CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD BILL

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Order for Second Reading read.

The Minister for National Development (Mr Teh Cheang Wan): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

The construction industry of Singapore is in urgent need of upgrading. It is labour-intensive and heavily dependent on foreign workers. Construction productivity whilst increasing in recent years is still low. Insufficient attention has been paid to blending building designs with modern methods of construction. Training oppor- tunities and courses have been few and ad hoc. Labour turnover is high and the labour force is relatively unskilled.

It is Government's policy to expand and upgrade our construction capabilities and productivity, so that the industry can meet future demands more efficiently. We have to reorganize, restructure and industrialize the construction industry in order to meet these objectives.

With industrialized building methods, buildings and structures can be put up with fewer workers, at a shorter time, and with better finishes. The corresponding labour productivity gains can be translated into better wages for our local workers. The productivity improvements will also reduce and curb excessive and uneconomical use of labour.

Industrialization in the building industry entails the widespread use of mechanized and prefabricated methods of construction. It requires not only changes in component fabrication and building erection technologies but also structural changes to the building industry as a whole. The changes can only be brought about by enlisting the concerted effort of all parties involved in the construction industry.

The Construction Industry Development Board Bill therefore seeks to set up a central co-ordinating body to spearhead, promote, develop, and monitor the industrialization programmes for the construction industry. The Board members shall be appointed from both the public and private sectors so that the collective expertise of the industry can be synergized to guide the industry towards industrialization and modernization.

The Bill will enable the Board to perform several major tasks, in particular:-

(i) Technology Development - A major task of the Board is to examine, review and devise standards of building components and pre-cast building systems, with a view to introducing standardization measures which promote and facilitate the greater use of modular components in building design and construction. The Board will also help Government examine and revise Building regulations to adapt them to industrialized building technologies.

(ii) Manpower Development - The Board will be responsible for training and continuing education of construction workers. It will develop long-term manpower plans to upgrade construction productivity and to provide trained manpower to meet the demands of the industry. It will liaise closely with the professionals and employers in the industry for the advancement of construction skills. The Government's Construction Industry Training Centre, which seeks to train Singaporeans on modern construction skills, will be transferred to the Board once it is set up.

The Board will generally help Government formulate and implement policies on construction development. It will be given sufficient power to administer financial and other incentive schemes to encourage the industry to upgrade, modernize and mechanize.

The funds necessary for the operation of the Board will come from Government. For the Board's training activities, subsidies from the Skills Development Fund will also be sought.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, in introducing the Bill, the Minister said - I hope I have heard it right - that the construction industry was in need of upgrading, or being made more efficient, if that was what he was implying. I am surprised to hear that coming from the Minister. After all, he has been the Minister (I do not know for how many years) in charge of, largely, Construction in Singapore. There seems to be something wrong if after all these years we are still very much, shall I say, backward that we need a Board now to upgrade the construction industry in Singapore.

Mr Speaker, Sir, what I want to question is, even if it is admitted that the Construction industry does need upgrading or made more efficient, whatever you may like to call it, why do we need to have another Board? We seem to have a penchant for creating boards and committees. I see by clause 6, subclause (5):

'The Board shall pay to the Chairman, the Deputy Chairman and other members of the Board such salaries, fees and allowances as the Minister may from time to time determine.'

That is just salaries of the members of the Board. What about the salaries of the staff and the administrative costs? Do we really need a Board for the purposes of the Bill, Mr Speaker, Sir? After all, we have other Boards at the moment which had been set up, I would have thought, precisely for this purpose. If he will examine section 11 of the Bill, or clause 11 I should rightly call it, he will find under that:

'11.-(1) The functions of the Board are -

(a) to promote the development, improvement and expansion of the construction industry;'

Well, very laudable. But why do we need a Board for this? Is it not within the competence of the Minister's Ministry to carry out this development, improvement and expansion of the construction industry? We have got a Public Works Department, which I take it is quite efficient, which would be able to give advice to whoever is involved in the construction industry how to improve their services and their skills. And then:

'(b) to facilitate and assist in the mechanisation of the construction industry;'

Do we really need a Board again for this, Mr Speaker, Sir?

'(c) to advise and make recommendations to the Government on matters affecting or connected with the construction industry;'

I can go on asking the same question: Do we need a Board for this? What is the necessity for setting up a Board, paying members' salaries, staff, administrative costs, to do things that perhaps can be done by the Ministry, by the Government and by other Boards which have all been set up to promote standards and efficiency in the construction industry. Have we not got Boards? I thought we have SISIR and other Boards setting proper standards in Singapore. Do we need to have another Board now?

'(e) to provide consultancy and advisory services with respect to construction works;'

Again, what is wrong with the Ministry providing advisory services?

'(f) to keep under review the training requirements of the construction industry and assist in providing training facilities;'

Have we not got the VITB? What is the VITB doing? I thought it was to provide training facilities and skills. And then:-

'(g) to promote the advancement of the skills [again] and expertise of persons engaged in the construction industry;'

Well, I repeat: What is the VITB doing?

'(h) to promote or undertake research into any matter relating to the construction industry;'

I should have thought we have enough boards, enough committees, enough bodies, which are promoting or under-taking research in several matters in Singapore. So, as I see it, Mr Speaker, Sir, all these functions of the Board which are proposed in this clause 11 can be carried out without having to set up another expensive setup or organization and incurring expenditure of public monies on doing something which, I say, we have got enough bodies to do, not counting the Minister's own Ministry.

Then if I may turn to clause 12 of the Bill, it says:-

'The Board shall have power to do anything for the purpose of discharging its functions under this Act, or which is incidental or conducive to the discharge of those functions . . .'

And it says:-

'(a) provide financial assistance in the form of grants, loans or otherwise to persons engaged in the construction industry . . .'

Do we really need a Board so that the Government first channels the money to the Board and then the Board gives the assistance? What is wrong with the Ministry doing this? Why do we have to duplicate all this? Is it not a waste of public monies? As I say, there is a penchant for setting up boards and committees all over the place for everything you can think of.

Then it says:-

'(b) promote and assist in the export of services to carry out construction work overseas;'

I thought recently we set up a Trade Development Board to promote trade and services outside Singapore.

Paragraph (c) says:-

'(C) organise courses and award diplomas and certificates of proficiency;'

Here we go again. There is the VITB doing this, and now we want another board to do this.

Paragraph (d) says:-

'(d) form or participate in the formation of a company;,

Is it the intention that the Construction Industry Development Board should itself now take equities in companies, go into business? Is that the intention?

Paragraph (e) says:-

'(e) enter into a partnership or an arrangement for the sharing of profits;'

There again, is it the intention that this Board should now go into business? Why?

Paragraph (f) says:-

'(f) charge fees or commissions for services rendered by the Board;'

Again, I see it as increasing the cost.

Paragraphs (g) and (h) say:-

(g) promote or undertake publicity in any form; and

(h) do anything incidental to any of its powers.'

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would ask the Minister to take this Bill back and to give it very serious consideration, whether this is absolutely necessary or whether all these things that are proposed for this Board cannot be done by the boards that have already been set up, and by his own Ministry. This will save all the salaries that have to be paid to the members of the Board and other administrative expenses. Perhaps the savings could be channelled to the Ministry of Health to pay for the Class C hospital charges where the need is greatest, The need is not here.

The other thing, Mr Speaker, Sir, is this. Again, I have complained about this when speaking on Bills setting up boards. When you come to it, you find that the entire power is vested in the Minister. You see, by clause 5, that all the members shall be appointed by the Minister. It says:-

'(a) a member to be appointed as Chairman;

(b) a member to be appointed as Deputy Chairman; and

(c) not less than 5 nor more than 12 other members.'

Then clause 6(1) says:

'A member of the Board shall hold office for such term as the Minister shall specify . . .'.

Again, by clause 6(2), the Minister can remove any member of the Board. Do we really need a Board? Can the Minister not perhaps get a few people to do what he wants the Board to do if he has the power to appoint and fire them? I suggest to the Minister that perhaps he should spend some time doing all these things rather than setting up another board and paying salaries. 5.20 pm

Dr Augustine Tan: Mr Speaker, Sir, one of the consequences of rapid growth in our economy is the burgeoning construction industry and the enormous demands which have been put on the industry, especially in terms of skilled workers. Unfortunately, one of the side effects of this is that buildings are put up very rapidly and standards of finish are less than desirable and in some cases the work has been shoddy. From this point of view, I think the setting up of the Board is a good thing. It is a timely thing. It is a necessary thing.

As I look at the functions of the Board and the vision which is provided in this Bill, I can only congratulate the Minister.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Dr Augustine Tan: In clause 12 (b), it says the Board may "promote and assist in the export of services to carry out construction works overseas". I think this is a farsighted move because we are accumulating a lot of expertise in building, in laying out designs of industrial estates, Housing Board estates, port facilities and so on. This expertise is in great demand internationally. And the Koreans and people from other countries have been quick to capitalize on this kind of export services. By organizing this Board in this manner, I think we may be able to capture part of that market. Of course, unlike the Koreans, we do not have the skilled labour to export but we can organize other people's workers and provide the managerial expertise.

There is one small matter - small in the light of the functions of the Board - but important from the point of view of a lot of home owners, and that has to do with the renovations which many people have to do, whether in HDB flats or in private dwellings. They have encountered, and I also have encountered, cases of contractors who cheat them in terms of materials used, in terms of time required to be taken to finish the particular contract. In one instance, the contractor got hold of the deposit of 30% or so and then disappeared without doing anything for that person. So I would like to urge the Minister to consider under the purview of this Board to get contractors registered properly and then have an accreditation list so that only those contractors with a good track record would be able to undertake renovations. And that some compensation scheme be devised so that home owners are protected in the event that contractors do not fulfill their part of the contract.

Sir, I would like to congratulate the Minister once again for this Bill.

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: Mr Speaker, Sir, first of all, I wish to thank the hon. Member for Whampoa for understanding the purpose of setting up the Board which, unfortunately, the hon. Member for Anson seems to fail to understand.

On the point raised by the Member for Anson, I have just now said that the building industry in Singapore needs upgrading. In the opinion of the hon. Member for Anson, it would appear that the Singapore Government or the Ministry of National Development is sleeping all the time and did not do the upgrading and then we have to set up the Board to upgrade. That is a statement which goes against the grains of modern development. As we know, we are living in a period where all the technology, not only in the industries but also in the office are constantly improving. The hon. Member for Anson will know that all the modern offices are now going into computerization, to upgrade the office efficiency. And in the industries I think all the countries are looking and citing Japan as an example. Why are the Japanese industries able to overtake other industrialized countries? It is because the Japanese industries are constantly being upgraded. If the hon. Member for Anson's theory holds good, then those countries which are already industrially advanced should not do any further upgrading because any other country that does further upgrading would mean that these industrially advanced countries are sleeping and are not upgrading. That is the theory which the Member for Anson is trying to propagate.

The fact is that the Singapore building industry is fairly extensive, and I think Singapore has invested billions of dollars in the building industry not only in the public sector but also in the private sector. So the building industry is constantly upgrading its technology and skills. This is essential so that we will be able to continuously increase productivity. So to form the Board to upgrade the building industry does not mean that the Ministry of National Development has done nothing previously. The Singapore Government is upgrading the building industry and it will continue to do so. We are setting up this Board to upgrade the building industry and we will further organize various training programmes, various training schools and various organizations to further upgrade the industry. And I think constant upgrading is essential if our building industry is going to be efficient. In fact, constant upgrading is essential for all the industries. Any industry which does not continue to upgrade its skills will find itself falling behind and I think;he industry will eventually collapse and be wiped out. That explains why it is essential for us to form this Board to upgrade the building Industry.

Talking about the various organizations with various responsibilities of the building industry, it is correct to say that the HDB is building public housing, the PWD is building roads. The HDB is upgrading skills, such as introducing the industrialized method of construction for its public housing. The PWD has introduced various modern machinery, modern techniques for road construction, and so on and so forth. We are constantly upgrading . But that is not good enough. These various authorities organize training courses, as I mentioned earlier, usually on a piecemeal and ad hoc basis. The VITB is just one of the organizations. In other words, the various organizations are doing ad hoc training, ad hoc upgrading programmes for the building industry. And this is unsatisfactory.

This is contradictory to what the hon. Member for Anson believes - that by forming this Board it is a waste of money. The truth is the other way round. By forming this Board, we will save a lot of money because all training related to the building industry, related to the introduction of new technology, new machinery, will come under a single organization, so that all training can be properly coordinated. A lot of duplication will be avoided and a lot of money will be saved because it is under a single body.

Mr Jeyaretnam: A point of clarification, Sir. I think the Minister has perhaps misunderstood the import of my remarks. It is not that I was saying you should not do anything to bring the construction industry up-to-date on its construction methods. Why is it necessary to set up a board now? Why can't the Ministry do it? What is wrong with that, instead of saying we need a board to upgrade and upgrading is essential?

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I think I have just answered that this Board will be formed to coordinate all the activities of the various organizations. In fact, I am coming to the point of repeating myself. My Ministry cannot do it because, first, the Ministry of National Development is not, for example, in charge of VITB. But once this Board is formed, then this Board will take over the function of training the workers. If this board considers it essential that it should take over the functions of the VITB, it will take over. But the Ministry of National Development alone, cannot take over. The Ministry of National Development is in charge of only part of the building industry, not the total building industry, because part of the training of manpower is under the Ministry of Education and other organizations. So the reason for forming this Board is to coordinate all the activities to come under one body. A more important point is that this Board, as I have mentioned earlier, is to bring both the public and the private sectors together. My Ministry alone is not able to do this because my Ministry is looking after part of the public construction programme and we do not bring in the private sector. The intention of this Board is to involve the private sector as well. In fact, a substantial number of the Board members will come from the private sector. So the whole construction industry can be properly coordinated.

Question put, and agreed to,

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Mr Teh Cheang Wan].

Bill considered in Committee. 5.33 pm

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Clause 1 -

The Chairman: The citation year will be changed from "1983" to "1984".

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 2 to 29 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.