it not be proper for public funds to be recouped from the membership fees to at least defray part of the high cost of reclaiming the land? HDB levies a fee on the sale of HDB flats. Just as there are transfer fees for flats, I wonder if a case can be made out to impose a similar levy on sale of transferable membership of these golf clubs, since the land is leased from the HDB?

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: Sir, the land is not leased from HDB. HDB is only acting as an agent for the Government to do the reclamation. So the land is a State land and is controlled by the Land Office. Land Office is under the Ministry of Law, not under the Ministry of National Development. If the hon. Member will put his question to the Minister for Law, I think his suggestion will be considered.

Mr Chandra Das: Sir, in view of the Minister's very generous concession, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment by leave, withdrawn. The following amendments were not proceeded with, as indicated by Members concerned:

Mr Ng Kah Ting: (3) That the sum to be allocated for Head T be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead TA-01 Project 201 of the Development Estimates. (4) That the sum to be allocated for Head T be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead TA-03 of the Main Estimates.

Mr Tan Soo Khoon: (5) That the sum to be allocated for Head T be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead TC-01 of the Main Estimates.

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

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

Sir, I would like to raise a few points with regard to the planning of the overall road transportation network and improvements to existing road. The first point I would like to touch on is the widening of existing roads. To facilitate a smoother flow of vehicular traffic, many existing roads have been widened to increase the number of carriage-ways. As considerable sums of money have been spent on such projects, the roads that have been widened should not be allowed to be obstructed by indiscriminate roadside parking. 7.45 p.m.

For example, the stretch of Balestier Road between Thomson Road and Moulmein Road was widened on both sides several years ago to take in three lanes of vehicular traffic on each side. Presently, one lane on each side is being used as an unauthorized car park during the greater part of the day, thus impeding a smooth flow of traffic, especially during peak hours.

Recently, the other stretch of Balestier Road, between Moulmein and Serangoon Roads, has been widened. The same problem of unauthorized roadside parking is evident. Such obstructions can cause serious accidents. Furthermore, as soon as new roads are completed, they are frequently turned into unauthorized parking lots for trailers and other heavy vehicles.

The PWD in their overall planning should take into consideration the parking facilities for vehicles, for instance, construction of more public car parks. To ease congestion on our roads, the Ministry should look into the possibility of encouraging private entrepreneurs to build private car parks or lorry parks.

The second point I wish to raise is the haphazard manner in which road and directional signs are sited. It is not surprising to observe a multitude of such signs erected at road junctions, some of which are not only unsightly but also obstruct the motorist's view of traffic lights. Could not these signs be mounted on a single metal post? For instance, in Toa Payoh, directional signboards are tastefully mounted on a single metal frame.

The PWD should also consider resiting some of the road signs at intersections and slip roads. Quite often, road signs are put beyond a slip road or on the road divider at intersections. These do not provide a clear and an advance indication to drivers, resulting in abrupt stops and turns at times. I would suggest that the PWD introduce a new system of road signs along major roads and expressways. For example, two road-name signs could be displayed on one single metal post. The road-name on top will indicate the first-approaching side road and the other at the bottom will indicate the second-approaching side road. Such road-name signs should also show the approximate distances in kilometres. In this way, we can improve the flow of vehicular traffic and also minimize the incidence of vehicles colliding into the rear of other vehicles.

The last point I would like to raise is this. During the construction of new roads or repairs to old roads, sometimes manhole covers are raised above or lowered below the road level. This poses a danger to unsuspecting motor cyclists and motorists. Could the PWD look into the feasibility of using vertically adjustable manhole cover-and-frame system as is done in some countries? This system allows quick and easy vertical adjustment to the road surface in connection with road construction and repairs.

Sir, the HDB has introduced a financing scheme for its contractors to enable them to upgrade and mechanize their operations. I wonder whether the Ministry has a similar scheme for the PWD and its contractors to upgrade and modernize road construction projects. It appears that the equipment used at present is obsolete. Even the equipment used for road marking is obsolete and some of the operations are done manually. As a result, painting of directional signs and lane markings takes too long and is causing unnecessary obstruction. Furthermore, due to the carelessness of some workers, paint is spilled onto the road, like the recent one at Paterson Road junction.

I would urge the Minister to look into the matters raised and hope that he will help ease congestion on our roads and also minimize traffic accidents.

Mr Lee Yock Suan: Sir, I would like to thank the hon. Member for Toa Payoh for his many useful comments and suggestions. The first one concerns unauthorized parking along newly widened roads. As Members are aware, the PWD does not normally allow roadside parking along roads except for night parking at certain stretches where the traffic is light. The other day in Parliament I did explain to Members the policy-thinking, both short-term and long-term, on solving the parking problem for cars, lorries and other vehicles.

In the case of Balestier Road, roadside parking has been allowed along certain stretches as a temporary measure because of the shortage of parking facilities in the area. These parking facilities are needed by the shops fronting the road for their business activities. As I said, this is only a temporary measure. All new building developments along Balestier Road are required to provide their own parking facilities. Some of these in-house parking facilities have already been provided, and more will be provided in future. When more of these in-house parking facilities are available, roadside parking along Balestier Road can be removed altogether.

There are no plans at present to build centralized off-street parking facilities in the area but the situation is under review and is being monitored. The vehicles which were parked along the newly widened road, as observed by the Member for Toa Payoh, had been parked there illegally. The Minister for Home Affairs explained the other day that the Traffic Police would be taking strict enforcement action against these vehicles. I will ask the PWD to liaise closely with the Traffic Police in their control of illegal parking.

The other point raised by the Member for Toa Payoh concerns the road signs along expressways. I agree with him that the road signs are still inadequate. Just the other day when I was travelling along the Pan-Island Expressway, I found that some of the signs were quite confusing. For example, the one that leads to Tampines leads to the New Town and not to Tampines Road. So if you are not aware, you will be going off-direction completely. My Ministry has embarked on a programme to improve these road signs. Work on upgrading the signs along the PIE started in November 1982 and will be completed by April 1983. Even after that, I think there will still be room for improvement, and if Members have any suggestions or notice any faults please bring them to our attention.

A similar upgrading of signs along the East Coast Parkway will be done. Under the new standards for road signs, there will be three large signs located before a junction to inform drivers of the name of the next exit road. The name of the final destination that the expressway is leading to will also be indicated. The opinion of my Ministry is that this should provide ample notice to drivers to either exit via the side road or to continue along the expressway. It may not be practical to give the names of all exit roads or to give additional information about distances and so on as suggested by the Member, but we will look into his suggestion more closely. The problem is that if we squeeze too many messages on the signboards, then it could be quite dangerous for the driver to read all the messages while travelling at high speed. At other traffic light junctions where there is a filter lane, the PWD normally places a directional sign well before the junction is reached. This is in addition to the confirmatory sign located on the nose of the traffic island leading to the filter lane. Where such signs have been missed out, the PWD will install them.

The third point concerns this question of too many traffic signs at a road junction and whether we can put them all into one neat single road sign. This is a good idea and it is possible in some situations but not always possible because some signs have to be installed at specific locations. For example, a pedestrian crossing prohibition sign has to be installed 50 metres from a junction. "Give-way" signs have to be installed next to the give-way lane and "no-right-turn" signs installed right at the junction. Wherever possible, PWD will integrate the traffic signs into one sign-post. Traffic signs will also be clamped on to lamp posts and sides of buildings to minimize the number of signposts along our roads. PWD will make sure that these signs do not obstruct the driver's view of the traffic light.

The Member also raised two other suggestions about vertically adjustable manhole covers. I am afraid I am not too familiar with this item, but if he could supply details to the PWD I am sure they will be very happy to study them.

An hon. Member: Catalogues!

Mr Lee Yock Suan: I would not ask him to supply catalogues because I do not think he is selling this product. But if information is available, it will be welcome. Similarly, regarding those methods to improve painting of roads, again if he has any suggestions, we will look into them.

Mr Eric Cheong Yuen Chee: Just one other point, Sir. With regard to the road sign before a slip road, I would suggest the Minister of State request the PWD to look at the stretch of Paya Lebar Road that turns into Paya Lebar Way/Jalan Eunos/Changi Airport. There are no signs there and you run the risk of driving into the wrong road as he had experienced himself. With this, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

In the absence of Mr Tang See Chim, the following amendment standing in his name was not proceeded with:

(7) That the sum to be allocated for Head T be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead TC-03 Project 8125 of the Development Estimates.

Mr Liew Kok Pun (Boon Teck): 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, many a time in this House we have heard of the inflexible attitude -

The Chairman: Order. Moment of interruption.

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

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: Mr Deputy Speaker, 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, 1983 to 31st March, 1984 and ask leave to sit again tomorrow.

Mr Deputy Speaker: So be it.