MAIN AND DEVELOPMENT ESTIMATES OF SINGAPORE FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1ST APRIL, 1986 TO 31ST MARCH, 1987

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate in Committee of Supply resumed.

Head U (cont.) -

Mr Jeyaretnam: Can we go back to the amendment?

The Chairman: Are you withdrawing your amendment?

Mr Jeyaretnam: I thought the Prime Minister was going to respond to the rest of my amendment. We have been sidetracked into these issues. Would the Prime Minister respond to my amendment?

The Prime Minister: You have heard me. What more?

Mr Jeyaretnam: With respect, Mr Speaker, Sir, the questions that I posed to the Prime Minister were these. Would he outline to this House what responsibilities are discharged by the Senior Minister in his Office? Let me say that I am amazed, and no doubt the rest of Singapore will be amazed, that the Senior Minister is given $26,000 a month. And all he does is to give counsel, sometimes when it is needed, to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister instanced one occasion when he had to seek the counsel of the Senior Minister, and that was when, he said, somebody was seeking political asylum. I said then and I say it now, "Isn't $26,000 a little bit excessive, Mr Prime Minister, for counsel like that?" Would the Prime Minister tell us what responsibilities are discharged by the Senior Minister? Let us have them so that the public may know whether the Senior Minister is worth the salary that is paid him. We know that he accompanies the Prime Minister abroad on travels. Is that why he is paid $26,000? What Ministry has he got to be responsible for?

Likewise, the Second Deputy Prime Minister. Would he tell us what responsibilities does the Second Deputy Prime Minister discharge as holder of that office? As I said earlier, he is the Secretary-General of the NTUC. Is he paid $24,000 a month for discharging the duties of Secretary-General of NTUC, or is he paid that sum to discharge Ministerial responsibilities? If they are, what are those Ministerial responsibilities? May we have clear-cut answers to these questions?

May we know what the Political Secretaries are discharging? This man in his Ministry who was sent to take over Anson; they were so convinced that they were going to take over Anson that they had all the banners ready on Polling night: "Congratulations for winning Anson". May we know what responsibilities is he discharging in the Office? Or is he paid for his duties as a trade unionist? Where is he? In the Port of Singapore Workers' Union? I think the public must have clear answers to these questions. It is the public moneys that are being spent. What about the other Political Secretaries? What about the man in the Singapore Press Holdings? What responsibilities is he discharging?

We have not heard a word from the Prime Minister, and he says "I have answered them." What about my call for the salaries of the Ministers to be cut, for them to forgo? He has not said a word about it. Is he still of the view that they should be paid more?

The Prime Minister: Yes.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Then say it again. And let us see why. In spite of the recession, you are saying that they should not take a cut, but they should be paid more. Let the public know. One of the things that I have been stressing, Mr Speaker, is the accountability of the Government, the Prime Minister and the Ministers, to the public. And nowhere is this accountability more important and more serious than when it comes to expenditure of public funds. You have got to account to the public for every cent you spend; and justify it. I am sorry the Prime Mnister has not responded on any of these things.

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, I have to judge whether a man is worthy of being in the Cabinet, whether he is worthy of being a Parliamentary Secretary or a Political Secretary. It does not depend on his statutory responsibilities alone. It is my assessment of the value of the man in the business of government. It is my considered opinion that the Senior Minister is worthy of being a Senior Minister.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Tell us what he is discharging. What responsibilities is he discharging?

The Prime Minister: He helps me run this Government. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is not for him to probe how I run my Cabinet. In fact, it will be highly improper for Cabinet processes to be disclosed. But if he is of no value - Members will know from the old and trusted colleagues that I have had, with whom I had to part company with and some on the best of terms - when the time comes when a cut has to be made, it will be made. I am prepared to be judged on that.

As for the Second Deputy Prime Minister, if he can do the job, such as I was able to do for many years, both as Prime Minister and having in the NTUC Mr Devan Nair and several other of the old guard leaders, then Singapore would be deeply indebted to him. If he cannot discharge that function, the economic plans which have been launched by the Economic Committee and the debate in this House would come to nought. It is a very simple assignment. Understand what the Government policy is, why it is so. If he believes that that is correct, he has to carry a whole host of people with him. And if he does, the policy works. If he does not, there will be enormous problems. If people do not understand that, then it is hardly likely that they will understand if, in fact, their intention is to deride, to decry and to demolish.

The costs of my Cabinet to the Consolidated Fund is under $5 million per year. I have no compunction in telling Singapore that it is Government on the cheap. I have not the slightest hesitation in suggesting to Singaporeans that if they can find a group of men to displace me and my old colleagues, I think we are not wanting to hang on but to hand over. And if the next 25 years will last in the way it has lasted in the last 27 years, then I say it will be a triumph. It does not matter whether they do it by $5 million a year or whether they do it by $50 million a year. Get it done. Circumstances are different. You will not get men to give up comfortable careers and take on unpleasant, often irksome, duties. But public service requires that there should be from time to time such irksome tasks.

The debate was slated for guillotine from 12.05 pm to 12.20 pm. In his usual smearing way, he raised and opened up more issues. I knew that it would not be finished, that if we allowed the guillotine to stop at 12.20 pm, smears will be left unanswered. We had a lunch break. We have given him an opportunity to correct himself. He refused to stand corrected. He persists in it. So we go on. We shall go on and we shall place our record, including my appointment of the Senior Minister, the Second Deputy Prime Minister, Political Secretaries and Acting Ministers, one of whom happens to be my son, for public scrutiny.

There is no Political Secretary in SPH. He has got garbled, vague, incoherent thoughts, and he throws stones. There is none. The man in the press (SPH) is the Member for Kampong Kembangan, Yatiman. He will become a Parliamentary Secretary. When he becomes Parliamentary Secretary, he gives up his job at SPH. The Political Secretary is the Member for Eunos, Zulkifli. He will continue with his private sector job. He is not required to give it up. He will receive his salary as Political Secretary so that the sum total is not more than a certain percentage of his total salary. He is Political Secretary to the Ministry of Community Development. The First Deputy Prime Minister has arranged all these appointments which I have approved.

As for my own Political Secretary, Mr Ng Pock Too -

Mr Jeyaretnam: What is he doing?

The Prime Minister: He does work which I consider useful to the Government, politically. Let me read from a memorandum which I circulate to all Parliamentary Secretaries and Political Secretaries. This is what the Political Secretary does:

'The Political Secretary is not a public servant. He may or may not be an elected representative of the people. He does not possess any executive powers. His role is purely advisory. He will be the Minister's closest adviser within the Ministry. It will be the special responsibility of the Political Secretary to keep the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary fully informed of the public opinion, on the Ministry's policies and to advise them on the best method of implementation of these policies. He will also be one of the means whereby the Minister can keep in touch with thinking within the Party. Owing to the very nature of his appointment, the Political Secretary would have to function under certain restrictions. He lacks power over civil servants and consequently will not be in a position to exercise any influence over the day-to-day functions of the Ministry. He should avoid direct contact with civil servants. In his relationship with the public he cannot claim to represent the Minister in the same way as the Parliamentary Secretary can.' And so on. If he is of no value to me, he would go back to the Economic Development Board where he was earning more.

What does he do for me? That is really my business. I allocate him work. But it so happended that at the moment there is something on. I give an illustration. Maybe it takes an hour, maybe more. He has problems, or he thinks the Government has problems, with certain unions that having given up 12% of their salaries in the 15% CPF cut - I do not want to quibble or cavil - but the Member for Anson should do his arithmetic. A 15% cut in the CPF is not a 15% cut in the salary. It is a 12% cut. His friend, the Member for Potong Pasir, is very good for mental arithmetic. He should ask him. And therefore they feel, at the moment, that there should not be a commitment in the next NWC to a wage freeze. I said he had to explain that we are not seeking a wage freeze. We are seeking a wage restraint which means for all firms, all sectors, not doing well, there should be a halt to increases or even an adjustment of increases. That in sectors which are doing badly, there should be something given up. That in sectors where we know economic conditions are favourable, there could be increases but with restraint.

Can we get this concept across to a whole broad spectrum of union leaders of varying educational backgrounds, of varying characters, personalities, under varying degrees of pressure and compulsion from their members? I do not think these are frivolous items that one can get an ordinary executive officer or a public service Division 1 officer to do. I consider him eminently qualified because he has spent, I think, 15 years of his life in the Economic Development Board and he knows the conditions we require to attract industries, particularly manufacturing, and now services from America, from Japan, from Europe. What amazed me was that he is now telling me why the present Chairman of the EDB was too harsh because (they have had a session) he was insisting on a firm categorical statement from the NWC that there should be a freeze and not just a restraint. Well, there are several weeks to go but if things turn out equivocal, I think we may not have the turnaround in the two-year time frame we have been discussing.

It is not the business of Government to express too many doubts and reservations. But one of the problems of meeting this recession is that I have now a different generation at grassroots and even at organizational directors' level. If need be, I myself may have to intervene. It would be, I think, not productive in the long run. But rather than see this slip away because they cannot get the ground with them, because the grassroots leaders are new and are hesitant to say, "No, we have got to tighten our belts by one or two notches and for one or two years.' I say a lot is at stake. And if need be, so be it. But I think it can be done. And the Second Deputy Prime Minister is supposed to help pull it off. If he does not, we will have to hold him to account. If he does, he is worth giving more than $26,000 to. He gave up more than $26,000 as an architect, and he took it up when it was only worth about $8,000.

The Second Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Ong Teng Cheong): About $7,000.

The Prime Minister: $7,000. He took up the job at $7,000. Let us get this in perspective. I am not defensive because I know what is at stake. Of course, we all want to be popular.

Let me explain that this is a different age, that if we pretend, if we are hypocritical, we will not recruit the quality of men we need in this House. And if there should be a lowering in standards in the quality of the men on this Front Bench and on the Second Row who back them, then you can expect the performance to be reduced correspondingly. I take responsibilities for their salaries and their allowances, and the pensions that have been paid in accordance with the law. And I say Singapore has done remarkably well for precious little.

Mr Jeyaretnam: That is what you say.

The Prime Minister: No, Mr Speaker, Sir. I think Singaporeans, by and large, do know. There are $27 billion in the official reserves. There are other assets in buildings, lands, and other investments, so much so that we think it deserves a double lock. Ten years, or five years of government of the nature that we have seen elsewhere, we will be in debt. $27 billion in the Philippines, currency devalued every few weeks, larder empty, and "People's Power" cannot bring back the money, nor will it in a hurry rebuild the quality of their administration, its integrity, its effectiveness, its impartiality. I am unrelenting in my defence of the integrity of the officials, especially those on the Public Service Commission and on the Judicial Service Commission, because without that, the system must malfunction.

Mr Jeyaretnam: You are talking about Minister's salaries.

The Prime Minister: Yes. Ministers and officials have to be adequately paid. There was a time when we paid the Permanent Secretary $1,900 a month, and they cut it down to $1,700. Now, I think we will be fortunate if we can get the quality of men of the standard of either a Hon Sui Sen or a Goh Keng Swee for $25,000 a month - if you can get it. Because a top banker, nowhere near the quality of these men, is paid $600,000 in one bank, and in the other a percentage of the profits which last year amounted to $1 million-plus.

Let us get this in perspective. Do we believe we do this with candour? Or do we get defensive and pretend that they are all men with private means and doing this as a public service, which was the way the British did it for a long time until all those with private means and also ability decided it was not for them?

If you look, as I did last year, at Ministerial salaries in Britain (and I gave the Prime Minister's salary), you will find that she was paid more as an MP than as Prime Minister. That is populist politics. They have got themselves strapped. Why am I defending this? Because I am fearful that the younger generation - sensitive, modest maybe, of their worth, begin to be defensive - then we will not recruit them. They will come in the way Americans take office, swing-door policy. I do it for two years or four years like Michael Deaver, Mr Reagan's personal aide, and then Deaver Associates. You will read it in the Asian Wall Street Journal. It is completely above board. They are lobbyists. We are in the process of deciding which lobbyist we should employ to make sure that our GSP is not lost. It is going to cost us millions. It is not chicken feed. It is the way the system works. Be honest. If we paid them, like they pay them in the Philippines - you have read all about it. The President is paid US$5,700 per year; Prime Minister is paid less than US$5,000; and so would the other ministers. It sounds marvellous.

I see no reason why Dr Tony Tan should sit here and be a Minister. He was well on the way to the $600,000 job. He knows it. I know it. That is what the No. 1 man in OCBC gets and he was on that path. Would he do it for two years? Maybe, for a public duty. Would he do it for seven or eight years as he now has done (it is his eighth year),and go on for another eight? Let us be honest. Why should he? If he did, it is an act of altruism, is it not?

Mr Jeyaretnam: You can find a man for that.

The Prime Minister: Can I find somebody else to do it? Can you? There are 2(r) million Singaporeans. Take their ages, 35 and upwards, or 30 and upwards if you like. Abstract, as the First Deputy Prime Minister had been doing the last six years, top executives, top professionals, top public sector. It is quite easy now with the help of the computer. Minimum pass standards - '0' levels, 'A' levels, first degree, second, third degree, whatever it is, plus number of years tied in with income, and you pick out the high-fliers. There are about one or two more still in the private sector. They may come out the next time. But there is not all that bevy of talent. Do you want to hear drivel of the same standard that we get spewed out in this House from the two Opposition Members?

Mr Jeyaretnam: You ask the public.

The Prime Minister: As for throwing stones -

Mr Jeyaretnam: Ask the public.

The Prime Minister: Yes, indeed. Where would we be? In effect in this last phase, you as trustees of 2(r) million people, including the two from the Opposition, have to set the tenor, the tone, the size, the level of debate, the standards of honour and honesty, and a willingness to join issues on fundamentals. Or we can churn up a whole host of spurious gases, hot air, drivel. It has happened elsewhere, not just in developing countries. Read what happens. Do they face their problems? The British Parliament was once a paragon for us to copy. It has dodged issues on the rule of law and whether unions are subject or not subject to the law. And the whole nation is held to ransom. At this moment, the law is being flouted and unable to be enforced because the national papers want to use modern up-to-date computerized equipment with latest colour processing. Neither Government nor Opposition dare take the problem and put their teeth into it. Both funk it. It is not resolved. They had a coal miner strike that went on for one year. There was nothing wrong with the law. The law was adequate. Mrs Thatcher passed the laws. But it got so, that even when the miners' union and Mr Arthur Scargill acted in contempt of court, refusing to transfer his assets and transferring it to Luxembourg, the Judge did not send him to prison. So a pervasive climate prevails and exercises its influence, not just on legislators and ministers, but also primarily on the Judges who made provisions for a derisory fine that never resolved the issue, and the strike went on for a full year. That is what this is about.

Why did I suggest to the Leader of the House that we should have it out? Because there will be no end to smears, vague allegations of impropriety, without ample opportunity for rebuttal. We gave him the time. We have got sufficient to give him an opportunity for withdrawal. He has not got a sense of honour and decency. Now we send it to the Privileges Committee. We do not get pleasure out of it. It is a shame; not just for the Opposition, it is a shame for us. It is contemptible when the House is unable to conduct itself in a manner befitting gentlemen.

Mr Jeyaretnam: You haven't got 77. 76.

The Prime Minister: It is open to public scrutiny. The video tape is on. The public will judge.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Yes, the public will judge.

The Prime Minister: Including the proceedings of the Committee of Privileges. I would like to remind Members that irksome though it may be, each time a scandalous, a frivolous, a wild and impossible allegation is made, it is important to pin the man down. Defend the honour, the integrity and the standards which we have set, and they are high. We need no apologies. We can measure up. And it is the intention of this Government, that what we do can stand the closest scrutiny and that makes it easy all round.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Have a Commission of Inquiry into Pan-El.

The Chairman: Can we have less interruptions, Mr Jeyaretnam?

The Prime Minister: I see no merit in wild shouts. Is the Government to blame for Pan-El?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Yes. I will take it up under the Ministry of Finance.

The Prime Minister: Because we had a stockbroking industry that took risks and was taken for a ride, that they lost tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions of their own money, their shirts, their pants and those of their bankers; sane, responsible bankers, most of them foreign. Three-quarters of them had advanced three-quarters or more of over $1 billion to stockbrokers. And spry operators came down to Singapore and siphoned it off on shares that had been churned up to about 50 times, sometimes 80 times their value.

Is Singapore that ignorant that the Minister for Finance is responsible for either misjudgment or both misjudgment and deception, and fraud exercised by a number of people to swindle stockbrokers and their bankers of a few hundred million dollars? There is something preposterous about it. But, alas, I think it is not just enough to assume that it is preposterous and therefore the explanation by the Minister for Finance is enough. There are those like the Member for Anson who would go on and purvey the vague impression, either by negligence or by connivance, that the Minister and maybe his Ministry officials have allowed this to happen. What benefit do they get out of it? I do not know. He knows. Perhaps he will tell the House.

Let me add this caution: he may end up by having to justify what he said here. I think I am slowly convincing my colleagues that the only way to get a skunk is to skin him and nail his skin.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, we have heard a lot for the last 35 minutes from the Prime Minister, and it can all be summed up in this: "I decide how much my Senior Minister is worth. I pay him $26,000. It's got nothing to do with you." And what work does he do? "Oh, he counsels me when I need any counsel sometimes."

The Prime Minister: If he doesn't work, I don't need him.

Mr Jeyaretnam: If that is your answer, so be it. Let the public know that. Now we know it.

Now, coming to the Second Deputy Prime Minister, we understand from the Prime Minister that he is paid $26,000 to carry the trade unions with the Government, to convince them of the rightness of the Government's policies. So we have it now from the Prime Minister that one of the posts in the Cabinet really is NTUC Secretary-General. And that is why he is paid out of public monies to be NTUC Secretary-General. Now we have it. He has made it very clear to us and to the public, that he (Second Deputy Prime Minister) is paid $26,000 so that he can carry the trade unions for the Government.

Then we have the Political Secretaries. I think the Prime Minister misses the point. We have political appointments and we have civil service permanent appointments, and both are paid out of the Consolidated Fund. Civil service appointments are in the Establishment and they are created in the civil service. Political appointments come from the Constitution. He still has not told me where it is in the Constitution. He says, "My two Ministers advise me. It is perfectly all right. The Attorney-General advises me that it is perfectly all right." It does not follow from that that it is constitutional. But the more important thing is this, that he is paid out of public funds something which you say he is doing to keep the Government in office. Well, that is a wrong use of public funds. It is perfectly in order if the People's Action Party pays him. It is perfectly in order if somebody else pays him. It is wrong to pay somebody out of public funds so that he helps to keep the Government in office without actually doing any work in the Government itself, either as a political appointee or not.

Finally, we have it from the Prime Minister that in his view, there will be no reduction in Ministers' salaries. If he had his way, it should be increased. Well, so be it. This is what I wanted to know. The people will judge and they are quite astute enough to make their judgments. And now we have it.

Before I sit down, Mr Speaker, may I just answer one allegation. He keeps saying that I make wild allegations. He makes monstrous allegations. He said that I was convicted of falsifying accounts. Nothing is further from the truth. Has he read the charge? The charge is that we made a declaration, not that we falsified accounts, believing something to be true which was not true, not quite true. That is the charge. The charge is not one of falsifying accounts. There is a world of difference. In any case, the Prime Minister should know. He has just told us that he knows what the outcome of my appeal against the First Deputy Prime Minister will be.

The Prime Minister: Are you going to the Privy Council again?

Mr Jeyaretnam: If you know the outcome of this appeal to the Court of Appeal, then I will have to decide. That is what you said, that you know the outcome of the appeal.

He should know that that very charge is under appeal to the High Court because we were acquitted in January 1984. A retrial was ordered and we were convicted, not for falsifying accounts, but of a different charge under section 199 of the Penal Code. And that is under appeal. So if the Prime Minister knows anything about parliamentary etiquette, he should not have mentioned it.

The Prime Minister: I don't sometimes!

Mr Jeyaretnam: I have nothing to be ashamed of, nothing to be embarrassed about. But I am amazed that the Prime Minister can stand here and make monstrous allegations. Should he not be referred to the Committee of Privileges? [Laughter] Yes, everybody will laugh, ha! ha! ha! Because there are 76 who will say, "Baa, baa, black sheep; yes, Sir, yes, Sir, three bags full." We are getting sick and tired of this "three bags full; yes, Sir, yes, Sir."

So, Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not withdrawing the amendment. I ask for a division.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Mr Speaker, Sir, may I be allowed to join in the debate? I understand you have a ruling of five minutes. But if I do exceed the time, will you allow me to carry on?

The Chairman: No, you will not. The ruling is five minutes. It stays at five minutes.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Well, I am not going into a debate with the Prime Minister. He says that we are here to decide on fundamentals and basics. I think that is what we are all here for. The question of Ministers' salaries goes down to very fundamental issues, one of morale of the country. At the moment, I believe the Prime Minister will not deny that we are in a severe recession. It does not look that we can recover from any of our investments in Singapore, oil refineries, shipbuilding. Your petrochemical company, is losing money. Your hotels, your property ---

The Chairman: My hotels? My property?

Mr Chiam See Tong: The hotels that have been built in Singapore, Mr Speaker, Sir.

It has been reported that the amount invested in properties in Singapore, I believe, is something like $120 billion, I believe. Anyway, it is something like four or five times of our reserves. It is a very big sum of money. [Laughter]. You may laugh. Fair enough, if you think this is a joke. I do not think this is a joke. This is a national matter.

An hon. Member: It is your figures!

Mr Chiam See Tong: Well, whatever it is.

An hon. Member: Just say "vast sums of money."

Mr Chiam See Tong: Yes, vast sums of money. All these investments or savings, if they do not give a return, they become consumption. And this will pull down our economy much more. It looks like the only way we can get ourselves out is to attract more foreign investors and start all over again.

An hon. Member: How?

Mr Chiam See Tong: Please tell me if I am wrong. It looks to me that way.

The other important point is to build confidence in our country. We have to get the workers behind us. Much has been talked about getting the workers to tighten their belts, to work harder, to work the third shift. But what do the leaders of the country do? Do they set an example? Great leaders like Churchill, Napoleon, they set an example. In the midst of the blitz in London, they did not run to the countryside and be in a safe place. Napoleon was a great general, not because of his artillery or his expertise in strategy, but he was there fighting with his soldiers. 3.45 pm

We are talking of morale in a country, and the only way we can have a high morale is for the leaders to show an example.

And there is no better way of showing an example than to have a pay cut. I am sure all the Ministers sitting in front of me do not mind a pay cut. Are we going to say that if they take away $5,000 off their salary, they will say, "Okay, I am going to give up?" Is that true? I do not think so. All the past Ministers now in the Backbench who were paid $3,000-odd they are still around. Ministers who have been dropped, they are still around. I do not think they will back out just because you reduce their pay. There is no argument at all. This is no argument. They are leaders. They want to do public service. They are here to do it. To set the example. We cannot make use of clever debating techniques and compare. When we want to show that we are bad, we compare ourselves with the best countries. When we want to show ourselves to be good, we compare ourselves with the worst countries - Philippines, Sri Lanka. How can we compare with America? In the 1950s they have got 53% of the world's GNP, and I believe now it is about 20%-odd. They are the richest country in the world. How can we compare with them? What do our workers get? One-third? One-quarter of their workers' pay. That is no comparison. How can we compare Singapore with America? I just cannot see it. How you look at it, we cannot compare ourselves with America. They have got massive resources, talents, leaders in all fields. Are we leaders in all fields?

The Chairman: Your 5 minutes are is up, Mr Chiam.

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, can I ask the Member for clarification? He said we are leaders and we should set the example. We have taken the same pay cut as the public sector, we are going to lose our half-month incentive pay.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Great.

The Prime Minister: We are going to lose our CPF, from 15% to 6%. Now I ask the Member for Potong Pasir, as a leader, one of 79 in this House, to suggest to me what I should move for a cut in the allowance of all MPs, and I promise to move it.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I suggested 25% the last time.

The Prime Minister: Move it now. He suggests it, I will move it.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Mr Speaker, if there is going to be a cut, it should be for all Members in this House. If the Ministers take the lead, and if he says there is going to be a pay cut of the MPs, I will gladly follow. Of course. You cannot just say, "You go and have a pay cut. How much are you going to cut your pay?" What sort of argument is that?

The Prime Minister: I am asking a very direct question. I have not asked him about his salary because I know when he was challenged the last time he refused to bring his salary into issue. I am asking him about his allowance as an MP. What would he say it should be cut by? You set the example, as I said.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Whatever is determined by this House, I will follow. Whatever is cut. Does it include the Minister's allowance itself or is it just only for the Backbenchers? [Laughter.] Do not laugh. Let us get this out. If the Prime Minister wants to get it out, let us get it out. Whatever the House decides, I will gladly follow. We will set the example for the country. We are leaders. Yes. We cannot call on the workers, "Be productive, tighten your belts, work third shift, suffer all kinds of inconveniences", and then we do not do anything about it. We are building a nation. We are not sitting here as members of a board of directors of a big corporation "Singapore Incorporated". We are here as leaders of the nation. We are in the process of nation building. That is what we are here for. We do not just say because to attract good men we have to pay them. How can we compare with the private industries? How can we compare with the industries of America? It is just impossible. How can we develop expertise if we just go by pay alone?

Mr Dhanabalan: You just answer the question.

Mr Chiam See Tong: No, I have already answered the question. Whatever is decided in this House, I will follow.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Prime Minister has asked the Member for Potong Pasir what does he suggest.

Mr Dhanabalan: Let him answer.

Mr Jeyaretnam: No. I propose in this House 25% of all allowances. Will the Prime Minister move that?

The Senior Minister, Prime Minister's Office (Mr S. Rajaratnam): Are you supported by your colleague?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Yes.

The Prime Minister: You have cornered him?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Are you going to move it or not?

Mr Rajaratnam: You move it.

Mr Jeyaretnam: The Prime Minister said he will move it.

The Prime Minister: They are confusing. May I -

Mr Jeyaretnam: Didn't I hear the Prime Minister say it?

The Chairman: Let the Prime Minister say.

The Prime Minister: I put the question to the Member for Potong Pasir. He had the Floor for three minutes, I had no reply. I know the Member for Anson wants to rescue him, but I think he should be asked to rescue himself.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Forget about rescue. You throw a challenge and you say, "Well, what do you suggest? And I will move it." Well, I am responding. I am saying 25%. Now, will you move it?

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, it is very simple. The Member for Anson is a man with a loud voice and no lack of initiative. He can move anything he likes.

Mr Jeyaretnam: You said you will move it.

The Prime Minister: I was going to move for the Member for Potong Pasir because he did not have the initiative. So I offered to help him to take the initiative. He looks a little bewildered, Mr Speaker, Sir, but I can assure him, the fact that I have said he looks bewildered does not mean he should make it worse by intervening.

The Prime Minister: I can assure him that cutting Ministers' salaries by 25% as a result of a debate in this Parliament is going to do the reputation of the Singapore Government a great deal of no good with investors around the world and in Singapore. If this is the kind of government we have, I would not put money in Singapore.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I call for a division, Sir.

Mr Chiam See Tong: May I just have a last word, Mr Speaker. It was the Prime Minister who took the initiative and asked me what is the percentage cut. I said that if the House so decides I would follow. Now he admits that if we on the spot decide, investors will be -

The Prime Minister: I am talking about salaries if we do that. I am now suggesting we do it for allowances and investors may think well of the Singapore Government.

Mr Chiam See Tong: I differ from the Prime Minister in that. He can have his own opinion. He has made mistakes before. He has withdrawn his policies before. He has made mistakes. So it does not mean that if we have whatever cut, investors will not come. If they know that the workers are going to work harder and be more productive because the leaders have set an example, I think they will come pouring in. It is just the opposite.

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, may I just clarify?

I think we ought to be fair to the Member for Potong Pasir. He is suggesting that we cut Ministers' salaries and investments will come because workers will be encouraged and would be highly productive. I am suggesting to him that our voters will think we have got a wonderful set of representatives if we all cut our allowances. So I was suggesting to him that he should show that initiative and take the lead.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Why don't you do that?

The Prime Minister: And if we do, investors may well think better of this Parliament because it shows that it knows what it is all about and knows how to do a political bargain with the Opposition, that leaves the Opposition at least as worse of. And when the Opposition then goes around the mulberry bush, we know the quality of the Opposition.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir -

The Chairman: Are you withdrawing your amendment?

Mr Jeyaretnam: I am afraid I have to have the last word. I am the mover of this amendment. The Prime Minister is hedging and hedging and hedging. I am sorry. With an air of bravado, he said, "You tell me what percentage should it be cut by?" And I am telling him 25%, and he refuses to move it. Well, the public will see it. I ask for a division, Sir. 4.00 pm

Question put, "That the sum to be allocated for Head U be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead UA-01 Object Group 1100 of the Main Estimates."

Mr Jeyaretnam: I claim a Division, Sir.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 2; Noes, 69; Abstention,1. Ayes Noes (cont.) Chiam See Tong Goh Chok Tong Jeyaretnam, J.B. Goh Choon Kang Heng Chiang Meng Noes Ho Kah Leong Abbas Abu Amin Ho Tat Kin Abdullah Tarmugi Hu Tsu Tau Ahmad Mattar Ibrahim Othman Ang Kok Peng Jayakumar, S. Barker, E.W. Jek Yeun Thong Beng Kian Lam, Arthur Koh Lam Son Chandra Das, S. Koh Lip Lin Bernard Chen Lai Tha Chai Cheong Yuen Chee, Eric Lau Ping Sum Chew Heng Ching Lau Teik Soon Chin Harn Tong Lee Boon Yang Chng Hee Kok Lee Hsien Loong Ch'ng Jit Koon Lee Kuan Yew Chua Sian Chin Lee Yiok Seng Dhanabalan, S. Lee Yock Suan Goh Chee Wee Leong Horn Kee Lim Boon Heng Noes Noes (cont.) Lim Chee Onn Vasoo, S. Ng Kah Ting Wan Hussin bin Haji Zoorhi Ong Teng Cheong Wan Soon Bee Othman bin Haron Eusofe Wong, Aline K. Ow Chin Hock Wong Kan Seng Phua Bah Lee Wong Kwei Cheong Rajaratnam, S. Yap Giau Cheng, Eugene Sia Khoon Seong Yatiman Yusof Sidek bin Saniff Yeo Cheow Tong Tan Cheng Bok Yeo Choo Kok Tan, Dixie Yeo Ning Hong Tan, Augustine H.H. Yeo Toon Chia Tan Keng Yam, Tony Yu-Foo Yee Shoon Tan Soo Khoon Zulkifli bin Mohammed Tan Tee Yong, Philip Tang Guan Seng Abstention Teh Cheang Wan Teo Chong Tee Yeoh Ghim Seng

Amendment accordingly negatived.

The sum of $10,208,140 for Head U ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates.

Head K -

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

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

Sir, in moving this amendment, I wish to speak on the subject of Total Defence.

Our defence capability depends critically on our collective will and determination as a people to resist any external threat. It depends on the commitment that we, as individuals, have to our nation and to one another. If we engage in divisive internal strife, we weaken our collective strength and expose ourselves to exploitation by those who may harbour harmful intentions towards us.

There is no better time than now to remind ourselves of the importance of Total Defence. We are in the midst of a recession. There is instability and strife in neighbouring countries. How should we, as a people, respond to these factors? How can we protect our right to live here in peace, to tackle our economic problems and after we have overcome them, to progress and to prosper?

It is our duty, as citizens, to be aware of the factors that have a direct bearing on our well-being, to understand how they affect us. We must be ready to act to miti- gate the effects of adverse factors. We must be quick to exploit favourable factors to maximum advantage. So we have to be psychologically prepared to meet whatever comes our way. We cannot afford to be self-centred. We must have social cohesion. Recent events - in Baling, in Sabah and unexplained fires in Indonesia - serve to remind us of the importance of one fundamental of our society, racial harmony. We are all citizens of Singapore, irrespective of race, language or religion. No one should be allowed to play on emotions linked to such issues.

The recession reminds us of the need for economic defence. Prolonged recession will erode social cohesion. There are enough examples, even in developed countries, to remind us of this. All too frequently, on our TV screens, we see the damage that can be caused as the unemployed vent their frustration and bitterness. That is why we must collectively exercise our resolve to get out of the recession as quickly as possible. It means painful sacrifices, belt tightening, wage restraint. It means regaining our competitiveness by raising our productivity. It means fostering good labour-management relations. We must be single-minded to act to protect jobs and attract investments to create jobs.

We must guard against eroding the will to work. When there are the unemployed, it is appealing to propose unemployment benefits. The state welfare tune is a seductive siren song because it appears compassionate and caring. But apart from the truly needy and indigent, is it in our interest to launch into state welfarism? All welfare programmes started with good intentions. Invariably, they lead to unbridled demand and an erosion of the work ethic. Let us be aware that there are those in our country who, like sirens, sing the seductive song of state welfare. And worse, who try to play the lower income against the higher income. Listen to them, and we will end up on the rocks.

Sir, the next component of Total Defence is Civil Defence. The hotel disaster in Serangoon Road is a painful reminder of the importance of Civil Defence. Our Civil Defence capability is only beginning. Let this tragedy spur us on to develop this fledgling capability.

The final component of Total Defence is military defence. When the world is uncertain, we must have a strong SAF and maintain a credible military deterrence. At the same time, let us remember that the recession means we can spend proportionately less on defence, and we have to make the most of our funds.

Sir, the concept of Total Defence has yet to be fully understood. All citizens must understand it and fully imbibe its spirit. I wish to ask the Minister to what extent does the public understand the concept and what programmes are being planned to help the public to understand this concept.

Mr Leong Horn Kee (Thomson): Sir, may I be allowed to speak now and not to move my amendment later on?

The Chairman: You can do that.

Mr Leong Horn Kee: Thank you, Sir. There are three areas under the Ministry of Defence which I would like to seek information from the Minister or the Minister of State who is present now. These three areas are: Open Mobilization, Civil Resource Mobilization and Deployment of Reservists.

The concept of open mobilization has started more than a year ago. I would like to ask the Minister to give us a report on his Ministry's review of the effectiveness of open mobilization. Have there been significant improvements in the response rate with each subsequent open mobilization exercise conducted? I would also like to ask the Minister whether his Ministry will move towards using open mobilization approach and terminate the use of the silent mobilization method.

To make mobilization exercises more realistic, I would like to suggest to the Ministry that in future exercises, the Ministry should try to avoid giving reservists to be activated any advance notice. It is a well-known fact among the reservists that when mobilization exercises are to be conducted, the units are usually informed in advance and somehow the reservists are given some forewarning that they might be recalled. I would suggest that to test the effectiveness of reservist units involved in such mobilization exercises, the Ministry should try its best to maintain utmost secrecy so that the units could be truly tested.

Sir, on civil resource mobilization, I would also like to request the Minister to give us a report on his Ministry's review of the programme on civil resource mobilization. I would like to know how well the civil resource owners and operators of equipment and machinery have responded to activation exercises conducted so far. Have there been many complaints of undue interruption or interference to the business of such companies and persons affected?

Sir, as there is a slump in the construction sector at present, would the Ministry consider, instead of buying new equipment needed for its training purposes, whether it would look into buying or leasing the excess heavy equipment owned by contractors? This would serve two purposes. One is that the spare construction equipment which can be used in Mindef or for military training purposes, can now be utilized by leasing such spare equipment that is not being used in the construction sector. Secondly, it will help Mindef to cut down on its expenditure of equipment, in line with its current reduction in its defence budget.

Lastly, on the more efficient deployment of reservists. At present, most male Singaporeans undergo their National Service training after completing their 'O' levels and 'A' levels. Subsequently, many of them proceed for further studies and become specialists or receive extensive training in specialized areas. Often many of these reservists find that although they are quite well qualified in their civilian jobs, they are not properly deployed in their reservist roles.

For example, I was told of a case of a person who has a Ph.D in Orthopaedics. However, as a reservist, he is only a Lance Corporal serving as a motor mechanic. In addition, there are many people who are well qualified as managers or engineers in their civilian professions who are serving only as clerks or technicians as reservists. What I like to suggest to the Ministry is that perhaps they should have a systematic way to comb through the reservists force and institute plans so as to upgrade, or at least redeploy, our reservists to maximize their potential contribution. Otherwise, those reservists who can do more and who are well qualified will feel quite demoralized each time they are called up for reservist training.

This matter may not be critical during peace time but during war time I think each person should be deployed to his best possible usage.

Mr S. Chandra Das (Chong Boon): Thank you, Sir for allowing me to join in the debate at this juncture.

Sir, I notice from the Main Estimates that the Expenditure on Manpower has been reduced to $47 million for FY 86 as compared to $49 million for the FY 85. Whilst it may be necessary to trim costs, especially manpower costs, I am a little concerned whether this will have any significant impact on our defence capability. The importance of our defence need not be stressed further. I only hope that the Ministry will not sacrifice our defence requirements in the name of cost-saving. The Ministry, I believe, must continue to employ the best and our Defence capability should not be compromised. Sir, recruitment of the best brains available for the Armed Forces must continue.

4.15 pm

My second point refers to the question of the role that our Navy plays in our Defence capability. The people in Singapore can see our soldiers in the streets, our Air Force planes in the sky. However, I feel that our seamen are hardly visible. Maybe the Minister would like to outline to this House the role and importance of the Navy in our Defence set-up.

Dr Lau Teik Soon (Serangoon Gardens): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing me to speak at this juncture.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for Defence mentioned during the debate on the Budget Statement that an effective defence system is vital for Singapore and he was concerned about the reduction of the Defence expenditure. The Member for Chong Boon has also expressed that sentiment. I would like to join them in this concern.

Mr Speaker, Sir, international politics is very volatile. At one moment, there may be peace in the region, and in the next moment, there may be warfare. In Southeast Asia we have experienced such a phenomenon, for example, the war in Vietnam ended in 1975 and there was a brief period of peace in the region. Then four years later, Vietnam invaded and occupied Cambodia and plunged the Indo-Chinese region into a state of war. At the same time, the Soviet Union has seized the opportunity to build up its naval presence in Southeast Asian waters and that may constitute a threat to the sailings.

Mr Speaker, Sir, like other ASEAN states, we have to be vigilant at all times and be ready to protect ourselves from external threat and aggression. It is absolutely necessary that we have a viable Defence system, including an effective army, navy and airforce. In this connection, Sir, I notice that the provision for the Ministry of Defence for FY 86 has been reduced by $171.8 million or 7.1% from the FY 85 expenditure. The recurrent expenditure on national defence has been cut by $175.8 million, while the development expenditure has increased by only $4 million. It looks as if the various activities of the Ministry, including General Administration, Armed Forces, and national defence programme have to be curbed.

I am concerned, Sir, that the reduction in the defence expenditure will affect our capability of our defence forces to meet any potential threat and aggression. This is disturbing, particularly at a time when the region is undergoing various conflicts and political uncertainties, some of which have been mentioned by the Member for Kebun Baru. May I ask the view of the Minister of State on this matter?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am confident that all Singaporeans will support the all out effort of the Government to build a strong defence capability for our nation. They recognize that they have to commit themselves to total defence. In this connection, Sir, I would like to ask the Minister of State for his view on the various opinion surveys which have been conducted to ascertain the attitude of the people towards defence matters, for example total defence, open mobilization and defence expenditure. Is he satisfied with the responses? If not, what does he intend to do to inform the public of our defence efforts, our defence requirement, and how can the public be further informed in total defence.

Encik Othman bin Haron Eusofe (Geylang Serai): I would like to just raise one issue, that is, the issue of air safety. Recently, about two weeks ago, there was an RSAF aircraft crash. Could the Minister of State for Defence inform the House of measures which have been implemented to improve air safety? There are various causes of aircraft crashes. I would like just to mention two, namely, pilot error and mechanical defect. Could the Minister of State let us know of measures which are taken to ensure that accidents do not occur for these two reasons?

Encik Abbas Abu Amin (Pasir Panjang): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to speak now.

This year, for the first time, the allocation of expenditure for Defence Ministry has been reduced by about 7% from that of last year. I would like to get the assurance from the Minister that this reduction does not in any way affect the essential needs to maintain the combat readiness and operational requirements of our Armed Forces.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I share the view expressed by the Member for Thomson regarding upgrading of reservists. I observe that a number of our SAF reservists who are holding non-combatant reservist vocations are, in fact, holding senior and management positions which demand greater responsibility from them than their reservist vocation. I would like to ask the Minister what steps are taken to upgrade the vocational competency of our reservists on par with their civilian appointments.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like the Hon. Minister to enlighten the House on the prevailing problems on deferment, and what steps are taken to motivate those reservists who have poor attitudes and who regard their in-camp training as a unnecessary hindrance and interruption to their civilian life.

Sir, most of our youth must know that their duty to the nation does not end on their RODs, that is, after completing their national service full-time training. It is therefore vitally important that all our reservists have positive attitudes, self-motivation to take their military roles seriously, especially that which concerns national defence. They must be totally committed to their military in-camp training and perform well so that they can be a credible force to be reckoned with. Here, Sir, I must urge the Defence Ministry to take steps to cultivate and inculcate the right ideals and moral values in our reservists so that when the big test comes, our young front-line troops will not be found wanting in ideals, motivation, courage, skills and fitness, and to give a good account of themselves.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I have two amendments on this. May I speak first on the first amendment and then move on to the second amendment?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am afraid my amendments are not going to feature on seeking assurances from the Minister about the safety of our country. I am sure there is no immediate danger of that. I am going to ask about the secrecy surrounding a number of things in the Army. So may I move, first of all,

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

Mr Speaker, Sir, from time to time we read about plane crashes. From time to time we read about deaths in the Army. From time to time we read about soldiers having suffered injuries whilst under training. There is very little said about it in the papers. And then we are told that there will be a board of inquiry appointed to inquire into the accident or the calamity that has befallen the soldier. And then we do not hear anything more about it. I have at one time asked the Ministry - I think it was during Question Time - whether the findings of the inquiry boards will be made public, will be revealed. The answer was that this is not done in Britain. I see that when it suits the Government, it follows the British practice. When it does not suit the Government, it tries to deride the British practice.

Mr Speaker, Sir, sometime ago - was it last year, or the year before - there was a man who died at Pasir Laba Camp. I asked questions about it because the family had come to see me. They had been given conflicting reports, and there were also some questions as to the conflicting information given about the time of the death or the accident itself. And I asked whether the proceedings, the findings of the board, will be made known to the family. I do not know whether it has been made known to the family.

I do not know what is the need for secrecy. How is the safety of Singapore jeopardized? How is it detrimental to the security and safety of Singapore if the public are told of the circumstances in which a soldier was injured whilst under training? Or of why a plane crashed? I am sorry I have to keep repeating, or I seem to be repeating, but one of the cornerstones of parliamentary government is accountability, accounting to the public for everything that takes place. So why are these findings of the board of inquiry not made known? We want to know why these planes crashed from time to time, the Skyhawks? Is it because they are obsolete planes, which should not have been bought? Or whether there was something wrong with their maintenance; whether there was any negligence? I shall be talking about the liability of the Government when I come on to the next amendment. But the point is that the public have a right to know.

Parents send their sons to national service for training and they are very willing to do so. They would like to know all the details of any accidents or deaths that occur in the Army. So my question is, will the Government or will the Ministry now disclose or agree that the findings of the Boards of Inquiry into any accident in the Army will be made public? I know of no good reason why it should not be made public. I do not know how that is going to be useful to the enemy. Unless, of course, somebody had been negligent and the Government does not wish it to be brought before the people, the negligence of somebody in the Army or the Ministry. So I would like to know from the Minister or whoever is replying on the reasons why findings of Boards of Inquiry are not made public and my plea is that they should be made public. We should be told the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

My next amendment, Mr Speaker, Sir, is:

'That the sum to be allocated for Head K be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead KA-00 of the Main Estimates.'

This is somewhat allied to my first amendment and that is the question of adequate compensation. I know I have spoken on this before. But nothing has been done and so I consider it necessary to speak again on this matter. There is a provision in the Government Proceedings Act which prevents anybody or the dependants of someone who has died from bringing any action against the Army (the Government), in respect of any injury or death. There is a blanket ban on this. I questioned this sometime ago and I was told that this was also the practice in Britain. Well, I ask again. It does not follow that all British practices are good. I said then that if the victims or the dependants of the deceased victims brought proceedings in court and the Ministry, the Armed Forces, are shown to be negligent, then the compensation that would be awarded would be much more than they would get under the pensions provided for in the Armed Forces Act. I ask, why should the families of soldiers, pilots, sailors, be discriminated against when other ordinary citizens can recover the full amount of damages and compensation in respect of any injuries or death occurring outside the Armed Forces? If anyone gets run over on the road, he can bring an action and recover the full amount of damages. Why should soldiers be put under this disability? I was told, "Imagine, if this was allowed, what would have happened in the Falklands War?" And I said, "For goodness sake, we are not fighting the Falklands War here."

Sir, there was the pilot of a Skyhawk who was killed. What compensation did the family receive? He was a highly educated personal and if they were only limited to the pensions payable under the Armed Forces Act, it would have been about a quarter or a third of what they would have recovered, provided of course it is shown that the death came about through negligence in the maintenance of the plane or some other negligence on the part of the Air Force. My question is: is it not time that we did away with all these obsolete practices? I say they are obsolete and they have no place in a society where the Government is accountable to the people. We should do away with these obsolete practices and disclose to the public all the details of any accidents to soldiers, sailors, pilots or any deaths that occur in the Armed Forces.

We keep talking about the necessity to involve our people in the total defence of this country. Yes, I agree. But you are only going to get total defence, you are only going to get a willing participation by everybody if our citizens know that whatever happens, they will be told the full details, the full story, surrounding anything that goes on in the Armed Forces.

The Chairman: Mr Jeyaretnam, will you please allow the Minister to reply? Have you finished?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Yes, I have, Sir. I am saying it is important that people should be told everything.

The Minister of State for Defence (BG Lee Hsien Loong): Mr Speaker, Sir, may I reply on behalf of my Minister.

I shall deal first with the subjects brought up by the Member for Anson. They are familiar ones. Accordingly, familiar briefs have been prepared. Let me state the arguments briefly.

First, why can Boards of Inquiry not be made public? The reasons have been given before. I will restate them. There are legal difficulties. Witnesses are not protected by rules of evidence. There are problems of security. And in all cases where deaths are involved, there are Coroner's inquiries and there are commissions of inquiries which are separate proceedings, of which a Coroner's inquiry is public, and everything which needs to be known is presented in a judicial court.

The commission of inquiry is not public but it is conducted by an officer outside of MINDEF and, in appropriate cases, families of affected people attend.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Boards of Inquiry, not Commission of Inquiry!

BG Lee Hsien Loong: I was referring to a Committee of Inquiry as well as the Coroner's court.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Boards of inquiry!

BG Lee Hsien Loong: As for the casualty in Pasir Laba Camp, I am not sure which casualty the Member for Anson is referring to. I remember a discussion in this House about a year ago which the Member raised. So far as I recall, the case did not happen in Pasir Laba Camp. It happened in Khatib Camp. I understand that in that case, the Committee of Inquiry has been held and the family of the deceased soldier was present.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Were the findings disclosed?

BG Lee Hsien Loong: The findings have been settled.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Settled!

BG Lee Hsien Loong: And the Coroner's inquiry will in due course take place.

As for the Government Proceedings Act and why the Government cannot be sued, we do not follow British precedent blindly. We follow it when there are good reasons to do so. Why can you not sue the State in case a serviceman dies in training or in action? The reason as given by the British is that in this case, the State is fundamentally different from a private citizen, and therefore cannot be treated on the same standing. I will quote here from a submission in the House of Lords in 1947, when the Crown Proceedings Bill was introduced in Britain and it applies to us.

'The private citizen does not have the same kind of responsibility as the Crown for protecting the public. He does not have the care of public safety. He does not have the defence of the Realm to consider. In these matters, the functions of the Crown involve duties and responsibilities which no subject is required to undertake and these distinctions are inevitably, necessarily and properly reflected by various provisions in the Bill.' In other words, that is the reason why you cannot sue the Government under such cases. And to be able to sue the Government under such cases would be destructive to the morale, discipline and efficiency of the service. We concur with these views and we have adopted the same practice.

Mr Jeyaretnam: And cover up evidence.

BG Lee Hsien Loong: An alternative could be to sue an individual instead of the Crown under such circumstances, namely, the officer involved who gave the order. However, this is also not allowed, for a specific reason, namely, that if we propose to do so, any officer or soldier who is making an operational decision, is placed in a difficult position. And in training you make decisions which are just the same as operational ones. You have to have the absolute confidence that you can make the judgment correctly. You cannot afford always to have at the back of your mind the thought that, "If I do it wrong, will I be sued? Will the Government not back me? Should I have to appear in court?" That is the reason why the law stands as it is.

Let me move on to the other issues raised by the other Members. The Member for Pasir Panjang and also the Member for Serangoon Gardens have asked about the Defence budget, and whether we have enough money to spend under these reduced circumstances. They have pointed out that the environment remains uncertain and that in a recession our needs for national security do not go down. They are absolutely correct. When an economy does poorly, the first temptation always is to cut defence expenditure, because it is large and the returns are not obvious. It is a temptation which must be resisted, because if we do not spend the money on Defence, then everything else will be put into jeopardy. And it will be in vain that you spend money on investments, on promoting industries, on salaries, whatever. That is the reason why we have maintained the Defence budget at 6% of the GDP even this year. It is a smaller estimated GDP, but the share remains. 4.45 pm

With a reduced budget like this, we must make every dollar count. That is the Ministry's responsibility, the SAF's responsibility. And the priority must always be the operational readiness of the troops, not frills. We must control our operational costs tightly, our manpower costs tightly. In other words, before a person drives a tank, or a battalion of tanks, ten miles down the road for an exercise, he must ask himself, "How much is this going to cost? Wear and tear, maintenance, fuel, time, ammunition. Do I get value for the money which I am spending? Is it worth doing? Or can I train my men better in some other ways?"

In order to focus this economy drive, MINDEF is establishing an Economy Drive Committee. We will be running a cost reduction campaign to drive home the message to everybody, the Colonels, the Majors, the Corporals, and the Privates, that it is their responsibility to make sure that every dollar counts. From the point of view of each individual's contribution, we are talking about productivity in their daily effort. In each thing they do, there should be what we call PRIDE - in productivity in daily effort.

From the overall view of the organization, we are talking about the competence of the SAF as one fighting force, making sure that we spend the money in the right areas, making sure that we buy the correct equipment, and having bought the equipment, to maintain it, to see that it is in running order, to have the training to use it properly, to decline the doctrines to employ them to the greatest effect, and to have the intelligence to apply the devastating blow in war which will make our present investments pay off.

So the software must be in place as well as the hardware. The software does not cost as much money as the hardware, but it is much more difficult to do. We will be concentrating especially on this in the years to come.

The Member for Chong Boon asked about the Navy. This is an instance of making the right investment. The SAF is one fighting force. It is not three services, each one competing for a share of the budget, each one saying, "I must have my fair share of the cake so that if you have aeroplanes, I must have ships. If he has tanks, I must have missiles." We do not operate such a system. Our force build-up must meet our operational needs. That means you must have a specific reason why you need that unit, that weapon, that group. Then you build them up to meet that function.

The needs for the Air Force and for the Army are clear and obvious. You must have an army because you must be able to safeguard the integrity of the Republic of Singapore, the main island and our outlying islands. You must have an Air Force because you cannot afford to have hostile aeroplanes flying overhead of Singapore, dropping bombs on our population, in our housing estates. If we think one accident in one hotel is bad, to allow hostile aeroplanes to fly at liberty overhead and cause many such disasters simultaneously, is unthinkable.

The Navy has two specific roles. The seaward defence of the Republic, that means making sure that any opponent who comes by sea will be met. Secondly, to maintain our sea lines of communications. We have spoken of how our exports are 1(r) times our GDP, how our trade is three times our GDP. All these travel by sea, in and out, also by air, but mostly by sea. If the sea lanes are not safeguarded, it is possible for an opponent who wishes us harm to choke us off without moving any soldiers, without using any aeroplanes. He can just cut off our trade, stifle our life line, and rub out. It is a fate which we cannot expose ourselves to. It is a role which must be conducted by the Navy in conjunction with the other Services, particularly the Air Force, especially aeroplanes such as the Hawkeye, which will provide surveillance and give an overall picture of the sea lanes; and also Fighter cover, because Fighters are effective platforms to be used against ships. Nevertheless there is a role for ships. The Navy's mission is a critical one. They need some ships to do it. We have six MGBs armed with Gabriel missiles. We are upgrading the missiles to Harpoons. You have seen it reported in the newspapers. It gives a longer range, better capability. At the same time, we are building six more MGBs to increase the strength of the Navy to conduct this mission. We believe this is a reasonable size for the Force, given the role which it has. We do not build armadas and destroyers and aircraft carriers for the thrill of seeing them sail past us.

The Member for Geylang Serai asked us about air safety. It is a problem which preoccupies us. We have had a bad year. We have had a series of aeroplane crashes. In August last year I informed the House that our Skyhawks, the A-4s, were temporarily grounded because we were investigating the causes for a series of crashes. We think we have identified the cause. There was a specific problem with the engines, which are old, a specific problem that is now being rectified. It will take some time to do so. In the meanwhile we cannot completely stop flying. Especially cleared aircraft, which we believe to be safe, are allowed to fly. Unfortunately, despite the precautions taken, in March this year another Skyhawk crashed, for reasons so far unclear, but apparently unrelated to the engine. MINDEF has to make every effort to solve the problem, ensure safety, and at the same time allow the Air Force to fly, and to fly safely. This is being done, and as much of the issue as it is in the public interest to make public, is being disclosed.

The Member for Thomson asked about open mobilization. We have had two exercises, the first one in July, with 98% response. Perhaps it was a little easy, because we gave the exercise full publicity for weeks on end, and the date was known. Only the reservists did not know who were the only ones to be called up. As time goes on, we make it harder. The second exercise in November also collected a good response, more than 96%. There was limited publicity, but still the date was known. We are now conducting a third exercise. We are getting more ambitious. A third exercise will be conducted in the first half of April this year, in other words, in a few weeks. This time there will be no high key publicity, and no actual date will be announced. All that the public is being told is that it will take place sometime in the first half of April. It will involve Air Force and Navy units as well as Army units, also for the first time. Later on we will progress further: exercises with no notice whatsoever. These will be exercises in which you come back and be equipped with uniforms, weapons, vehicles, exercises in which you go out, deploy the troops and conduct live firing practices. There will be exercises to see whether you really can marshall your soldiers, not just bring them back but bring them back to do something. We must reach a stage where such open mobilization exercises are a routine aspect of reservist training and readiness. It must be a routine not only for the reservists but for the people of Singapore.

I was very cheered last year when I attended to a National Day Observance Ceremony at SBS. After the ceremony I was talking to one of the bus drivers. I asked him whether he participated in the open mobilization. He said, "No, my unit was not called." And he whispered to me, "Its code word is Towering Eagle." I said, "What?" He whispered to me again. So it had registered with him, and I am sure with his girl friend and with his family, that there was a code word. This is a serious matter - he remembers it and if he sees it flashed on the cinema screen, he will react straightaway. So that is where we are driving at.

Civil resources are easier. Mobilizing people is much harder than mobilizing vehicles. We had our first exercise last weekend. You have seen the report, 97% of the vehicles reported in time. No major problems. We will have six more exercises this year. A major concern of Members, when the Requisition of Resources Bill was discussed in the House, was compensation, and whether owners would be paid quickly. Members will be happy to know that, in the case of the first exercise, we expect the total compensation, which comes to about $20,000, to be paid by next week. In other words, within a fortnight. Eventually, this too will move to no-notice exercises and open civil resource mobilization exercises. There will be code words for vehicles, just as we have code words for units.

Total Defence, raised by the Member for Kebun Baru. I shall respond to his remarks concerning the economy later on in the debate. Today, let me just talk about the military and operational part of Total Defence. We have progressed from telling the public what Total Defence is about, to getting the public to think about what it means, and to go beyond, to urge the public to participate in Total Defence exercises, to learn and to gain confidence about it. We have some sense of progress.

The Member for Serangoon Gardens asked whether we have opinion poll surveys. Well, one which we recently conducted showed that 88% of the population understood that in Total Defence everybody played a part, not just the soldiers. But when it came to the next step, knowing that your participating is all right, but what do you specifically do? Fewer knew. Only about one-third of the population were confident of their specific role in Total Defence. So we have to do something about it. The way we are doing it is to get the population directly involved, get more Ministries involved. Home Affairs for Civil Defence, MTI for Economic Defence, Community Development for Social Defence, and Communications and Information for Psychological Defence. We have had Civil Defence exercises and operations. We have had Civil Resource mobilization exercises. We have Food Distribution and Rationing exercises. Last year, in two constituencies we practised giving out ration coupons and had the ration coupons redeemed for rice and sugar. There are other components as well. For example, fuel plans. How do you cook during war? There may not be enough LPG to last long. In any case, LPG cylinders are dangerous to have in buildings in war, because they can explode. There will not be town gas. We can have electricity, but the electricity can be cut off. So we may be reduced to cooking with kerosene stoves. In Singapore, how many housewives still know how to use kerosene stoves? I think very few, but if we have to do it, then we must all learn and we must all learn, in peace time. We will move on to these areas step by step.

The Member for Chong Boon talked about recruitment, and exhorted MINDEF not to choke off our recruitment because of our manpower budget. We have to be tight on our manpower budget because we cannot expand indefinitely. But at the same time MINDEF has a special reason to continue to recruit for the next few years. MINDEF is in several respects different from the other Ministries. First, our establishments are very far from filled. This affects our operational readiness. If you are short of a clerk and do not have her for five years, well, perhaps you can delete the establishment and still make-do. If you are short of a first-class marksman trainer, and do not have him for five years, you may delete him from the establishment but then your Armed Forces will never have trained marksmen. That is a price which cannot be paid. That is the first way we are different. Secondly, we have contract service people. In other words, we recruit people for a fixed term, they serve and when the contract is over, some leave. Therefore, our turnover is high. Therefore, it is necessary for us to recruit to maintain our strength. 5.00 pm

Thirdly, we need continually to upgrade the quality of our manpower. Each year we have better and better cohorts coming out from our education system, and we must get a fair share. And finally, in the Army, you must recruit in a recession because that is when you can get the best men and then you hold them through a boom.

Mr Speaker, Sir, that would respond to most of the points raised by Members.

Mr Lim Boon Heng: I beg to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $2,079,200,000 for Head K ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates.

The sum of $160,000,000 for Head K ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. 5.00 pm

Head T -

Mr Chew Heng Ching (Kaki Bukit): Sir, I beg to move,

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

Sir, every year, in the Budget debate, the Ministry of National Development is the most popular one. I have no doubt that it will again be so this year, going by the number of amendments tabled by various Members in the House. For this reason, Sir, I shall touch only briefly on the cost of HDB flats and some policy matters regarding lift vandalism and water supply in housing estates.

Sir, it is a common sight in new HDB estates to see plenty of new and unused HDB-supplied interior timber doors being discarded at garbage dumps. Most flat owners consider the HDB doors to be of inferior quality. In most cases, flat owners replace them with new ones when they renovate their homes. Most owners do not mind paying a little bit more to get good-quality doors of their choice. There is also the kitchen and bathroom tiles and flooring which are all done up by the HDB. Some flat owners do not like the quality or the colour of the tiles but they have to put up with these tiles for three years as HDB presently disallows them to hack the tiles in order to avoid wastage of materials. Then there are the wash-basins and other hardware. They too have been discarded as garbage. Sir, though the prices of HDB flats are within affordable range to Singaporeans, the HDB should not be contented. The Board should review its policy on construction of new flats to see how to reduce further wastage of materials and pass on whatever savings to the flat owners in the form of lower prices of flats.

Sir, on lift vandalism, every year the HDB spends a large sum of money replacing and repairing lifts in many housing estates. Lift vandalism is indeed a serious problem. It appears that no amount of corrective action would improve the situation. After the HDB has repaired or changed a lift, the culprits strike again. Once again we see urine on the floor, chewing gum stuck on to lift buttons and graffiti on the wall. In fact, Sir, it is said that the best time to take the lift is early in the morning on our way to work or to the market immediately after the HDB cleaner has finished her work. Those anti-social acts of vandalism not only inconvenience residents but frequently lead to lift breakdowns. Sir, some 20 years ago I remember as a resident in an HDB estate the HDB installed lift doors with glass windows. More recently, there were reports that HDB was trying out a closed- circuit TV system in lifts. How successful has this scheme been? What are HDB's plans to tackle lift vandalism in housing estates? Is mounting a national campaign against lift vandalism enough?

Next, Sir, I would like to touch on water supply in housing estates. We must first thank the HDB for taking action to change the downfeed water pipes in older HDB blocks to solve the problem of rusty tap water. I am sure many residents in Singapore are very grateful to them. For once, they are seeing and drinking clear water after having lived on rusty water in the last two to three years. But the problem of rusty water has not been entirely resolved. HDB changed only the downfeed external pipes for those flats above the fifth floor. Residents who live on the lower floors continue to receive rusty tap water. I learn that the PUB is responsible for water supply to the lower floors but according to the PUB they have changed most of the main pipes and their responsibility stops at the ground floor. Sir, may I ask the Minister: who is responsible for replacing the pipes that supply water from the ground floor to each individual flat on the fifth floor, fourth floor, the third and second floor? Is it the PUB or is it the HDB? Residents have accepted the fact that replacing any water pipes inside their home will be their responsibility and many have indeed changed their internal pipes on their own. May I ask the HDB and the PUB to look into this matter seriously and come out with a satisfactory solution to replace these external pipes with a minimum of inconvenience to residents.

Finally, Sir, I would like to raise another matter related to water supply. When one lives on an upper floor of an HDB block, the water pressure is naturally low. The HDB has therefore recently embarked on a programme to instal booster pumps to increase water pressure on the upper floors. However, one setback of the system is that the pump is only activated during certain hours of the day. I think it is from 6.00 to 7.00 in the morning, 10.00 to 11.00 in the late morning and 5.00 to 7.00 in the evening. On my rounds of visit to residents, many of them complained that these hours are not enough. May I suggest that the HDB study the water usage habits of the residents more closely and extend the hours of activation of these booster pumps. Alternatively, the HDB should consider installing some sort of booster pump device that self-activates, without the need to place any restriction on the hours of operation of these pumps.

The Chairman: The Member for Kaki Bukit seems to be ranging from Political Appointments all the way down to HDB. Shall we throw the whole subject open?

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: Yes, I think so.

Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam (Fengshan): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in the debate.

Sir, the Ministry of National Development, through the HDB, has provided housing for more than 80% of our population. For this, the Ministry should be congratulated. Sir, today I would like to focus on the housing needs of two groups of people. One, the young adult couples, ie, those just starting their families and, two, the seniors or the aged.

The young couples. Sir, in the future, the HDB will build more of the larger models of flats, ie, mainly the 4-room and 5-room. This policy is correct in that the demand is for this category of flats now. However, I would still urge the Ministry to consider building sufficient smaller units, ie, the 2-room and 3-room for rental to these young couples. Today, there are no new 3-room flats available for rental. What is the problem here, Sir? From our meet-the-people sessions, we know that many of these people cannot afford to buy the flat as they have just started working. Many of these young couples like to live on their own.

Sir, from a sociological point of view, it may not be a bad idea that these couples can start their own home. Even parents today have expressed the wish for their children to live on their own after marriage. They would then learn the problems of managing their own homes, home economics, to budget for themselves and to look after their daily needs - food, toilet paper, soap, PUB and telephone bills. The parents' support will thus not be taken for granted.

Will this erode filial piety? My answer is not necessarily so. It is good that the young couple have the privacy of their own home to build a strong foundation for their nuclear family in the future. At the same time, the umbilical cord to parents need to be severed so that they can assume their own responsibilities as head of their own households. It would be good for the young couple to live apart from their parents for a while, continue to visit their parents regularly and find a new equilibrium in their relationship with their parents. Later, when they have been better established, both financially and emotionally, they can then decide, both parents and children, whether they would like to buy a bigger flat to accommodate the extended family or a smaller flat for the nuclear family.

The problems of the seniors or the aged. The problem of housing for seniors, Sir, is more complex. The Report on the Aged by the Ministry of Health in 1984 has highlighted this problem. While filial piety and the children's responsibility for their parents must not be relinquished to the State, nonetheless, financial security after retirement and suitable accommodation for seniors need looking into. As for financial security after retirement, the Report has stated that the amount required for "subsistence living at current prices is $200 per month [that is, in 1984]." It also makes provision for an annual increase of 5% per annum to allow for inflation. To provide for this, the Report has suggested an annuity scheme. Persons who do not have sufficient CPF balances and/or personal savings to purchase an annuity scheme will, of course, need additional assistance. One possible source of help, states the Report, is for HDB to give elderly HDB flat owners who do not have children with them the option to (1) purchase an annuity from or through HDB, the consideration for the annuity being the reversionary interest in the flat, or (2) exchange their existing flats for smaller flats and purchase an annuity from or through HDB financed by the difference in prices of the two flats.

Sir, we are fortunate in Singapore in that we have the lead time to look into these problems. I would like the Minister to comment on his Ministry's opinion of this Report and also to tell the House the plans of his Ministry in regard to the care of the aged in respect of housing. My feeling, Sir, is that in the years ahead, a good proportion may opt for smaller flats. If this is the case, then the housing needs of the aged must be very carefully planned. On the one hand, we must not isolate them from society while on the other hand, common amenities, for example, social and recreational facilities, medical rehabilitation or day-care facilities should be centrally located. This is a complex and challenging area for our town planners.

I have every faith that, as with the problems of the past, the Ministry of National Development will successfully tackle these problems. It would be good if we could integrate the common needs for smaller housing units of the young adult couples and the aged to mutual benefit. With careful planning, family units can still be living in close proximity, for example, as is being done with joint balloting for families.

Sir, I would like to join my colleagues in thanking the Minister for the quick response to the problem of rusty water. I still have to ask him the question about water tanks. I understand that they are looking into concrete water tanks and I have expressed my fear that, instead of yellow water, we will in future get algae-polluted water, green water. Will the Minister please comment?

Dr Tan Cheng Bock (Ayer Rajah): Sir, I move this amendment to thank the Minister for allowing free parking on Sundays and public holidays in Ayer Rajah. Almost four months have passed and the scheme has worked very well. Relatives and friends and my constituents are very happy about this scheme. 5.15 pm

There was the initial fear that the scheme would be abused but this did not happen. My constituents helped to police the scheme by advising drivers who parked wrongly not to do so, and this method of persuasion apparently paid off. We do have our fair share of abuses but this did not amount to more than what had taken place before the scheme.

I believe that Singaporeans are becoming more aware of the importance of social discipline. I hope the Minister would, therefore, like to consider extending this scheme to the rest of Singapore if this HDB pilot scheme proves successful. My reason for requesting this is to encourage more social interaction amongst our people. It is not to save Singaporeans a few cents in parking fees. If the Ministry is worried about abuse, then extending the scheme to all estates will overcome this fear. In fact, I was initially apprehensive when HDB allowed free parking only in my constituency because, by doing so, HDB has imposed upon my constituency the potential danger of abuse by residents of neighbouring constituencies. Fortunately, through the help of the HDB Area Office and my constituents, we managed to overcome this potential problem. We persuaded people not to abuse the privilege and advised residents that free parking is not tantamount to disorderly parking. I would, therefore, ask HDB to allow free parking on Sundays and public holidays throughout the island.

Mr Speaker, Sir, rubbish bin centres in HDB estates cost a lot of money. I think it is in the region of $50,000 to $100,000, depending on its size and the time it takes to built. It is getting bigger because rubbish trucks are getting bigger. It is unsightly, smelly and, especially around markets, it is an eye-sore. Then there are rubbish chutes at HDB blocks, where collections are still done manually. At each collection there is a lot of spillage. Surely there must be a better and cleaner way of rubbish disposal.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is high time we looked into the possibility of mechanizing our refuse collection. I will ask the Clerk of Parliament to distribute some photostat pictures of what I intend to tell this House about this rubbish. [Copies of pictures distributed to hon. Members.] Yes, I see the Minister has got a copy of these photostat pictures. Mr Speaker, if you look at photograph A and compare it with photograph B, you will notice a remarkable difference. Photograph A shows what is being done now, and photograph B illustrates how it can be done in a very neat and tidy manner. Photograph C shows one of the ways in which collection of rubbish can be done in a proper way. You will notice that one method is clean and tidy while the other is unhygienic and a disgrace. I know this issue concerns also the Ministry of the Environment. But as HDB has allowed the Ministry of the Environment to handle this rubbish collection, surely HDB can advise MOE to upgrade the method of refuse collection. This is in line with our policy of mechanization. And if MOE is not able to do this because of cost or for other reasons, then HDB should allow someone else to do it, of course with no additional cost to the flat dwellers.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if the Minister would allow refuse collection to be carried out in the way some shopping centres and condominiums are doing, Ayer Rajah is prepared to give it a try for six months. And if this is a success, then these dirty bin centres will be a thing of the past. And I shall come back to this House to request the Minister to close down some of these bin centres and convert them into RC Centres, Senior Citizens' Centres and community halls. I hope the Minister will allow me this chance to compare the cleaniness of the estate operated by the Ministry of the Environment and by the method to be adopted in Ayer Rajah.

Mr Tan Soo Khoon (Alexandra): Sir, there is not much time left and I think the Minister will be glad to know also that I do not have my usual list of complaints about the HDB this year.

Sir, in August 1982 the House amended the Buildings and Common Property (Maintenance and Management) Act. The main thrust of the amendment was to ensure that buildings which had units to be sold to different purchasers and which were intended for strata subdivision at a later date would be properly maintained by the developers from the time the temporary occupation licence (TOL) was issued. The amendment to the Act at that time did not provide for buildings where the TOL had already been issued prior to the amendment. I know that there are many buildings in Singapore where tem- porary occupation licences have been issued for many, many years and where strata titles are to be given at some future date. Such buildings do not fall under the ambit of this Act. So when the amendment was moved in the House in 1982, I asked the Minister at that time what steps could be taken to ensure that these buildings, very old buildings, still under TOL, fall within the ambit of the Act. We are all aware that there are a lot of buildings in Singapore which are very poorly maintained, and we do not like to see these old buildings degenerate into slums. Could the Minister advise what steps can be taken to ensure that these buildings are properly maintained?

Sir, in the light of the recent hotel tragedy last weekend, it is timely for us to remind ourselves that maintenance of buildings now takes on a new significance. What is needed now is closer and tighter supervision of maintenance of the buildings. I understand that this job is undertaken by the Buildings Maintenance Unit in the Ministry of National Development. I would like to appeal to the Minister that this particular unit or department should step up its efforts to ensure that all buildings in Singapore are properly maintained.

Encik Othman bin Haron Eusofe: Mr Speaker, Sir, I have three amendments but I would like to speak on the HDB first.

The Chairman: You have five minutes to do whatever you want.

Encik Othman bin Haron Eusofe: Thank you, Sir. During the current recession, many small businessmen are trying to do their best to reduce the cost of their business operations. Some of them are residents of HDB flats and they would like to operate their business in their flats. Would the HDB consider allowing residents to use their flats for smallscale business, and to allow them to instal telex machines, facsimile receivers to facilitate them in their business?

I have another question on the HDB. Here I would like to ask the Minister to provide information on the various schemes that the HDB has to help lower-income families to purchase flats. One of my constituents recently wrote to me regarding the plight of his uncle who is currently living in a 2-room rental flat. His uncle wants to purchase a 3-room flat which is being offered for sale at a sum of $28,600. According to him, his uncle can only obtain a loan of 80% of the sale price from the HDB and he has to pay the balance of 20% either in cash or from CPF savings. He cannot afford to do this as he is unemployed. Although his children are working, they do not have this sum of money in their CPF. So he is appealing to the HDB to provide him the full loan of $28,600. Could the Minister advise whether the HDB could assist his uncle?

I would like also, since there is some time left, to talk about the property sector which is now facing serious problems. It will take some time for the property glut to be absorbed. Now you can say that one of the important causes of this present slum in the property sector is the lack of timely and accurate statistics on real estate as well as the construction sector. Perhaps the Minister for National Development would enlighten the House on the steps the Ministry has to rectify this situation. Will the Ministry be able to provide more timely and more accurate statistics on the property sector?

Now on another matter. The Economic Committee in its recent Report has recommended that we should target for a 50% female participation rate in the workforce by 1995. To be able to do this, we must create an environment where mothers who want to work will be able to do so. I think mothers with young children would not be inclined to work unless they are confident that their young children and infants can be well looked after while they are out at work. They could be encouraged to join the workforce if there are creches and nurseries conveniently located near their homes. I would like to ask the Minister whether he will ask the Development and Building Control Division to allow creches and nurseries to be set up in private homes. I have completed what I want to say, Sir.

The Chairman: There are 20 seconds left. I think we had better call it a day.

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

The Minister for National Development (Mr Teh Cheang Wan): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply has made progress on the Main and Development Estimates for the financial year 1st April, 1986 to 31st March, 1987 and ask leave to sit again tomorrow.

Mr Speaker: So be it.