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 [6th Allotted Day],

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

3.03 p.m.

Head T (cont.) -

Amendment moved (22nd March, 1983),

"That the sum to be allocated for Head T be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead TE-01 of the Main Estimates." - [Mr Liew Kok Pun].

Mr Liew Kok Pun (Boon Teck): Mr Speaker, Sir, just before the session ended yesterday evening, I was saying that many a time in this House we have heard from hon. Members of the inflexible attitudes of some HDB officers. Many brick-bats have been hurled at the HDB, and here I would like to give a specific example to illustrate how some HDB officers are robot-like in their behaviour, following rules and regulations to the last dot. Their behaviour is programmed at HDB headquarters.

During one of my house-to-house visits to a 1-room apartment block, I met an old lady in the corridor. As soon as she saw me, she broke down and cried. When I asked her what the problem was, her first words to me were, "HDB is terrible. HDB is inhuman." I asked her why, and she told me that she was giving up her flat but the HDB insisted that she remove the collapsible gate she had fixed. She told me that it was in good condition but the HDB officer threw the book at her and said that, according to the computer programme for the Tenancy Agreement, she had to return her flat in the original state. If not, she would have to pay a $20 removal fee. As a matter of fact, the new tenant who was going to take over the flat agreed to the collapsible gate being left there. I do not understand how this can come about, Sir. So, here is a case where the old lady was very sure that the next tenant would benefit from the collapsible gate but the HDB still insisted that she remove it. In her frugal ways, she thought this was a real waste.

There are also some HDB officers who, when an applicant makes inquiries about housing matters at Maxwell Road, say brusquely, "Don't know!" or "Upstairs say so!" as if unwilling or unable to explain the regulations to the people. Worse still, when the applicant says, "I'll go and see my MP for advice", the reply from the HDB counter staff is, "See your MP also no use". HDB officers should not say such things about the Members of Parliament in this House with a possible exception. Although no one can jump the queue, the MP can explain the regulations painstakingly to them and give advice as to which new town to opt for if they want to get their flats earlier and not insist on getting a flat at a particular new town of their own choosing. In fact, HDB should thank hon. Members of this House - and here I must quickly add - with the exception of the Member for Anson, for explaining these housing policies to the people.

However, I am glad to say that this is not always the case with all HDB officers. To be fair to them, some of them are extremely helpful. In fact, I must send a bouquet to the Hon. Minister for his own grasp of the situation and for his understanding in dealing with problem cases. And here, I hope he could rub off some of his kung fu to his officers at all levels. In particular, I would like to give an example concerning the sale of Apartment Block 51 in my Constituency.

The regulation for the sale of both 2-room and 3-room blocks is that 90% of the 2-roomers and 70% of the 3-roomers must agree to buy their flats before HDB agrees to sell them to sitting tenants. However, our survey indicated that we could not get 90% of the two-roomers to buy. Overall, 75% of the tenants did agree to the purchase. When I consulted the HDB officers on whether it is possible to make an exception because this is not a three-room apartment block, but combination of 2-room and 3-room flats, the answer I got was an expected "No". Fortunately, Sir, when I brought up the matter to the Hon. Minister, he said that it was in order and I am pleased to report that Apartment Block 51 has very happy owners. So here, I take this opportunity to convey my thanks to the Hon. Minister on behalf of residents in Apartment Block 51.

Sir, may I now turn the attention of the House to the appalling conditions of the 1-room apartments and the plight of 1-roomers, The first thing that physically hits you, Sir, as soon as you walk up the staircase is the heavy stench coming from the communal bin chute. I am not exaggerating when I say that the smell is simply nauseating. Can you imagine what it is like for those who live near these communal bin centres? To keep away the stench, these 1-roomers seal off the limited wiremeshed openings in the front wall of their apartments which are supposed to serve as ventilation shafts. Once they shut these vents, they shut off all the air. There is no circulation. Around this time, the heat and the humid climate turn these 1-room apartments into ovens. Children break out in rashes and sores. The dark common corridor, the generally dilapidated condition of the lifts in the block, the badly maintained building, the graffiti writings and drawings scrawled all over the dirt-filled common corridors and the insect-infested bin chambers - all these remind one of the modern concrete slums one finds in a big metropolis. Such a condition in 1-room apartments is partly the fault of the residents themselves and partly the fault of HDB contractors who fail to clean the place well.

Another crying problem, Sir, is the adverse effect on large families who live, packed like sardines, in 1-room apartments. As a result, we now have a new social phenomenon in our midst - what I would call - itinerant newly-weds or gypsy couples. They are not allowed to rent a one- or two-room apartment because their joint income is beyond the ceiling. HDB advises them not to apply for a 3-room rental flat because the waiting time is too long. They cannot purchase a 3-room apartment because they do not have enough CPF or no CPF at all. Even if they do, they still have to wait three to four years before they can get the apartment. So the young couples find themselves caught and have no choice but to live in their parents' 1-room apartment. But when you have two or three families living in a 1-room apartment, you can imagine the lack of privacy, the embarrassment, the family friction, even the family break-up. The effect on everyone concerned is psychologically too much to bear. So to avoid this, the young couple manage to rent a room at $200 in an HDB apartment. But the landlord gives them these conditions: no children, no cooking. Again, we can imagine the dilemma and the frustration the young couple must experience. After some time, when they cannot stick it out any longer or when the landlord gives them notice to move out, they have to turn to some relatives. And so they have to lead their itinerant life, driving their new marriage gypsy-like, not on wagon wheels but on the rocks of their tensions and psychological strains, I would therefore like to appeal to the Hon. Minister in all his understanding to look into the plight of these newly-wed gypsy couples.

I would also like to appeal to the Hon. Minister to improve the condition of the 1-room apartment blocks, since it will be a long way before there will be plans to demolish them and since their residents cannot afford to buy flats and are likely to remain there.

Could the Hon. Minister tell us also what steps his Ministry is going to take to get these things done? For example, what about the HDB contractors who are doing a sloppy job? Instead of washing the place, they simply use a plastic hose and spray water on the floor. I know it is a difficult problem because this is labour-intensive. But then we must remember that residents do pay conservancy charges.

Finally, Sir, I would like to speak on the improvement plans for the older HDB estates. The oldest part of the Toa Payoh estate, which includes almost three quarters of Boon Teck, was completed in 1968, about 15 years ago. The HDB new towns are well planned and tastefully landscaped, with a good blend of architectural design and a combination of colours for the apartment blocks. In strong contrast, Toa Payoh and Boon Teck appear drab and dull. One finds old concrete benches without any backrest, and generally in a dilapidated condition scattered here and there. What is most upsetting is to see old folks sitting uncomfortably on these old benches.

Yet another unpleasant feature is the waste of turfed patches of land which are never used by residents and their children because these places are soggy, uneven and overgrown with thorny weeds. This is surely a waste of land in a densely-populated estate. Even the trees are emaciated and diseased, pining away because of lack of care.

I would therefore like to ask the Hon. Minister whether the HDB has any plan to improve or upgrade facilities and amenities in the older housing estates, In particular, may I ask if there are any such plans to improve the conditions in Boon Teck Constituency?

The Chairman: May I remind hon. Members that there are still 11 Members who want to speak on this particular Subhead, so please do not repeat what others have said? Dr Ow. 3.15 p.m.

Dr Ow Chin Hock (Leng Kee): Sir, I share the sentiments and feeling of the Member for Boon Teck for one-room tenants. So I am not going to speak.

The Chairman: Encik Othman.

Encik Othman bin Haron Eusofe (Geylang Serai): I am not speaking, Sir.

Mr S. Chandra Das (Chong Boon): Sir, much has been said outside this House about wet markets in HDB estates and I do not intend repeating the same arguments. I am sure the planners in the HDB will take into account the various points made and incorporate all the necessary changes in the housing estates to be built and especially those under construction.

Sir, my concern is whether the HDB has any plans for existing HDB estates, like Chong Boon and even Cheng San, to modify the present wet markets, especially when there is such a high demand for cooked food stalls. There are, of course, numerous vacant stalls in the wet markets. I am sure the HDB is aware of this. Sir, I would be pleased to know from the Minister if there are any such plans for my constituency.

Mr M.K.A. Jabbar (Radin Mas): ( In Tamil): Sir, my colleagues who spoke before me have mentioned certain points and I also wish to state my own points.

There are two large markets in my constituency. They come directly under the management of HDB. One of the two markets is in Telok Blangah Crescent. I wish to bring to the attention of the Minister an unpleasant incident that took place there. My constituents, the stallholders in the market, and the CCC members have appealed to me regarding this incident. The Minister should consider this matter.

I will not mind action being taken if the stall holders do not heed the advice of the HDB authorities, but what surprises me and even the hawkers is that the hawkers are issued with summonses without any warning. They are immediately taken to the court and are fined. I wish to know the reason for such an action. My constituents do not like this. When asked, the officers said they are enforcing the law. We are prepared to abide by the law. But we should at the same time think of the negative effect of acting in haste.

Another strange thing is that the HDB and the Ministry of the Environment take turns in issuing summonses to the hawkers, and this really causes unhappiness among them. We who always think of the people's interest should not neglect such minor matters.

I agree that eating places in markets should be kept clean. We should not relent in our efforts to keep Singapore clean. May I suggest that instead of taking the hawkers to the court, why not ask them to go to the Area Office and warn them first. If they do not heed the warning, then action can be taken against them. It is my duty to bring this matter to the Minister's attention and I hope he will take action on it.

The Chairman: Mr Tan is not here. Encik Abbas.

Encik Abbas Abu Amin (Pasir Panjang): Sir, I have two points to raise.

(1) Flats for Lower Income Group

I would like to draw the attention of Members of this House to the remarks made by the Hon. Minister for Trade and Industry in his Budget Statement. I quote:

'Our public housing construction programme is now in full swing. 87,000 units are under construction, 66% more than the figure a year ago. Construction costs have stabilized as the supply of building materials improved. Singaporeans aspiring to own their own homes at a price within their means can look forward to have their hopes fulfilled.'

I would like to get clarification from the Minister for National Development whether there are plans to continue to build sufficient units of 2- and 3-room flats to meet the needs of the lower income group of workers who are not able to buy or rent bigger flats.

(2) HDB Maintenance Policy

Many flats in HDB apartment blocks built during the last 10 years are fitted with wooden bedroom windows. Owing to constant exposure to the elements, the woodwork has warped out of its proper shape, making it very difficult for the windows to be properly closed during rainy weather. In a good number of cases the hinges become loose and sections of the window frames have rotted away. Incidents of glass panes, sections or whole windows falling from high-rise flats are not uncommon. Examples are:-

(a) In November 1982, at about 11.30 a.m., a window pane crashed down to the ground floor pavement from a 11th floor window at Block 39, Dover Road, in Pasir Panjang Constituency. Fortunately, the void deck was deserted at the time and no passers-by were hurt.

(b) On 4th February 1983, during a wind-storm in the night, the lower section of a window frame on the 20th floor of the same block came loose and landed in the children's play area about 20 metres away.

(c) I have been informed that a case was reported of a whole window failing onto a parked car from an upper storey flat, completely damaging the roof of the car. The incident happened in a neighbouring constituency.

The HDB disowns liability for flat maintenance after six months of occupation by the purchaser. It can only help to recommend contractors to repair or replace damaged windows. Residents, faced with defective or damaged windows, pay heavily for such repairs whenever they are required to do so. The HDB has also turned down requests by residents to change all wooden windows to sturdier ones with metal or aluminium frames. According to the HDB, approval will only be given provided all the residents agree to change and are willing to share the cost. The new windows must also be of HDB-approved design.

Getting all residents in one block to agree and also to pay the cost of replacing the windows is next to impossible for many reasons; one of which is whether all concerned can afford the cost.

While the residents can continue to tolerate bad windows, the risk of passers-by getting injured or even killed by falling windows is real and cannot be ignored. This risk will increase as the condition of the windows deteriorate with time. Must residents wait for fatal accidents to occur before the HDB shows more concern? In the event of injury or death caused to innocent people as a result of a fallen window, who is to be blamed?

It is ironical that some 5-room flats (which cost more) are fitted with wooden windows whilst 3-room and 4-room flats (which cost less) have windows with metal frames.

I would be grateful if HDB could review the seriousness of this situation and take remedial action.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock (Ayer Rajah): Sir, last year in this House the Housing and Development (Amendment) Bill was passed to allow the HDB to take over the JTC housing estates. I told this House that HDB was not going to receive a healthy baby. Now, one year since taking over, I am sure they have realized that I was being kind in my choice of words then. I know HDB tried hard. It is not an easy problem and I would like to express my thanks to the HDB Area Office for doing their best. But how best can they do when the infrastructure is bad. I am referring to the constant disruption of industrial water supply to the residents of Pandan and Teban. I hope the Minister will not give my residents a lecture on why industrial water is needed to conserve potable water because I have already done that for him on many occasions. The question I am asking is, at what cost?

Sir, toilet-ceiling leaks in practically every flat in Teban is a common thing. Some residents have to use umbrellas to shield off the constant dripping from the ceiling. I saw it with my own eyes. The Minister for Labour and Communications has also seen it in his Walkabout. Of course, it could be argued that the blame is not due to industrial water but it seems odd that Teban and Pandan, which are under JTC, have this peculiar problem. The other areas of my constituency hardly complain of ceiling leaks in the toilet.

Mr Eric Cheong Yuen Chee: Toa Payoh too.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock: Yes, Toa Payoh too. Between the period late May 1982 and early March 1983, there were 19 disruptions of industrial water supply, an average of two times per month. Each time it breaks down, it takes quite some time to repair, sometimes a few days. While I agree with our national policy of conservation of water, I question the wisdom of those who support this view without taking into consideration the cost effectiveness of the whole exercise. Take Teban and Pandan, for example. You have two systems - industrial and potable. Both require maintenance, and therefore they cost more, more labour, and more breakdowns. Moreover, the water is smelly. If left for some time, it stains the toilet bowls and even allows mosquitoes to breed. What is more important and shocking is that many residents use potable water to lush down the industrial water. Therefore, where is the saving of water? On top of all this, the ceiling where this system passes through, usually leaks because industrial water is more corrosive. Since the Board took over, they have spent about $620,500 on repairing and maintaining these two systems. This too excludes labour costs, as the repairs and maintenance were carried out by the Board's own staff. The industrial system maintenance and repair alone cost approximately $80,000, excluding labour costs.

It might seem odd that I am bringing this question of industrial water to the Minister for National Development when I should have referred this to the Minister for the Environment. But I want to bring up this matter with the Minister for National Development because I want to lobby for his support so that my case will be more effective and strong when I do meet the Minister for the Environment. I hope that the use of industrial water in all future HDB flats will be carefully considered, in particular, consideration of the proper choice of pipes and proper pumps. However, from the experience of my two estates, I would advise against it.

The Chairman: Mr Selvadurai and Mr Ng are not here. Encik Saidi.

Encik Saidi Haji Shariff (Kaki Bukit): Not moving, Sir.

Mr Lai Tha Chai (Henderson): ( In Mandarin): Sir, I do not have many questions to raise, nor do I want to level any criticism against the Minister. In fact, I want to praise him because too many Backbenchers have been throwing brickbats at him and repeating their criticisms over and over again. The HDB already has built many flats before. Now it is able to build over 40,000 units every year. This is indeed an achievement. As my colleagues have said earlier, we hope the Minister will keep up with this kind of effort. 3.30 p.m.

I would like to thank the Member for Ang Mo Kio for enlightening me. There are over 100,000 people waiting for their flats. Of course, this figure did not come about only today. I give my praise and credit when it is due. To be able to build 40,000 units per year is an achievement. HDB has been noted for its achievements. But I would say that they are doing even better now. I hope the Minister will maintain his stamina so that these people do not have to wait for a long long time for their flats. I hope the Minister will give this matter some thought so that our future applicants will not have to wait for such a long time, because they have spent a long time waiting. I sympathize with these people, including a few thousand in my constituency.

I have even been doing work for other people, because many constituents from Anson have come to me. It is not my work and it would increase my burden. I advised them to turn back across Jalan Bukit Merah which separates the two constituencies. The Minister has said earlier that since 1973 they have been implementing the rule that members of the public could bring their problems to the HDB only through the representations of their own Member of Parliament. I would like to ask the Minister to do away with such a practice. I wish that I could make representations not only for my own constituents but also for constituents from Anson constituency.

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: Sir, HDB is a very big organization and it has more than 12,000 staff. Among them, there are bound to be some staff who, in spite of repeated requests and instructions from the management and from Government that they must be flexible, helpful and to do everything they can to help the constituents, they are still not so flexible. Human nature is such. So they would not be as helpful as what the Member for Boon Teck wishes them to be.

Let us take the case of the old lady. The Member said that she has a collapsible gate in her flat. According to the HDB rules, before anybody moves out from a flat, the tenant must remove the gate and return the flat to HDB in its original state because the next tenant or purchaser may not like the gate. I do not know the details of this case until this afternoon. Perhaps the HDB staff is worried that, if he allows the gate to remain, the new tenant might say, "Look here. I do not like the gate. Please remove the gate." The staff will have to go back to the Area Office and make arrangements to remove the gate, and that costs $20. Then the Area Officer will tell the staff, "The rules say that anybody who moves out must restore the flat to its original state. Why did you allow this gate to remain there?" He will be in trouble. So in order to avoid such a possibility, he sticks to the rules.

The Member said that the new tenant or new occupier is quite happy with the gate. If the new tenant can come to an understanding with the old lady and even pay the old lady $50 for the gate, then in this case HDB will be happy to say, "The responsibility of removing the gate in future is now transferred to the new occupant." Then everybody will be happy.

On the point about the appalling condition in the 1-room flats with communal chutes, I think this has been repeatedly raised by the Member for Boon Teck - if I remember correctly - since he came to this House. Year in and year out I hear the same complaint. I think this is quite true in all cases where there are communal chutes - you need only one inconsiderate occupant. For example, he eats porridge and leaves half a bowl. Two or three days later the porridge goes rotten. Instead of pouring the porridge properly into a plastic bag and throwing it down the chutes, he just pours it into the hopper. It is extremely smelly. The next person who comes round to throw rubbish finds that the hopper is sticky and smelly, and so he just throws his rubbish by the side of the chute so that he would not dirty his hands. We then have a situation where the whole area around the common chute becomes very dirty.

HDB must take the responsibility of ensuring that the surrounding area of the common chute is properly cleaned. But, on the other hand, we also need the cooperation of the residents. If the residents do not cooperate, then it is very difficult to keep the place clean. I have said on countless occasions that even in most HDB flats where we have individual refuse chutes, although it requires the same effort to throw rubbish into the chute instead of throwing it out of the window, you can still see the tremendous amount of litter in our estates. When the Member goes round the housing estates to meet the residents, a common complaint is that the resident living on the top floor will throw down the rubbish or even left-over curry and dirty the clothings of those living on the lower floors. This is a common complaint.

In Singapore, there is no alternative to high-rise living. It is not like in Australia where they have got millions of square miles of territorial land where they can live in single storey houses. In Singapore, either we have high-rise housing or we have no housing. That is the choice. Since we are living in high-rise flats, all the residents must cooperate and they must understand that it is their responsibility to look after their place.

On the point of keeping the place clean, I think HDB's top management is quite well aware of this problem and it will make sure that either HDB's own cleansing workers or the contractor's cleansing workers keep the place clean. But on the other hand, I will request Members of Parliament to get their grassroots organizations, such as the CCCs, RCs and MCs, to ask the residents to cooperate and to keep the place clean.

On this question of large families in 1-room flats, this is due mainly to the poor planning of a small minority of our residents. The majority of Singaporeans are conscious of and appreciate the advantage of home-ownership. HDB today houses 75% of the total population of Singapore, or 1.85 million people. In fact, when the PAP Government came to power in 1959 the population of Singapore then was only 1.5 million. Since then the PAP Government has built flats to house 1.85 million people. In other words, we have, in fact, housed 350,000 more people than the time PAP Government came to power in 1959. Two-thirds of the HDB residents are flat owners. In addition, we have 107,000 applicants on the waiting list to buy flats. Singaporeans are conscious of the advantage of home-ownership and want to own their own homes.

A minority group somehow cannot manage their finances and they continue to remain as tenants. In the case of very large families of 10 people living in 1-room flats, I do not think they have to. If they have 10 children, some of them must be grown up. And in Singapore anybody who is willing to work will be able to earn a minimum of $500 or $600 a month. For example, in HDB the lowest paid workers are the cleansing workers. A cleansing worker's take-home pay is around $500 or $600 a month depending on when he joins the HDB. On top of that, he has got CPF. He finishes work at 2.30 p.m. so usually he can take on a part-time job as a gardener, car-washer or security guard. Almost all HDB cleansing workers have a second job in the afternoon and some even work up to 11.00 p.m. In fact, we tell them, "You should not work so hard because you would not be able to get up early in the morning to do the cleansing work." Very few of them are earning less than $600 a month. They get about $400 from HDB and they take on a part-time job either as a part-time gardener or a car-washer and they earn $600 a month.

If they have got 10 children, I think the family's income is usually $2,000 or $3,000 a month. Just imagine, they have 10 children and three or four of them are working. And the Member tells me that the family is very poor. I think there must be some mistake. I would classify the family as reasonably rich with a total income of $2,000 or $3,000 a month. This person should have registered to purchase an HDB flat so that they need not crowd themselves together.

There is a group of citizens who are not able to manage their own money. Whenever they get their salary, they spend it on smoke and drinks, but I am not suggesting that they are sinners. I think they are being silly as they are wasting their money. They should be in a position to buy HDB flats. Government has made the price of HDB flats so cheap that it is almost impossible for anyone not to be able to buy a HDB flat, We are reaching that stage where it is almost impossible for anyone who is willing to work not to be able to buy an HDB flat. 3.45 p.m.

Talking about families with grown-up children living in 1-room flats. When the children get married, they have to live with their parents because they have nowhere to go. For that group of people, my advice to young couples who are going to marry is this. Do not get married too early, because you may have financial problems. I think they may get into serious trouble if the boy is 20 or 21 years old and has just been discharged from National Service, and meets a girl who is a teenager and they decide to get married. They will have economic problems. I would advise them both to get engaged and to carry on working. In Singapore, if the young couple work, then in two or three years' time they can easily save enough money for the downpayment for an HDB flat. They can wait for another three or four years and then get married. If boys get married at the age of 25 or 26 years, and the girls get married at about the age of 22 or 23 years, that is quite reasonable. By that time they would have saved enough money for the downpayment and some may even have saved enough money to pay half the cost of an HDB flat. There is really no good or valid reason for them to marry at an early age. There are no circumstances to force them to get married and to live with their parents in a 1-room flat. It just requires a bit of management. In fact, as the Minister responsible for housing, I am all the time trying to work out a system so that eventually every family, our Singaporeans, will own a flat, with the exception of those determined not to own one. We cannot help them. They just do not want to work. They are hoping that the day of the so-called caring society will come. So they do not worry. They are waiting for the day when the caring society will come and help them to own a flat and give them food without working. The paradise will come without their doing anything! I think that group of people are being silly.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Very funny.

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: As regards the old HDB estates, the HDB has a programme of constantly improving the old estates. As regards the points brought up by the hon. Member for Boon Teck, for example, the old benches, the HDB has an updating programme. When the benches are not serviceable, we will change them for new ones. If the old benches are still serviceable, we will leave them there. This is a continuous process. As regards the soggy ground, the HDB again has an on-going programme. If there is a soggy ground, we will put additional earth and provide additional drainage facilities to improve the ground condition. With regard to the diseased trees, I understand that the HDB has been in touch with the Parks and Recreation Department to look into them. If a tree is diseased and requires a lot of maintenance, we will remove it and plant a new tree.

On the points raised by the hon. Member for Chong Boon, the HDB will look into the vacant stalls in the wet market in his constituency as well as in Cheng San constituency, As has been announced in this House earlier during Question Time, the HDB will convert the vegetable stalls which have been empty for some time into cooked food stalls wherever possible.

On the points raised by the hon. Member for Radin Mas concerning hawkers who have been served with summonses and have to appear in court, there is a standing instruction to the HDB hawker inspectors that if any hawker commits an offence, we first give them a warning, sometimes verbally and sometimes in writing. For those hawkers who persistently refuse to heed the warning, they will be served with a summons to appear in court. That is the standing instruction. I believe it is being followed. As for those hawkers in Radin Mas market, I understand that there are a few very stubborn hawkers who refused to heed the warning of our hawker liaison officers seriously. These hawkers were served with summonses. On the question of compounding the offence instead of appearing in court, the HDB is exercising its authority under the Environmental Public Health Act. Under this Act there is no possibility of compounding the offence. They must appear in court. I understand from the Ministry of the Environment that this is a more effective deterrent because some of the hawkers are doing very good business.

Last week we heard the Minister for the Environment say that some hawkers own Mercedes Benz cars and send their children to England. For such hawkers, if you compound the offence for $20, they will say, "Thank you". They will pay $20 straightaway as this saves them a lot of trouble. Then there is the hawker who continues to smoke while frying his kueh teow and the ash drops on to the kueh teow. That is highly undesirable. The idea of bringing the hawkers to court is to deter them from committing the offence again. If they have been brought to court once, they will think twice before committing the offence again. If you simply compound the offence, some of them will not consider the fine of a few dollars as a deterrent. They will continue to commit the offence. As we all know, more and more Singaporeans are eating out and it is therefore most important that the cooked food they serve is hygienic. If just one of the hawkers is not clean, then you will find that a large number of his customers will have stomach trouble.

On the request by the hon. Member for Pasir Panjang that the HDB should build sufficient 2-room and 3-room flats for the applicants, I wish to give an assurance to him that the HDB at present has 42,600 units of 3-room flats under construction, and these will be completed in the next two to three years. There are, therefore, more than sufficient flats to meet the demand of the 3-room flat applicants.

As regards the 2-room flats, or even the 1-room flats, I think these applicants will also get their flats. The HDB at present manages about 66,000 units of 1-room flats and another 49,000 units of 2-room flats. All the 1-room flats are on rental. In the case of the 2-room flats, most of them are on rental. A lot of people living in 1-room and 2-room flats are upgrading themselves. They are moving up to buy 3-room, 4-room or even 5-room flats.

The HDB is now speeding up its construction programme and expects to complete 120,000 units of flats between 1983 and 1985. In other words, there will be an average of about 40,000 units per year over a period of three years. Based on the volume of construction and other factors, I am confident that the HDB will complete the construction of these 120,000 units. Once the construction of these units is completed, the tenants living in 1-room and 2-room flats will upgrade themselves to larger flats, and the vacated flats of the 1-room and 2-room units will be sufficient to meet the demand of those people who want to rent the 1-room and 2-room flats.

But even though we have enough 1-room and 2-room flats for rental, I would strongly urge those people who are living in either 1-room or 2-room flats, or those people who are thinking of renting the 1-room and 2-room flats, to work hard in order to be able to own their own flats. The Government's policy is to encourage our Singapore citizens to own their own homes. Our economic situation is such that we are fortunate to have enough jobs in Singapore and, as I have explained earlier, anyone who is willing to work can afford to own a flat. What the people need is to work a bit harder and do not waste their money on smoking and drinking. One of the biggest items I did not mention is gambling. A lot of people just waste their money on gambling. If they stop all this, they will be able to own their own flats.

On the question of wooden windows, the hon. Member for Pasir Panjang seems to give the impression that the timber windows are bad, are very dangerous, and are falling down here and there. I can assure the House that this is not so. I give Members a concrete example. The HDB is managing some 20,000 units of SIT flats built in the 1950's, more than 25 or 30 years ago. Most of these flats have timber windows. You will see that some of the houses were built pre-war. Most of them also have timber windows, but you do not see the timber windows falling here and there. The reason is that the timber windows have been properly maintained. I know that some hon. Members here have SIT flats in their constituencies.

An hon. Member: In Delta.

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: Yes, in Delta. Have you heard of any windows falling? The fact is that if the flat has been properly maintained, the windows should be in a reasonably good condition. I am not suggesting that this is the case with every window. For one reason or another, some windows are not in a good condition. But since these people own the flats, including those who own flats with timber windows, then if the timber windows are defective, I would suggest they get them properly repaired. I am not suggesting that all the tens of thousands of timber windows in the HDB estates are in good condition. I am not suggesting that. Some are defective, or are not in a good condition. What I am suggesting is that if they are found to be defective, they should be repaired.

Buildings are just like human beings. We catch cold sometimes. So we need to take medicine. In the case of a building, you may find here and there leaking pipes, cracking parts, locks out of order, and so on and so forth. So they all require repairing. You cannot expect, after having bought the HDB flat, that you do not need to spend a single cent to maintain the flat. Every four or five years the HDB has a redecoration contract to paint the building, to make the necessary repairs to the common areas, and to the exterior of the building. But it is the occupier who owns the interior of the building, including the windows. So if a window is defective, I suggest he repairs it. 4.00 p.m.

As regards timber windows, some people like timber windows. They say that timber windows or timber louvres provide better shade than glass. In fact, most Singaporeans are under the impression that a timber house is a temporary house and is a very cheap house because they usually associate a timber house with an attap house in a squatter area. But I tell you that in Europe and in America, a timber house can cost a good deal more than a concrete house. A timber house is considered as a luxurious house, And also in Japan, a timber house is a very expensive house. It is not a cheap house. So the people here have got a wrong impression. A timber house is a permanent house. Some of the old Japanese buildings, old castles, are built of timber and the timber can last 100 to 200 years. So timber windows, if properly maintained, can last a long time. I do not know how old is the timber in this Chamber but it can last for a long time.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I now come to the points raised by the hon. Member for Ayer Rajah. In fact, the hon. Member has warned me and warned the HDB that we are taking over a not-too-healthy baby, i.e. JTC flats. I am well aware of that because I have worked in the Jurong Town Corporation for almost three years.

The problem of leaking pipes started almost from the time when the decision was made to save water and to use industrial water for flushing the toilets. This problem is still with us. Most of the JTC staff believe that industrial water is highly corrosive and therefore it damages the pipes resulting in leaks. The Public Utilities Board and the Ministry of the Environment are not convinced. They say, "It is not corrosive. Maybe it is because of bad workmanship. Maybe the pipe is not up to the standard", and so on and so forth.

When the HDB took over this housing estate from the JTC, the HDB took up this matter of the use of industrial water with the Ministry of the Environment and the PUB. Up to today, there is still no conclusive evidence that industrial water is responsible for the corrosion of the pipes or not. The other two authorities have suggested this, "Just in case you are right that industrial water is corrosive, please use plastic pipes." Because plastic pipes can be used for industrial water.

The HDB is continuing to look into this problem, and I would like to give an assurance to the hon. Member that we will find a solution to this problem and certainly we cannot ask the residents to accept the leaking ceilings in their toilets. This would not be acceptable to the HDB and would not be acceptable to us.

Encik Abbas Abu Amin: May I have some clarification, Sir. The incidents I mentioned are real and did happen. Never in my statement did I mention that timber is bad. I have lived in wooden houses and I know the state of timber. As regards this particular problem, these incidents happened and I gave two instances, I would appreciate if the Minister could direct the area officer to assist the residents in taking remedial action before such incidents occur again in this particular block.

Mr Lai Tha Chai: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Hon. Minister has not answered my question. My question is whether he could waive the 1973 ruling so that MPs around the Anson area can help the residents living in Anson Constituency.

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am sorry. When I flicked over my notes, the two pages got stuck. That is why I thought I have answered all the questions.

I would like to give assurance to the hon. Member that I will ask the HDB to study what is wrong with the window. Just for argument sake, if the wooden windows have been badly manufactured or defective, they will do something about it. If not, I will ask the HDB to make a check and to see how we can assist the residents.

On the request by the Member for Henderson, the Ministry will look into this matter. Just now when I answered the hon. Member for Anson's question, I think the hon. Member has missed my point. The Member for Anson asked why can't somebody not from his own constituency, go to see him first to take his matter up with the HDB before he sees his own MP. My answer to him is that we do not want the HDB to do repetitive work. For example, my constituent from Geylang West wants an early allocation of an HDB flat. He does not come to see me. He goes to the hon. Member for Anson to request for early allocation of an HDB flat. Of course, the hon. Member for Anson will write to the HDB . The HDB will turn down the request by saying, "You cannot jump the queue because the HDB's rule is first come, first served."

What happens to that person? He will come back to see me in Geylang West. He will say, "I saw the hon. Member for Anson and I got a 'No' from the HDB." Therefore, he has come to see me to ask for my assistance because he is my constituent. I am duty bound to help him. So I write to the HDB to look into this case. The HDB looks into his case and finds that my constituent has gone to see the Member for Anson first and that the HDB has given a first reply. But because I also write to the HDB, the HDB has to reply again. This means, in fact, that additional work has been created. That is why I told the hon. Member for Anson that this is undesirable because we are trying to avoid repetitive work.

On the point raised by the hon. Member for Henderson, the Ministry will look into the matter. I understand that a lot of people who are living in Anson disagree with the policy of the hon. Member for Anson and so they have refused to see the hon. Member. They will see other hon. Members for assistance because they disagree with the policy of the Member for Anson. In such cases, there is no repetitive work because the person did not see the hon. Member for Anson and only sees the hon. Member for Henderson. If the hon. Member for Henderson writes to the HDB, the HDB will give a reply. So there is no repetitive work, only once. I think this point merits consideration.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not have an amendment on this, but may I just deal with this matter?

The Chairman: Will you deal with it quickly?

Mr Jeyaretnam: I will, Sir. As I suspected, there would appear to be double standards. I had long suspected this and now it is borne out by the Minister; from the horse's mouth itself you get it. I am quite happy for anyone in my constituency to see somebody else if they wish. But I would like to know what is the basis for the Minister's statement.

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: The basis for my statement is relatively simple. Last week, I heard the Prime Minister say that the hon. Member is not part of the establishment.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Who said I was?

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: In short, in Anson constituency, as I mentioned just now, some of the constituents disagree with the policy of the hon. Member and they refuse to see him. This group of people are Singapore citizens and perhaps they should not be deprived of assistance from a Member of Parliament because they disagree with the hon. Member for Anson. We will consider this and perhaps we will change the set of rules for Anson Constituency, for those who do not wish to see the hon. Member. But for those who see the hon. Member, then our instruction is, there will be no repetitive work for those people who go to see the hon. Member. And PAP MPs should not interfere and should not write again. The policy is that the HDB will not do repetitive work. In other words, the policy will still continue. The HDB will do work only once.

As for those people in Anson who go to see the Member for Anson, these people are his constituents and correctly he represents them. And if he writes to the HDB, the HDB will deal with the case on its own merit and give the hon. Member for Anson a reply.

As for those Anson residents who disagree with the policy of the hon. Member for Anson, if they go and see a PAP Member, I think we will make an exception by looking into the case and give him a reply. This will not breach the principle of not doing repetitive work. In other words, the HDB is doing work only once, not twice.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I am sorry, Mr Speaker, Sir, all this seems to me double Dutch. May I ask the Minister a direct question and perhaps may I have a direct answer to that? The Minister talks about persons who do not wish to see me but goes to see a PAP MP and that would be perfectly all right. But according to him, as I heard a little while ago this afternoon, it is not perfectly all right if somebody living in his constituency, who does not want to see him, comes to see me. The Minister says that it is not all right because it is repetitive work for the HDB. What I would like to know is, how does he justify this double standard, which I know has been in existence? 4.15 p.m.

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: The hon. Member seems not to understand me. What I said is that the rule is to try and avoid repetitive work on the part of the HDB. HDB does not have to deal with the case twice.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Do not repeat. Answer my question.

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: I have already answered the question. In fact, he is repeating the same question. The hon. Member is repeating the same question and has forced me to repeat the answer. Now he is accusing me of repeating. If he repeats the question, then I have to repeat the answer.

Mr Liew Kok Pun: Sir, I am sure my colleagues would like to join me here in thanking the Hon. Minister - who has shown himself to be an expert in quite a number of things, from counselling in marriage, to culinary skills, to assessment of timber - for his reply, a reply that is sprinkled with a large dose of humour to our delight and, I am sure, Sir, to your goodself also. On this note, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head T be reduced by the whole sum of Subhead TE-01 of the Main Estimates.

I am sorry I should put the Hon. Minister out of humour by this amendment that I am moving. As has been observed, he has been in very good humour. But I am duty bound to bring this to the attention of the House and indeed to the public. I am, again, on the question of the HDB accounts.

Sir, if you look at the Accounts for 1980-81, you will find under the Income and Expenditure Account that the HDB would appear to have suffered a loss of $6,540,578. But it is the burden of my speech here today to show that this is completely misleading. These accounts are misleading, and are keeping from the public and from this House the true state of the HDB's finances. Sir, it is only when you turn to the Notes of the Auditor which appear at the back of these Accounts, at page 19 of the last report (81/82), what do you find? You find that HDB has an investment of $15,650,000 in MND Holdings (Pte) Ltd. He says this amount of HDB's holding represents 49.99% of the issued share capital of the company. I would like to know from the Minister who are the other shareholders who hold 50.01% in MND Holdings. Is HDB the biggest shareholder, the dominant shareholder? Perhaps he will answer that among other questions that I have for him.

You find in this Report that, as at 31st December 1981, that is December 1981 and we are now talking in 1983, the unappropriated profit of the company was $18,034,109. If you include the profits of the company and its subsidiaries, it comes to $101,853,765. If HDB owns 49.99% of MND Holdings, the HDB's share of the profits up to the end of 1981 works out to $50.9 million. So far from the financial position of the HDB showing a deficit of $6 million, HDB has in fact secreted away profits of $50.9 million, an excess of $44 million over the deficit suffered for 1981. I will say to the Minister, quite seriously, that this is scandalous. Why were these profits not consolidated into the accounts? The holding of HDB in MND does appear but the profits have not been consolidated into the accounts. And the Auditor says that, in his statement, "the accounts of the company and its subsidiaries are not consolidated in the Board's accounts." May I tell the Minister that if the HDB came under the Companies Act, whoever was responsible for preparing these accounts would find himself at the end of a criminal charge.

May I remind the Minister and the Members that not so very long ago a director of a company was sent to prison for six months for the very same thing, that the accounts did not show the true state of the company's financial position, that the report of the directors did not disclose the profits that had been made by a subsidiary company. So there we have a director who was sent to prison for six months because the accounts of his company did not reflect the true financial position.

But as for HDB, of course, the Minister will say, "We don't come under the Companies Act." But that is not the answer. HDB is a statutory board. I have said this before, and I was glad to see - I think the Member for Rochore also mentioned - that it is accountable as a statutory board to this House first, and then to the members of the public. And it has a duty to come clean, with a clean slate before the House when it presents its report. I say these accounts do not reveal the true state of the financial position of HDB.

I want to know from the Minister why he allowed these accounts to be presented to this House. He has made himself a party to the presentation of the accounts. As I said, if it was under the Companies Act, he may find himself on a charge of aiding and abetting the presentation of accounts which did not comply with the Companies Act. But that is perhaps technical. I am not very anxious to see the Minister charged, or anybody else charged for that matter. The question is, why have these profits not been appropriated to the HDB year by year? Why have they been left lying with MND Holdings (Pte) Ltd? I would like to know that, If they had been appropriated, HDB would not show a loss at all. These profits could have been used for the benefit of our citizens to make the cost of the flats to them a little cheaper. Why was it not used for their benefit? Why was $50 million left secreted away with MND Holdings? I think the public is entitled to know why. And the Minister, in presenting his case for an increase in the flats not very long ago, talked about the HDB going bankrupt. As I said then, I did not think the HDB was going bankrupt. Here it is. HDB is not going bankrupt. HDB has, as I said, $50.9 million. That was at the end of 1981. What is the position at the end of 1982?

Sir, I am sorry but I must emphasize the seriousness of this. Here is a statutory board presenting accounts which do not tell the whole story, which secrets away the profits of HDB so that people may not know what the position is. That is used as a justification for increasing the prices of flats to our citizens. In 1981 it went up by 38%. I know my ten minutes is coming.

The Chairman: Five seconds.

Mr Jeyaretnam: There is another thing, Sir. These accounts, I am told, although reference has been made to double accounting, these are really not double accounting at all, as I understand.

The Chairman: I am afraid your ten minutes are up, Mr Jeyaretnam.

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: Sir, the hon. Member for Anson has been harping on the HDB accounting system for a long time. In fact, the last such occasion he talked about the HDB accounting was on the 3rd December last year. I have repeatedly explained the HDB accounts, and I am sorry I have to repeat again for his benefit - that HDB's current accounting system is not an HDB's invention. The system was inherited by HDB from the Singapore Improvement Trust which was established by the British Government. It is not an HDB invention. It is certainly not a PAP invention. This method of accounting was, in fact, a widely accepted system of presenting the accounts of a public authority in England. However, in line with the Auditor-General's recommendation that HDB should adopt a more modern accounting system based on commercial convention of accounting, the HDB has been taking all the necessary steps to change its accounting system.

The hon. Member for Anson must surely realize that the HDB has provided accommodation for 75% of the population in Singapore. The number of accounts handled by HDB comes close to one million, comprising 400,000 service and conservancy accounts, 160,000 loan and instalment repayment accounts for sale of flats over 100,000 rental accounts, thousands of hawkers' accounts, car parks accounts, and so on and so forth. The magnitude and the complexity of HDB accounts explain why the change of accounting system cannot take place overnight. Therefore, we have to continue with the present accounting system. The HDB is doing all it can to switch over with the minimum inconvenience to the 75% of the population living in HDB flats. 4.30 p.m.

A Committee comprising the Auditor-General, Accountant-General and representatives from the Ministry of Finance, Ministry of National Development and the HDB, has been formed to select a consultant for the enormous task of changing the accounting system. I am indeed most puzzled that any informed person could think that it is possible for HDB to convert the accounting system of such a huge undertaking like the HDB overnight. I had expected the Member for Anson to be the first person to appreciate the complexity of the task facing the HDB since his own political party appears to have some accounting problems. If the press reports are anything to be believed, it seems that his party has been facing great difficulty in presenting its accounts while the balance standing to the credit of his political party amounted to - I must not use another unsuitable word - a grand sum of $18.47.

Just now the hon. Member appears to have spoken with great authority on accounting knowledge. In fact, some of the people asked me, "Why don't HDB solicit his service to switch the accounting system?" I would say this much. The hon. Member seems to have a penchant for ignoring facts which look him in the face. He has accused HDB of organizing confused accounts to mislead the public. This is not so. In fact, he has come here to give the impression that HDB is - he has, in fact, repeated this many times in this House - purposely making confusing accounts, and that it is a profit-oriented organization and it is overcharging the residents. It is trying to sell the flats at a profit or that the rentals are unreasonably high, and all sorts of other accusations against HDB.

Instead of going into details, I just want to give a fairly simple example. HDB is doing three things for the public, i.e. the 75% of the population who are housed by HDB and also the more than 100,000 applicants who are waiting for HDB flats. The first thing is that the 400,000 families who are living in HDB estates, HDB is collecting service and conservancy charges from them and providing the cleansing service and other services to these residents. Hon. Members most probably do not have the HDB's Financial Report with the exception of the Member for Anson. On page 8 of the 1981-82 accounts, the service and conservancy charges collected by HDB were $134,658,581 while the expenditure was $142,868,152. From there, you can see that HDB is subsidizing the service and conservancy charges. In other words, we are collecting less than what we spent.

The second point is on rental of HDB flats. HDB is charging a rental of $40 for 1-room improved flats. I just do not want to go back to the argument. Ask anyone in Singapore: is this rental a subsidized rent, or is this rental a profit-making rental as maintained by the Member for Anson? If it is a profit-making rental, I would advise the Member for Anson to get some investors to build flats and rent them out at $40. I think a lot of Singaporeans would be grateful to him if he is capable of doing that.

I come to the third point. It is the selling of HDB flats, These are the three items that are important. The hon. Member is trying to confuse the people by saying that HDB has got MND Holdings and so on and so forth. To the public, that is a Government investment. It is not that much different from Government investment in SIA. Therefore the HDB residents are not directly affected by the investment. Is HDB charging high prices for its flats? That is important. Is HDB making money out of the service and conservancy charges? The answer is no. HDB is losing money.

The second question is: Is HDB charging very high rentals for the rental flats? Can the hon. Member answer me? $40 for a 1-room flat, is it expensive? Is this rental not subsidized? Or can the hon. Member do better and build some flats and rent them out at less than $40? If the Member can do that, then I must take my hat off and say that he is indeed very good, a financial wizard. Can he persuade anyone who has accommodation to rent it out at $40? No answer. He keeps quiet. Because he knows that renting a room in a flat is $200 a month with a condition that you do not do any cooking. The Member for Boon Teck just said that the condition is that you are not allowed to cook and that you must not have children. And HDB is renting out its flats at $40. You show me the accommodation that you are able to provide at less than $40, and I will supply you no end to the number of tenants. Tell me, where are the accommodations that you can rent?

The third question is about the selling price of HDB flats. I do not want to take up too much of hon. Members' time, but here I just want to quote a very simple thing. The majority of applicants on the waiting list for HDB flats are applying for 3- and 4-room flats. This category has the largest number of people. Out of 110,000 people on the waiting list at the end of last year, 38,561 people have applied for 3-room flats and 42,490 applicants applied for 4-room flats. So for the 3- and 4-room flats, the total number of applicants is 80,000 out of the 110,000, which is an overwhelming majority.

How much does the HDB sell its 3-room new generation flats in the Inner Suburban area, i.e. in the New Town in Tampines, Bukit Batok, Jurong East, Jurong West and Upper Hougang? These are the areas where the majority of HDB flats are now being built. The construction cost of a 3-room new generation flat is $35,000 to $38,000 per unit, excluding land cost, architect's fees and the finance required during the period of construction. And what is the selling price of these 3-room new generation flats? It is $30,900, Construction cost paid to the contractor is $35,000 to $38,000, excluding land cost. This is just the construction cost. The selling price is $30,900. Is this profit-making that HDB has to cook up the accounts to fool the people?

As for the 4-room new generation flats, the construction cost is between $50,000 and $55,000, depending on how deep is the piling and so on, in the Outer Suburban zone. The selling price of a 4-room new generation flat is $47,300. In other words, we are selling the 3-room and 4-room flats built in the New Towns at below the construction cost. Do not argue about the land cost. Do not argue about other things. So as a housing authority which is selling 70% of the flats at below the construction cost, let me just put a simple question: is this not a subsidy? If not, what is a subsidy? The Government is selling flats at such a low price and it is losing money in service and conservancy charges. The Government is renting out flats very cheaply to the people. Is it necessary for the Government to cook up the accounts so that HDB can hide the profits? Anybody who is mentally not confused will be able to know that the sale of flats is heavily subsidized. The provision of service and conservancy charges is again subsidized. The rental flat is subsidized. It is totally not necessary for HDB to cook up the accounts to hide anything.

For the construction cost, you can go and ask HDB contractors what is the construction cost. This is an open book. There is nothing to hide. In fact, the flats built by HDB are at the lowest possible price. A lot of contractors do not want to take HDB contracts because the price is too low. So it is totally unnecessary for HDB to cook up the accounts because there is nothing to hide. In fact, HDB would like to make known its accounts to everybody so that the people know the extent of the subsidy given by the Government. The hon. Member has kept harping on this old accounting system because he knows that the HDB has followed the old SIT accounting system and which at present the Auditor-General has asked us to change the accounting system.

As Members know, HDB has the biggest allocation of $3,162 million by the Government. This is the amount which the Government is giving to HDB for housing. We have the biggest allocation. When a political party with $18.47 has great difficulty in presenting its accounts, certainly the Secretary-General of that particular political party should be the first to know that when a sum of $3,162 million is involved - which is how many times $18.47 - it requires a lot of effort to switch the accounting system so that the people will not be inconvenienced. 4.45 p.m.

We can switch the accounting system overnight but everybody will get confused. A person may get five bills asking to pay for the same account. So we must switch the accounting system in such a way that no inconvenience is caused to 75% of the population living in HDB flats. In fact, the HDB has nothing to hide. If the hon. Member believes that we have broken the law - I am quite sure our Singapore Government system is based on the rule of law - if we have done anything against the law, action will be taken against us, including the Minister. The Minister is not above the law.

Mr Jeyaretnam: May I speak, Sir?

The Chairman: On the same theme?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Yes, Sir, I am going to refer to the Minister's reply. Other Members had been given the chance to reply to the Minister's statement. I would like to have the same opportunity, Sir.

The Chairman: All right.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Sir, speaking for myself - I know I do not speak for the other Members - speaking for myself, I find the Minister's reply, in one word, pathetic. I am sorry. There is no other word that I can think of. It is pathetic. He says, "We have got so many things to look after. It will take time for us to switch our accounting system. We inherited it from the British. We are building houses cheaply. We are doing everything. Please do not ask us about our accounts." That, Sir, is not the answer one would expect from the Minister. I am not alone in saying that your accounts are not presenting a proper picture. I will give you a challenge. Would you like to send your accounts to the Chief Financial Officer of the Public Utilities Board? I understand that he is a member of the Institute of Public Finance and Administration, a very respectable body, and it is a body in the United Kingdom for all municipal accountants. I am told that perhaps he is the only person in Singapore who is a member of this Institute. Would you like to send your accounts to him and ask him to say whether you have followed the proper accounting system for municipal accounts, and whether your accounts tell a true and fair story? Simple. Do not take my word for it. Ask him, unless you are saying that you cannot accept his word either - the Chief Financial Officer of the Public Utilities Board, who is a member of the Institute of Public Finance and Administration. It is up to you now.

I am glad that the Minister has brought up the service and conservancy charges. He says that the HDB is making a loss on the service and conservancy charges. On my first appearance in this House on 22nd December, 1981, I drew the attention of the Minister to the accounts for 1980-81 which, I said, showed that the HDB was collecting something like $30 million more by way of service and conservancy charges than the amount it spent. Then, of course, there was a reply from the Minister of State saying that the accounts did not tell the whole story. Of course, we know that these accounts are not telling the whole story. He said that there were a lot of other things that I did not know about.

And so after that there was a statement in the HDB journal, Our Home, trying to explain the service and conservancy charges, trying to show that the Member for Anson did not know what he was talking about. They brought into the expenditure account a number of things which inflated the expenditure so as to show a debit balance. What do we find from the 1981-82 accounts? For the first time, in the 1981-82 accounts, the Auditor draws attention to the service and conservancy charges. We find this at page 21. He gives the income as $134 million, total expenditure as $142 million, showing a deficit for the year of $8,209,571. This is what the Minister is talking about when he says that there is a deficit. But what do you find under this expenditure? I have only got to take one item, Sir. There is an amount of $10,716,100 which is put against "Contributions to Repair Fund for repairs and repainting." I have asked a Public Accountant about this, and he said that that should not come in here. That should come under the Rents collected. It should not come under service and conservancy charges. That is how you show a deficit. There are two other items, "Contribution to Fire and Damage Fund" and "Fire Insurance premia." He said that these items should not come under this head. So if you take away these items, you are not left with a deficit on the service and conservancy account; you are left with an excess of something like $3 million. I have only selected these three items. He said that even the other items need looking into.

I think the HDB must accept its obligation to present all its accounts for inspection by any Member of the House or even by the public so that they are all satisfied with how the accounts are presented and maintained. It is not a question of a private organization. The HDB is a statutory body and it must be made accountable, just as the Government must be made accountable to the public.

Now, I have asked the Minister a number of questions and I am afraid he has not answered a single one of them. He hides behind the trumpet blowing on behalf of the HDB. But I was not asking for trumpetblowing of the HDB. I wanted specific answers to specific questions. Why were these profits not brought over to the HDB accounts year by year? Will you please answer that question? Why were they left with MND Holdings? As I have said, if the profits had been brought over, they could have been used for the benefit of our citizens. The rents might have been made a little cheaper for them, or the purchase price could have been brought down a little bit. Or even if he did not want to do that, he could have invested the profits elsewhere and earned income on that, thus adding to the funds of the HDB. Why have all these monies not been properly used? Is that not a waste of your funds? It is no good saying, "Your party cannot look after its own accounts." That is not the answer, Mr Minister, with respect. You have got to answer for the HDB. It is no good pointing at my party, I will answer for my party. But you have got to answer for the HDB. I am sorry to say this - that if you cannot answer for the HDB on these matters, the only recourse for you is to resign. I think Ministers must take their duties seriously. In any other country, the Minister would resign. I say, if you cannot answer this, the only recourse is for you to resign. Then go and meet your electorate; explain to them and see if they understand and agree that the way the HDB has presented its accounts is in order and that they themselves will have no quarrel with them: otherwise you are failing in your duty.

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: Sir, I disagree with the statement or observation of the Member for Anson - that the HDB's accounts have not been properly presented and that they have not been properly audited. I disagree with him because the HDB's accounts have been properly presented and audited by the Auditor-General of Singapore. Is the hon. Member suggesting that the Auditor-General is incompetent? Is the hon. Member suggesting that his particular friend is an authority on accounting, that he is the best and that nobody is as good as him? I doubt it. If the particular person

Mr Jeyaretnam: On a point of clarification, Sir.

The Chairman: If the Minister will give way.

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: No. If you think that your particular friend is a better man than the Auditor-General, then write to us and let us see. We have a lot of qualified accountants in the HDB, We have a lot of qualified accountants in the Government. In the Auditor-General's Department we have a lot of competent accountants. If the hon. Member for Anson is saying that these people are not as good an accountant as the hon. Member, then let us see. Let us have some proof that the hon. Member is a better accountant. I doubt it. I say here that I doubt it.

My statement about the confusing accounts of the Workers' Party is relevant because the hon. Member is the Secretary-General of the party. The hon. Member was talking about the accounts of the HDB and he has given us the impression that he is an accounting authority. I say that if he is really an accounting authority, then his party's accounts should not have been in a mess. If there is anybody who should resign, it is the Secretary-General of that particular party, not me. Why should I resign?

The accounts of the HDB have been properly presented and properly audited by the Auditor-General of Singapore. The accounts have been prepared by qualified accountants and audited by qualified accountants. I do not see anything wrong in the accounting. If the hon. Member has other opinions, that other people think that the accounts are improper, I would ask the hon. Member to ask that person to write to me. I will then refer their views to the qualified accountants. I am not a qualified accountant. I do not claim that I am an authority on these accounts. But the HDB has qualified accountants and these accounts have been properly audited by the Auditor-General. If the competence of the HDB accountants and the competence of the Auditor-General are questioned by the hon. Member, or he himself knows better about the accounts, then he can write to me and point out where they go wrong. Or if he knows of other persons who, he thinks, are better qualified, then ask them to write to us to say what is wrong with our accounts. Let us look at them. There is not much purpose served in this House by arguing on the details of the accounts. This set of HDB accounts has been properly presented and properly audited. That is my view. 5.00 p.m.

The other thing is that he mentioned two or three items which are improper. I will just give him a simple explanation. Most probably he does not know and I happen to know this because I have worked in the HDB. The HDB paints the flats once every five years. Take the case of your own house, Sir. You paint your house once every five years. For argument sake, let us say it costs $500 to paint the house. There are two ways of doing the accounting. One way is: every year you set aside $100. For five years, you set aside $500. Although in the first four years no painting is done, you still set aside $100 a year. After five years you use that $500 to paint your house. So that particular year you spend $500.

Another way of accounting is that you spend nothing for four years and on the fifth year you spend $500 because that is the year you paint the house. These are the two ways of doing the accounting.

The HDB has adopted this method that the Member spoke about, $10 million has been set aside for redecoration. Every year the HDB is setting aside this money, and when we do the painting, the account is charged to this fund. The Member does not know. I am not blaming him because he is not a qualified accountant. I am not questioning him about his ability in accounting. I think it is unfair for me to question him although he is trying to present himself in this House as the foremost accountant in this country. I have grave doubts that he is.

The Member also spoke about the accounts of MND Holdings. The HDB has a share in MND Holdings. It is the policy of MND Holdings not to declare dividends because the money has to be utilized to expand MND Holding's activities. MND Holdings is involved in a lot of projects, including pig farming and the Resources Development Corporation which undertakes PWD jobs in construction. We are using MND Holdings as one of the arms for upgrading the skill of our own local contractors. The biggest organization in the MND Holdings is the Resources Development Corporation (RDC) which is producing granite, sand, and also undertakes road projects. This Corporation was set up to look into modern technology of construction. In Singapore, we have seen that the upgrading of the local contractors has been slow and we have to get a lot of foreign contractors. So Government set up its own construction company to upgrade local skills in construction and this company is under MND Holdings.

The profits made by MND Holdings are kept so that we are able to buy better machinery. Members can see that the RDC has a lot of lorries and a lot of construction equipment going around. Government's policy is: whenever there is a profit, we plough it back into the company so that we can buy better and better machinery, and we can train our engineers so that eventually our engineers will be as good as other foreign engineers and be able to undertake more sophisticated jobs. That is why the Member does not know and he is making a big fuss about this MND Holdings, thinking that it is some sinister scheme and trying to hide the accounts and so on and so forth. There are a lot of things which the Member does not know.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Yes, there are a lot of things we do not know. That is true.

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

Mr Jeyaretnam: No, Sir. May I just by clarification ask the Minister this question? Would he accept this challenge to send it to the Chief Financial Officer? He is not my friend, the Chief Financial Officer of the Public Utilities Board.

An hon. Member: He is not the authority.

Mr Jeyaretnam: He is. I told you that he is an authority on municipal accounts.

An hon. Member: There are other authorities better than him.

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: He is the financial officer of the HDB. He is doing the HDB's accounts.

The Chairman: Mr Jeyaretnam, the answer is "No.".

Mr Jeyaretnam: The answer is "No". He does not accept the challenge. Thank you.

The other thing is setting aside money for repainting. I agree it must be set aside. But it should not come from the service and conservancy fees collected. It should come from rents or other things. That is my point.

Thirdly, as regards the profits of MND Holdings. As the auditor points out, these profits are unappropriated as yet. That means the profits are still lying there. That means $50 million of HDB's money is still there. And as he points out, even HDB's holding in MND Holdings is ultra vires the Act. He has pointed it out. It is illegal for HDB to have put its money into MND Holdings. So what is the Minister talking about? He says the HDB should not have its money there and now the HDB has got all these profits there. All this should have been brought back to HDB.

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am trying to avoid getting into an argument with the hon. Member for Anson on the accounting because I know that he is not a competent accountant.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I never said I was.

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: And it would be unfair for me to press him on accounting. But he keeps on talking about accounting. On a simple thing, he says money for repainting should not come from service and conservancy charges but should come from rents. This is to show the Member's total ignorance of accounting,

The HDB has two types of properties and it has 400,000 units of flats under management. One-third of the flats are on rental and two-thirds of the flats have been sold to the people. The HDB is collecting service and conservancy charges from both groups of people. That means those who rent also have to pay service and conservancy charges. Those who buy also have to pay service and conservancy charges.

When we do painting and redecoration, we paint both the rental houses and also the sale houses. So based on the hon. Member's suggestion, those people who rent flats will be charged service and con- servancy charges and they have to pay for the painting and those who bought flats need not pay for painting. Perhaps one of these days I am going to apply this policy for Anson constituency and then all those people living in rental flats will go and see the Member. By then, he will come back and say, "No, no, this is rubbish. This is all nonsense. We should charge both, not just charge people who rent. Does the Member still insist that only those people who rent should pay and those who buy need not? Just now he mentioned this.

An hon. Member: Yes or no?

Mr Jeyaretnam: I am sorry, Sir. The Minister has asked me a question. I am used to this distortion of what I said. I said this should not be debited to the monies collected for service and conservancy.

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: You said it should come from rents.

Some hon. Members: Yes.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I said it should not be debited against service and conservancy charges.

Some hon. Members: You said it should come from rents.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Yes, from rents collected by the HDB. But that does not mean you go and ask them to pay for the painting. You provide out of all the rents you collected. It is as simple as that.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not propose to withdraw this amendment.

Dr Koh Lip Lin: Wasting people's time!

Question put, "That the sum to be allocated for Head T be reduced by the whole sum of Subhead TE-01 of the Main Estimates."

Mr Jeyaretnam: Division, Sir.

The Chairman: Take a division. 5.15 p.m.

The Committee divided: Aye, 1; Noes, 47; Abstention, 1. Noes Aye Abbas Abu Amin Jeyaretnam, J.B. Ahmad Mattar Ang Kok Peng Abstention Barker, E.W. Chai Chong Yii Yeoh Ghim Seng Chau Sik Ting Cheong Yuen Chee, Eric Chin Harn Tong Ch'ng Jit Koon Chua Sian Chin Fong Sip Chee Goh Chee Wee Ho Kah Leong Ho See Beng Howe Yoon Chong Hwang Soo Jin Jabbar, M.K.A. Jayakumar, S. Koh Lip Lin Lai Tha Chai Lau Ping Sum Lau Teik Soon Lee Chiaw Meng Lee Khoon Choy Lee Yiok Seng Lee Yock Suan Liew Kok Pun Lim Boon Heng Ng Kah Ting Othman bin Haron Eusofe Ow Chin Hock Phua Bah Lee Rohan bin Kamis Saidi Haji Shariff Sia Khoon Seong Sidek bin Saniff Tan Cheng Bock Tang See Chim Tay Eng Soon Teh Cheang Wan Teo Chong Tee Wan Hussin Zoohri Wan Soon Bee Wong Kwei Cheong Yap Giau Cheng, Eugene Yeo Choo Kok Yeo Ning Hong Yeo Toon Chia

Question on the amendment accordingly negatived.

The Chairman: At this stage, probably I will take a break.

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

Mr Speaker: Order. I suspend the Sitting now and shall take the Chair again at 5.50 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 5.20 p.m. until 5.50 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.50 p.m.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate in Committee of Supply resumed.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Head T (cont.) -

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 TE-01 of the Development Estimates*.

Sir, Toa Payoh New Town was established in 1966, the last batch of flats in the central area was completed around 1972. These flats were constructed at a rapid pace to meet the ever-increasing demands of applicants. The emphasis then was on quantity rather than quality. As a result workmanship was poor. Defects which occurred and were reported during the 12 months' defects liability period have been rectified. Unfortunately, over a period of time more serious defects became evident in the interior of the flats. When these defects were brought to the attention of the HDB, their usual reply was to disclaim responsibility and advised lessees to engage their own contractors to do the repairs themselves. Engaging one's own contractor or an HDB term contractor is not an easy task. Firstly, lessees do not have the necessary experience in negotiating with these contractors to obtain a fair price. Should they undertake to do the repairs individually, they do not have the benefit of economy of scale. Secondly, the defects are quite extensive in some cases and the cost of repairs can be quite costly. For example, the ceilings of some flats, particularly above the bathroom and toilet areas, cracked so badly, that the metal frame supports are exposed and are rusty. I visited four blocks of flats, Blocks 183 to 186, recently and found these defects: (1) cracked ceilings, (2) decayed wooden windows, (3) dirty water supply, and (4) water seepage. In Block 183, 36 out of 71 flats have defects. In Block 186, 15 out of 36 flats have defects. This does not include families who were not in at the time the survey was conducted by myself and members of the Residents Committee. In other words about 50% of the flats in these four blocks have defects. You could imagine the enormity of the problems faced by the lessees.

Sir, earlier the Hon. Minister has stated that wooden-framed windows are sturdy and do not necessarily become bad. But I disagree with him on one point. I have been living in SIT flats and HDB flats since 1943. The type of wood and window frame used by these two Boards are quite different. Firstly, it is the quality of the wood, secondly, it is the period taken to season the wood, and finally, workmanship. As we all agree, for those who have at one time or another resided in SIT flats, we know that the quality of those flats is of a relatively high standard.

Then at Blocks 54, 68, 79, 191 and 193, residents on the upper floors complained of low water pressure and discoloured water supply. Although HDB has a programme to carry out improvements to the water tanks and external distribution mains in these blocks, progress has been slow. The HDB does not undertake to replace the encrusted internal service pipes of these flats. Residents are advised to engage their own plumbers to replace the pipes. Many of these flats are more than 10 years old. Encrustation of the internal service pipes was caused by the flow of sediments from the water tanks on the roof of these blocks of flats.

The defects mentioned are not the result of misuse of facilities by residents but due to poor workmanship and supervision on the part of HDB contractors and inadequate maintenance by the HDB.

Therefore, I am of the view that HDB should bear some responsibility in putting the defects right and meet part of the costs. The least HDB could do is to assist residents to coordinate all repair activities to gain from the economy of scale. Besides performing enforcement action alone, HDB's maintenance inspectors should be trained to provide such advisory services to tenants and lessees of HDB properties. In view of the high costs involved in repairing defects, I would further suggest that the HDB consider setting up a financing unit to assist tenants and lessees to pay for such repairs by easy instalment payments.

Improvements to existing estates should not be confined to the exterior of flats and the surrounding environment but to the interior of flats as well.

Sir, in the latest HDB Annual Report it was stated that HDB is exploring ways to mechanize refuse collection and making improvements to existing dust-bin compounds. I observe that part of the improvement scheme consists of raising the roofs of bin compounds to provide better ventilation. Hitherto, the stench emanating from these compounds affects blocks of flats nearest to them. Now with the raising of the roofs, the stench is carried further away to other blocks of flats whenever there is a strong gust of wind. Could the HDB give an indication what progress has been made in the mechanization of refuse collection and other steps taken on refuse disposal in HDB estates in order to reduce pollution and health hazards.

The Chairman: Mr Chen is not here. Mr Jeyaretnam.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Sir, I would like to assure the Minister that I am not going to talk about these HDB accounts now. I move this amendment under Development estimates to talk about other matters.

May I, first of all, speak a little about the waiting time for purchasers of HDB flats. We have heard various announcements from the Minister and from other Ministerial statements about the waiting time being about 3 1/2 to four years - I stand corrected, of course, but I think that was the time period mentioned. I would tell the Minister that I know of several cases where they have been waiting for more than five years, some as many as nine or ten years. May I tell the Minister that I am very encouraged by the news that the HDB is speeding up the construction of flats, and may I compliment him on the steps that have been taken to do this. I am not averse to giving credit where it is due, although people think I am. 6.00 p.m.

I have said before about the record of housing that has been provided in Singapore. But that does not mean that it is perfect altogether. I would ask the Minister whether he would give special consideration to those who have been waiting for, say, five years and more, first. I think they deserve some consideration. We have been talking about the 1-room flats being overcrowded. I know of at least three families in my constituency who are living in 1 -room flats, and there are about six, seven, eight or nine of them, and they have been waiting to move into a 4-room or a 5-room flat but they have not been accorded this. Would he see that these people who have been waiting for more than five years are now dealt with first? I do not know how he is going to arrange this but they deserve some consideration and not get pushed back and back all the time because of resettlement.

The other point, Sir, is about the deposit. Again, these people paid their deposits years ago, some as much as $3,000 or $4,000. They do not get any interest on these deposits. I think I heard the Minister say that HDB does not allocate any flat at the time of booking, like the private developer does. So I do not know what is the reason for collecting the deposit then in the first place. When these people have lost interest on their deposits for a number of years, should not one look into this? If it was left with the CPF, they would have been earning interest all this while.

May I move on, Sir, because I know of the limited time. About the resettlement problems, mention has been made of the lack of feeling among some HDB officers - I do not say all - of the lack of appreciation of the sensitivity of the problem that is caused, particularly in the case of resettlement. Resettlement is an upheaval. A family is being uprooted from a familiar place, familiar surroundings, into somewhere new. I would ask the Minister to tell his officers who are dealing with this resettlement problem to show a little more sensitivity to the feelings of the people.

May I just give him an example. In my constituency there is an old woman living in Anson Road and she has to go regularly to the hospital once a week for treatment. She has a son who is living with her, but apparently he is not eligible for resettlement because he moved in after the cut-off date although he did not know about it and he had been away. But he applied for joint balloting with his mother. The mother has been given a place in Jurong West or Jurong East. They told the resettlement officer that it would be most inconvenient for the mother to be in Jurong East or Jurong West because she has got to go to the hospital every week. Apparently the answer was, "No. You either take it or leave it." What is more, the son tells me that the resettlement officer went to them and said, "If you don't get out, you know what we will do. We will come with the police. We will just throw all your things out and then break down the house." It is most unfortunate, Sir.

I have written about this particular case to the HDB. I do not know whether the Minister has seen this. Perhaps not, he does not see all letters. But I have written about this particular case mentioning the name of the officer who said this to the son. They are very upset about this. They have been living there for 30 years or so in Anson Road and all that they are asking is that they be put somewhere quite close to the hospital in Covent Garden or some other area. I think some account should be taken of their needs. They should not be just brushed aside.

Finally, Sir, may I ask the Minister whether he knows anything yet about the resettlement of my people in Kampong Bahru. I suppose it is too soon yet. But the hawkers in Kampong Bahru market are worried and anxious as to where they are going to be resettled. Would he be able to tell us whether they would be given places in the Bukit Purmei market or hawker centre when that is completed? I understood from the Minister for the Environ- ment that the idea was to try and locate them nearest to their existing stalls or businesses. May I know from the Minister what is the policy as regards hawkers in Kampong Bahru market and also the residents in Kampong Bahru area generally.

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: Sir, on the problems of defects of the flats in Toa Payoh, these flats were built 10 to 15 years ago, as rightly pointed out by the Member for Toa Payoh. It is HDB's policy - in fact, in almost all the arrangements with property developers and owners - that once the owner takes possession of a house he is responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of the house. This is the universal practice, and it is not just applicable in Singapore. However, HDB is doing a good deal more than what the developers are doing when they sell their flats. HDB maintains the common areas and arrange for the five-yearly redecoration of the buildings. This quite often leads to people thinking that since HDB is doing so much and is looking after the whole place, why not HDB also maintains and looks after the interior of the flat like water pipes, the rooms and other things? But this is not possible. That is as much as HDB can go. HDB usually asks the residents to look after their own flats and if there is any defect within the flat which they are not able to rectify, HDB will help by telling them who is able to repair their pipes or paint the flats and that they can go and see this group of contractors. This is a private arrangement between the owner of the flat and the contractor, and HDB is just acting as a middleman to bring them together. But HDB cannot possibly be responsible for the defects of the flats which are already 10 to 15 years old. So on the suggestion by the Member for Toa Payoh that HDB should be responsible for making good the defects of the old flats owned by the residents, this is not possible.

HDB is a big organization but the resources are also limited. HDB has only 12,000 people to look after 400,000 units of flats, of which two-thirds are owned by residents and one-third is rented out. This is an enormous task. It is not possible for HDB to extend its services to also look after the interior of two-thirds of its flats. This would be beyond HDB's task. If HDB undertakes this, the number of staff of HDB would likely have to be doubled.

On the refuse compound, I will ask HDB to look into this because this is something new to me. I thought that by providing a roof over the refuse compound, it would keep the smell away from the residents. I think HDB will find a solution.

On mechanized refuse collection, mechanization is to save manpower because HDB is facing the problem of trying to get cleansing workers. As I mentioned many times - and this is widely publicized - young Singaporeans are not very keen to become cleansing workers. HDB has great difficulty in getting people to work as cleansing workers. So mechanization is a way to save labour, HDB is trying to experiment on separate types of machines and if certain types of machines are found suitable HDB will buy them. I think the cleansing work for about half of the HDB flats is done on a contract basis. HDB is trying to find ways to finance the contractors to buy the machines so as to save manpower because the contractors who undertake HDB contract also find difficulty in getting workers.

The Member for Anson has mentioned that he would not go into the question of accounts again. But I would like to mention one or two points on the accounts which the Member may or may not know. HDB's accounts are sent to the Public Accounts Committee in Parliament for scrutinizing. I am not very sure whether the Member's suggestion that HDB's accounts be sent to PUB's Chief Accountant is legal or illegal. I would like to remind the hon. Member that the PUB's own accounts are also audited by the Auditor-General. HDB's accounts are also audited by the Auditor-General. I do not know whether it is proper or not for HDB's accounts to be sent to somebody else, i.e. to PUB's chief accountant, when PUB's own accounts are also audited by the Auditor-General. I am not a lawyer and I am not very sure about the laws. His suggestion may not be proper. But if, as he has mentioned, the PUB's chief accountant has a lot of good suggestions, I would suggest that he write either to the Auditor-General or to me.

The Public Accounts Committee in Parliament scrutinizes all the accounts of statutory boards. So I will not send HDB's accounts to anyone because I may be doing the wrong thing. Maybe this is against the rules of Parliament. Maybe it is against the rules of the Public Accounts Committee. This may be interpreted as contempt by the Public Accounts Committee.

The Member mentioned that there are people who are on the HDB's waiting list for nine or 10 years and who have still not got their flats. This, in fact, is true. There are such cases. It is not because they cannot get their flats but they insist on flats in certain localities. I would like to quote an example. There are people in HDB's waiting list for as long as 15 years. It is not because they cannot get their flats. In fact, previously before this sudden upsurge in applications, people were able to get their flats in two to three years. In 1977 and 1978 the waiting time was so short that some of the people got their flats in Bedok after having waited for less than one year. If in 1977 and 1978 people were getting their flats in less than one year, why should people wait for eight or nine years? 6.15 p.m.

The reason is that this group of people usually insist on certain localities. We have cases - I mentioned 15 years - of applicants living in the Old Kallang Airport area. At that time in the early 1960's, there was no proposal to build flats in the Old Kallang Airport area. But they insisted on having flats in that area. Therefore, they said, "It does not matter. We will wait." The HDB informed them that they would have to wait for a long time. They said, "It does not matter. We are prepared to wait for 10 years. We are prepared to wait for 15 years. But we insist on getting a flat in that locality." Therefore, they have to wait for a long time. But if the people are not choosy and will accept flats in the various localities, usually in the New Towns where the HDB has built a very large number of flats, at present in Tampines, Bukit Batok, Jurong, Hougang, they will get their flats very quickly.

The hon. Member has made a suggestion that those who have waited for more than five years should get their flats earlier. I can give him an assurance that if those people who have waited for more than five years are not choosy, they will get their flats early because the Housing Board's policy is, "first come, first served". If they have waited for more than five years, they are well in front of the queue. If they are not choosy, they will get their flats quickly. But if they are choosy and would like to have their flats in a particular locality, then it will be difficult because perhaps the number of flats in the choice locality is very limited and in such a situation they may not get a flat at all. But if anyone is not choosy and if he has waited for more than five years, he will be able to get a flat very quickly.

On the question of interest to be paid to the depositors, in Singapore there are two ways of paying for a house. For private development, a person will have to pay in accordance with the progress of the building construction. First, he pays 5% and subsequently he pays 10%. Then there is a certain rule that a percentage should be paid as the building construction progresses. Another system is the HDB system. In the HDB system, when you register to buy a flat, you make a downpayment, a deposit. After that, you do not pay any more. When the flat is under construction, you pay nothing. You will pay the balance of the purchase price when the flat is allocated to you. In this way, it is, in fact, a saving for the buyer because if he has to pay according to the progress of the construction he would have paid very much more if you take the interest into consideration. Previously when the HUDC sold the HUDC flats, it was just like a private enterprise. They collected the money while the construction of the building was in progress. The HDB has made a calculation. By using the HDB method, there is a gain for those who buy flats. Although the HDB does not pay interest on the deposit, the HDB has to bear the interest during the period of construction. The HDB has, in fact, paid quite a lot of money to the contractors as progress payments because it has to pay 100% of the construction cost until the building is completed before it can allocate the flats and get back the money.

On the question of resettlement, I agree with the hon. Member that resettlement is always a difficult problem. For those people who are affected by resettlement, there is usually a certain amount of inconvenience and hardship. But this is unavoidable. In Singapore if we do not have resettlement, then we will not be able to carry out all the public projects. We will not be able to carry out our public housing projects. We will not be able to carry out our urban renewal programme. We will not be able to construct roads. We will not be able to build schools, and we will not be able to do a lot of other things. So resettlement is unavoidable. We must have resettlement. For those who are affected by resettlement, the HDB is always trying its very best to minimize their hardship. As regards the particular lady mentioned by the hon. Member, I do not know the details. I would not be able to make any comment because I do not know about the case. If, as the hon. Member has said, he has written to me -

Mr Jeyaretnam: Not to you personally.

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: I would suggest that he write to me personally so that I will look into the case. If the resettlement officers have behaved in an improper manner, we will take appropriate action.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Thank you.

Mr Eric Cheong Yuen Chee: Sir, just a final request. I agree with what the Minister has said regarding the liability period. But could the Housing Board consider coordinating all these repairs to reduce cost and save time? Moreover, arising out of these repairs, a lot of debris will be dumped around the housing estate. With its experience in construction activity, the HDB can easily coordinate these activities and ensure that they are done in the shortest possible time and at lower cost.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Sir, just two words regarding the accounts. First of all, may I disabuse the Minister or anybody else in this House of the notion that I have consulted the Chief Financial Officer of the PUB on the HDB accounts. I do not want to embarrass the poor man. All I am told is that he is a member of the Institute which is the body for municipal accountants in England, and that he is an expert on this. I have asked why do we not send the accounts to him and ask him what he thinks about the accounts. I was not asking him to try and fault the Auditor-General or anybody else. I am told that the HDB accounts are really not double accounting system. Well, he is the man. I cannot speak. All I am saying is that, we ask him. Why do we not ask him what he thinks about the accounts?

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: The Auditor-General is the proper person.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I do not want anyone to get the impression that I have been in touch with this man because it might embarrass him.

Secondly, I am grateful to the Minister about the case of the woman referred to. However, he has not answered my question about the hawkers in Kampong Bahru market. Could he tell us what he proposes to do about them?

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: Sir, the resettlement of the hawkers in Kampong Bahru market will usually be done in accordance with the standard policy. I have not seen any report that they have proceeded with the resettlement of the hawkers in Kampong Bahru market yet. But once the clearance is initiated, action to resettle the hawkers will be taken. I can say to the hon. Member that once clearance action is taken, action will be taken for all involved in the resettlement, that is, the hawkers residents and everybody. This is the usual practice. For example, we will not clear the hawkers and leave the residents there, or clear all the residents and leave the hawkers there. Action will be taken together. In the clearance of the hawkers, the Resettlement Department will consult the Ministry of the Environment regarding the resettlement facilities to be offered to the hawkers.

I do agree with the Member for Toa Payoh that if the HDB can make the arrangements and do all the maintenance work together there will be economies of scale. I have mentioned to him earlier that it is very difficult for the HDB to take on the additional task of looking after the remaining two thirds of the flats. Anyway, I will ask the HDB to make a study to see whether there is any way to help the residents.

Mr Eric Cheong Yuen Chee: Sir, in view of the reply made by the Hon. Minister, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

In the absence of Mr S. Chandra Das, the following amendment standing in his name was not proceeded with:

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

Encik Saidi Haji Shariff: Sir, I beg to move,

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

Sir, I wish to raise three issues with regard to resenlement. I believe this question was brought up by the Member for Nee Soon and discussed. I do not want to repeat, but I wish to stress the point in order to reflect the views of my constituents who are affected by resettlement. Moving house is a common everyday human experience and often it is the result of a personal choice. Resettlement, on the other hand, is more than moving house. Since it is not a question of personal choice, it can be a very traumatic experience for those who have formed deep attachments for the place of their origin. This intimate feeling for familiar things and surroundings is not in itself a bad thing at all and, indeed, should be encouraged. However, if we allow such nostalgic sentiments to impede the wheels of progress and advancement, then we shall be guilty of being overly conservative and unprogressive and of living in the past. Such a situation does not exist in the Kaki Bukit constituency where the residents are affected. After the first wave of nostalgia has swept the whole area, the people accept the inevitable and gear themselves for change. In fact a contradiction seems to exist at present. About 40% of the people who have yet to be resettled are raring to go. But it is not a contradiction if we take a closer look at the reasons for this. The reasons are exceptionally simple. They wish to accelerate their flight into the new environment for fear that the cost of the HDB flats will escalate further. In fact, the premise among the remaining population is that the longer they remain behind, the more heavily their purses will be taxed. Their fear is genuine and it is within this context that I wish to mirror the plight of those who have not yet been allocated flats. We have shown that they can be loyal citizens of our Republic and I think it is time the authorities rewarded them accordingly. May I therefore bring forward the following suggestions for serious consideration by the authorities concerned. 6.30 p.m.

First, the compensation, despite the recent revision, is still far too low. With the present recession, the prospect of unemployment looms high on the horizon of one's capacity to earn. This could mean a reduction in the total family income. And if this is coupled with the low compensation to make up the purchasing capacity, then the day may come when home ownership becomes a distant reality.

One fair way out is for the authorities to peg this compensation rate to the rising cost of flats and this would entail continual reviews and revision of rates. Or perhaps we could conduct business Indonesian style and inject into the transaction the concept of the barter trade, a home for a home. What fairer exchange can there be? If the cost of the present occupier's home is not commensurate with the cost of a modern-generation HDB flat, then perhaps the furnishings of the old home could also be thrown in as an added incentive.

If Aladdin were not a fictional character, he would have decried against this seemingly ludicrous idea, which it is not. Because he found almost to his great cost that the loss of big old lamp was worth more than the acquisition of a new one. Not everything new is worth more than the old and it is not necessary for everything in life to have a price tag. Sentiments and love are intangibles and beyond price.

Secondly, I would appeal for a higher standard of maintenance for the remaining estate which has to be resettled. As residents move out, let it not assume the semblance of a ghost town with snakes crawling all over the place, electric wires that sag and empty homes still left standing as eyesores for any visitor. The least ensure that the quality of life does not suffer from neglect. It must work in coordination with other relevant departments like the Environment Ministry and also the other departments of the HDB to maintain the place until the last resident shifts out.

At present, a letter from the CCC arising out of an unpleasant feedback brings about some action which however takes some weeks for it to mature. Does action has a price tag too?

Thirdly, I wish to highlight the plight of the farming community as and when they are affected by resettlement. To offset the loss of personal income, farmers are given enhanced compensation for any evidence of their labour which appears in the form of fruit trees. It has been announced recently that this enhanced compensation would be drastically reduced because of the Ministry's decision to fix a ceiling because farmers were found to be cashing in on a good thing by planting a further crop of unauthorized trees while waiting for the cold fingers of resettlement to touch them and their livelihood.

One should ponder to ask why farmers should resort to this immoral practice of trying to cheat the authorities. Is it because the compensation which is paid is not commensurate with the loss in livelihood? Perhaps they were merely lodging a visible protest. However, it is possible that a few of them are merely being greedy and selfish. But should all farmers suffer for the misdeeds of a few? Rather than penalize all by a reduction in the amount of enhanced compensation, the Resettlement Department should be given the onus of identifying the culprits in order to exact the required penalty. To my mind, it is unfair to bring the sins of their brothers to the doorsteps of all. Therefore, I am appealing against this unjustified reduction.

Mr Lee Yock Suan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am answering on behalf of my Minister.

The Member for Kaki Bukit has mentioned himself at the beginning of his speech that many of his points have already been covered and I do not think I should really waste hon. Members' time by repeating the answers. There is a Mem- not think that we as responsible MPs should follow his example.

The first point is about resenlement compensation. I have already assured the House that when there is a need, my Ministry will review the rates. But our opinion at the moment is that the rates are adequate and, if anything, they are on the generous side.

The Member also asked whether the cases can be resettled faster. This would depend on the urgency of the development. We cannot cater for every area of resettlement. Already, up to 50% of the flats completed are reserved for resettlement cases and there have been a lot of complaints from the public on the normal waiting list about the number of queue jumpers. This is as far as we can go in terms of trying to expedite the resettlement process.

The Member made another point about compensation for fruit trees. Here again, I think I have given a very long and elaborate answer yesterday and I believe the Member was here. So there is no need for me to repeat. The point is really this. If these farmers are trying to take advantage of this scheme by planting too many trees, then we who are in charge of public funds must put a stop to it. Although the farmers may complain, I think we are just doing the right thing.

He raised one other point and that is whether we can improve on the maintenance of those structures left behind as a result of resettlement. Maybe here I should explain that there are really two stages to the clearance process. The first stage is the resettlement of the squatters which involves the Resettlement Department which coordinates the allocation of flats, payment of compensation and so on to these people.

Then there is the question of the clearance of the structures and control of the site after the people have moved out. Whilst being responsible for the first part, the Resettlement Department also liaises with the Government authority which is responsible for the development of the site and resettles squatters on the site according to the priority and development schedule of the project.

The Resettlement Department ensures that clearance is carried out in an orderly manner and without unnecessary delay or inconvenience to the affected squatters. As soon as the resettlement of squatters is completed, the Resettlement Department informs the development authority concerned. The latter then has the responsibi- lity to clear physical structures on the site and maintain control of the site to ensure that it is free of hazards until physical development begins.

I would like to assure the Member that all necessary precautions are taken by Government bodies and statutory boards as far as possible to ensure that the development sites are kept in good and proper condition.

This problem, I understand, has been raised before in this House. The problem is this. As soon as some of the people move out, the Government will move in and knock down those premises which can be knocked down and remove the debris. But it is not possible to knock down those houses which are still occupied. It may be a whole row of houses, some vacant and some are still occupied. So in those cases, I think the residents themselves should play a part and avoid debris and so on. They should also report to the Police if there are suspicious characters loitering around. It is impossible, in view of the many areas concerned, for the Government to send people all over the place just to look after these sites. We do the best we can but the people concerned should also play their part.

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I just want to add one point which the hon. Member has mentioned. As regards resettlement cases, the people are afraid that there would be a substantial increase in prices of HDB flats and that the HDB flats may be priced out of the reach of these people.

At this juncture, I would like to announce some good news to those on the waiting list for HDB flats. The Government has repeatedly given assurance that flats will be kept within the reach of the people. In September last year, the HDB promised to hold down the price increases in 1983 and in 1984 to not more than 71/2% per annum for 3- and 4-room flats and 10% per annum for 5-room flats.

Based on the preliminary figures of the building cost inflation for 1982 and the first two months of this year for the HDB projects, the increases in the selling prices for the next two years, i.e. to be effective from 1st July 1983 to 30th June 1985, are likely to be smaller. I hope they will be much smaller than the maximum increases of 15% and 20% announced earlier.

Encik Saidi Haji Shariff: Mr Speaker, Sir, my purpose of raising this issue is not to waste our Members' time but at least to reflect the frustrations of my constituents who are affected by resettlement.

Before I beg leave to withdraw, may I just ask three questions. Is the Minister aware that due to the delay in pulling down the vacant houses by the Resettlement Department, at least one house was burnt down?

The Chairman: Encik Saidi, have these questions been raised when you spoke for 10 minutes just now?

Encik Saidi Haji Shariff: No.

The Chairman: Then you are out of order. Can you withdraw your amendment?

Encik Saidi Haji Shariff: This is something different, Sir.

The Chairman: I am sorry. You have had your say.

Encik Saidi Haji Shariff: Sir, I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The following amendments stood on the Order Paper Supplement:-

Mr Tang See Chim:

Mr Ng Kah Ting:

(13) That the sum to be allocated for Head T be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead TG-02 of the Development Estimates.

Mr Ng Kah Ting:

(14) That the sum to be allocated for Head T be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead TH-03 Project 8301 of the Development Estimates.

(15) That the sum to be allocated for Head T be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead TH-06 of the Development Estimates.

The Chairman: Amendment (13) has been withdrawn. Mr Ng Kah Ting is not here to move amendments (13) and (14).

The sum of $272,641,590 for Head T ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates.

The sum of $3,889,962,900 for Head T ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.

Head K -

Encik Abbas Abu Amin (Pasir Panjang): Sir, I beg to move,

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

Mr Speaker, Sir, in a debate on budget allocation for the Ministry of Defence, one cannot miss the opportunity to pay tribute to the men who were involved in the rescue operation in the cable car incident recently. These men from the Republic of Singapore Air Force deserve all the praise due to them for their courage, determination and grit in the face of odds as well as their sense of purpose and dedication to duty. Their action exemplifies the state of readiness, efficient planning, thorough preparation, decisive action and intelligent execution - all in the line of duty. Their courageous act, no doubt, has won the admiration and sense of pride of our citizens, let alone the enhancement of confidence that we have of the capability and skills of the SAF.

By the same token, Sir, it is pertinent to state that our Armed Forces continue to uphold the good standards and review, update and improve their doctrine, training techniques as well as their sense of preparedness. Preparedness encompasses the three vital components of attitude, military skill and knowledge, And to complement this as well as to withstand all odds and exigencies, it is also essential to be prepared with physical fitness all the time.

6.45 p.m.

Sir, I would like to touch on the facilities provided for, and emphasis accorded to, this question of physical fitness in our Armed Forces. We have an army that is combat-ready to meet all eventualities. This is no doubt living proof of their professional capabilities. I would like, however, to enquire, Sir, whether the same state of proficiency prevails among the men as far as recreational and sporting skills are concerned? Do they attach the same level of importance to the maintenance of physical fitness as they do to uphold their professional competency?

We all understand, Sir, that young sportsmen who have represented the Youth and Combined Schools teams - sportsmen who excelled in their respective games - are subsequently drafted into national service. I would like to know whether these up and coming sportsmen, besides contributing towards national service, are also given ample opportunities to continue and advance in their sporting pursuits? This strategy would be tantamount to striking the iron while it is hot, for this is the age range for them to reach the peak in their sports life and performance level.

I am raising this point, Sir, because during the last SEA Games in 1973 more than 50% of the sportsmen representing Singapore came from SAFSA. Moreover, as far as I can recollect in the years 1973, 1974, 1975 and 1976, SAFSA became the champions in most of the national competitions and the majority of these sportsmen represented Singapore in international competitions. I am not sure, however, Sir, that similar standards prevail now.

Sir, training in our Armed Forces does not end with the national service. In Singapore we have a reservist army that has to be combat-ready! Thus the maintenance of physical fitness is of paramount importance in the life of all reservists. After 2 or 2 1/2 years of full-time national service, most of our young men have to maintain not only their technical or professional skills in soldiering but also continue to be fit and alert when they are in the reserve. The reservists, Sir, are as vital as regulars, in times of action. They cannot be considered as second rate soldiers. They have to operate in platoons, companies or even battalions, with other fellow reservists. Thus, under such trying circumstances a physically unfit reservist is not only a danger to himself; he also endangers the lives of his colleagues and the success of the operation. In view of this, Sir, I would like to seek clarification from the Hon. Minister as to what steps are being taken from time to time to maintain minimum standards of competency and physical fitness. Besides, what facilities are available for the reservists to indulge in healthy, recreational activities so as to pursue the interest which they acquired while doing full-time National Service?

Dr Lau Teik Soon: Sir, I would like to join the hon. Member for Pasir Panjang in expressing the House's appreciation to the Republic of Singapore Air Force and others who were involved in the rescue operation. They executed the rescue operation with precision and extreme courage.

Earlier on the Hon. Minister of State mentioned the recruitment campaigns on the part of the three services of the Armed Forces. I agree with him that it is absolutely necessary to have men of high calibre to be recruited into the regulars to become proficient NCOs and officers. But I would like to ask the Hon. Minister of State whether the Ministry has looked at the present corps of NCOs and junior officers; whether they have been given opportunities to upgrade their academic qualification; whether they have been given opportunities for further professional training. For certainly among them the Ministry could recruit the future leaders of the three services.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Sir, under this amendment of mine I wish to draw the attention of the Minister and the Ministry to the payments by way of compensations, or what have you, made to people who are injured during the time of their national service or who are unfortunate enough to die. Sir, in the debates in this House on the question of increasing the payment of $90 allowance to our soldiers, it has been said more than once that national service is a duty and a privilege and an honour, and it is not a question of pay but it is a question of an allowance that is given to them and they must accept that; their duty is to the country, and it is a privilege they are given. I think that is all very well. But at the same time I think society must accept its responsibility for our soldiers and for their dependants, particularly if the soldiers happen to be the breadwinners in the family and they happen to die whilst in national service. Sir, may I illustrate by a case that was brought to my notice? But before I go on any further, Mr Speaker, Sir, sometimes I forget that I have cases - where my firm act for national servicemen for injuries but I have no pecuniary interest, in this particular case that I am mentioning which was brought to my notice as an MP and I have written as an MP to the Ministry of Defence. I have no personal direct pecuniary interest in any of this.

This is the case of a private who was working before he was called up, and I understand that he was the sole breadwinner of his family. Whilst he was doing his national service, Sir, the military vehicle in which he was travelling overturned and he unfortunately died, succumbing to the injuries that he received. Then it was investigated and the mother received a letter from the Ministry of Defence saying, "You will be paid a year's salary under the regulations" and they calculated it at $300 a month because the man's previous employer said that he was only paying him $300. But according to the mother he was earning much more doing his own work outside. She was told that she would not get any pension because it was not attributable to military service. I do not know why it was not attributable to military service.

Be that as it may, she came to see me. She does not live in my constituency. She came to see me and I wrote to the Ministry, and I still have not heard from them on my question as to why it was not attributable to military service. Because under the regulations if it was attributable to military service, the mother could get a pension. I have not had an answer. The latest that I had was for the Ministry to ask, "Is the mother living in your constituency?" I see they are getting wise to the HDB practice. "Or if the mother is not in your constituency, has she got a business there?" I propose to reply to that, but may I raise this matter in the House at the moment.

Sir, as I said, I do not know why it was not attributable to military service if the man was actually on duty, travelling in a military vehicle and the vehicle overturned and he died in the course of his service. He was not, of course, in the front line, but he died whilst in military service. I do not know how they interpret military service.

But what I do want to do is to draw the attention of this House to the legislation at the moment. Under the legislation we have, the Government Proceedings Act, it is not possible for the dependants or for the serviceman to bring an action against the Government in respect of any injuries sustained by him or by the dependants in respect of any death. He is barred. He is only allowed to accept whatever is offered in the regulations. Similarly for the family. I do not know why that should be? I understand that is the practice in Britain. But why should we adopt that? If it was a case of a private citizen and he suffers an injury or dies and if the fault can be attributed to his employer or to somebody else, then he can bring an action in the court to claim compensation for himself or his dependants can if he has died, for the negligence of the employer or the other person who was responsible for his death. Why should it not apply in the case of our national servicemen? If, as in this particular case, it can be shown that he suffered death because of the negligent driving of the driver who was driving this vehicle, why should he be deprived of what any other citizen would be entitled to under our law?

May I say, Sir, that the compensations that are awarded by our courts will be far greater than whatever the person may get under the regulations, and I think this is an unnecessary and unwarranted deprivation of something which they should be entitled to. I think the family deserves some help, not just a letter from the Ministry saying, "We are very sorry about your son's death." That is not enough. They need some practical help, and I would ask whether the Ministry would consider now doing away with this legislation which prevents any action being brought in respect of deaths or injuries suffered by any national serviceman and, where the fault can be attributed, not to him, but to somebody else acting at the same time as the national serviceman in the performance of his duties. I think that is the only fairest thing to do, so that the person can get all the compensation that another subject is entitled to. In this particular case, the poor mother, as I said, has got no one on whom she can depend; she has a daughter who is married and now the son-in-law is trying to help her out. But why should she be dependent on the charity of the son-in-law? She should be looked after now, I think society owes her a duty and an obligation to look after her.

I have been talking about the death of a national serviceman. There is another case, which came to my notice, of a soldier who was paralysed. And again, as a result of an accident. If he had brought an action in the civil court, he would have been entitled to about $150,000 damages if the fault could be attributed to the person who caused the accident. Why should he not be awarded that sum by the Ministry or the Government? I think it is all wrong. This duty to the country is not only the duty of our soldiers. There is a corresponding duty on the society, as I said; to look after our soldiers and to look after their dependants in the case of their deaths.

The Chairman: Your ten minutes are up.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Thank you, Sir.

The Chairman: Mr Ng Kah Ting is not here. 7.00 p.m.

The Minister of State of Defence (Dr Yeo Ning Hong): Sir, let me first of all thank the Member for Pasir Panjang and the Member for Serangoon Gardens for their very kind words for the men of the SAF - the Army, the Navy and the Air Force. Indeed they had put their lives on the line on that particular occasion of attempting to rescue people who were in severe danger, and it is the role of the SAF and will continue to be the role of the SAF to look after the interest of our people under all circumstances.

I come to the specific points that the Member for Pasir Panjang has raised. The Member for Pasir Panjang is concerned about the physical fitness of our men, and rightly so. We thank him for his continued concern. I would like to assure him that the physical fitness of national servicemen and of reservists is continually of great importance to the SAF. We place severe emphasis on this. I have spoken in this House on numerous occasions emphasizing its importance. Outside the House various Ministers and Members of this House have also spoken on this subject and we have gone to great length to make absolutely sure that the message has got across to our national servicemen.

There are three major components in physical fitness that the SAF wishes to put emphasis on. Firstly, it is the physical fitness and our objective is to ensure that there is endurance, there is muscular strength, and there is flexibility, motor skills and abilities. Secondly, we also want to be assured of a high level of combat fitness. This will be the physical and mental capacity of the soldier to endure and to sustain periods of high physical and muscular strain. This is extremely important if one bears in mind combat conditions. Thirdly, it is also important that the combat physical skills of the soldiers be continually maintained and this must include ability to engage in unarmed combat, taekwon-do and the other military field crafts. 7.03 p.m.

[Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair]

The Minister of State of Defence (Dr Yeo Ning Hong): Let me assure the Member for Pasir Panjang that the standard of physical fitness among the reservists is extremely high. Last year more than 91% of the reservists passed their IPPT. We have made a great attempt since then in ensuring that an even higher percentage will pass this year. It has been reported recently in the press that we have revised the programme for residential training. This we believe will provide further incentives for the reservists to ensure that they maintain themselves at the appropriate level of physical fitness. Reservists are required to take their IPPTs twice a year, once every six months, and it is our belief that if they pass IPPT twice a year at that sort of interval they would be of the appropriate physical fitness that we require.

The Member for Pasir Panjang asked about the sports fitness of our national servicemen. While we do encourage our national servicemen to participate in sports, particularly sports which, in parallel, develop those capabilities that we are looking for, as I mentioned earlier. We must also remember that the priority in the SAF must be towards the military aspects of physical fitness rather than the recreational aspects. Wherever possible, national service sportsmen who have been selected to represent Singapore, are given time-off to train. They are also given full pay unrecorded leave when they play for the Republic. In 1982, a total of 81 SAF personnel represented Singapore in various sports. We continue to encourage our national servicemen to participate in these activities. But in sports where the parallel with physical fitness that relates to military requirement is low, the encouragement is obviously not as high as I believe the Member for Pasir Panjang would like. But let me assure the Member for Pasir Panjang that SAFSA is indeed doing well in various sports. For example, in the last SAFSIM, which is the shooting match, SAFSA came out with very high honours, right at the very top, and was a long way ahead of the team that came in second.

Let me turn now to the Member for Serangoon Gardens. The Member is concerned about the welfare of the NCOs and junior officers and whether there are opportunities for upgrading. It is our desire to ensure that men and officers in the SAF are given as much encouragement as possible to upgrade themselves. An answer to a written question was given yesterday where a listing of all the various officers and men who are taking advantage of the opportunities provided by the SAF is recorded. I believe that particular answer would meet the question raised by the Member for Serangoon Gardens. We continue to provide the educational incentives as well as in-house upgrading courses. Sir, in peace time the SAF concentrates very heavily on upgrading our national servicemen and regulars, both officers and men, and these courses are provided throughout the entire year. Opportunities are available and men and junior officers do indeed take advantage of them.

I come now to the Member for Anson. As usual, the Member for Anson talks without knowing the full details of his case. I think by now we have come to expect it. He talks about a man who was killed during service when his vehicle overturned. He talks about military duties and so on and so forth. Obviously if the Member for Anson had spoken to the mother, he would have realized that the case is totally different from what he is trying to tell the House. Sir, I do not intend to go into the details of this particular case because it is a tragedy. The mother is obviously very very sad and I do not think we should permit people to exploit or to take advantage of people under such conditions, like in this case for their own personal interest.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Sir, on a point of order. The Minister of State is attributing an improper motive to me. I resent this. I do resent this and it is in the Standing Orders that a Member will not attribute improper motives to another Member. I am not raising this for publicity. The poor woman travelled a long way from where she was living to come and see me because she thought I would get something for her. I am not raising it for my publicity.

As regards the details, I asked the Jurong Police Station because they investigated it. What do I get? "Oh, we cannot give you the details." That is something else which I have to take up. So please do not lecture to me.

Dr Yeo Ning Hong: Sir, I am sure that was not a point of order. But since the Member wishes to interrupt, he is most welcome to do so.

Sir, the mother was given a detailed explanation. She knows about the circumstances leading to the accident. I would just briefly say for the benefit of Members of this House that this particular soldier together with other soldiers illegally took a military truck. The driver of that particular military vehicle - it was a jeep - did not have a proper licence and was not authorized to operate that particular vehicle. These soldiers took it for a joy ride not knowing how to handle the vehicle, and therefore the accident occurred. So this particular individual, the soldier himself, was involved in an illegal act.

Sir, the regulations under such circumstances do not permit us to treat this as death due to service. It was not due to service and therefore the mother was compensated accordingly and was given one year's pay as compensation. Obviously the mother is not happy. We understand it. If the death had been due to an accident outside of the SAF, she would have got nothing at all. We sympathize with the mother but unfortunately we cannot bend the rules and that has been explained in great detail to the mother. In sending the mother round in circles and holding up hopes, false hopes as it would eventually turn out, the mother is going to end up being very disappointed , very bitter and she is going to be very, very much against the Government. She has been given a detailed explanation by the officers in the SAF. She understands the situation perfectly. But if somebody were to hold up false hopes and empty promises, she is going to be very disappointed, and she is going to be very, very unhappy, and she is going to be very much against the Government. And who stands to benefit from a case like this? Who, for example, is trading on human misery?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Sir, on a point of order. I would like you to rule whether it is -

The Chairman: I am listening very carefully. Please do not interrupt. I do not see any point of order involved here. I am listening very carefully.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I am making a complaint under the Standing Orders.

The Chairman: It is not accepted, I am afraid. Dr Yeo.

Dr Yeo Ning Hong: The second case raised by the Member for Anson is obviously of a similar nature, Sir, again another tragedy has happened. We regret it. But unfortunately as long as there are large numbers of young servicemen with us undergoing strenuous physical exercises, undergoing realistic military training, there will be occasions where a youth will be involved. In a large number of cases these were all very minor accidents. In the very rare exceptions - and this is a rare exception - there is a particular case of an individual who was paralysed. Sir, extensive efforts have been made by the SAF in again trying to help him as far as possible. I can read out all the details of the case, Sir. I have them here with me but I would just selectively pick out some of the things that we have done to illustrate that the SAF is concerned and wherever possible we would do our best to help. Again I do not wish to go into too much details because it would not do much good to bring up this unpleasantness for the particular individual concerned. But suffice it to have some of the details so that we can assure the House that the SAF goes out of its way and tries wherever possible to help in cases of this sort.

Sir, following the discharge of this particular individual on 16th June, a lump sum compensation of $20,000 was made. A lump sum of another $15,000 was also made for constant attention. A monthly allowance totalling $300 as disability pension and allowance for lower standard of occupation and an ex-gratia payment of another $6,000 were made. 7.15 p.m.

A long list of activities to help the particular individual with his disability has also been made. Sir, we do have a long list of allowances to help cases of this sort. For example, we have disability pension allowance for constant attention. We have allowance for lower standard of occupation. We have treatment allowance. We have allowance for wear and tear of clothings. We have children's allowance if the individual does have children. On top of that, we arrange for free medical and rehabilitative treatment for disability in all Government clinics and hospitals. Even after his release from national service and reservist training, we also ensure that the disablement equipment and aids, such as wheelchairs, artificial limbs, etc. are provided whenever they are applicable.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Sir, the Minister of State says that this poor woman cannot get her pension because the jaunt that the son was on was illegal. May I ask the Minister what was wrong in telling me that? What is wrong when an MP writes on behalf of somebody in telling him the true facts. If you do not tell him the true facts, it will give rise to rumours and speculation. Does not anybody know that? What is wrong with telling me what the true facts were? I could then explain to the mother instead of moralizing and preaching.

Now, I have mentioned the case of the legislation in Singapore. I have not heard the Minister of State refer to it at all. What does he think about it? May we know? Does he think that our soldiers should be deprived of bringing an action or the dependants of these soldiers should be deprived of bringing an action to recover the full amount of compensation or damages that they would be entitled to under the civil law, if they should suffer injuries or should suffer death while doing national service? May I know what the Minister thinks about this, and why they should not be given these rights?

Dr Yeo Ning Hong: Sir, obviously the Member for Anson was not listening when I told him that the mother had been given a detailed explanation. I am not very sure whether the Member for Anson was able to communicate with the mother. But she had been given an explanation. She might have told the Member for Anson that, but I am just not sure.

Mr Jeyaretnam: What is wrong in telling me when I wrote in?

Dr Yeo Ning Hong: Sir, I think an explanation was given to the Member for Anson earlier on, Again, he has not heard it. Sir, only yesterday the Member for Anson was holding up Great Britain and its marvellous system for us to follow, and now he complains that we are following the British as far as legislation for compensation is concerned.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Sir, honestly I marvel sometimes at the intelligence of the second generation leadership.

The Chairman: Would you please not raise any new issues?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Sir, I do not know what is the relevance, or what I said got to do with this point. I am not holding up Britain in everything. Do not distort things. I say here that the British Health Service is something they are very proud of, justifiably very proud, and when we come to Medisave, I will show comparisons with other medical services which show that the service is very cost effective. Well, that is something. But I am not suggesting that you should follow Britain in everything, in following this British legislation, if there is and I am told there is. I am saying it is wrong to deprive soldiers from bringing actions in court. Why do you have to follow Britain? Answer that.

Dr Yeo Ning Hong: Sir, I think the Member obviously follows Britain when it is convenient for him to make political mileage out of it and refuses to follow British legislation when it is no longer convenient to make political mileage.

Mr Jeyaretnam: That goes the same for you, does it not?

Dr Yeo Ning Hong: Sir, I will explain very simply to the Member for Anson why we followed the British. Sir, the British have a long military tradition which we do not have, and it would not be wise for us to try to devise legislation in military matters on our own without acquiring adequate experience. This must have been obvious to anybody who bothers to think about such matters, but somehow it escapes the Member for Anson. Sir, can he imagine the number of soldiers who were killed in the Falklands trying to sue the British Government?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Sir, may I ask the Minister not to bring in irrelevancies and to talk about the Falklands? Does he not realize that we are not fighting a Falklands war here? We are talking about our men doing national service during peace time here. I can understand the situation if they are out in the frontline fighting an enemy. Then you can say the situation is quite different. We are talking about a peace time situation when they are doing national service and the responsibility for their deaths can be attributed to the Army or somebody acting in obedience to the Army.

Dr Yeo Ning Hong: Sir, again the Member for Anson is unaware that even in peace time we take our training seriously. We train realistically. We do live firings involving live ammunitions and people can, under such circumstances, get hurt. This is the reason why, as far as the SAF is concerned, peace time can be considered as probably no different from periods of tension and war time. The training undertaken is exactly the same, with the same level of realism and the same level of severity.

Encik Abbas Abu Amin: Sir, I am grateful for the answer given by the Minister of State. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

In the absence of Mr Ng Kah Ting, the following amendment standing in his name was not proceeded with:

(2) That the sum to be allocated for Head K be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead KB-01 of the Development Estimates,

Dr Lau Teik Soon: Sir, I beg to move,

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

Sir, the Outward Bound School serves a very useful purpose, particularly in physical fitness and toughening up those who participate in the various courses organized by the school. The personnel in the SAF, the People's Association, and other business organizations, have utilized the services of the Outward Bound School to their benefit. What I would like to ask the Minister of State is that, although this institution has served a very useful role, yet it has not provided, in my view, adequate personnel to take on the various courses organized by the Outward Bound School. In the allocation for FY 83, there is no increase at all, particularly no increase in the posts for wardens and instructors. I would like to ask the Minister of State whether this will not, in fact, hamper the efficiency of the Outward Bound School.

Further, I would like to ask the Hon. Minister of State whether the Outward Bound School will consider organizing courses for members of the public, particularly during periods when the facilities of the school are not utilized by either the SAF, the People's Association or other business groups. I am thinking of weekend courses or even week-long courses on camping, outdoor activities, canoeing and so on, which I am sure he will agree with me will benefit those who make use of the services of the Outward Bound School.

Dr Yeo Ning Hong: Sir, the Outward Bound School conducts courses throughout the whole year. During the last financial year, which is 1982-83, the following courses were conducted: Standard course . . . 21 days - 9 courses Junior course . . . 14 days - 1 course Special course . . . 9 days - 10 courses Adventure training . . . 5 days - 24 courses

Sir, the Outward Bound School (OBS) is optimally utilized and there is no capacity that has gone to waste. Members of the public who are interested in the Outward Bound School activities can join many of the courses that I have mentioned, in particular, the standard 21-day course or the special 9-day course. Sir, there has been a fair amount of interest in physical activities in line with our policy of physical fitness both for our reservists and our population at large. We want to ensure that the Outward Bound School will continue to be well utilized. There is a chief instructor, and 18 instructors. Obviously, there is one warden. We do not need to have more, One is adequate. As far as instructors are concerned, the number is also adequate. On the odd occasion when the peak period comes about, the SAF makes available additional personnel to assist. It is not a prudent use of personnel to have a large staff in the Outward Bound School to cater for all conditions. That would represent a waste. Whenever there is a peak demand and additional instructors are required, they will be made available. So both the instructors' time as well as the facilities in the Outward Bound School are made good use of.

7.30 p.m.

Dr Lau Teik Soon: Sir, with regard to those courses which are made available to members of the public, are these programmes publicized so that members of the public can take advantage of the courses offered?

Dr Yeo Ning Hong: Sir, we have not advertised them as such but I can assure the Member for Serangoon Gardens that large numbers of people are aware of its availability. I would say that people who nave an interest in such activities would have known about it. We have students coming in to participate in these programmes. We have people from the People's Association. We also have NTUC members. We have staff from Government departments, statutory board staff, employees of commercial firms. We have civilians on an individual basis. So obviously many of them know about it. We have the Boy Scouts and so forth. So it is fairly publicized, if not in the mass media at least by word of mouth.

Dr Lau Teik Soon: Sir, I would like to thank the Hon. Minister of State for his comprehensive reply.

I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $1,839,140,000 for Head K ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates.

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

Head W -

Mr Tan Soo Khoon: Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head W be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead WA-01 Object Group 1100 of the Main Estimates.

Sir, about a year ago, pork merchants got together to dictate price increases. Last year, this matter was raised in the House and the Hon. Minister for Trade and Industry informed us that steps would be taken to introduce legislation to prevent such repetition.

Recently, again we read in the newspapers of traders attempting to fix retail prices of merchandise that they supply to department stores.

Sir, price fixing as we know is a practice that operates against the consumers' interest in that retailers maintain artificially high prices. Furthermore, price fixing inhibits competition and works against our principle of a free economy.

Sir, legislation would protect consumers against profiteering that comes about as a result of artificially high prices and allow free market forces to determine prices I would like to ask the Hon. Minister when legislation can be introduced to prevent the formation of cartels.

My next question, Sir, refers to recent press reports regarding the introduction of a small claims court and my question again is when such a court can be instituted?

Encik Othman bin Haron Eusofe (Geylang Serai): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, my amendment is amendment (7)* and it is on the same matter. Can I raise it now?

The Chairman: Yes.

Encik Othman bin Haron Eusofe: Sir, during last year's debate on the estimates of the Ministry of Trade and Industry, I had in fact raised this question of trade associations and the danger of their degenerating into cartels. I would therefore also like to join the Member for Alexandra to ask whether legislation to make it illegal for trade associations to engage in price fixing or other restrictive trade practices will be introduced soon.

Similarly, I am also concerned that our consumers should be protected and I also feel strongly that there should be a small claims court. In fact, this proposal was made several years ago by the Consumers Association of Singapore. Here I would like to take the opportunity to congratulate the Consumers Association of Singapore for its good work to safeguard the interest of consumers and workers.

The Minister for Trade and Industry (Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam): Sir, I would like to assure both the Member for Alexandra and the Member for Geylang Serai that my Ministry is actively looking into the legislation to protect consumers from traders who act in collusion to fix prices. We are considering both preventive and punitive measures to effectively curb such price fixing activities.

Restrictive trade practices such as price fixing by trade associations is actually a very intricate matter. This is reflected in the complexity of the legislation on restrictive trade practices which are operative in countries like the United Kingdom, Australia, Japan and the United States of America. It has taken these countries many years to draft their first legislation and then to refine them over the years to make them comprehensive in scope and practicable for enforcement. We do not intend to copy wholesale the legislation of these countries which relate to the prohibition of restrictive trade practices as this will be much too complicated for us to use.

What we are aiming to have is simple legislation which will still be effective in prohibiting price fixing and other restrictive trade practices by trade and business associations. It is difficult for me to state specifically when the new legislation will be ready, but I am aiming to finalize this matter before the next Budget debate and I hope that this will be possible.

Similarly, with regard to the formation of a small claims court, this has again been actively pursued by my Ministry. Again the problem is drafting legislation which will not be too complicated and which will make the operations of the court sufficiently simple so that those consumers who have a complaint can represent themselves in the court without the need for lawyers and without being at a disadvantage to businesses. We will do our best and I hope that we can do it before the next Budget debate.

Mr Tan Soo Khoon: Sir, I am satisfied with the reply and I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The following amendment stood in the name of Dr Augustine H.H Tan -

(2) That the sum to be allocated for Head W be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead WA-01 of the Main Estimates.

The Chairman: Amendment (2) has been withdrawn. Dr Tan, amendment (3).

Dr Tan Cheng Bock: Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head W be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead WB-01 Project 8202 of the Development Estimates.

Sir, I am moving this amendment to find out from the Minister whether there are any plans to beautify Pandan Reservoir. I hope Members have heard of Pandan Reservoir.

The other reservoirs in Singapore enjoy the pampering of his Ministry with beautiful landscaping of the surroundings. Pandan Reservoir seems to have been overlooked. I wonder why. This reservoir is so little known that it nearly became a racing track, not for horses but for human beings and bets are placed to pick the winners. I am wondering what is the reason for not beautifying this reservoir, which can turn out to be a pleasant recreational ground for residents not only of Ayer Rajah but, I am sure, of West Coast, Clementi, Bukit Timah, Boon Lay and even Jurong.

Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to assure the Member for Ayer Rajah that the PUB is not consciously neglecting the upkeep of Pandan Reservoir. In fact, the PUB has a regular programme for the maintenance of all reservoirs in Singapore, including the Pandan Reservoir.

Last year, in 1982, the PUB spent a total of $266,400 on the upkeep of Pandan Reservoir and the PUB employed 15 persons to maintain the Reservoir. The grass in the turfed areas, mainly on the slope of the dike, is cut once in three weeks and I do not think we can say that the Reservoir has been neglected.

The Member may also know that, unlike the other reservoirs, Pandan Reservoir has no land around it. It consists of a manmade dike which encircles the Reservoir. The dike is 6.15 km long with a 6-metre wide laterite track at the top which is meant to be used for the maintenance of the Reservoir. However, since its completion in 1974, residents in the area have been using the track for jogging. I am sure the Member would like the PUB to allow this activity to continue.

If the Member for Ayer Rajah would give me details of the areas of the Reservoir which are not being maintained, I promise that I will go with him one Sunday evening to have a look at it and we shall direct the PUB to do what is necessary.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock: Sir, I thank the Minister for a fairly good answer. I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The following amendment stood in the name of Dr Augustine H.H. Tan -

(4) That the sum to be allocated for Head W be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead WB-01 of the Development Estimates.

The Chairman: Amendment (4) has been withdrawn. Amendment (5), Mr Lim Boon Heng.

Mr Lim Boon Heng (Kebun Baru): Sir, I beg to move,

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

In successive Budget Statements, the Government has repeatedly reminded the nation that manpower training and development is the decisive factor in the restructuring of our economy. The upgrading of the economy is essential to realize the objective of full, better paid and higher skilled employment. With higher skills, our workers will be more productive and capable of earning higher salaries to realize a better quality of life.

Our workers are sensible and practical. They understand the need to constantly keep abreast of change. They are willing and ready to adapt to change, once they understand the changes that are going on around them. Government has adopted a two-pronged strategy on manpower development as far as I understand it. First, the tertiary institutions and the vocational institutes are being expanded. School leavers are being channelled to these institutions, so that they will enter the workforce better trained for the higher technology and knowledge-intensive industries and services. 7.45 p.m.

Secondly, the Skills Development Fund has been created to stimulate in-company training and retraining of existing workers. As pointed out by the Minister during the Budget debate, the scheme is making considerable headway after a slow start. In-company training must be consolidated, and we must persist in these efforts.

It has been recognized that we must also systematically tackle the problem of basic literacy and numeracy for about 300,000 workers now in the workforce. This massive problem will not be easily solved.

It has been alleged in this House that the BEST programme is a "panic measure" to correct the failure of this Government's education policy. Sir, this is a complete distortion of the truth, calculated and premeditated to mislead the public. It is a serious allegation and a distortion. This distortion must not go unchallenged. I would like to ask on what basis does the Member for Anson make his allegations. Does he base it on hearsay or on facts? If we examine the age distribution of these workers who are without basic education, we will find that the majority are above 30 years of age. They have missed out on a basic education because of the neglect of the British colonial government that was not interested in providing universal education for the people of Singapore.

Sir, a person who is 30 years old today was seven years old when this Government took office. At seven years of age he ought to have the opportunity to go into Primary 1. Those above 30 years of age, if they had not got a primary education, this is not due to the neglect of this Government. Fortunately, when this Government took office, it placed education as the top priority and was able to build schools and train teachers fast enough to prevent Singapore children from being denied a basic education.

Sir, the percentages of the population who either never attended school, or have not attained the PSLE, are as follows: Age Group Percentage 50 years and above : 78.7% 40 - 49 years : 55% 30 - 39 years : 28% 20 - 29 years : 12% 15 - 19 years : 8% Sir, these figures clearly show that this Government has succeeded tremendously in its education policy. When it came to power in 1959, this Government rightly took over the responsibility of providing education, from the missions, religious organizations, clan associations and other civic organizations. Because of this we have more schools, more teachers and therefore are able to provide an opportunity for education for all the children of Singapore. This Government has been able to salvage those who are now in their early 30's and in their 20's.

What we are doing now, through the BEST programme is to give those who missed out on a basic education because of British colonial neglect, family financial difficulties or any other reasons, a second chance to obtain a basic education. Far from being a "panic measure" it is a clear demonstration of the care and concern of the trade union movement in Singapore and the Government for the welfare of our workers. We do not waste time in making airy-fairy speeches about a caring society

The Chairman: Mr Lim, your time is up.

Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam: Sir, I do not know what to say except that I agree with the Member.

Mr Lim Boon Heng: May I continue, Sir?

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr Lim Boon Heng: We may also ask -

The Chairman: Could you very briefly put in a nut-shell the point that you want to ask?

Mr Lim Boon Heng: I would like to draw the attention of the Minister to the people who have not got a basic education and who are not able to follow the BEST programme, as pointed out by the Member for West Coast the other day. I would like to suggest that he ask the VITB Continuing Education and Training Department to expand the number of places for the Certificates of Competency because I think this category of workers could benefit from simple skills and craft courses like plumbing, electrical wiring, fitting, and so forth. I note from the annexe to the reply which the Hon. Minister for Trade and Industry gave to the Member for Kampong Kembangan the other day that there are only 100 places projected for each year for the rest of the decade. I think this number of places is grossly inadequate.

Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam: Sir, I am most happy to give the assurance to the Member that this is a matter which I would ask the VITB to do as quickly as they can. As I have explained to the Member for West Coast, in so far as the BEST Programme is concerned, this is a new activity for the VITB. I think it is fair that we give them time to consolidate what they have achieved. But as soon as it is practicable, I can assure the Member for Kebun Baru that we will make sure that the VITB looks into this matter, which I fully agree with him is pressing and is very necessary for those of our existing workers in the workforce who may not be able to benefit from the BEST Programme. We will get this done.

Mr Lim Boon Heng: I thank the Minister for his reply and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

In the absence of Dr Augustine H.H. Tan, the following amendment, standing in his name, was not proceeded with:

(6) That the sum to be allocated for Head W be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead WB-02 of the Development Estimates.

The sum of $69,474,560 for Head W ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates.

The sum of $546,332,800 for Head W ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.

Head V-The following amendments stood on the Order Paper Supplement:-

Mr Lim Boon Heng: (1) That the sum to be allocated for Head V be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead VA-01 Object Group 1100 of the Main Estimates.

Encik Mansor Haji Sukaimi:

Dr Augustine H.H. Tan: (2) That the sum to be allocated for Head V be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead VA-01 of the Main Estimates.

The Chairman: Mr Lim Boon Heng is not moving his amendment. Encik Mansor and Dr Augustine Tan are not here. Encik Wan Hussin, amendment No. (3).

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Minister for Culture (Encik Wan Hussin Zoohri) (to Malay): Sir, I beg to move,

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

Since MUIS or Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura was set up, much progress has been achieved in the various fields. This has benefitted the Muslim community in Singapore tremendously. Inter alia, this included coordination work in administration involving the collection of fitrah (tithes), contributions to the Mosque Building Fund, administration of mosques, awarding of scholarships and assistance to religious schools. Efforts have also been made in the area of missionary activities as well as matters pertaining to the performance of the Haj pilgrimage. All these have enhanced the image of MUIS not only amongst the local Muslim community, but also acknowledged by foreign visitors who had the opportunity of visiting MUIS and observing MUIS activities.

Sir, permit me to quote a relevant section from the 1981 Annual Report of MUIS which, among other things, states:

'Since its inception thirteen years ago, MUIS had been moving forward from strength to strength. The support provided by the MUIS Council members and the high sense of commitment of the Secretariat staff had been a major factor in ensuring that the Council carried out its role and functions smoothly for the benefit of the Muslim community in the Republic.'

In this connection, I am very happy because the allocation for MUIS this year has been increased. May I be informed regarding the breakdown of this allocation which has resulted in its increase.

Another point that I wish to discuss concerns the Haj pilgrimage. The condition laid down by Saudi Arabia's Charge d'Affaires in Singapore that prospective Haj pilgrims register themselves with MUIS for the purpose of obtaining visas is proper. This will enable MUIS, as the supreme religious body in the Republic, to have a comprehensive report regarding the number of pilgrims performing the Haj each year and other related information. May I be enlightened as regards the number of prospective Haj pilgrims and Haj Sheikhs who have registered themselves with MUIS to-date, and whether complaints have been received from them regarding the new regulation? And here, I would like also to speak on the health facilities provided by MUIS Medical Unit in the Holy land. I wish to congratulate the doctors and nurses who have rendered their services there efficiently and with total dedication.

I would like to suggest that during their assignment in the Holy land the living accommodation provided for them be much more comfortable and spacious. At least they require four rooms - one for consultation purposes, one for seriously ill patients, one for bedroom-cum-rest room and another for kitchen area. Hitherto they were allocated two rooms only and this is certainly unsatisfactory.

Finally, Sir, during their tour of duties in the Holy Land a specific vehicle should be supplied to them because it is essential that they carry out regular visits from place to place in the course of discharging their duties. I suggest that this Medical Unit be provided with such a transportation so that visits can be made more regularly and expeditiously.

The Chairman: Order. Moment of Interruption.

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

Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam: 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.