(Mr Speaker in the Chair)

Head O (cont) -

Prof. S. Jayakumar: Sir, before we adjourned, in replying to the Member for Bukit Batok, I said that, first, there was a problem in, the law in that the offence of voluntarily causing hurt is not a seizeable offence and the vast majority of the cases fell into this category. Secondly, most of these instances involve minor scuffles, fisticuffs and so on, although from the viewpoint of the person concerned it may be a serious matter. Members would be interested to know that the volume of such instances is tremendous. Last year, we had about 12,000 such reports. The question is really one of allocation of Police resources and priorities. We have a lot of other problems demanding attention, such as crime prevention and law enforcement problems - robberies, serious crimes, thefts.

I would like to emphasize that it is not the policy to avoid investigations. What the Police do in these cases is to work on a set of guidelines. These guidelines enable the Police to investigate the more serious of these instances, particularly the examples given by the hon. Member himself, such as where assaults, intimidations involving secret societies are indicated. In these cases, the Police will investigate. When the case is made out, they will take appropriate action. Where there are repeated incidents, the Police will also summon both parties to the court to show cause why they should not keep peace and the courts may require them to sign a bond.

Sir, with the guidelines and the Police investigations within the framework of the guidelines, our assessment is that the situation is under control. We do investigate some of the cases but it will not be possible to investigate all the cases. I have taken note of the point made by the Member for Bukit Batok. If the situation warrants, I am prepared to review the law to see whether an intermediate new offence should be provided. But at the moment we are not convinced that this is necessary. With that assurance, I hope the Member will be satisfied.

May I now turn, Sir, to the points made by the Member for Whampoa, He made two points. The point about the Neighbourhood Police Post will be replied by the Minister of State. As to his other point on prisons reorganization, he is quite right in saying that in 1973 there was a Prisons Reorganization Committee on the rehabilitation system. His point was whether the recommendations have been implemented. I would like to inform him that this Committee proposed several major changes. For instance, changes to the law to proVide for corrective training or preventive detention or enhanced sentences for certain offences. Also, the Committee recommended that in order to prevent contamination of the less serious offenders by the hard-core offenders, there should be a segregation of hard-core offenders from the others. The Committee also made certain important recommendations concerning discipline and inculcating correct attitudes, in the prisoners, I would like to say that all these major recommendations have been implemented.

I might add that we have not stopped with the implementation of the recommendations of this Committee. The prison rehabilitation system has evolved since then. The previous Minister in this House has made reference to the two-tier rehabilitation system -the Day-Release Scheme which has been introduced and the vocational industrial scheme for young reformative trainees and criminal law detainees.

As to his other question on whether the Ministry can provide statistics on the relapse rate, I do not have the figures right now. But I shall certainly ask my officials to get the figures and supply them to the hon. Member.

May I now proceed to the points made by the Member for Chong Boon. His question as to when his temporary NPP will be transformed into a permanent NPP will be dealt with by the Minister of State. Let me deal with his other two questions, These relate to public relations. A clarification must be made. The Member is under the impression that there has been a reduction in the number of posts for public relations. Although there were three posts deleted under this heading of Publicity and Public Relations, there has not been any reduction [n the number of posts for the Public Relations aspect. Under this heading, there are other components, such as Police Band, Crime Prevention Unit, and the three posts which were deleted related to the Crime Prevention Department in respect of which three posts were frozen in 1984-85.

I would like to assure him that, first, the number of posts for Public Relations has not been reduced. Second, and more importantly, it is necessary for me to emphasize that I completely agree with him with regard to the remarks that he made about the importance of public relations in the Police Force. We are now entering a phase of community-oriented policing. In my view, there is no doubt that the vast majority, an overwhelming majority, of our people are law-abiding, they want to see their loved ones, their families and their neighbourhoods safe, sound and secure. The efforts of the Police and my Ministry, both in terms of crime prevention as well as law enforcement, must be to promote the interest of the overwhelming majority who are law-abiding, and to try to protect them against the minority who indulge in crimes and other offences.

In this regard, therefore, public relations, ie, getting rapport with the population, enlisting the support and cooperation in obtaining information, become vital. This is why in recent years, Sir, the Police have spent a great deal of time in developing the NPP system, the Neighbourhood Watch Scheme, to reach the schools, the young, community centres, exhibitions, talks, and crime prevention campaigns. This will continue, Sir.

The Member for Chong Boon related the instance of the Shenton Way shoot-out. He has previously conveyed to me his feelings on this, which I understand. I am not sure whether that was an instance of bad public relations. If I remember correctly, much of the problems which followed the Shenton Way incident turned on whose bullet was it that caused the death of the person concerned. There was a great deal of speculation, and this could only be laid to rest after tests were conducted, and it took time to announce the results of the tests. I am not sure, Sir, that that instance really demonstrated poor public relations.

Mr Chandra Das: Sir, on a point of clarification. I was not referring to the incident as such, but more to the manner in which the Police attended to it, by not even paying a visit to the funeral of the person who was shot.

Prof. Jayakumar: I thank the Member for the clarification. Here again, I take the point made by the Member for Chong Boon - that in this kind of situation the image of the Police and public relations can be enhanced if the Police visited the family concerned. I have asked my officials to check on the facts of this case. I would like to inform the House that the incident occurred on 30th July 1984. On the same evening, the Divisional investigating officer personally went to the victim's home in Ang Mo Kio to convey to the family the unfortunate news. So it is not completely accurate to say that the Police did not at the earliest available opportunity convey the news to the bereaved family. But, more importantly, regardless of this incident, I wish to assure the Members, and the Member for Chong Boon in particular, that his observations on public relations are pertinent and are uppermost in the minds of the Police as well as the officials in the Ministry. 2.45 pm

Sir, if I may go on to the other point which the Member raised about piracy. The term "piracy" may be a misnomer in this case because under international law, Sir, piracy occurs on the high seas. Within our territorial waters, it would be classified as robbery at sea. This is an important distinction in international law. The question was whether the problem is under control. I would like to inform him that indeed the problem is under control. Part of the difficulty really is that the vast majority of the cases occur outside our territorial waters. For instance, all the cases reported this year were outside Singapore territorial waters. Let me mention, however, that we have adequate personnel and resources. We have 62 patrol boats in the Marine Police for antipiracy patrols. Last year, 11 new fast patrol craft, equipped with radar and weapons, were included in the marine fleet. The vessels are well-equipped and the crew well-trained.

May I now, Sir, deal with the questions raised by the Member for Anson. He raised, I believe, four points. The first point related to junior officers acting in a higher grade. On this point, let me say that, in fact, the Civil Service has abolished acting allowances since 1976. Of course, Police officers do cover duties of a higher grade when vacancies arise until such time when promotion exercises are held to fill them. Those holding unit ranks, for example, corporal or sergeant, and have performed well will naturally stand a better chance for promotion. I think it is understood by all officers.

Mr Jeyaretnam: The point is that they have been acting for too long.

Prof. Jayakumar: Well, sometimes that may arise due to exigencies of service. The second point the Member for Anson made, if I got him correctly, was that sergeants who are in Division III are paid Division II salaries.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I was told that sergeants are paid Division II salaries but they are placed in Division III. And so they missed out on the benefits for Division II officers.

Prof. Jayakumar: I think there is a factual point to be established here. As far as my information is concerned, Sir, there is no such situation where a sergeant in Division III is paid Division II salary. So perhaps the Member for Anson could let me know of any specific instance, because my information is that the Sergeant's post is a Division III post and his salary is a Division III salary. So perhaps if he has information, he can take it up with my Ministry separately. His third point dealt with junior officers with HSC qualifications who were dissatisfied because they were promoted automatically to Inspectors, I believe.

Mr Jeyaretnam: NS officers.

Prof. Jayakumar: Yes. This is less favourable compared to NS officers. Sir, the position is that the junior officers with HSC qualifications can rise to Inspectors depending on their own merits. NS officers with HSC qualifications apply to join the Police Force as an Inspector only if they are commissioned officers during NS. So there is a distinction. I should also add that these appointments are made by the Public Service Commission which is an independent body.

The final point that he made was that he understands some of the vehicles in the Police Force are not roadworthy. Well, this is news to me because I have sought information from the Police and I have been assured that all police vehicles on the road are roadworthy. They go for regular inspections. I have had a look at the age profile of the vehicles and I do not think any of them are so old as to be a danger on the roads. They are properly maintained and serviced by the Force Transport Branch of the Police. The Member said that he understood that he believed some vehicles are not roadworthy. But, here again, it is difficult for me to comment on that unless I have some information which he seems to have. But let me assure the House that all the Police vehicles are properly maintained and serviced by a special unit of the Police Force.

If I may now turn, Sir, to the points raised by the Member for Alexandra on traffic. Some of his points were also mentioned by the Member for Toa Payoh. He made several points. First was with regard to expressways. Now, this is indeed a cause for concern because the number of accidents on expressways is twice that of other roads, and the number of fatalities on expressways is as high as four times the fatality on other roads. But some of the reasons, of course, stare at us in the face -the number of vehicles on our roads has soared dramatically while the increase in road space is limited.

Apart from that, Sir, the Member for Alexandra is quite correct in pointing out that there are two special areas of concern. One is motor-cyclists and the other is pedestrians. Measures are being taken by the Traffic Police to arrest the trend, apart from the preventive and educational measures which are taken. The problem of motor-cyclists is being tackled by a special riding circuit and the prohibition of learner drivers going on the roads immediately upon obtaining their vehicles. Of course, they have been given three years' notice of this impending measure which will come into operation on 1st October. With that, and the intensive training which will be given to the riding circuits, we believe a major breakthrough will be made in our efforts to arrest the high fatality and casualty figures for motor-cyclists.

With regard to pedestrians, it is not so much a question of the Pedestrian Crossing Rules. Our analysis of the figures showed that vast majority of the fatalities involving pedestrians were in situations where there were no pedestrian crossings. So it is not a question of enforcing the Pedestrian Crossing Rules more strictly. What we are doing now is to liaise with our other relevant counterpart agencies to bring about an accelerated programme of building more pedestrian crossings.

With regard to his question on expressway patrol cars, I am glad to say that the Ministry has received approval from the Ministry of Finance to commence a pilot project involving the use of eight fast patrol cars. We are now in the process of obtaining tenders and we hope that this pilot project will be implemented early next year. After the pilot project, there will be an evaluation. If the evaluation, according to performance indicators, shows that it has been effective, then we will seek approval for the full complement of fast expressway patrols.

As to the high-speed cameras, these have been evaluated. There are two types of cameras. One is a camera to detect the beating of traffic lights. The other is cameras to detect speedsters. The first type of camera to detect drivers who beat traffic lights has been tested and evaluated, and I am glad to say that the tests have shown that they are effective. Approval has been given for purchase of these cameras, and they will be implemented at a later date. As to cameras to detect speedsters, this is still under evaluation.

As to heavy vehicles, the Member for Alexandra is correct in saying that there is a special problem with heavy vehicle drivers because the nature of the vehicle, as well as the speed at which they sometimes travel, pose a danger. How will we tackle this? First, Sir, we believe that the existing penalties are inadequate and we are studying the Road Traffic Act to see whether we should amend the law to provide for heavier penalty, which is the case in many other countries with regard to errant drivers of heavy vehicles. Secondly, even before any amendment of the law is considered, we are, as of now, enforcing more strictly the law on drivers of heavy-moving vehicles who are involved in "moving" offences. Thirdly, in our plan to build driving and riding circuits, we specifically plan to designate one of the circuits for the training of drivers who will be driving heavy vehicles. I should also add that the testing standards of all drivers are being upgraded and this includes the Class 4 drivers.

Finally, since December 1984, Class 4 drivers who were suspended under the Dips (Driver Improvement Point System) will have to undergo retraining courses conducted by the Traffic Police.

Sir, the Member for Alexandra referred to the image of the Traffic Police. He complained of traffic policemen being sneaky, hiding behind bushes. It is a point raised on many other occasions. The general point being made is taken, namely, that the Traffic Police are a part of the whole police set-up and whatever I said just now about the importance of public relations, enlisting the support and cooperation of the public, applies also equally truly to the Traffic Police. But the Traffic Police and I have discussed this with Traffic officials from other countries. Traffic enforcement officials in all countries have this problem, so much so that in other countries the Police force tries to transfer the Traffic Police to some other Ministry, the Ministry of Transport and Communications, so that this image problem can be eradicated. But, I think, in Singapore we will have to make sure that the public understand the reasons why we have to be strict in our enforcement. The Member for Alexandra has pointed out the figures. Education, preventive measures, campaigns, work to a point but where drivers are reckless, are errant, they need to be apprehended and charged for the offences. I would like to inform him that the directive given to the Traffic Police is not to hide behind bushes. As the Member for Anson says, "There may not be enough bushes!"

Mr Speaker, Sir, although the directive was given to the Police, I am not too sure that I accept the logic of the argument. I have never heard anyone complain when it comes to apprehending criminals and thieves. No one ever complains that the Police are wrong to lay an ambush to apprehend a criminal. No one complains about it. Why then should someone complain if an ambush is laid for a habitual or reckless driver or rider on the road who is going to be a menace to all others? Now, I am not saying that I am going to revoke the directive which has been given. But I want to say that although I agree that the policeman should not hide behind the bushes, I would not go so far as to say that the delinquent driver ought not to be surprised, because you will never catch the habitual delinquent rider if he is always given an early warning by the presence of the policeman down the road. These are the persons we want to catch.

So with that observation, I hope the Member for Alexandra will agree with me that we must allow the Police a variety of ways provided, of course, we know what are the targets t,hat we are aiming at. For the less serious offences, I would like to inform the Member for Alexandra that the Police, in fact, have been issuing warnings and it is not a case of every motorist being stopped and given a summons. But I am afraid that this problem of image may not be completely eradicated because the very nature of enforcing traffic regulations is different and unique because it is very public. A person is stopped on the road, his ego is affected; his boss or his girlfriend or his relatives may be driving past and, here, he is in the middle of the road under the glare of publicity. And I guess it is natural for him to react with a certain amount of resentment and indignation. But we will have to enforce our traffic regulations if we want to bring down the accident figures as soon as possible.

I believe the points raised by the Member for Toa Payoh are very similar and I have covered them in this reply. The other points, Sir, will be replied by the Minister of State. 3.00 pm

The Minister of State for Home Affairs and Community Development (Mr Wong Kan Seng): Mr Speaker, Sir, first of all, I would like to thank all the hon. Members for paying such a tribute to our Neighbourhood Police Post system and to the efforts of our NPP officers in promoting community rapport. I am sure our NPP officers will be cheered by this commendation and, with this, I am sure they will also do their job with greater fervour.

We all know that the Japanese study team has made a study and did an evaluation of the NPP system, and we have accepted their recommendations. The Member for Geylang Serai asked about the plans, the constraints and the problems. The Member for Jalan Kayu asked why the NPP cannot be extended to his constituency. Sir, in having the NPP, it is important to remember that the NPP must be effective in serving the needs of the residents. In order to do that, we must take into consideration the population, the number of residents that need to be looked after and the kind of problems they are likely to encounter in a particular neighbourhood. With these factors, it is therefore the recommendation of the study team that an NPP should have about 30 officers and they should look after about 27,000 residents. With these planning assumptions for organizational effectiveness, the NPPs are planned accordingly.

We have advanced the full implementation of the NPP by two years, from 1991 to 1989. We cannot implement it all in one year because to do so will mean that we have to put in a lot more resources which are not readily available. In order to have 14 NPPs a year, we need something like 420 officers to man these 14 NPPs. In order for them to do the job well, these officers must be experienced in policing. They must also be well trained in community relations, in inter-personal skills and so on. So it is not easy to train all these people at the same time. We therefore need to phase out the implementation of the NPP over a period of years. It is also sound financial management to spread the expenses so that the money committed for one activity will not affect the other programmes. So for these reasons, we have to phase out the implementation of the NPP over a period of years.

There are 28,000 residents in Cheng San and about 34,000 residents in the Chong Boon constituencies where there are two NPPs. In the Jalan Kayu constituency, there are about 41,000 residents. And in the 26 blocks mentioned by the Member for Jalan Kayu, I estimate there are about 10,000 to 11,000 residents in Avenues 3 and 10. It would not be fair to load on this group of people to the existing NPPs in Cheng San and Chong Boon because to do so will be to dilute the organizational and management effectiveness. But that is not to say that the NPPs in these two constituencies will not look after their interests. If the residents in Avenues 3 and 10 find it convenient to make use of the services of these two NPPs, they are all welcome to do so.

I understand the concern of the Member for Jalan Kayu. But in order that his residents' fears can be allayed, let me assure him that the Police Division will continue to patrol the area like they always do and ensure that whatever problems they have can be resolved. So the NPP for Jalan Kayu will, according to plan, be implemented in 1989.

As regards the NPP for Geylang Serai, it will be implemented in 1987 and tentatively it will be at the void deck of Block 111 of Aljunied Cresent.

The Member for Whampoa is also interested to know when the NPP will be set up in his constituency. It will be set up in 1988 in Block 73.

The Member for Chong Boon asked where his permanent NPP will be. It will be set up this year in Block 461 of Avenue 10.

With all these constraints in training, in recruiting people, it is necessary that we spread out the implementation of the NPP over a period of years.

The Member for Fengshan mentioned that there are staff nurses who are used in the Emergency Ambulance Service and he thought that they should be better used in the hospitals and that we should employ paramedics for the job in the Emergency Ambulance Service. The staff nurses have been deployed in the Ambulance Service since September 1976. We understand that, initially, there were some reluctance and teething problems in having staff nurses in the Ambulance Service. But over a period of years, most of them have accepted this and they find it interesting and challenging enough to remain in the Service. The Ministry of Health is also able to continue to supply us with the nurses and it is important that we should have them because in addition to the normal emergency that the staff nurses have to deal with, they also have to deal with other kinds of cases, eg, administering drugs and delivering babies. Just in 1984 alone, 511 babies were delivered by the Ambulance Service. But, of course, if there is a need to review this in future and to use paramedics, then we will do so when the need arises.

Sir, I believe I have dealt with all the questions.

Dr Augustine Tan: On a point of clarification, Mr Speaker, Sir. I understand that the Chong Boon Constituency already has a temporary NPP post and now it is going to get a permanent one. Could not the resources of the permanent post be better redistributed to Whampoa?

Mr Heng Chiang Meng: Sir, may I know why are NPPs set up on a constituency basis and not on a logical basis, such as a whole new housing estate to be covered by a number of NPPs?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Mr Speaker, Sir, before we set up a permanent NPP, we need to have renovations, we need to structure it, we need to staff it and so on. As we get on with that, and having completed that, then it is necessary to establish a permanent one. So there is no duplication in this sense. The temporary NPP in Chong Boon will be done away with when the permanent one is established.

We can establish NPPs by any basis, whether it is one NPP for 10 blocks or by constituency basis. And we have decided that in order to establish the community spirit of a constituency, it is preferable to name it after the constituency. It is just logical.

Dr Augustine Tan: Point of clarification, Mr Speaker, Sir. What kind of criteria are used by the Ministry in determining which constituency or areas should get their NPP post first and which last?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: I remember mentioning this when I gave the answers just a couple of days ago. One of the things that the officers or the planning team looked at was the crime rate in a particular place. And also the establishment of the grassroots organizations. So in determining whether we should have NPPs that cover a constituency or a particular neighbourhood, across boundaries of constituencies, it is also necessary to consider the establishment of rapport between NPP and grassroots organizations in a particular constituency.

Dr Augustine Tan: Sir, do we conclude that Chong Boon is very crime prone and Whampoa is crime free?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, we are arguing on a question of details, about the percentage of crime in what place and so on. I think it is not necessary to go into these details, especially if we do not have a lot of time for the other hon. Members who may have another point to make.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, may I now move my amendments?

The Chairman: Yes, please do that.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I have two amendments Nos. (16) and (17) in respect of subheads QJ-02 and QJ-04.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am, as I am sure the Minister will understand, taking up the cause of fractured families. But before I speak on that, may I say that my firm has made representations on behalf of people from time to time on immigration matters. But I have no personal pecuniary interest in any of the matters that I am raising this afternoon. All of them have come to me as an MP.

Sir, I have about four cases here. They are not the only cases that have come to me, where as a result of the immigration policy, the families have been separated. In some cases, it is the wife who has been sent out and, in some cases, it is the husband who has been sent out. I have the case of a man who has worked in Singapore, he is a citizen and he has worked as a postman for 20 years. He is living in my constituency in Maxwell Road quarters for postmen. In 1983 he married somebody in Batu Pahat before the kathi. He then discovered that apparently she had previously been working in Singapore on a work permit. And so she was sent back in October 1983. This man is now left living alone while she is probably in Batu Pahat, and he having to look after the children. He is very bitter about it because he says the TAS has asked him to move out of the quarters. And the HDB says that it is not going to give him a flat because he is only a single Singapore citizen. What he wants to know, and what I do want to know from the Minister, is: how long does he intend to keep these families apart?

Sir, we hear ad nauseam from this Government about family life and about the need to keep families together. We heard that this afternoon from the Minister for Communications. But here we have families - it is not just these four or five; I am sure there are several more. I have many more who have come to me over the last three years but these are the most recent ones, where the families have been kept apart as a result of Government decisions. Does this not make nonsense of the oft-repeated Government pronouncements about family life and about Asian values? May I ask, is it an Asian value that the Government should separate families? I hope I am not going to be told that these are only a few in number. You do not play this game by numbers. If family life is sacred and you value family life, it must be valid for one family as it must be valid for a million families.

There are, besides this man, Mr Speaker, Sir, others. One was married in Singapore in the Registry of Marriages, and his wife was sent back. She must be a Malaysian. She was sent back on the 10th January this year. Another one, a wife, was sent back on the 2&h March, 1984. And somebody else was sent out of Singapore on the 22nd October, 1983. So will the Minister say how long he intends to keep these families apart? It is not just a husband or a wife who is sent back. There are cases of children who have been sent out or who have been asked to leave Singapore. Why is it necessary, I ask, and I asked this several times before, to break up families like this? You take a member of a family unit and you send him out or send her out, and in some cases it is children who are not able to look after themselves.

Could I ask the Minister to give a direct answer to this question without any equivocation, so that these families may know clearly what the Government's policy is as regards them? Will they ever be able to live together in Singapore, or do they have to apply to the courts for a dissolution of their marriages? If so, would the Minister suggest on what ground they should apply for a dissolution of marriage? Should they say, "We have been separated apart by decree of the Government. So will you please now dissolve the marriage?" because that is not a ground for dissolution under the Women's Charter. The ground is where either party voluntarily deserts the other, or where the parties live apart. Here, they are forced to live apart, against their will.

The other problem, Mr Speaker, Sir, is the question of permanent residence qualifications. Again, there are a number of people who come to me whose wives, although they live here, have not been granted permanent residence. As I have pointed out, under the Constitution where a wife has lived in Singapore for two years with the husband, a Singapore citizen, she may be granted citizenship. Here, permanent residence has been refused, making it very difficult for the family when it comes to applying for HDB accommodation or for other benefits. These people feel very bitter because of pronouncements that we have heard here and outside about the Government's intention to attract graduates and people with money into this country. Whereas these people who have not got the money, who have not got a degree, are treated as dirt, less than human beings. What have they done to deserve this treatment?

Somebody told me the other day that he applied for permanent residence because his wife is a Singapore citizen carrying on business and he is helping his wife in the business. He has been allowed to live here on permits which are extended from time to time, but he has been denied permanent residence, although they have invested quite a bit of money here. But he was told apparently, "If you have got a million dollars, then we will consider granting you permanent residence." As I asked the Prime Minister sometime ago, "Is it only money that this Government is interested in?", not in human beings, in persons, not concerned with their feelings.

Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, may I speak on my other amendment which is Citizenship Registration of the Ministry of Home Affairs. Again, the story is the same. I have brought up in this House cases of people who have lived here, who have given their life-time to this country, who have worked here. I have mentioned the case of the man in the Ministry of the Environment who has worked for 29 years, 30 years. They are still being kept out of citizenship. Again, the Constitution sets out what are the minimum conditions before citizenship may be granted. They qualify in all respects. They have no convictions. They have lived here for the requisite period of time. There is nothing known against them and yet, time and time again, they are refused citizenship.

We heard a lot after the elections about how this Government proposes to be less austere and is going to wear a human face. But I cannot detect any change in the Government policies towards these people. May I know: will there be any change or are we going to continue along the same road? Are human dignity, decency, going to count for anything in future? Or will they be disregarded as they have been over the last 25 years?

Mr Bernard Chen (Clementi): Mr Speaker, Sir, may I be allowed a few minutes. Let me touch on the problem of the illegal bookie and gambling activities. It is a well-known fact to all of us that on weekends almost all housing estates will see massive crowds gathering around coffee shops and the purpose is not to drink coffee or tea but -

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Community Development (Mr Teo Chong Tee): To play with money.

Mr Bernard Chen: To play with money, as the Member for Changi says. This has happened over the last two or three years with ever-growing intensity. Apart from creating a nuisance by blocking all the traffic along the thoroughfares, in some cases these have led to gang fights. And in my Constituency there was even a case of stabbing of an innocent bystander who happened to get into the way of these people. The Police explanation is that due to their manpower constraints they have not been able to cover as many housing estates as they wished. But surely that is not the only explanation. I think one has got to go back to the fundamentals and that is, people like to gamble. Can we suppress this urge? In the past we had a lot of other things. In fact, I was told that in Hong Kong, during the winter months, they would gamble on how many seeds a mandarin orange has, and without peeling the orange, of course.

The question that faces us is whether we can succeed in eliminating gambling of any form, Or should we look at how we can curb or minimize these gambling activities so as to inflict the minimal inconvenience to residents and to other members of the public. One of the main reasons for the gathering of these crowds at coffee shops and so on is to seek information. The information comes from the results of the Races, whether it is in Singapore or in Malaysia; hence the frequent use of telephones. Maybe one suggestion could be that if we can discreetly or restrictively release this information at designated locations, far away from the maddening crowd, so to speak. And in this case we may succeed in at least containing the problem and yet giving vent to some of these human urges that some members of the public seem to find it hard to resist.

I agree with the Police that it is not possible, with the manpower that it has, to try to mount raids, ambushes, and so on, on all possible outlets where such activity is carried out. But I would urge that perhaps the Ministry can look into whether, in fact, we can examine the more fundamental aspects of this illegal gambling and hope to find a solution to relieve the members and residents of our housing estates from this increasing menace.

Mr Yeo Toon Chia (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Speaker, Sir, may I be allowed to say something about fire safety in our high-rise buildings?

Sir, the recent power failure resulting in Fire officers having to be called in to rescue people trapped in a building shows a need for the Singapore Fire Service to look more closely into the safety measures of our buildings. I cannot imagine the seriousness if this incident had been a fire instead. Sir, now that the Singapore Fire Service has taken over the responsibility of vetting of fire safety requirements in building plans from the Planning and Development Control Division, I hope that more will be done to improve the overall safety of our buildings.

Sir, we have so many multi-storey offices and shopping complexes and at any one time there are hundreds and thousands of people in these buildings. We must take positive steps to ensure that all our buildings are effectively installed with fire protection systems, if we want to prevent tragedies from happening. Sir, may I suggest that the following fire protection systems in buildings should be complied with.

First, every storey in the building should be equipped with automatic sprinklers, fire extinguishers and hose-reels. In a big building, more than one fire escape staircase should be provided.

Second, the fire alarm system should be linked to the nearest fire station and designed to activate automatically in the event of a fire. The break-glass alarm system as well as the heat and smoke detector should also be installed.

Third, all lifts should be equipped with safety devices, such as automatic rescues and automatic landing devices.

Sir, I believe most of our highrise buildings have installed some fire safety equipment, but is it enough? I strongly feel that the Fire Department must conduct more frequent checks to ensure that the fire protection systems installed in these buildings are functioning properly. The exit to the fire escape staircase should always be accessible to people inside the building and as the exits to the staircases are the only means of escape in case of emergencies such as a fire or a power failure, clear indications to all exits on each storey must be prominently displayed. In addition to the lay-out plans, guiding arrows should also be indicated on all levels of buildings to show the way to the fire escape staircase.

Sir, for the safety of human lives, we must request all the management of the buildings to comply with the safety regulations laid down by the Fire Department. Offenders must be punished accordingly and, if necessary, be brought to court. Sir, to further enhance the safety of human lives in our office and shopping complexes, the Department should also look into the possibility of deploying at least a Fire officer in each building or, if that is not possible, the security guards of the buildings should be properly trained in fire safety to be conducted by the Fire Service Department, so that at all times there will be someone with the knowledge to handle an emergency.

Encik Abbas Abu Amin (Pasir Panjang): Sir, Singapore has been quite successful in its efforts to contain the drug problem. This is due to the effective law enforcement and a pragmatic and systematic programme of compulsory treatment and rehabilitation of drug addicts. However, Sir, the drug scene is never stable. Correspondingly, the drug problem is not static. It is always changing.

Currently, there is a serious rise in another drug related problem, that is, glue-sniffing. To indicate the seriousness of this problem, the Singapore Anti-Narcotics Association is now spearheading the national campaign against glue-sniffing and inhalant abuse.

Sir, I would like to know whether the present laws are adequate. What further steps are being taken by the Ministry to reinforce the existing laws to combat this social) menace to bring down the number of cases relating to drug abuse problems.

My next point, Sir, is about rehabilitation of drug addicts. I would like to compliment the Ministry of Home Affairs for taking tough remedial actions to isolate the drug addicts for treatment and rehabilitation. Many ex-drug takers were successfully treated and rehabilitated.

Sir, though at present the size of drug abuse population has been reduced in number, the problem, I understand, has taken on a new facet. We are facing new problems in treating a group of ex-drug takers who have relapsed at least once. These are the hard-core addicts. I have a few of them in my constituency. The Government has introduced a tougher supervision scheme to supervise this group of people. What further steps are being taken by the Ministry to provide more intensive care and effective rehabilitation programme? Sir, may I get an assurance and an answer from the Minister?

Dr Lau Teik Soon: Sir, I support the comments which have been made by my colleague from Ang Mo Kio concerning the problem of fires in high-rise buildings. Singaporeans are aware of the incidence of fire in high-rise buildings. They must have read of the fires which occurred in hotels and high-rise residential buildings in other countries and they must have read about the number of deaths and the amount of property damages to these buildings.

Sir, I dread to think of what can happen if there is a serious fire in one of our highrise buildings. Thousands of people live in HDB flats. Thousands of shoppers go to shopping complexes and thousands of residents live in the residential complexes. Our citizens must be given maximum protection against such disaster. The questions I would like to raise with the Minister are whether the Singapore Fire Service is well equipped to deal with fires in highrise buildings, and whether the Department has the skilled manpower and the equipment to deal effectively with these fires.

My colleague has mentioned the precautions that are necessary and should be taken by the property owners of high-rise buildings, and I support his suggestion that heavier penalties should be imposed in the event they are negligent in ensuring all these safety precautions. But with regard to HDB estates, I would like to propose that periodic fire drills be conducted for the residents in the HDB flats and that the civil defence organizations within the constituency be involved in a coordinated procedure with the residents and the Fire Service Department to deal with such possible fires.

The Chairman: Prof. Jayakumar, you have 25 minutes to answer. Guillotine time is 4.00 pm.

Prof. Jayakumar: Thank you, Sir. First, let me respond to the points made by the Member for Clementi on what is known as the mini-turf clubs. I completely share the view of the Member for Clementi which is a view that other Members have expressed to me. Some have told me that gambling is part of our way of life, so why bother? There are different types of gambling and different types of illegal gambling. But I agree with the Member and other Members that action has to be taken on the so-called mini-turf clubs which are operating in our housing estates because they defile the social environment of our housing estates. Families, children, wives are afraid to go to hawker centres, afraid to go to coffee shops and they time their visits either before the first race or after the last race. This is an undesirable situation.

I have had discussions with my Ministry officials and the officials in the Police and special priority will be given to tackling this problem. The Member wanted to know the kind of problems that we have in this area. There are quite a number of problems which will have to be tackled. One concerns the law. The penalties will have to be reviewed. There is a lot of money involved in this operation, and if the penalties are not a deterrent, people would not mind paying fines which may be inadequate. So the law will have to be reviewed.

Second, there is also a problem in bringing about a successful prosecution because prosecutions, to succeed, must depend on evidence. For those who are familiar with the way in which these miniturf clubs operate, there is a mind-boggling array of methods by which the operators keep check on their bets. Watermelon seeds, buttons, chips, match-sticks, and the latest is soluble paper which can be either swallowed or put in a pail of water. So evidence sufficient to bring about a prosecution in court is not easy. This is another problem that we will have to tackle.

Sir, the Police will be upgrading both the intelligence and operation strategies, and I have directed the Police and the Ministry officials to approach this problem in a comprehensive manner, It will not do just to make raids on housing estates and particular selected sites on weekends. Last year, there were 9,103 such raids and 803 persons were prosecuted. It is far more complicated because there is a communication network which passes on race results. There are indication centres which operate secretly, and illegally tap telephone lines. We are working in close cooperation with the Telecommunications Authority in ascertaining the places which have such telephones and appropriate action will be taken.

I would like to give assurance to the Member therefore that this is a problem which we are fully cognizant of and that we are embarking on a full-scale comprehensive review. Results may not come about overnight but it is certainly an area where we intend to spend special attention in the forthcoming period. I would not like at this stage to pre-judge the measures which will be taken and I hope the Member for Clementi will be satisfied with the assurance that this matter is being given utmost priority.

Next, Sir, may I turn to the points made by the Member for Pasir Panjang on glue-sniffing and the rehabilitation of drug addicts. First, on glue-sniffing. A few days ago, the Minister of State gave an Oral Answer to a Question asked by the Member for Punggol and information was then given on the measures that are being taken. Specifically, the Member for Pasir Panjang asked whether the laws are adequate. The answer to that is that the existing law, ie, the Misuse of Drugs Act which is designed for drugs such as heroin and so on, is not really adequate for the purpose of glue-sniffing. The Coordinating Committee which has been established has, as one of its tasks, the examination of laws and enforcement measures in other countries.

The difficulty, Sir, is this. The substances in which glue-sniffing takes place are to be found in a wide variety of commercial and household products. We will have to devise legal measures which will not impede the bona fide users of these commercial and household products. Secondly, laws which will lend themselves to effective enforcement. We are told that in a few other countries they have such laws but we must ascertain that in those countries they have effective implementation before we adopt their practices. This is a measure which the Coordinating Committee will address itself to and make recommendations.

On the question of rehabilitation of hard-core addicts, I would like to inform the Member for Pasir Panjang that he is right in saying that, as we are more effective in controlling the addict population and supply of drugs and as the number of first-time addicts is reduced, the residual problem will be that of relapse cases. We have a problem of a growing number of hard-core addicts who have undergone treatment and rehabilitation a number of times. My Ministry officials together with SANA and the Central Narcotics Bureau are now considering whether the treatment and rehabilitation of hard-core addicts should be intensified and a special regime be devised for both treatment and rehabilitation as well as intensive counselling. I hope to be able to give the results of this review at a later date.

May I now, Sir, touch on the points raised by the Member for Anson, and I will deal with both his points on citizenship and permanent residence together. The points on fire safety raised by the Member for Ang Mo Kio and the Member for Serangoon Gardens will be dealt with by the Minister of State.

The Member for Anson's thesis boils down to this: that our citizenship laws and policies and our permanent residence laws and policies are such that we have separated families, that this demonstrates a lack of humanitarian and compassionate feelings, and that we have wilfully and deliberately brought about the separation. Sir, the point I would like to make is that our laws and policies are known and have been made known. As to the cases that he mentioned, individual cases, it will be difficult for me to reply to them here without detailed information. But from the recitation of the facts that he made, it appears that most of them are work permit cases. 3.45 pm

Sir, let me put the context of our permanent residence policy. If we could, it will be the easiest and the ideal policy to let in whosoever wants to come to Singapore, to adopt as liberal, as compassionate, a policy as possible. If we could, if our resources permit it and if our land and other facilities could cope. But what is the situation? Let me give the problem its proper picture. There are hundreds of thousands of persons who want to come to Singapore. Let me give some figures. Last year, about 13,000 persons applied for permanent residence. There were 274,000 persons last year who tried every means possible to extend their stay here, These are, what I would call, the potential applicants for permanent residence.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, on a point of clarification because I do not want the Minister to take up too much time with irrelevancies and not answer my questions. I am talking about families, not people who are applying to come in here. So will he please deal with families?

Prof. Jayakumar: May I answer in the way that I choose, just as he has been able to frame the questions in the way that he has chosen?

Sir, we must see this problem in the context and only then we will appreciate the magnitude of our problems. 274,000 persons tried to extend their stay here. There are 150,000 to 160,000 work permit holders. In addition, we have about 130,000 permanent residents who are potential applicants for citizenship. This is the magnitude of the problem.

The Member for Anson, on other occasions, has said that Singapore is a place where there is oppression, lack of rights, lack of freedoms. Nevertheless, there are hundreds of thousands of people who want to come to Singapore. Now, can we allow every one who wants to come? The answer is no. We are a small country with limited resources. The Minister for National Development, the other day, told us that there is almost no more land to build HDB flats. In these circumstances, as Minister for Home Affairs, it will be foolhardy for me to adopt a policy which is liberal and lets in everyone. This is the first point that I want to make.

The second point, Sir, which deals with a specific question mentioned by the Member for Anson, is that we have not wilfully separated families whom we have allowed to form in our country. Work permit holders are put on notice well ahead of time that when they get a work permit there are certain conditions attached to the possession of a work permit. A work permit is intended to allow them to come to Singapore to work temporarily and they intend to go back. That is very clear. They are also told in advance that if they want to marry and sink roots here, they would have to get the permission of the relevant authority which is the Commissioner for Employment of the Ministry of Labour. Now, why do we do this? I do not like as Minister for Home Affairs to expel anyone. Why should I? It is because we do not want Singapore to suffer the same consequences as some of the Western European countries do. They are saddled with an enormous problem of migrant workers who came, who were supposed to be temporary workers but have settled down permanently, with wives and children. We cannot afford to have that. We have learnt from the experiences of other countries and we have introduced these measures and controls precisely to avoid the problems faced by Western European countries.

Now, then, what happens when a work permit holder, and there are about 150,000 to 160,000 of them, wants to sink roots here and marries without permission? The answer is that he or she is asked to leave Singapore. Is our policy strict? It is strict. There is no denying about it. But the question is: we have strict immigration policies, we have strict citizenship policies. But for whom is a strict immigration policy designed? Is it designed for me? No. Is it designed for the Cabinet Ministers? No. It is designed to promote the well-being of Singapore citizens, because if you have liberal policies based on liberal criteria, then we will be swamped with hundreds of thousands of people who want to come to Singapore. This would put a strain on our housing, social, medical, educational and other facilities. Our first duty as a government, Sir, is to ensure that the interest of Singapore and the interest of Singapore citizens is safeguarded in the context of our limited resources. So he has -

Mr Jeyaretnam: May I ask the Minister by way of clarification, please. How long do you intend to keep these families apart? If it is the intention to keep them apart permanently, well, say so, so that I can tell them that there is no hope for them living together.

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Anson surely must know that a -

Mr Jeyaretnam: Answer the question.

Prof. Jayakumar: - press statement was issued on the permanent ban of work permit holders who contravene the marriage restriction policy. This press statement was issued and publicized while the Member was a Member of the House. It was given full publicity. I do not know why he is asking this question here because the answer is given there - a person who contravenes the work permit marriage restriction policy is expelled from Singapore and barred from entering Singapore. The answer was given, was publicized, and this is why I made the point that these conditions are made known well ahead of time.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as I say, we make no bones about the fact that we have strict immigration policies and strict citizenship policies. The question for Singaporeans to ask is that if we did not do so, then are we prepared to let hundreds of thousands of foreigners come to Singapore and overburden our facilities and resources? Our policies strike good balance between two criteria. One, the person who comes to Singapore must be able to contribute to our skills, talent, economic advancement, Under that scheme persons are granted permanent residence. But at the same time, wives, children, dependants of Singapore citizens are also admitted and, contrary to what the Member for Anson says, it is not for the rich. It cuts across all categories - wives, children and dependants. The only criterion is, we want to ascertain that they will be maintained and looked after by somebody in Singapore so that they would not become a burden to the State.

Mr Jeyaretnam: And the rich can do that.

Prof. Jayakumar: As I said, Sir, he can keep on making insinuations that he wants, but the facts are clear. It cuts across all categories of persons in Singapore. So it is a fair balance between promoting the advancement of Singapore, its national interest, and ,compassionate grounds. It strikes a fair balance. Sir, the Minister of State will answer the other questions.

Mr Jeyaretnam: May I just inform the Minister that in one of these cases, as I told him, the couple were married in Singapore in the Registry of Marriages. So they had the permission of the Government, and yet the wife was sent out. So what do you do in that case? And does the Government deny that the Government does confer permanent residence and even citizenship on people who are prepared to lend it money without any further questions?

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, it is impossible for me to comment on the specifics of the case. Has the Member for Anson written to the Ministry on this particular case?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Yes.

Prof. Jayakumar: Well, I have not received it. If he can send it to me?

Mr Jeyaretnam: It seems that it never reaches the Minister.

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, did he address it to the Minister? He has addressed certain representation to the Minister, and I have received it. Did he address this case to me?

Mr Jeyaretnam: I addressed it to the Immigration Department and it should be referred to you.

Prof. Jayakumar: There you are! Sir, every letter that is addressed to me as a Minister, and there are many of them, I make it a point to lead it, as Members will know. Although it takes up a lot of time, I do this in order to have a flavour of the kinds of problems which Members of Parliament come across. In this case, the Member has written to the Immigration Department. The Immigration Department receives about, I think, 500, maybe hun- dreds of letters every month. Naturally, all of them are not referred to me. I cannot comment on the specifics of the case. The Member for Anson, if he feels a serious breach of laws has taken place, can write to me about this case.

The Minister of State for Home Affairs and Community Development (Mr Wong Kan Seng): Mr Speaker, Sir, there is a difference between getting approval to get married from the Commissioner for Employment and getting the marriage registered in the Registry of Marriages.

Mr Jeyaretnam: On a point of clarification. Would the Minister of State say under what law you have got to get permission from the Commissioner for Employment?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: That is under the condition for employment to get a work permit, Sir.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Where is the law? You do not understand.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: As usual, Sir, the Member for Anson has only one side of a coin. He does not have the full coin, so he is usually short-changed by his constituents.

Mr Jeyaretnam: You cannot impose a condition unless the law says so. That is elementary.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: He does not seem to understand. Let me move on to answer the questions from the Members for Ang Mo Kio and Serangoon Gardens regarding the capability of the Fire Service to fight high-rise fires. I understand their concern and I am sure our Fire Service has not letup in the vigilance against the capability of fighting high-rise fires.

Sir, there are about 200 commercial buildings in Singapore and, generally, the number of exit signs and the necessary fire precaution appliances are in compliance with the Fire Precaution Code. Inspections are carried out annually on all these highrise buildings as well as on places where the public have access. Just last year alone in 1984, there were 262 inspections carried out on these buildings to check and test the fire-fighting appliances and facilities, and to ensure that the staircases and exit doorways are not obstructed. Fire evacuation drills are also conducted in these buildings and since 1976, 222 such drills have been carried out. In addition, the employees are also taught the basics of fire-fighting, particularly those in the departmental stores and supermarkets. 119 such fire drills and basic fire-fighting were taught to 18 departmental store employees. 24 one-week training courses were conducted for the management of these commercial high-rise buildings since 1977. 1,419 spot checks were carried out on public places such as restaurants, departmental stores, supermarkets in 1984 alone. And 58 premises were served with notices for obstruction and 15 exit door locks were removed when they were found to be locked.

There are a number of equipment that the Fire Service has already purchased to deal with high-rise fires, in addition to adopting the operational procedures used in fighting high-rise fires in the United States. So let me assure the hon. Members that there are enough equipment and contingency plans to ensure that our high-rise buildings are not safety-and-fire hazards to our public.

Prof. Jayakumar: Sir, since after I spoke, the Member for Anson has raised the question of the legality of the condition. Let me inform Members of the House that work permits are given on certain conditions. There are many conditions: health conditions, immigration conditions, types of work they have to perform, prohibition of certain activities. And it is fully within the legal powers of the Ministry of Labour to impose the condition that a work permit holder shall not marry without permission.

Mr Jeyaretnam: May I inform the Minister that he should be aware that the law is that anyone over 21 should be free to marry without anybody's permission. 4.00 pm

The Chairman: It is 4.00 o'clock, guillotine time.

Mr Chai Chong Yii: Sir, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $404,152,680 for Head 0 ordered to stand part of the main Estimates.

The sum of $54,509,500 for Head 0 ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.

Head V -

Dr Augustine Tan: Sir, I beg to move,

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*.

Sir, I raised a question recently about the health of our economy because of a number of press reports that make our economy look in a bad way. Apparently, there have also been a spate of foreign press reports about the health of our economy. I have here an article xeroxed from The Star published in Penang recently. I will just quote two paragraphs:

'With problems cropping up at all major fronts and the number of bankruptcies on the rise, it looks as though Premier Lee Kuan Yew's oft-repeated warning that Singapore will face difficult times if there is a world economic slowdown is about to come true.

Will Singapore be able as usual to rebound and give a new burst to its growth? Or will the economic bubble burst?'

Sir, perhaps the Hon. Minister for Trade and Industry may want to give some facts and figures to show what the true position is.

Secondly, Sir, in the Budget statement that was presented to this House recently, the Finance Minister said the following, and I quote from col. 487.

'Our free trade policy has served us well,and we will continue this policy. But we will have to work through GATT and other international organizations to press the case for a more liberal international trading system or at least to slow down further encroachments on free trade.'

Sir, I would like to emphasize this point - that we should give our whole-hearted support to the GATT, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. This is a body which monitors trade restrictions around the world and it has been very successful in lowering tariffs in several rounds of multi-lateral negotiations. Unfortunately, Sir, even as tariff barriers have come down, non-tariff barriers like quotas, orderly marketing arrangements, voluntary export restraints and other protectionist devices, have come to the fore. And now we find increasing protectionism even in services and high technology products, areas which we have a vital interest in. So I would urge the Minister concerned to pay due attention to the GATT. I understand a new round of negotiations will be started fairly soon and we should be there in the forefront advocating free trade policies.

At the same time, Sir, I believe that we should also be actively engaged in international fora, especially those that promote free trade. I was in Tokyo recently at such a forum and our Minister was invited but he failed to turn up.

The next point I have, Sir, concerns the Economic Survey of Singapore, 1984. I am glad to note that over the years there have been significant improvements in the presentation of the Economic Survey. The standard of professionalism has gone up. But I see many authors contributing to various chapters. In Chapter 6 on Public Finance, there seems to be a little mix up. In Table 6.1, col. 617-8 the figure for expenditure for 1984 is given as $10.6 billion. But then when one gets to Charts 6.2 (a) and (b), Sources and Uses of Funds, suddenly the figure used is $14.1 billion and no explanation is given in the text. There is a minor footnote to Table 6.1. But to the average reader, he will never understand why there is a tremendous jump from $10.6 billion to $14.1 billion. It could be a case of too many cooks spoiling the soup.

Sir, I would also like to take up a point about manpower planning in Singapore. I am a little concerned that we seem to be varying our policy in regard to work permit holders in Singapore. Not too long ago, we were told that we will be phasing out work permit holders. Then this was amended to say that we will phase out workers from non-traditional sources. Now we are told that we will be more flexible. So I am at a loss to try and understand how this has come about. If manpower planning is conducted properly, I do not think we should get such gyrations in policy at all. I have a suspicion that perhaps the labour requirements for the new hotels that we have been building at a rapid rate have not been taken into account adequately in the manpower estimates. Neither have the manpower requirements for the many shopping centres and office complexes been taken into account adequately.

I raised the point earlier in the estimates for the Ministry of Education that I felt perhaps we are under-producing graduates in Singapore, or rather too conservative in producing graduates. And the reason for my saying so is that if one looks at wage differentials between graduates and non-graduates, that differential seems to have been on the increase over the years. That is a sure indicator that there is excess demand for graduates.

Further, Sir, in the planning assumptions, I suspect that the Ministry has not taken into consideration the fact that there are several areas in our economy that could benefit from having graduates instead of non-graduates performing the tasks. In America, for example, no one can be a teacher even in primary school without having a degree, but not so in Singapore.

Mr Bernard Chen (Clementi): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to say a few words on the problem of Government companies. I think it is being widely believed that the Government has through its own companies, whether wholly owned or partially owned, been unduly interfering in the business of the private sector. Let me first say that I fully endorse the views expressed by the Minister of State for Trade and Industry a few days ago. Of the 24 wholly owned Government companies which have been started over the last 20 years, I think we will be hard pressed to find any of them which has not satisfied the primary criteria of Government entering into an area where the private sector avoided because of the risk. For example, the shipyards. The shipyard companies were established in the late 60s when we had to take over the assets of the naval bases. There were other instances where because of the high element of risk involved in the very heavy initial capital investment, Government had to take a hand in it. And included in this, of course is the national shipping line, Neptune Orient Lines. And going down to the other end of the scale, we have enterprises like Jurong Bird Park and the Zoological Gardens which, while not strictly within the economic sphere, but nevertheless were set up to encourage tourism. And we all know that it is not easy to run the Zoological Gardens or the Bird Park as viable enterprises. Hence the Government took an interest in these enterprises.

There are two considerations, of course. One is the element of risk which the private sector is not prepared to take and, secondly, by having a company, the accounts can be properly kept and any subsidy in whatever form can be properly accounted for. But why the private sector's reservation about Government companies if this is true? I suspect it is because over time, many of these companies established by Government have deviated from the original objective when these companies were formed. And this deviation is a natural process. When the chief executive is put in charge of the company, he is not asked to achieve the original objectives set up by the company. His accountability is the bottom line. If the activities of the company are not giving him the kind of returns that he expects, then he has got to find other ways, whether going into diversification or entering into new business and I think this is where the problem started. Perhaps if we look into the activities of these companies, we will discover that it is not so much that the original objectives of these companies have been compromised but that the new activities taken over by the chief executive's concern have infringed into the private sector. It is in this regard that I welcome the initiative of the Ministry to set up a management panel to oversee the activities of these companies to ensure that the new activities taken on by these Government-owned companies, if they can be better managed by the private sector, these companies should abstain from these activities. My next question is that in the Finance Minister's Budget statement, he said that the Government is seriously thinking of divesting its interest in these companies to the private sector. What I would like to find out from the Minister is in what way will this be done, whether it is through a public listing where members of the public will have a chance to participate in these companies, or whether it will be restricted to people who are able to contribute to the running of the business, Perhaps it is not wise to open the activities of these companies or the shareholding of these companies to all and sundry. If we expect the enterprises to succeed, we must find the right expertise to handle these projects. And in view of the rather substantial investments that have been incurred in respect of Government-owned companies, I think some care has to be exercised in ensuring that whoever takes over the companies will, as far as possible, possess the expertise and the skills to develop these companies further. 4.15 pm

Finally, it may be worthwhile for the Ministry to consider whether it is necessary to divest all these interests at the same time. Perhaps despite what the comments from our private sector are, there is merit in keeping some of these companies, either for the strategic purposes for which they were first established and whether it is not sufficient just to divest off some of the activities carried out by these companies rather than divesting the company altogether.

Mr Chng Hee Kok (Radin Mas): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have two matters to raise with the Minister. The first is on economic incentives.

Last week the Minister stressed the importance of local manufacturers in Singapore and that his Ministry was looking into other economic incentive schemes for local manufacturers. I have two suggestions for the Minister to consider.

The first relates to technology transfer. As we all know, technology is acquired at great cost and through painstaking research and development, As a result, the owner of technology or expertise will not readily give up his rights unless he is well compensated. On the other hand, cheap and ready access to technology is what most of our local manufacturers will need to improve themselves and to diversify their business. Most of our local manufacturers are limited in manpower and other resources to undertake product and process development. The very fact that, since 1978 only 30 projects received grants of $2.7 million under the Product Development Assistance Scheme (PDAS), and this probably went to some 20-odd companies, is evidence of the difficulty of undertaking research and development.

The situation can be improved if we extend the use of the PDAS or evolve or establish an entirely new economic incentive scheme to help our manufacturers in acquiring foreign technology through licensing arrangements. Presently, our local manufacturers are hampered as licensing is expensive. Besides the annual royalty based on sales, licensing is prohibitive because of the fee which has to be paid up-front. It is this initial fee which our manufacturers will need assistance. As the advantages of licensing arrangements are obvious and manifold, there is no need for me to elaborate.

The other suggestion I have is on incentives for export marketing. Due to the limited market in Singapore, our local manufacturers must export their products. Exports give the local manufacturers (1) geographical diversification, and (2) increased sales volume. This kind of diversification will help the manufacturer to be less prone to cyclical market demands and the increased sales volume will hopefully help to lower the cost of products. However, export sales have long gestation periods and are difficult to organize. Hence, we should have more export incentives to encourage our smaller manufacturers to export. The scheme I have in mind is concessionary tax incentives on marginal increases in annual export sales. This can be an effective scheme and is established in various forms even in developed economies. The Minister may not agree with the form I have suggested, but incentives in these two areas will be a sorely needed shot in the arm for our local manufacturers.

Sir, I wish to come to the other subject and I thank the Member for Clementi for bringing up this question of privatization of Government-owned enterprises. I suggest that this privatization process be extended to include statutory boards. Statutory bodies, such as Telecoms and the Public Utilities Board, meet certain criteria which, in my opinion, make privatization attractive. First, these boards require huge development funds and hence a huge capital base. Second, these organizations provide services which are used or consumed by a wide spectrum of our population, in fact, by every Singaporean. Lastly, these boards have successful track records. And privatization will give the public the opportunity to invest in safe and secure enterprises. Perhaps CPF savings will be allowed for investment in these enterprises. Such a d raw-down will serve partly to soak up the substantial level of CPF savings and this also opens up new avenues for CPF contributors,

Mr Tan Soo Khoon: Mr Speaker, Sir, last year in this House I raised the question of whether penalties will be increased for those people who were caught counterfeiting goods, and I raise this question again this year because of what I believe is a growing problem, particularly in the piracy of computer software or what we have now come to call as the imitation of intellectual property rights. My concern was drawn to this matter this year because recently we read that the failure on our part to combat this problem of the piracy of the intellectual property rights has led to certain countries threatening to withdraw whatever trading privileges that we enjoy with them. Could I have the comment of the Minister, please?

Mr Heng Chiang Meng: Mr Speaker, Sir, I did not submit an amendment. So I will be brief.

Sir, the Hon. Minister for Finance in his Budget Speech has called for the private sector to be the engine of growth. I agree completely with this objective. However, Sir, to do the job, the private sector requires large amounts of capital. I am not implying in any way that there is insufficient private capital in Singapore. However, I believe that this capital is in the hands of the professionals and probably the senior corporate employees, and not in the hands of the entrepreneurs. This is because of our successful economy that has been led at one time or another by the multi-nationals, by the large corporations, by construction, by public Government spending.

Sir, without any encouragement these capitals unfortunately are invested in relatively safe investments like bank deposits and the like, and not in riskier investments such as new technology companies. Sir, the future of Singapore lies not in building more mouse traps but in the invention and the designing of better mouse traps. And it is in these areas that the risk would be the greatest.

Last year, an investment allowance was given to local companies to invest in new technological projects. This was, to quote the Minister then, "to encourage our local investors to venture into frontiers of technological advancement and should serve to broaden our present technological base." This year, Sir, I am disappointed that there was no follow-up in this direction. I hope that the Minister for Trade and Industry will consider this suggestion for next year's budget; which is to permit the investments of the individual taxpayers in new technological industries to be deducted against their assessable income if such investments fail. Proper controls to prevent abuse and the erosion of the tax base could be instituted; controls such as EDB-approved investments and, perhaps, limits on the amount of deduction allowable. Surely this will encourage the movement of capital from those who have to those who need.

The Minister of State for Defence and Trade and Industry (BG Lee Hsien Loong): Mr Speaker, Sir, I will take up just a few of the points which the Members have raised so far, and continue tomorrow. The Member for Whampoa has commented on the state of our economy, the health of our economy, whether we are doing well, why is it that foreign press say we are doing badly. I have given my views. My Minister has also given his views. I do not wish to say anything more on this. Tomorrow, if there is time, I think my Minister will give him a further clarification.

On GATT and free trade, indeed Singapore depends on trade for its livelihood. Any restrictions on free trade will threaten our life-blood, and our lines to the rest of the world. We know the international environment. We know that the pressures for protectionism are growing. We know that it influences not only the pattern of trade, but also the pattern of investment. So foreign investors, instead of investing in Singapore and then exporting from Singapore to America or Europe or Japan, switch to market investment. That means they set up a plant in America, produce in America, and sell in America; and that way avoid the problems of export, imports, taxation, quotas, and so on. It is a serious problem for us. We do support GATT. We do support international forums where free trade is being promoted. And although I did not make it to Tokyo, I promise the hon. Member for Whampoa that we take this very seriously.

The Annual Economic Survey - I apologize for the inconsistency between Table 6.1 and Chart 6.2. It is a technical problem. Table 6.1 excluded loans and grants to statutory boards, and Chart 6.2 included them. Both were prepared by the same cook, to use the Member's terminology. I have the reconciled figures which I shall give to the Member if he is interested. On manpower planning, he made two points. One is work permit holders: whether we have changed our policy, and how this ties in with hotels. And secondly, graduates: are we under-producing or over-producing?

On work permit holders, the Minister for Finance has made a complete statement in his Budget Statement, and there was a comprehensive written reply yesterday from the Minister for Labour. So I do not propose to make any further comments. The policy, as stated, stands.

New hotels. Did we misplan? I do not think so. Let us look at the numbers. We have a workforce of 1.2 million people. When we talk about new hotels, we are talking about 15,000 rooms, about 15,000 people. No government in the world plans its manpower to the last 11/2%, because most governments in the world work with unemployment rates which vary from 4% to 8%, to 12%. I think the Member for Whampoa, being a professional econom- ist, will understand that the private sector must make its own calculations in deciding whether or not to go ahead with investment, and whether or not they will find the workers for the jobs.

I think I will stop here and go on to the rest of the points tomorrow.

The Chairman: You have three minutes more.

BG Lee Hsien Loong: All right. One more point, extra graduates. We are underproducing graduates. Should we produce more,look for graduates in new areas? We have a committee called Committee on Professional and Technical Education (CPTE). It is a committee chaired by the Minister for Trade and Industry with representatives from all sectors, the educational institutions, the economic planning agencies and the Government Departments. It works out how many graduates we need, how many graduates we are able to train, year by year. It makes these calculations, making comparisons with other countries in comparable stages of their economic development.

Do we have a shortage of graduates? If we go on the argument of wage differentials, I would say yes. Indeed, wages for our fresh graduates are high. We could do with more. Are we under-producing because we have miscalculated? I would say no. I have some figures here which I looked up, following the discussion in this House several days ago. They show whether we are, in fact, depriving people of chances to educate themselves. They show how our University intakes have risen by more than 10% per year each year for the last five years. In 1980 we have 3,000; 1981 3,400; 1982 3,900; 1983 4,200; 1984 4,441. This year we will have only 8,600 students taking 'A' levels. So almost half the students who take 'A' levels go on to University. And I do not think it is possible to expand our University intake faster than we have done. I think we will find graduates where we need to. Where there are specific areas of short-fall, we will give people entry permits to come and work in Singapore, but I would not blame problems with graduates on the CPTE. I think it is 4.30 pm.

The Chairman: Moment of interruption.

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

Mr Dhanabalan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply has made further progress on the Main and Development Estimates for the financial year 1st April, 1985 to 31st March, 1986, and ask leave to sit again tomorrow.

Mr Speaker: So be it.