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

Order read for resumed consideration in Committee of Supply [4th Allotted Day].

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

12.01 pm

Head I -

Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam (Fengshan): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

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

Sir, even before we came to the discussion on Head I, there has been much discussion on the issue of road tax, car park pricing and bus fares in this House during this Session of Parliament. Sir, the Ministry of Communications in the last year has been busy with the problem of taxis. Sir, today I would like to focus on the future plans regarding public transport, and land transport, in particular.

The MRTC must be congratulated on its ability to run ahead of its work schedule. The first MRT line from Yio Chu Kang to Clementi is scheduled to begin service in 1988. It is good for the public to know the policy regarding integration of our land transport services and the policy regarding fare structure. For example, how will our bus services fit into the travel pattern when the MRT comes on- line? We know that buses are supposed to carry commuters to the MRT stations. Will this result in a higher cost of travel? We already know that the cost of commuting on buses is not cheap. Will there be a reduction in the services provided by buses? Sir, it would go a long way to allay public fears if public transport costs are pegged to some costs; examples are SBS to petrol, MRT to PUB rates, manpower costs, etc, so that if fares are adjusted, the reasons will be obvious to the public.

Sir, I would like to quote from an article entitled "Transport Coordination and Integration in West Germany" from the October 1985 issue of the Journal of Highways and Transportation. The article states, I quote:

'The need to change transport mode in the course of a journey has been shown to place a penalty on a trip. The need to interchange, to buy more than one ticket, the lack of a coordinated time-table and the distance between stops all influence the traveller's perception of interchange.

The objective of transport coordination and integration is to provide the traveller with the most efficient mode of travel, and the operator the most cost-effective provision of transport.'

Sir, we have heard of through-ticketing being discussed here in Singapore, ie, using the same ticket one can travel from home by bus to the MRT station and use the same ticket for a trip on the train. What is the progress of this study? Is it feasible? Will through-ticketing be implemented in Singapore? This has been successfully implemented in West Germany and I hope that we will also succeed in this. What then will the final cost of travel from point A to point B be when the MRT comes on-line? Same or more? Of course, we do not expect less.

Sir, many members of the public have invested in SBS shares with their CPF savings. The Government has invested and will put in billions of dollars into the MRT. The MRTC Act imposes a duty upon the Corporation to earn sufficient revenues from fares and other sources to cover operating costs, including provision for renewal. I understand that the major source of revenue will be fares and that there is no other substantial source of revenue.

Sir, the viability of both the bus service and the MRTC is important. We cannot afford to see the failure of either, as these two systems should be complementary. As the MRTC is a statutory board and the SBS is a public-listed company, whether we like it or not, each will have its own interest to look after, ie, to show healthy balance sheets. While these groups are sorting it out, who will represent the interest of the commuter? My fear, Sir, is that in the end the commuter will be short-changed. In short, while the MRTC and SBS each ensures its own viability, the cost to the commuter will go up. Even worse, in addition to paying more, the commuter will also be inconvenienced.

In the long term, to ensure that the best interest of the commuter is served, perhaps the Minister should seriously consider the integration or close coordination of these two transport bodies and to ensure that the commuter is represented in the supervisory authority or board. One or more representatives from the NTUC will serve this purpose.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the study I have quoted from has this to say of the problem of fares and integration:

'A rational fare policy should be a policy based on the origin and destination of the trip rather than on the modes or routes followed. Successful integration and transport coordination in West Germany has resulted in a fare system of greatest benefit to interchange passengers who were previously penalized, both by inconvenience of interchange and by the need to pay an additional fare.' The success of their system is shown by the fact that in spite of a 6% increase in car ownership over the last decade, public transport ridership has increased annually.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would also like to ask the Minister as to his plans for taxis when the MRT comes on-line. Will travelling by taxi be made more expensive? Will the demand for taxis be affected by the MRT? What will be the fate of the private car owners? Will park and ride schemes be introduced? Will road taxes be further increased? Sir, while we wait with great expectations for the first train service coming on-line on the MRT tracks, there are grey clouds of uncertainty in the minds of the public that needs to be clarified. I look forward to the clarification from the Minister.

Before I close, Sir, I would like the Minister to convey to the brave and civic-minded staff of the MRTC, who risked their lives to help in the rescue work of the Serangoon Road disaster, our nation's gratitude and admiration. Their exemplary conduct will long be fondly remembered in Singapore and internationally.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Dr Ow Chin Hock (Leng Kee): ( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, last year when Parliament was debating on this Head, the Minister for Communication was in a fix with questions of increase of taxi fare and diesel tax. Today, public attention is focussed on bus transportation, bus fares and safety of passengers. The Senior Parliamentary Secretary has already replied to matters of safety. Now I would like to touch on the question of bus fares. Here, I would like to quote two reports on 11th March from Lianhe Zaobao: the first was entitled "Retail prices of petrol and diesel have reduced by a margin of from 16.6% to 22.9%". But on the same page there was a second report of the reply by the Minister, in answer to the Member for Bo Wen, that bus fares could not be reduced. There were two points in the Minister's reply. One is reduction of labour cost and lower price of diesel are not expected to be a long term one. The second point is if bus fares were reduced by 5 cents per passenger trip, then there would be a total loss of $35 million to the bus company.

Here I would like to raise a few questions; first the basic question of cost structure. In 1982 the tota expenditure of SBS was about $300 million. The labour cost was half of it, 50%. If labour cost was reduced due to CPF rate cut, there would be a saving of 12% which would mean a saving of at least $18 million. I would like to ask the Minister for Communications whether he has the latest figures relating to labour cost and fuel cost.

Another point is about what the Minister has mentioned that the savings from this cost reduction should be ploughed back for modernization and raising of productivity and quality and standard of service, to which we all agree. Everybody will agree on this. Here I would like to suggest that, since everybody is concerned about the safety of bus passengers, perhaps we should use the cost savings to improve safety measures or to more speedily implement any new safety measures.

Next is about MRTC. The Member for Fengshan has mentione the good deeds of the engineers and other personnel concerned when they all came out to help rescue the victims in the collapse of the hotel in Serangoon Road. Their efforts are very praiseworthy and heart-moving. So I would not like to criticize on the few minor faults of the MRTC now.

I have another comment here, however, that many taxi drivers are concerned about the construction of MRT. They are very uneasy and insecure. I feel that MRTC should explain clearly to taxi drivers that when MRT is in operation, what will be the rate of taxis and what will be its effects on taxi drivers' income. If we do not explain to taxi drivers and others affected by this new mode of transport, they may have certain apprehension and misgivings. For example, when MRT construction work first started, there were rumours that the construction of MRT had adversely affected our "fengshui" namely, geomancy, as it had disturbed the dragon lying beneath and therefore caused the economic recession in Singapore in 1985. Of course, it is nonsense. But such rumours are believed by some workers and taxi drivers. We should not ignore public opinions of taxi drivers and other grassroots people. As happened last year when there was an increase in diesel tax and taxi fare, some taxi drivers began a boycott of certain drinks whose manufacturer happens to have the same surname as the Minister's. (Mr Speaker, Sir, I notice that your surname is also "Yeoh", but luckily you are not in business, otherwise your business will also be affected.) Therefore, I hope the Ministry or the MRTC will explain to the taxi drivers what effects the MRT line will have on taxis and what role they will play when the MRT is in operation.

Mr Tan Soo Khoon (Alexandra): Mr Speaker, Sir, since its opening a few years ago, the Changi International Airport has gained an international reputation. Millions of air travellers pass through it annually and it is ranked one of the best airports in the world. Changi Airport is also well known as a top-class shopping and eating centre, providing a wide range of good quality products at very competitive prices for travellers and even for Singaporeans. With a market of about 10 million passengers passing through the Airport annually, having a shop space concessionaire at Changi International Airport has indeed become a prized possession for many of our businessmen. One of the most prized concessionaires at any international airport, and Changi Airport is no exception, is the concessionaire that entitles the person holding it to sell liquor, cigarettes and tobacco. It is a prized possession because these items are sold duty free, and they rank as some of the most purchased items in airports anywhere in the world.

Sir, when Changi Airport was first opened, the concessionaire for duty free liquor, cigarettes and tobacco went to the Singapore Airlines Duty Free Emporium, which is a subsidiary of our national airline, Singapore Airlines. Last year, when tenders for a new three-year lease were opened, the two duty free shop concessions at Changi Airport were awarded to a Hong Kong company.

Sir, I have nothing against the tender system when the awards go to the highest bidder, in this case probably the one who has offered the most attractive conditions to the Civil Aviation Authority. In this case, the company which subsequently won the tender offered the following to the Civil Aviation Authority: 32% of gross sales on liquor products, 22.1% of gross sales on cigarettes and tobacco products, with a minimum guarantee of $37.3 million a year to the CAA.

The Singapore Airlines Duty Free Emporium (SADE) offered 27% of gross sales on liquor products, 22% of gross sales on cigarettes and tobacco products, with a minimum guarantee of $30 million in its first year, $31 million in the second year, $32 million in the third year.

Sir, the difference in revenue for the CAA between giving the award to the Hong Kong company and to SADE (if it had been given) would have been a few million dollars. Sir, this might be a big sum, but if you compare it to the total turnover, the difference is not really big. I feel that here is a case where some discretion ought to have been exercised by the Civil Aviation Authority because of the following:

First, it is normal in most international airports to give the concessionaire for such products to the national airline. Instead, it was given to a foreign company where really there is no transfer of technology of any kind. This is merely retail business, and I would not even make any complaint if it had gone to some local company other than SADE.

Secondly, the items are sold duty free. So what it means is that the Government and the country do not get any revenue normally derived from the sales of such products not within the Airport. And the Singapore Airlines company would have earned money from all the foreign exchange and from all the tourists who pass through Changi Airport, and that, as I said earlier, is no small amount. As it now happens, all the money that is earned goes to a foreign company and, quite obviously, it is taken out of the country.

Thirdly, Sir, in terms of publicity value, the effects would have been tremendous if Singapore Airlines or its subsidiary had got the award. I believe that we would have got untold amount of free publicity for Singapore by the mere fact of travellers going round the world with the shopping bags which SIA normally issue.

It appears that, for a few dollars more, the Civil Aviation Authority has failed to look after our own national interest in this respect and also that of our own national airlines. I think it is a slap in the face on our national pride, awarding a prized concessionaire and a highly valued one at that, to a foreign company and depriving our- selves of all the benefits that would have accrued to Singapore. That, Sir, is like selling away your soul to the devil for a few extra bucks.

Sir, when the next round of tenders are put up, I hope the Ministry will take into consideration all these factors which I have stated. It is not just a question of a few dollars and cents more but also one of dollars and good sense.

Encik Abbas Abu Amin (Pasir Panjang): ( In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to speak a bit on the Singapore Broadcasting Corporation (SBC).

Firstly, I say kudos should be given to SBC for its round-the-clock coverage of the Hotel New World disaster. SBC's regular updating of events reflected its responsibile attitude in fulfilling its fundamental objective, that of serving the general public. We know of the achievements of SBC. However, there is still room for improvement. This is especially so in two major areas. One area is SBC's sports coverage and the other is the scheduling and quality of Malay TV programmes.

I admit that the SBC's screening of certain sports programmes sometimes does not accurately coincide with the general public's interest. The SBC coverage of the 1985 SEA Games in Bangkok was less than satisfactory. The nightly reports were not of the day's events but those of the previous day's. Many Singaporeans had to switch to other channels to receive the latest results. Also, even though our national team reached the finals of the soccer event, there was no live telecast. Again, viewers had to switch to other channels.

I would like to urge SBC to review the need to give more coverage on popular sports activities that involve national teams' participation in important regional or international games such as the Thomas Cup series, the Malaysia Cup Final or SEA Games events.

Next, I would like to speak on the SBC Malay programmes. First, the 7.30 pm time slot for the Malay News is not appropriate as it clashes with the Maghrib, the prayer time for Muslims. I would suggest that the News be changed to 8.00 pm.

The second item concerns "Sandiwara" which is always popular as it reflects the day-to-day happenings in our society. It has social and educational value. Unfortunately, the "Sandiwara" programmes which used to be shown on Wednesday nights are now shown in the evenings and it is not regular any more. Working people miss the show and so too do the housewives who are busy preparing for dinner. Who then would see this programme? I would like SBC to consider rescheduling this programme to cater to the interest of all viewers, with particular reference to the programmes which have social and educational value.

Another example is the highly popular children's show "Mat Yoyo" which has also been cancelled despite its high viewership. I am told this programme is not only popular in Singapore but also in our neighbouring country and I hear even in Brunei Darussalam. This programme has been replaced by "Tok Selampit". No doubt this is popular but it is shown at a very inappropriate time. Primary school children attending the afternoon sessions miss this educational programme. I would like to inform the House that this programme caters to the need of most of our young viewers and should be screened at an appropriate time for all viewers.

I also note that this new programme, "Tok Selampit", is done outdoors. Thus, the colourful and variety of backdrops have been greatly missed by our young viewers. I would like to know why were these changes made. Mr Speaker, Sir, I accept changes if they are for the better and benefit the public. But the new changes which I have referred to do not obtain the objectives I referred.

Sir, I admit that I do not follow SBC's programmes. But most of my constituents who do follow these programmes have voiced their unhappiness and started making startling comparisons. Therefore, it is my hope that the Minister would ask SBC to review the situation. Perhaps the hon. Member for Eunos, who is a new member of the SBC Board, could study and recommend measures to improve the Malay programmes.

Mr Chiam See Tong (Potong Pasir): Sir, I note that a sum of $996.86 million, or nearly $1 billion, has been provided in the budget for the construction of the MRT system. Now it is clear to everyone that the MRT system is finally to be paid for by the taxpayers and not, as originally announced, by the sale of parcels of land at Marina South. The inability to sell the land at Marina South is due, I believe, to the depressed property market. Last year, the Second Deputy Prime Minister gave the impression that developers were not keen to buy the parcels of land there because there was no access to Marina South. The construction of an MRT line to link Marina South to the rest of Singapore would facilitate the sale of land in that area. I would like the Minister to clarify. Is the Government proposing to spend millions of dollars to build an MRT line at Marina South when it is still not developed in the hope of attracting buyers for the land there? But on the other hand, it would also appear that if the Government does not build an MRT line at Marina South, there is little hope of selling off land there for development.

I request that the Minister do take time to explain whether the Government still has hopes of financing the construction of the MRT from the sale of land at Marina South. Or is the Government now resigned to the fact that money from taxpayers will have to pay for the whole MRT project which was estimated at about $5 billion? I trust that the Minister will give us a credible answer this time. We have seen the chop-and-change record of his Ministry.

Last year about this time the Minister bravely told this House that the increase of the taxi diesel licence fee by $6,600 would not affect the earnings of taxi drivers. The taxi drivers' take-home pay will be more, as he then said. What was the result? The lightning speed with which the policy was changed within three days of its implementation on the 1st of April last year would certainly go down in the Guinness book as a record for the speed with which a government changes its policy. Then we had the infamous petrol price hike to, I believe, $1.51 cents per litre. When that policy took effect, we knew what happened. Thousands of Singaporeans were forced to make regular trips across the causeway to Johor Baru to fill up the petrol tanks. In the process, Singapore lost millions of dollars of foreign exchange to Malaysia. The Government, of course, too had to back-track that policy. I suppose the Minister will stand up and reply later and say that taxi drivers are now earning more. But, of course, what he says is subject to scrutiny. I have enquired of taxi drivers and they say that not all taxi drivers are earning more. But that really is not the point. If a bad policy had not been implemented in the first place, taxi drivers would not have to suffer unnecessarily from the start.

The Minister had made mistakes in the past. Should he not now pause to think whether some of his present policies are also wrong? Consider the ruling of allowing only PARF to be given to cars which are not over 10 years old. I know that many people in the motor car trade have petitioned the Minister to extend this period from 10 to 15 years. I would suggest that the Minister do respond to that call positively at once. This would save the country more foreign exchange by less import of cars and create more demand for local services in the motor trade and repair services. If this area of business is expanded because of the greater number of older cars on our roads, then perhaps more employment will be created and lessen some of the unemployment problems in Singapore.

The Member for Fengshan has spoken about the increase of transport costs. I believe there is public apprehension that as soon as the MRT comes into service, public transport will be more expensive. Generally, MRTs all over the world run at a loss. I would imagine that Singapore will be no exception. The Government in order to mitigate the loss can do two things. (1) Either have a fairly high MRT fare, or (2) subsidize its operations. We know that the Government's avowed policy is never to give subsidies, that is, actually make payments out of pocket. Therefore, the only other alternative is to have a fairly high fare price for the MRT. If this is done, the Government will also have to increase the prices of bus fares and taxi fares. Otherwise people will not commute by the MRT. For this reason, people are saying that public transport will not be cheap once the MRT is in operation. When that happens it will be another example of the increase of cost of living due to direct Government policy.

I would call on the Government to reduce the road tax. Ours is reputed to be the highest in the world. I wonder why there is need to continually tax the motorists so heavily. The motorists as a group must certainly be one of the greatest contributors to Government coffers. For the year ending December 1984, the Registry of Vehicles collected about $828 million and it expended only one-tenth of that amount, ie, about $8 million for its expenditure for that year.

The Minister for National Development boasted a few days back that the Government was increasing its allocation for road construction this year by 133%. That amount provided was $405 million, about one-half of what the ROV collected for one year in 1984. In times of severe recession, Government must relent in taxing the motorists. The Government could easily and should reduce road tax by at least 10 or 15 cents per cc for all types of cars. There is no danger of an increase in car population. Any increase in car population is a natural phenomenon. When the economy grows, car population grows with it. When times are bad, like the present times, the number of cars registered will also decrease. The artificial intervention of Government by imposing sledgehammer type blows on taxes, on motorists, will have an adverse effect on the economy. It is time that the road tax is slashed immediately.

I once returned from a holiday in England by an SIA flights. On approaching Singapore, I was surprised to hear an announcement telling those on board the plane that they need to pay only a certain amount of taxi fare from the airport to certain hotels in town. The question is, are our taxi drivers, numbering about 35,000, dishonest Singaporeans? Are they all cheats? I do not think so. We all know that in every trade, business or profession, there will always be a few black sheep, but the majority are good law-abiding citizens. Therefore, it is not right or fair to brand all taxi drivers as dishonest people and hence the need to warn foreigners visiting Singapore. That is the implication when you tell them not to pay more taxi fare than what has been told. But statistics certainly do not show that our taxi drivers are dishonest. There are about 11,500 taxis plying our roads. They must make at least two million passenger trips a year, and yet the number of complaints received against them for one year in 1984 was only 1,349. This, on two million passenger trips, works out to be a mere 0.06%. That is the number of complaints as compared to the number of passenger trips a year. Out of the 100-odd complaints mentioned against taxi drivers, the ROV took action, such as revocation of licence, suspension or composition fines, against only 232 of them, or 0.6% of the 35,000 taxi licence holders. So there is no justification whatsoever to warn visitors arriving in Singapore to beware of our taxi drivers. Besides, they are all Singaporeans. And a bad image can be inflicted on Singapore by branding one section of our population as dishonest. This image can easily be transferred to other Singaporeans, such as our shopkeepers. I hope the Minister will ask SIA to stop making such announcements about taxi fares to incoming tourists. The announcements are certainly counter-productive.

Mr Lim Boon Heng (Kebun Baru): Mr Speaker, Sir, as a Singaporean, I am proud that we have an airline called Singapore Airlines. I believe all Singaporeans are proud of the fact that we have Singapore Airlines. We are proud of Singapore Airlines because it has been successful and it has provided a standard of service which other airlines try to match. As far as possible, when I fly I would like to travel on Singapore Airlines. Because Singapore Airlines provide the service which a traveller requires. When I arrive in a foreign country, I would like to know how much it will cost me from the airport to the hotel where I am staying and I would be grateful if the airline tells me how much money I should prepare myself to spend for that passage of time. I think it is highly improper of the Member for Potong Pasir to say that SIA's information service to travellers to Singapore about taxi fares to hotels is to imply that our taxi drivers are dishonest. I think he owes all Singaporeans an apology for this kind of statement.

Mr Chiam See Tong: What is the purpose here?

Mr Lim Boon Heng: The purpose is, as I had explained, to provide a service to the tourist so that he knows how much money he has to prepare himself for because he may have to change money at the airport.

An hon. Member: He has to thank SIA for it.

Mr Lim Boon Heng: I have also travelled on Japan Airlines from time to time when the schedule requires it. When I arrived at Tokyo Airport, Japan Airlines provide the same service telling me as a passenger how much money would be required if I take a bus from the airport to the city and if I prefer to travel by taxi, how much money I should pay or expect to pay when I travel from Tokyo Airport to the city. Does that imply that Japan Airlines is telling all arrivals in Japan that taxi drivers in Japan are dishonest?

Sir, let me turn to the points which I intend to raise on this Head. First is the Registry of Vehicles. The rules in respect of applications for taxi licences have been well established and are quite clear to most people in Singapore. One of the requirements is for the person who is applying for a taxi driver's licence to make sure that he is proficient enough in the English language so that he will be able to communicate with foreign tourists in the English language. While these rules are clear, I think at this moment when we have retrenchments, when the older retrenched workers are at a disadvantage when they compete for jobs with younger workers, I would like to make an appeal to the Minister to vary the present regulations or rules to help those retrenched workers. Retrenched workers aged 40 and above did not expect to be retrenched. As such, if in their previous jobs they were not required to be proficient in the English language, then they are not prepared to face the examination which is required of them in order to qualify for a taxi driver's licence. So could the Minister consider allowing retrenched workers to be considered on all the other criteria that they must fulfil to get a taxi driver's licence, and then to grant them a licence to be valid, let us say, for a year. And during that one year they must take the necessary measures to get themselves proficient enough in the English language, otherwise on the expiry of that one year the licence could be suspended. I say this because for a person to be proficient in another language, he has got to use it day to day and unless he is placed in that position, it is very difficult to ask him to learn a language. If a variation of the present rules can be made, I think our older retrenched workers would have a better opportunity to compete for a higher paying job and, that is, a taxi driver's licence. I hope the Minister will consider that favourably.

Now I would turn to my next point, which is the registration of ships in Singapore. The rules for the registration of ships in Singapore have been tightened since 1981. The Minister knows very well that we have always had a problem with certain countries concerning the open registry that we have adopted in the past. From time to time, Singapore registered ships have come under boycott or threat of boycott by unions in certain countries. In the past, the open registry policy that we have adopted has been criticized for maintaining substandard ships. But in the last two or three years, whenever we have this problem of threat of boycott or actual boycott, the reasons being advanced are no longer that the standard applied on our ships is substandard. Therefore, safety is no longer a criticism levelled at the Singapore registry. However, the problem now is that we have a flag where foreign seamen are working on board Singapore flag ships. A number of these ships do not call at Singapore. What I would like to ask of the Minister is whether we should not review even the current regulations to see, first of all, what is the benefit of ship registration to Singapore. We would like to see companies registering ships under the Singapore flag benefitting Singapore as a whole, and the benefit should be substantial or, in other words, the benefits should be visible. But if registration of ships under the Singapore flag does not result in benefits to Singapore, then perhaps we could review the regulations to exclude such ships so that we no longer face the same kind of boycott or threat of boycott of Singapore flag ships in overseas countries.

Sir, the third point which I wanted to raise concerns the MRT and I think the Member for Fengshan has adequately expounded on the issue and I will not repeat.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I have three amendments on this Head - one on public transport and the other on the Information Section, and finally on the MRTC.

If I may first take up the amendment on Public Transport under the Ministry of Communications. Sir, my plea is that the Ministry should immediately set up a machinery to consider a reduction in the bus fares. The Minister was asked by me in a question for written answer on the 31st October 1985 whether he would set up a committee or body to look into the whole cost of the bus operation and see whether there was a case for reducing the bus fares. His answer was that there was no need to appoint a committee and that it should be left to the bus operators who know of the need to keep costs down. I know they know of the need to keep costs down to maximize their profits. Do they also realize that the profits should be passed on to the commuters? The Minister, of course, is silent on that.

He was also asked this question quite recently by the Member for Bo Wen, and his answer was that we could not chop and change bus fares. We have got to wait and see whether the bus companies were making substantial profits over a long period before we consider reducing bus fares. It would appear that his Ministry is more concerned with the profitability of the SBS than with reducing bus fares for the commuters, for our public. His Ministry is clearly giving the appearance of being reluctant to do anything on this matter.

Sir, time does not permit me to go into this question at great length but I see that in 1983, the Singapore Bus Services made $6 million in profits after making provision for taxation. In 1982, this was nearly $12 million but because some of the services were hived off to the Trans-Island Bus Services they suffered a drop in profits. But I see in 1984 the profits were again picking up and they were going up to $6.6 million in 1984. We have not got the figures for 1985 but we do know that, as a result of the debacle which has been referred to by the Member for Potong Pasir in the Ministry jacking up taxi fares, there was a huge switch by people, who were taking taxis, to buses so that Singapore Bus Services, along with other companies, had benefitted by the debacle of increased taxi fares.

We do, of course, know that prices of diesel have come down considerably and on top of that we have had this 15% cut in the CPF contribution made by bus companies. So there are considerable savings and increased profitability available now for the bus companies. I see, Sir, that at the end of 1984, the SBS had almost $42 million in undistributed profits, and that all they needed was something like $2,790,000 to pay the dividend of 7(r)% which I think the Government said it would guarantee to the shareholders. It seems to me at any rate that there is a definite case for looking into the whole question of bus fares. Transport is a big item for workers and now that we call upon them to practise wage restraint and have imposed on them a wage cut, why do we not compensate that by reducing the bus fares for them? I do not understand the logic that it has got to continue for several years before we reduce any bus fares. But if the occasion warrants any reduction, it should be carried out immediately and, if need be, after two or three years, bus fares will have to be revised, so be it, if the need is shown. But I cannot myself see that there would be any need to increase bus fares after two or three years if the present prices for fuel are maintained and the cost saving devices are applied by the bus companies.

Before I finish on this question of public transport, on our buses, I have often wondered why this Government does not nationalize the transport services. It has gone into all kinds of businesses but it is keeping away from the area of bus services, ie, land transport. It is, as I said, one of the big expenditure items for our workers and it should be the concern of the Government to keep the cost of transport as low as possible. So I hope the Minister will spell out quite clearly without, may I say - I am sorry - beating about the bush and giving evasive answers why it is not possible for the Government to study this question now. If the committee comes out with a report that it is not possible to reduce the bus fares, well, let it be made known. Let our people be told the reasons. Give reasonable information.

May I move on, Sir, to my second amendment, which is on the Information programme of this Ministry. Sir, there is a feeling amongst our citizens, and I do not think they can be blamed, that Government is too much with us. Night after night, over the TV, people are told about what Government Ministers are doing, hear their speeches and told what other members of the Government are doing. The Government publications - of course, I include in this the Straits Times and the other national papers - are full, day after day, of Ministers' speeches, reporting them verbatim in some cases and covering their pages, perhaps for want of other news, with Government propaganda. I would perhaps, Sir, before time is up, just refer to what a Chinese taxi driver was asking me when he was driving me one morning. He wanted to know why was it necessary for a then Minister of State to be on TV every night. He said the people of Singapore were getting a bit tired of seeing the same face over TV every night. I would commend to this Government that the best propaganda is to be seen less and to be heard less.

Finally, Sir, may I ask the Minister to explain whether it is the Government's policy to discourage Singaporeans from receiving TV3 programmes from Malaysia. Sometime ago there was an announcement that the HDB was not prepared to make any modifications to the antenna to enable the tenants to receive TV3 programmes from Malaysia. And there was also an announcement that the programmes for this channel would not be published in our local papers; and of course our Government publications, our national press, dutifully complied.

The Chairman: It is 1.00 pm.

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

Mr Speaker: I suspend this Sitting and will take the Chair again at 2.30 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 1.00 pm until 2.30 pm. Sitting resumed at 2.30 pm

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate in Committee of Supply resumed.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Head I (cont.) -

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, before the House rose for the lunch adjournment, I was talking about the discouragement, it would appear, by the Government, of Singaporeans from receiving programmes from the Malaysian channel TV3. Mr Speaker, Sir, there has been no definitive statement put up by the Government on this HDB's announcement, and I would like to know from the Minister what is the Government's policy.

Mr Speaker, Sir, when the Government decided not to show dialect films over the Singapore TV, the people who were most hit or affected were the elderly. I heard numerous complaints from my own constituency that the Government's decision not to show any films in Chinese dialects meant that they could no longer watch these films and that it was taking away from them an enjoyment which they had had. Then they found that TV3 provided this entertainment, and now the Government, it would appear, is determined that they should not have that enjoyment again. Why, may I ask, do we take it upon ourselves (when I say "ourselves", I mean the Government) to cut down on the people's enjoyment of something which they have been enjoying? What right does the Government have to dictate to our people what they should watch, what they should read, and what they should listen?

I have said once before that there is far too much organization of our people, and I said this morning the Government is too much with us. We would be a much better society, a more creative society, a more vibrant society if we allowed our citizens freedom to make their own judgment as to what they should watch, what they should read and what they should hear. We do not need the Government through its Ministry of Information - or perhaps a more appropriate name would be the Propaganda Section of the Ministry of Communications and Information - to decide for our citizens these questions. So I would make a plea on behalf of these elderly citizens, our senior citizens, that the Government think again on this policy decision.

Finally, on that, Mr Speaker, Sir, may I pass on a request that has been made to me by some Indians. They wrote to me to ask whether I would bring up the question of more time on TV for Indian programmes. I think the people who wrote to me were mostly Tamils, and I suppose they were thinking of Tamil programmes. They feel that their community is not getting its fair share of TV time. I am passing on this request from them, and I hope the Ministry and the SBC would give this due consideration.

If I may turn on to my third amendment, Sir, and that is the MRTC programme. Sir, whatever I may say about the personnel of the MRTC is not meant to detract in any way from the praise that has been given to the expatriates working with the MRTC in the rescue efforts that they displayed in rescuing the unfortunate victims of the disaster at Serangoon Road. I do not intend to diminish in any way the praise given to them.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not want to repeat what has been said by others but there is considerable misgiving among our people about the viability of the MRT. We know that in Hong Kong it is losing money every year in the region of HK$30 million or so. We have been told this morning and, as I pointed out, sometime ago that under the Act the operating costs are required to be covered by the fares collected on this transport system. May I know whether the Ministry has given any thought to the fare structure, and what it is going to be? We are now half way through. May we know how much it is going to cost our commuters to travel on the MRT?

To move on, Sir, may I ask the Minister whether, in the construction programme of the MRT, cost is an object or not? We know that billions of dollars have been expended and there is still more to be spent. Is the MRT in building our stations conscious of the need to keep its costs down? I understand that decisions on this are all made by foreign resident engineers and construction engineers, and not enough regard is paid to the question of cost and to promoting local industries.

I was told about the supplies for a depot and the question of who should supply the wall cladding for the depot, I suppose the wall coverings. I understand that there was considerable dissatisfaction with the local architects and engineers that the supply of this wall cladding was placed with an Australian firm when the wall cladding could have been obtained locally. I am told the local manufacturer felt so upset about the whole thing that he even wrote to the Economic Development Board on this discrimination against local industries. And I understand that the Economic Development Board did take up this question and investigate whether the material could have been supplied locally. I would like to know from the Minister whether he is aware of this and why it was necessary to place an order for this material from Australia when it could have been obtained locally. And I am told the cost for the Australian material ---

The Chairman: Mr Jeyaretnam, you have used up 31 minutes.

Mr Jeyaretnam: You want me to stop now?

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr Jeyaretnam: All right, Sir.

Mr Lau Ping Sum (Yio Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to give a few comments on the issue of bus fares. As the Member for Leng Kee has pointed out, a number of factors ought to be taken into consideration when we discuss about this issue. I would like to request the Minister to convey our request to the SBS to provide detailed data on the projected revenue and expenditure for this year. As pointed out in the Annual Report of SBS, manpower, fuel, maintenance and other charges amount to something like 76% of the total costs of operation. And with the impending reductions in CPF, SDF levy and the probably very modest increase in NWC recommendations, if any, perhaps the SBS could give us more detailed data on this issue. Fuel cost is something like 13% of total expenditure and, in the light of the recent reductions in fuel prices, there may be some favourable impact on the cost structure of SBS.

In particular, I would like to urge the SBS to review the question of concessionary passes for senior citizens. Since April 1983, senior citizens above the age of 60 have been given concession passes at a flat rate of 40 cents per trip but the condition is that they must travel outside peak hours. The argument for not extending this benefit during peak hours is that, firstly, many of them are not working and therefore they need not travel during peak hours. However, on the occasions that they do need to travel, I am sure they would like to have this benefit. Senior citizens, I am sure, realize that they are less mobile and perhaps less agile than younger people and on their own accord would normally refrain from travelling during peak hours. But on the few occasions that they do, the loss of revenue to SBS would be insignificant. The second reason given for not extending this benefit during peak hours is that for those who do work, then they can afford to pay. However, on the other hand, we are urging our senior citizens to continue working after 55 or 60 years but they should accept lower pay. So with the lower pay, I am certain that they will appreciate greatly the extension of this benefit of concession pass during peak hours.

The second point is perhaps we could give special consideration to students who hold special passes at $15 per month. In view of the various cost factors, SBS could again review the amount that is payable by the students. If at all possible, I am sure the large number of students would like to enjoy this benefit.

Dr Lau Teik Soon (Serangoon Gardens): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to touch on the Information programme of the Minis- try. Over the past few months, the Government has introduced a number of policies. Some of these policies have been well accepted and some have not. There are good reasons why the Government has to implement certain policies. But the people need to know as clearly and as fully as possible the reasons behind the policies. It is vital that the Government takes all out effort to explain clearly to the people what a policy is all about, why such a policy is being implemented, how it is to be implemented and when it is to be implemented. The trouble taken by the Government to explain policies to the people clearly means that the Government is taking the people into their confidence. This will establish good rapport between the Government and the people. And if policies are well explained, the people will accept them and support the Government. If a certain policy is not explained well, there may be confusion and misunderstanding. Nowadays, Sir, we hear of more criticisms and unhappiness over Government policies than before. It is quite common to hear critical comments of the Government in the coffee shops, market places, food centres and other places where people gather.

Sir, criticisms and comments of Government policies are acceptable. But what should be avoided is an opposition mentality. A person who has an opposition mentality is one who is like a robot. He is told by his master to oppose whatever the Government proposes. He is told by his master to raise doubts about Government's credibility.

Mr Jeyaretnam: What is wrong with that? What is wrong?

Dr Lau Teik Soon: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am talking about a robot and if the Member for Anson feels that it fits him, so be it!

Mr Jeyaretnam: What is wrong?

Dr Lau Teik Soon: In general, a person with such an opposition mentality seeks to refute whatever the Government does. This is very negative. He seeks to tear down the administration without offering a better alternative in its place, and this does no credit to the society as a whole.

Sir, the Information Division of the Ministry, if I am not mistaken, is the main agent of the Government, responsible for providing and explaining the policies of the Government to the people. My question is: have they done their job effectively? If what I say about greater dissatisfaction with Government policies is correct, what have they done to tackle this problem?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Information Division publishes many pamphlets and magazines in the English language. They are the Year Book, the Singapore Bulletin and the Mirror. But I ask: how many people read these types of materials? Have they been effective in explaining Government policies to the people? In my view, I do not think that such publications reach the people and that they understand the issues being explained.

Last year, Sir, I proposed that the Information Division consider publishing a simple weekly magazine, say, of about eight pages. Such a magazine will include articles explaining Government policies in clear and simple language. Such a magazine may include extracts of articles from other publications. This magazine can be distributed to every household through various means, including the newspaper vendors. For example, the Asia Magazine is distributed on Sundays, and so, such a magazine can use such a facility.

The Information Division should get the mass media people to assist in providing better information and explanation of Government policies to the people. The Division has been helpful in providing information to the mass media. But in my view, this is insufficient. The Ministry should try to provide explanations as well of Government policies to the mass media.

I know that some Ministries hold their own press conferences to give the reporters and others the opportunity to raise questions. But the Information Division should coordinate this activity with the participation of the officials of the relevant Ministries.

Today, Sir, Singaporeans are more interested in and educated about Government policies. They watch the TV programme "Today in Parliament" and they want to know more about the working of Government and the administrative service. We should not disappoint them. For example, at this time of economic recession, the Government has appealed to the people to make sacrifices. But the people need to understand why they need to make these sacrifices. If they understand, they will support the Government measures more readily. My question is: has the Information Division done their job in explaining this policy and other policies to the people?

Encik Othman bin Haron Eusofe (Geylang Serai): Sir, work on the MRT has started in my constituency. I believe that this is ahead of schedule and I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the MRTC on their good work. The MRT will run right through the HDB estate of Geylang East. Residents have asked me to ask the MRTC how long will the construction period last. What measures will be implemented by the MRTC to minimize inconveniences to the residents in the estate, particularly measures to control noise, dust and other nuisance during the construction period?

The MRT will be a surface line. Residents in the blocks near the line are curious about the impact of the MRT on the living environment there. For instance, will the MRT trains generate too much noise? Will it in any way affect their privacy? Will it be safe for their children staying so close to the MRT lines?

I hope that the Minister can answer these questions, Sir.

The Minister of State for Communications and Information (Mr Wong Kan Seng): Sir, just let me make a few comments on the points raised by the Members of this House concerning the Information Division and the SBC.

The Members for Serangoon Gardens and Anson talked about the Information Division and its publications. Let me try to explain what the roles of the Information Division are. It organizes training programmes for Government departments' PROs on how to make use of the various media, for example, television, news- papers, publications, leaflets, advertising and so on, to put across Government's policies and messages. It works closely with, gives advice to, and assists the Ministries in their dealings with the mass media. It produces Government's publications and promotes the Government's campaigns. It is the responsibility of all Government departments and Ministries which formulate policies to implement them and also to explain them to the people,because they are in the best position to do so. It is not the responsibility of the Information Division alone. To explain Government policies simply and effectively, there is no better way than the mass media because information, in order to be useful, have to reach the people quickly. The mass media therefore should be used. Government publications are just one means of explaining policies to the public. But they do not have the mass reach that television, radio or even newspapers have. So the Information Division's publications at best can play a supportive role. But I must thank the Member for Serangoon Gardens for suggesting that the Government publishes a weekly. Maybe this idea can be incorporated in the existing publication called the Mirror.

Let me tell the Member for Anson that governments all over the world have information services and publications to document and publicize their policies, work and achievements. This is a legitimate function and a necessary function of the government. Government has nothing to be ashamed of. Since it is the Government that decides and explains national policies, it is therefore the responsibility of Government Ministers and the PAP MPs to announce and explain them. We cannot, of course, expect the Opposition Members to do this. All these policies are conveyed by Government publications and the mass media and governments all over the world do this. We do not need the Member for Anson's advice to tell us how we should go about carrying our tasks. In fact, many people have complained to me that whenever they turn on the TV to watch SBC's "Today in Parliament", they see the Member for Anson wasting Parliament's time. And they say that he should behave himself instead of interjecting rudely whenever other Members are speaking.

On TV3, it is certainly not the responsibility and policy of the Government to facilitate the reception of any foreign commercial station. TV3 is a commercial station and it falls within this policy. And HDB's decision not to install an antenna to receive TV3 is also in line with this policy. The decision of the press not to print TV3's programme schedules is, in my view, a responsible step in support of the Government policy.

Let me put the matters raised on SBC in the correct perspective. SBC has the formidable responsibility of entertaining, educating and informing its listeners and viewers. SBC in its broadcasts and telecasts has to take into account the wide-ranging interests, tastes and needs of its viewers and listeners. And the task is compounded manifold because of the multi-racial, multi-religious, multi-cultural nature of our society. Because of the important role that SBC plays, not just in providing entertainment but also in nation-building, in forging a common identity, in informing and educating the people about Government policies and objectives, the Government pays for the capital cost of SBC's development programmes. But SBC must also be a viable operation and be able to pay its own way in its recurring or operating expenses.

There are two major sources of revenue for SBC. They are licence fees and advertisement revenue. Viewers and SBC naturally want to keep licence fees to as low a level as possible. If licence fees are not to be increased, then the alternative must be to raise more revenue through selling air time for advertisement. And in order to attract more advertisers, SBC must have good programmes with high viewership. This is possible only if SBC were to judiciously use its limited prime time available in the evenings and in weekends. The popular entertainment programmes can attract commercial revenue, but many educational, informational or even sports programmes need to be subsidized, if sponsors are not found for specific programmes.

Programming therefore is a highly complex matter, as the objective must be to ensure that there is adequate commercial support while taking into account the interests and needs of our listeners and viewers in our multi-racial, multi-cultural society and balancing the responsibilities of SBC to entertain, educate and inform.

SBC produced and telecast 156 Tamil programmes last year. These are the drama, variety shows, cultural programmes, children's programmes, features and so on. SBC has taken steps to nurture and develop talents for its local production and it has undertaken serious efforts in improving its other programmes.

On Sports programmes, I believe that SBC has given adequate coverage, given the constraints it faces. Every week SBC telecast an average of seven hours of Sports programme, that, is about one hour a day. These exclude the special coverages aired on an ad hoc basis. SBC will continue to provide variety in the Sports programmes, both acquired and local. There is not a lot of commercial support for Sports programmes in Singapore, unlike the television stations in other countries. SBC coverage of the SEA games is a case in point, as mentioned by the Member for Pasir Panjang. Commercial support was not forthcoming, however hard SBC tried its best to find sponsors. Nevertheless SBC sent a crew of five to the SEA games. Singapore's entry into the finals of the SEA games soccer match was known only the day before it was played and commercial support, however hard SBC tried, was not forthcoming.

Regarding Malay News, SBC is always sensitive to the prayer times and the needs of our Muslim community in scheduling its programmes. I am told that the Malay News does not clash with the prayer times. As I mentioned earlier, SBC always has to optimize the use of limited prime time available and I hope the Member will understand.

On Sandiwara, I am told that this programme is telecast at 4.30 pm on Sundays over Channel 5, and it is repeated on Channel 5 at 5.45 pm on Wednesdays. I believe most viewers will have no problem in watching the programme on Sunday. If they miss it, they can catch up with it on Wednesday. I would like to assure the Member for Pasir Panjang that the popular programme called Mat Yoyo has not been dropped. SBC has just rested this programme in order to reformat the programme, and SBC will resume the telecast of this programme towards the end of the year.

On the whole, SBC has come a long way, I believe, in satisfying the needs and the interests of its listeners and viewers. I am sure Singaporeans will agree with me that SBC has vastly improved its programming and production during the last few years. Of course, there is always room for improvement and SBC will continue to strive for it.

Dr Yeo Ning Hong: Mr Speaker, Sir, Members have made numerous suggestions and questions on a wide range of topics, many going off in a number of different directions. I would like to group together the questions on land transport and deal with them first, I will attempt to bring some degree of cohesion to the subject, firstly, by outlining the main principles, the most important principles of our land transport policy. Then I will deal with the questions in detail in the context of these policies so that we will have a better understanding of the overall approach and the consistencies of the various measures taken.

Sir, I would like to highlight ten of the most important principles in land transport policies to enable Members to grasp these basic principles first.

Firstly, we must strive for a free-flowing traffic in Singapore. Free-flowing traffic for easy movement of people and goods. Secondly, we must live with the constraint of shortage of land in Singapore. Thirdly, to haveproper land transport policies, we must begin first with integrated master planning of land use. Fourthly, our policies must be dynamic. It must be responsive to changes in circumstances that affect us in Singapore. This approach of course will be multi-prong. Fifthly, we must have an efficient and viable bus service in order to carry large numbers of people to and from work. Sixthly, the bus services soon may not be able to cope with the increasing demands and our growing population. An additional network for public transporta- tion for carrying large numbers of people will have to be developed. This is the MRT. Seventhly, within the limited land that we have, we must build the best possible network of roads, of expressways, of flyovers, in order to service the vehicles. Eighthly, since the amount of roads is limited, there must also be slow growth of vehicles, of cars, and of taxis, so that we do not overwhelm the roads that we have. Ninthly, wherever possible, the capacity of our roads, after we have built them, should be improved in order that we can carry as many vehicles as possible, given the limited roads that we have. Tenthly, in areas where there are high concentrations of economic activity, such as the Central Business District, the flow of traffic in such regions will have to be carefully regulated. Otherwise the congestion will be such that it would be almost impossible to move in or out of Central Business Districts.

Sir, I do not think anybody will disagree with the basic premise that we must have a free-flowing traffic in order to move people and goods efficiently and quickly. This is a fundamental premise upon which all other policies are based. If we do not follow this basic fundamental principle, then we are going to end up very soon with severe congestion which, in turn, will be extremely wasteful of time, which means that instead of vehicles, lorries, container trucks, being able to make three or four trips a day to the port, to the harbour, or to the airport, they may be able to make two trips a day. Instead of people spending 20 to 30 minutes a day travelling to and from work, they may have to spend a much longer time. All these would add to time wasted. All these, in due course, will reduce our competitiveness.

It is in the light of this overall principle that this year, even though the Minister for Finance has been generous in giving tax rebates in a large number of different areas, such as property tax, corporate tax, income tax, and other taxes last year, including PUB, telephone and petrol taxes, in spite of all this giving away of rebates in order to help the economy to be more competitive and in order to stimulate the economy, no cut as far as road tax is concerned has been exercised. It would have been easy, Sir, for a small cut in road taxes to be made and then the numbers can be recalculated and a smaller cut given to some other tax. That would, needless to say, have made many motorists very happy. But that would not be the correct thing to do because it would mean that we are being reckless in stimulating the growth of vehicles in a recession and that we will in due course when the economy recovers pay for it with much higher congestions.

With the limited amount of land that we have, we cannot behave like other countries. We cannot turn a blind eye to the growth of vehicles. In other countries, when cities become congested, they just expand into the suburbs. In extreme cases, they start new cities elsewhere. We do not have that luxury. We are constrained by the sea. We cannot start new cities elsewhere. It is in the light of this principle that constraints on cars will always have to be a major policy in our overall land transportation policy.

Sir, I mentioned that land transport policy must be premised upon integrated master planning of land use. This is important because if we do not have this, then all the other components of land transport policy will not work. HDB and URA, in the Ministry of National Development have done an excellent job. Their new towns and housing estates are self-contained, well-organized, with shops, entertainment centres, recreational facilities, supermarkets, schools, junior colleges, sometimes even offices and light industries. These are all integrated in a manner such that it is possible for people to enjoy these basic facilities with the minimum of travel. Without such proper land utilization planning, we would not be able to cope with the transportation problem of 2(r) million people on an island of 620 sq kilometres.

Sir, Marina South, as raised by the Member for Potong Pasir, is a good example of the principle of master planning. Sir, if we are not to proceed with the Mass Rapid Transit System, then Marina South will not be capable of high density development. This is because Marina South has the sea on three sides and there is only one possible channel for land traffic to flow into it. If that is the case, then master planning requires that that land be developed at very low density, which means the value of the land will be low. If we build the MRT all over the island, from Yishun in the North all the way to Jurong in the West and then all the way to Changi and later on to Pasir Ris in the East, with the main MRT network in place, it would be possible to have a short connection to Marina South. With that possibility and bearing in mind, Sir, that the MRT is capable of carrying 1,800 people in one train of six cars, that is a very high density mode of transportation, with that ability to carry large numbers of people into Marina South it would, of course, be possible to develop Marina South very, very intensively with high plot ratios. It would make it possible for us to exploit the vital location of Marina South and to convert it into a premier business centre. How long will we take to develop that? It is difficult to say, because if we look back into our history it took us more than 26 years to develop the central business district to the present level, where there are still large numbers of old buildings, some reasonably dilapidated, awaiting resettlement.

Marina South is a large tract of land. It is approximately 270 hectares. That would take us a long time to develop. The Member for Potong Pasir has no appreciation of the problems involved. He thinks Marina South is just a piece of land that you sell as and when it is convenient in order to fund the building of stations of MRT. That is not the case. The development of a major business centre will take us decades. It will have to be done carefully because this is our last chance to have a vital piece of land centrally located that can be used to develop a new business centre.

I mentioned that our approach to the problems of land transportation must be dynamic. We cannot have fixed solutions to all problems regardless of changing circumstances. Our population is growing, albeit at a relatively slow pace. Our population is also shifting, moving about. Each year, about 40,000 new flats are built. That means about 160,000 people change homes. Each year, new employment centres are set up. It means that the travelling patterns of people are different. We must change with the times in order to ensure that the land transportation continues to be able to service the needs of our people. To do that, of course, changes have got to be made and changes are never always completely painless.

Last year, for example, the SBS had 63 route changes. Of course, some people were unhappy but others were happy. The people moving into new housing estates had bus services serving their needs. Eight bus routes were deleted completely. 19 bus routes were added, and 36 bus routes had to be modified. I appreciate the problems of residents in Tampines as raised by the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for Defence. I appreciate also the problems raised by MPs in other new housing estates. Residents in new housing estates would prefer, if it were possible, to have all the bus services available as soon as they move in. But, Sir, SBS has to balance the needs of residents in new housing estates with the needs of residents in old housing estates. If we take the routes serving the old housing estates before there is a significant demand in the housing estates, then it means services in the older housing estates will be severely affected. So it goes on. Adaptations must be made and made at all times.

Another illustration of this principle of adjusting with the times is our taxi policy. Previously, in an attempt to eradicate the problem of pirate taxis, taxi fares were kept artificially low. Demand for taxis could not be satisfied. Letters were written to the newspapers complaining about how impossible it was to get a taxi. Times have changed. Pirate taxis are no longer a problem. Our problem now is that there are too many vehicles on our roads. If we have to ensure a steady growth of cars, then we cannot continue to increase the number of taxis each year indiscriminately in order to meet the very high demand caused by low fares. We must therefore change the fares. The low fares were made possible, of course, by a special exemption of diesel tax which dates back many years ago. That policy has now been changed. And the results speak for themselves. Taxi drivers now are earning more. Commuters are finding it easier to get a taxi when they want it and the principle of non-exemption of diesel tax has been implemented. It will take us some time for the problem to be completely resolved in the light of the current recession that we are experiencing.

Sir, I now turn to the fifth principle, the importance of having an efficient and viable bus service. This is central to our land transport policy. Each day, more than two million passenger trips are made on buses. We cannot have a system that does not work because it means that about a million people will have difficulties travelling, going to work and returning home. Our bus system must be efficient and viable in order to attract commuters. Members who have been to other cities can make their own comparison as to whether our bus service is fulfilling the role that we have for it.

How do we ensure an efficient and viable bus system? The Member for Anson says, " nationalize it." Let the Government run the bus service. In the very next breath he says, "Oh, Government is into too many things." I do not think Government should get into the business of running buses. It is best left to the private sector. What Government can ensure is that there is sufficient competition so that the competition will drive the bus companies to be more effective.

Sir, over the last 12 months, in letters to the press, in submission to the Economic Committee, recently in the debate on the President's Address and just last week in the debate on the Budget, Members were all calling for Government to have its hands off as far as the private sector is concerned. The catch-word was privatization. Suddenly today we hear the Member asking that Government should get into an area that is already in the private sector. Get into buses.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Transport is a public undertaking.

Dr Yeo Ning Hong: I would like to quote the title of an article published in a magazine known as Mass Transit in February 1985 about the British bus system.

Mr Jeyaretnam: We heard it last year.

Dr Yeo Ning Hong: You heard it last year.

Mr Jeyaretnam: And the year before.

Dr Yeo Ning Hong: And the year before? It was published in 1985.

Sir, it says, "British Bus Service - going, going, gone." And it starts off,

'Most of Britain's nationalized bus industry is to be put up for grabs, auction off to the highest bidder.' And then it goes on to say what is going, what is going and what is gone.

'Already gone is the British dream for the efficient public transit system served by sophisticated buses operating socially essential services. It is gone.'

Anything that does not work well in Britain, the Member for Anson is sure to recommend that we do it in Singapore. Anything that works well in Britain that we so assiduously follow, the Member for Anson is sure to recommend that we do it the other way round. We know why he does all these things. But we are not so unwise as to follow him.

We talk about bus fares. I would like to state very categorically that the Ministry would like bus fares to be kept as low as possible, consistent with a viable network of service for our people. I share with Members of this House the desire and expectation that our bus companies should not profiteer, that wherever possible, where there are savings, they should be passed on to the consumers, to the commuters, either in the form of lower fares or in the form of better service.

Sir, in my written reply to the Member for Bo Wen last week, I stressed that bus fares are determined by bus companies and yet I hear many Members coming to ask me to reduce the bus fares. The Ministry does not determine the bus fares for the bus companies.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Why not?

Dr Yeo Ning Hong: They are determined by the bus companies themselves.

Mr Jeyaretnam: They are more concerned with their profits.

Dr Yeo Ning Hong: Sir, bus companies are private sector companies. One of them, SBS is a publicly listed company, listed on the Stock Exchange. It is owned by more than 50,000 members of the public. SBS' accounts are open to public scrutiny. They are accountable to the public. What ROV has done in the light of changing circumstances has been to advise the bus companies to explain to the public the effect of the drop in diesel prices, the effect of the cut in CPF, the effect of the cut in corporate tax and the effect of changes on the foreign exchange with respect to some of the major currencies, such as Deutschemark, Yen and Pound Sterling. All these have consequences on the operating cost of buses. ROV has advised the bus companies to explain to the public so that the public can understand the system and the effect and hence to be able to draw their conclusion as to whether there is or there is not a case for the reduction of fares.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Have they done that?

Dr Yeo Ning Hong: Sir, in my reply to the Member for Bo Wen, I also stressed that it is not advisable to change fares frequently. This is in the public interest. Let me explain. It has been suggested by some that bus fares should be changed up and down, and as suggested by the Member for Anson, frequently.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Not every month. Every three years or so, if it is necessary.

Dr Yeo Ning Hong: Sir, PUB changes its rates every three months. Pump prices - petrol and diesel - change whenever the need arises. To change the PUB rates you make changes to the software, change the number, and then the computer prints out all the rates under the new rates of charges. Adjustments to the pump at petrol stations take a few minutes per pump. You can do that very quickly and then the world goes on as before. The change does not have a severe impact on anybody.

But when we talk about changing of bus fares, if we want to make frequent changes of one or two cents, then we are going to talk about either upping the 40 cent fare to 41 cents or bringing it down to 39 cents. And to do that frequently for some one million people who travel on the buses every day, and about 3,000 to 4,000 bus drivers who have got to remember the bus fares for different stages. It will take some time for people to adjust to new fares. It is not in the public interest to change the fares frequently. Members may remember that the last fare change was in 1981 with an additional adjustment for concession fares in 1982. Members will also remember that 1981, 1982, 1983 and 1984 - these were years of rapid increases in wages - no change has been made to bus fares.

Sir, some Members have suggested that the Ministry wants ---

Mr Jeyaretnam: The accounts showed $12 million, profit in 1982.

The Chairman: Let us have less interruption, Mr Jeyaretnam.

Dr Yeo Ning Hong: Sir, some Members have suggested the Ministry wants to keep the bus fares high in order to make the MRT viable. Nothing can be more illogical. The MRT is going to be affected like buses in exactly the same way, albeit in different ratios. Like buses, MRT needs energy; so it depends on the cost of energy. Like buses, MRT needs manpower; so the cost of manpower. Like buses, the MRT needs to have spare parts and replacement; that will also have to fluctuate with the fluctuations in the foreign exchange. MRT and buses will each have to look at their own costings and adjust their fares independently.

Sir, I move now to MRT in slightly more detail. Members have asked about the integration of MRT with buses. This is a subject that is currently being studied by the consultants appointed by SBS and MRTC. Obviously some degree of integration would be useful; the extent will have to be determined by the consultants after looking at the overall travelling pattern that will arise as a result of firmer data on the living patterns and the population patterns that we have today.

As for through-ticketing suggested by the Member for Fengshan, this will be looked at. Some cities elsewhere have tried it on and elementary scale. Members will recall that last year the SBS tried a pilot programme on the use of certain tickets with machines installed in buses. The pilot programme did not work. The technology for very detailed integration is presently not available. The companies that are manufacturing such equipment are optimistic that such an equipment will be available soon. The options are kept open but, as far as possible, integration in one form or another will be looked at in detail and be given high priority.

Sir, some Members have asked if the MRT is going to be viable. This is a subject that had been under study for many, many years long before we decided to proceed with the MRT. There are few reasons why those decisions taken as a result of the earlier studies are correct. Firstly, relative to buses, the MRT is going to be much more efficient in terms of manpower. I gave as an illustration earlier one train having the capacity to carry 1,800 people; a bus at most can carry about 100 people. Secondly, the MRT's system has been designed to be energy efficient. Thirdly, the MRT is serving only the high density areas, areas of high population density or high employment density. And fourthly, cost factors all affect both buses as well as MRT, and as long as the different systems of transportation are allowed to compete, the public would then be the recipient of this competition and hence the greatest possible efficiency in our public transportation system.

Sir, the Member for Potong Pasir as usual likes to do calculations in spite of the fact that his calculations in the past have been demonstrated to be completely erroneous. He talks about all kinds of numbers. He talks about 2 million passenger trips for taxis per year.

Mr Chiam See Tong: It is an estimate.

Dr Yeo Ning Hong: 2 million passenger trips a year for all taxis?

Mr Chiam See Tong: No, I do not know. It is an estimate.

Dr Yeo Ning Hong: You do not know and you weave a story round a number. Sir, this is again another Primary 6 arithmetic sum. Anybody can take 2 million passenger trips and divide it by the 11,000 taxis that we have, and divide it again by 365 days; the end-result is 0.5 passenger trip a day per taxi. Does the Member for Potong Pasir want us to believe that two taxis today are available to carry only one passenger? Sir, I do not want to go into the other arguments that the Member has said.

Mr Chiam See Tong: How many taxis are there?

Dr Yeo Ning Hong: If you want to use an argument, please do your own homework. Do not expect me to do it for you.

Mr Chiam See Tong: I expect more than that figure.

Dr Yeo Ning Hong: Obviously, is it not?

Mr Chiam See Tong: That is the reason why I take a lower figure.

Dr Yeo Ning Hong: You are not talking about half a passenger trip per taxi a day?

Mr Chiam See Tong: That is reason why I take a much lower figure.

Dr Yeo Ning Hong: As low as half a passenger trip a day?

Mr Chiam See Tong: But you still have got to verify my point.

Dr Yeo Ning Hong: Your point is not worth the paper it is written on, and I think the Member for Kebun Baru has very quickly demolished it.

Sir, we change the policy on taxis because, as I said earlier, consistent with our basic policies, we cannot continue to add more and more taxis every year and hold on to the policy of exemption for diesel tax. I ask taxi drivers whether they are better off than they would have been if we had not made the changes last year. If we had kept the fares the same, and if we had kept the tax exactly the same, would they be better off? Are they not better off now?

Mr Chiam See Tong: No.

Dr Yeo Ning Hong: In spite of the economy going into a tailspin, in spite of the fact that large numbers of self-employed had suffered a severe a drop of income?

Mr Chiam See Tong: Have you gone to the Airport in the evening?

Dr Yeo Ning Hong: Sir, the Airport in the evenings must have a lot of taxis because up to about 20 flights come in each hour. A jumbo can carry up to 400 passengers. That gives us approximately 8,000 passengers to clear in an hour. And 8,000 passengers clear a lot of taxis, 8,000 passengers clear a very long queue of taxis.

Mr Chiam See Tong: There are no fares elsewhere. That is why they are there?

Dr Yeo Ning Hong: Sir, when it comes to figures, I think the Member should go back to Primary 6 and start working all over again.

Mr Chiam See Tong: There is nothing wrong with my figures.

Dr Yeo Ning Hong: I can only hope that the Member does not go round giving tuition to Primary 6 students, otherwise it is going to cost them their examinations.

The Chairman: Few seconds to guillotine time.

Dr Yeo Ning Hong: Sir, I have quite a long list of other questions to answer. I will go through them very quickly.

The Chairman: There is no time. There are only five seconds left. Dr Beng.

Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam: Mr Speaker, Sir, in view of the explanations and reassurances given by the Minister of State and the Minister for Communications and Information, I beg to withdraw the motion.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $34,333,250 for Head I ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates.

The sum of $1,116,373,700 for Head I ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.

Head N -

Mr Leong Horn Kee (Thomson): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move

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

Sir, the Government has declared that the engine for growth in the future is the private sector. This objective was first mentioned in last year's Budget when the then Minister for Finance said that "In the 1980s, the engine of economic development should be the private sector and not the Government." The Economic Committee also supported this new policy direction. This point is also reinforced by the present Minister for Finance when he stated in this year's Budget that "In the long term, we must all work together to maximize our potential... Our entire economic environment must be made favourable for business and enterprise."

The move towards the encouragement of private enterprise, deregulation and privatization of Government companies is welcomed by the private sector. However, it is causing some concern, Sir, among the managements and employees of the Government-owned companies, as it is still not clear what forms of privatization will the Government adopt. This is particularly the case for those companies which are substantially owned by the Government and those which are not publicly listed. It would be helpful if the Minister could make a comprehensive statement on the Government's plans and intentions in its privatization programme as early as possible.

As the private sector is supposed to spearhead future growth, I feel that the Minister should look into introducing certain measures which will help the private sector to have a wider role and participation in the economy. The first step could be to find a channel or mechanism whereby there is greater consultation between the Government and the private sector. I have suggested previously that the Economic Committee should be retained for this purpose. Alternatively, the Ministry of Finance could set up a Government-Business Sector Consultative Committee to provide a forum for regular consultations and discussions between the two groups. The form of the mechanism is not important. What is important is that there should be a channel, or a mechanism, whereby regular consultations could be made between the Government and the business sector.

In addition, I would like to request the Minister to consider the following measures which would encourage wider participation by local enterprises:

(1) To look into reducing the Government regulations that might discourage the formation or hinder the operation of private companies. One example that comes to mind is the "double liquidation" restriction in section 149 of the Companies Act. This section should be either repealed or modified.

(2) To encourage employees to feel more committed to their companies. Companies should give employees a share in the ownership of the companies by offering them employee stock option scheme. This suggestion was made by the First Deputy Prime Minister in November last year. In the US, employee stock options play a key role in attracting and motivating the staff of small growing companies to work hard as they own a share of their companies. The employees can share in the benefits when their companies succeed. However, at present, the tax law acts as a disincentive for employees to take up stock options. The CIR adopts the practice of taxing in full the difference between the market value and the option price at the point when the employee's stock option is exercised. Employees taking up stock options incur a risk as the gains can only be realized in the medium or long term and only when their companies finally succeed. To account for this risk, the Economic Committee has proposed that for approved share option schemes, the gains made by employees should be progressively exempted from tax according to the length of time the shares have been held.

(3) With a greater number of private companies being set up, it is inevitable that some companies will encounter difficulties and face the threat of failure. Some of these companies may be inherently viable but are only facing short-term business problems. To help such companies, the Government should consider introducing legislation similar to the Chapter 11 model of the US. Such a legislation will enable companies in temporary financial difficulties to be shielded from forced closures by creditors while they take measures to reorganize and to restructure their operations.

(4) Lastly, the availability of equity capital from a second-tier stock market, or commonly called the USM, will enable small growing local firms to raise public funds for funding their expansion plans. While mindful that prudent standards should be set to regulate the USM, I have suggested during the Budget debate that the rules and regulations for this second-tier market should not be too restrictive as to render the market ineffective.

Sir, I hope the Minister for Finance will look into the above suggestions. If adopted, I believe they will greatly assist private enterprise to thrive in Singapore.

Mr Heng Chiang Meng (Jalan Kayu): Mr Chairman, Sir, I submitted two amendments under the Ministry of Finance. May I speak on both of them now?

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr Heng Chiang Meng: Sir, the first one I would like to touch on is the micro-computer loan scheme for public servants. Several years ago, the Government introduced a loan scheme at 5% interest per annum on a monthly rest to encourage public sector employees to purchase their own micro-computers. This scheme has helped to spread the use of micro-computers amongst them, especially at home when they have more time to tinker with the computers. Their children too have been exposed to the use and the knowledge of micro-computers at a very young age. Also, this move by the Government has encouraged many private sector companies to provide similar schemes to their own employees.

Mr Chairman, Sir, the reasons for the introduction of such a scheme then are still valid. Hence, it is with great surprise that the interest rate for such a scheme has recently been increased to 7% per annum. This increase was explained as a move in line with the general policy of the Government to trim public costs. However, Sir, may I say that this is one case of the Government throwing the baby out together with the water. How much can the Government hope to trim costs in this instance by raising the interest rate from 5% to 7%? I do not think that the amount is large. Hence, the savings may not be worth the withdrawal of this incentive to encourage widespread use of micro-computers. Worse, the Government may be seen as sending a wrong signal to the private sector and I hope that the Minister will reconsider this increase.

The second point I would like to touch on is on the Criminal Affairs Investigation Department (CAID). The CAID has been in the limelight lately, especially when cases such as Chop Hoo Thye and Pan-Electric made the headlines. It appears that there is a correlation between recession and the number of cases of reported fraud and malpractices in the companies. The CAID must today be extremely busy investigating large and small cases. Sir, what I do not understand therefore is that the expenditure on manpower for the fiscal year 1986 for the department has been reduced from $888,000 to $875,000. And this is in spite of the overall general increase in this item for the overall civil service by 2.9%. The staff strength of the CAID is also budgetted to remain at 38. But during these busy times when more time is used by them to handle large cases, there is a great fear among the business community that the smaller cases may simply be ignored by the department.

Sir, very often we see in the newspapers reports saying that so and so or somebody is helping the CAID in its investigations. I am aware that this is unpaid assistance from members of the public. But I do not think the Minister should rely too much on such unpaid help. Although I proposed an amendment to cut the expenditure in the CAID, I am actually hoping that the Minister would consider an increase in manpower and expenditure for CAID so that it will have more resources to fully discharge its duties in these trying times.

Mr Tan Soo Khoon (Alexandra): Mr Speaker, Sir, in 1978, the Singapore Bus Services Limited was floated as a public company and its shares listed on the Stock Exchange of Singapore. At that time, the then Minister for Finance, the late Mr Hon Sui Sen, told Parliament that in order that the public as well as employees of SBS could have a stake in this company, and in order to ensure that the ownership of the company does not fall into the hands of a wealthy few, the use of CPF money would be allowed for the purchase of SBS shares. The late Minister also told the House that in order to ensure that the shareholders of SBS do not lose their hard-earned savings, the Government would give a guarantee of a dividend of 7(r)% on all SBS shares. My question to the Minister for Finance is: will Government now review this guarantee and consider withdrawing it?

Sir, I have always had the suspicion that in the past, each time SBS requested for a price increase, at the back of their minds there must always be the need to show this return of at least 7(r)%. In other words, how do we know that SBS's desire to raise prices or its reluctance to reduce bus fares, now that petrol prices have gone down, is not on account of this guarantee?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Hear, hear!

Mr Tan Soo Khoon: Sir, in 1978, I was one of those who felt that this guarantee by Government was wrong. And I feel that circumstances today do not justify a guarantee by Government of this return. What with all this talk of privatization of Government companies and the policy of Government to lay off its hands from all kinds of businesses, the Government, in fact, has no business to be in the business of guaranteeing the profitability of any company, be it SBS or what have you. If you do so, then there would be a host of other companies to guarantee. Why not guarantee the return on shares of Singapore Airlines, for example?

Earlier on, Sir, we have heard the Minister for Communications and Information telling the House that SBS is, in fact, a bus company in the private sector and Government should not be in the business of running buses. So I think Government should not be in the business of ensuring any return to shareholders. SBS, like all companies, should compete efficienty with the other transport companies or with any other form of transportation. And it must do so without the benefit of Government guarantees of any kind.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, my amendment concerns the inaction of the Ministry of Finance to avert the Pan-El crisis and the Stock Exchange closure. I make no apology for coming back to this subject. I want, within the means available to me and with all the force that I am capable of mustering, to try and impress upon Members the accountability of Government and Ministers.

Sir, in the debate in this House that took place on the 10th of January this year, when the Minister made a statement, I asked him about the time that the MAS was aware of insider trading in Pan-El and of its forward contracts. His answer was that the MAS was aware of the insider trading in early 1985. But I see from a report by a journal that the insider trading complaint was made in 1984. And he then went on to concede that the MAS was aware of the forward contracts entered into by Pan-El in February 1985. His answer was that MAS was unable to do anything about these two complaints. It referred them to the SES committee and they reported that they were unable to do anything because they did not have the powers to summon witnesses and to examine account books. So we were told that as a result of all this, MAS was unable to do anything and things had to go on the way they did, until we came to the crash at the end of December 1985.

At that sitting, I referred the Minister to the Section in the Securities Industry Act about the advisory body having all the powers it needed to summon witnesses and to ask for production of documents from members and from other companies. The Minister replying to my speech on the adjournment said, "Yes, the Securities Industry Council was such a body." But he says, and I read from col. 807 of the Hansard of 10th January 1986:

'That body's sole function, in fact, is to advise the Minister on new listings of companies. It also advises the Minister on administration of the Code on Takeovers and Mergers on stock exchange matters.' The Minister left this House with the impression that the Securities Industry Council did not have any other terms of reference or other powers, except to advise the Minister on takeovers and mergers and on stock exchange matters. After that I managed to get from the Ministry of Finance the press statement that was made by the Securities Industry Council on the 19th September 1974. I found in that press statement the following terms of reference as approved by the Minister for Finance:

'(a) Advise the Minister on all matters concerning the Securities Industry, including the administration of legislation, particularly on the protection of investors.

(b) Advise the Committee of the Stock Exchange on matters referred to it and to consider recommendations.

(c) Advise the Committee of the Stock Exchange on action to be taken to prevent or expose unlawful or dishonest forms of trading.

(d) Advise the Registrar of Companies on matters referred to it and on activities of any company which in the opinion of the Council are suspect.'

And only finally we come to the term of reference which the Minister said was the only purpose of this Securities Industry Council, ie, (e) Administer and enforce the Singapore Code on Takeovers and Mergers.

So it seems to me, Sir, and I am sorry to have to say this, that the Minister misled the House on the 10th January 1986, in his assertion that this Securities Industry Council's task was only to advise the Minister on new listings and on takeovers and mergers. It clearly had under its terms of reference approved by the Minister and published, as I said, on the 19th Septemer 1974, other powers. So the question does arise, and it is important, Sir, that the question should be faced squarely. It cannot be swept under the carpet. It cannot be evaded.

The question does arise as to when the MAS became aware of insider trading and when it became aware of the forward contracts entered into by Pan-El. And why was not the matter referred to the Securities Industry Council with all the powers it possessed under the Act to inquire into it? Why were not the practices of Pan-El referred to the Registrar of Companies, because you will find that as one of the terms of reference? Why did not the Securities Industry Council consider the question whether there was any unlawful or dishonest forms of trading inside Pan El in 1984 and beginning of 1985? These are very important questions, Sir. As a result of no action taken by the MAS and the Ministry of Finance, the people who had invested monies lost considerably. And not only that, as I keep saying again and again, we have suffered considerable damage in our efforts to become a financial centre. I hope the Minister will try to give satisfactory answers to these questions.

I have asked only last week that a Commission of Inquiry be appointed to inquire into all the events leading to the collapse of Pan-El and the suspension of trading on the Stock Exchange. The Minister replied that the Government did not think that it was necessary and the Prime Minister supported the Minister. But as the Minister, I think, himself conceded, the public had not been told everything about the Pan-El crisis. So my criticism in this debate is to place the blame on the Ministry of Finance and, particularly the MAS. We have carried an article in our paper, the Hammer, and I will repeat what we said there.

The Chairman: Your time is up, Mr Jeyaretnam.

Mr Chandra Das (Chong Boon): Sir, I have three amendments under my name and I propose to speak on all three amendments.

My first amendment, Sir, refers to the question of manpower. Sir, much has been said on this subject, especially with the formation of the special committee under the Permanent Secretary (Budget) to look into this question. The assurance that there will be no retrenchments is most reassuring. My only regret is that this exercise should have been carried out two or three years ago. The timing seems to be most inappropriate. New job creations in the private sector, Sir, I submit, will take some time. With the projected recession for the next two years, what is the future for new entrants into the labour market? Is this not the concern of the Government too? I hope the Government will give some serious consideration to the problem of new entrants into the labour market.

Secondly, Sir, on the question of manpower itself, I would like to suggest that the committee that is going to look into the so-called 10% cut must make sure that this cut applies to all grades and not purely to office boys and lift attendants. Sir, it is common practice both in the private sector and the public sector to just go for numbers rather than manpower cost.

Sir, if you remove 10 office boys, it makes for better presentation than the removal of one superscale officer. Therefore, I would strongly suggest that the Government has a re-look at this problem in view of the current economic situation.

Sir, I would like to turn to the subject of computerization in the Civil Service. The computerization of the civil service was launched in 1981 to increase efficiency and effectiveness in the public service. It was also intended to provide a higher and a wider quality of service. In view of the above, I would like to ask the Minister, Sir, how much has been expended on this programme. Secondly, whether this programme has been cost-effective. Thirdly, Sir, are there adequate safeguards taken for computer security?

Sir, my next topic relates to the Commercial Affairs Investigation Department. The hon. Member for Jalan Kayu has already raised the question on manpower.

Sir, I believe the move to set up this special Department to investigate commercial fraud and abuse is a welcome one. This is all the more important since we are trying to build up Singapore as an international business centre. All our promotional efforts will come to nought if fraud and abuse were rampant and was the order of the day in Singapore. Sir, in view of the Pan-El debacle, the Singapore investor or investors looking to the Government for some form of protection for his investment. Thousands of shareholders from Pan-El are made to pay for the mistakes of some. My question to the Minister is whether this Commercial Affairs Investigation Department is a reactive organization, ie, move in only after the event, as in the case of the Pan-El case, or does it have the resources and the authority to be more pro-active. Maybe the Minister can elaborate to this House on the work and functions of the CAID so that it will give added confidence to our investors in Singapore and possibly put some fear into the hearts of directors of companies who may have other designs.

Mr Lau Ping Sum: Mr Speaker, I have two amendments under this Head. The first is related to Computerization in the Civil Service. I would like to make a few comments on this topic, mainly on the third point raised by the Member for Chong Boon, ie, on computer security.

Sir, the Member for Chong Boon mentioned that the Civil Service Computerization scheme was launched in 1981. This is not strictly correct. As I recall it, the Ministry of Finance was computerized in 1963. Several other Ministries, such as the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of National Development, the Ministry of Defence and a few others were already computerized in the 1970s. However, since 1981 there has been an acceleration in the pace of computerization. And as the Report of the Economic Committee commented, considerable progress has been made.

Sir, in Singapore, in general there is a severe shortage of computer auditors. I would like to ask the Minister whether he is satisfied with the number and experience of computer auditors working in the public service. As the number of on-line data bases proliferates, the number of system breakers or system hackers would tend to increase. There have been reports in other countries where system hackers break into large scale security systems. I would like to find out whether additional safeguards have been built into the public service computerization programmes.

Sir, auditors sometimes are reluctant to participate in systems development projects for two reasons. The first is that they say that by participating in systems design, the right to comment and to query later on is therefore taken away. The second reason given is that there is insufficient manpower. Both reasons are not quite valid. In the first place it is not only desirable but essential for computer auditors to get involved during the systems design stage. Without theircomment there is no adequate assurance that the systems design is secure. By commenting on and thereby strengthening the security aspects of the system, it does not preclude their right to comment later on. After all, the improvement is a continuous process. Auditors should from time to time give their comments and suggestions on how to further improve the security of the system. The second reason given by them that there is insufficient manpower is again not quite right. After all, the involvement of the computer auditors or security specialists need not be from the beginning to the end of the systems design. They need to comment and give their views on critical areas of control, on recovery procedures and on back-up copies and so on. So the involvement in terms of time is really not as great as it appears.

The second topic I would like to comment on is the question of our taxation policy. Sir, the Minister for Finance has reassured the House that the Government will not burden the private sector with unnecessary statutory costs. In particular, the impact of such costs on our competitiveness will be monitored closely. Sir, income tax collection accounted for one-third of our total revenue in 1985 compared with 25% in 1972, and this reflects the higher income and standard of living of Singaporeans. However, it is relevant to note that in most countries with progressive income tax rates the Pareto principle of 80:20 applies. In other words, approximately 80% of the income tax revenue is collected from 20% of the taxpayers, ie, the high income earners, and since we wish to encourage innovation and reward enterprise and talent, income tax rates should not be too high.

In this context, the possibility of a consumption tax has been raised. There are various forms of consumption tax - the single stage taxes, such as manufacturer's sales tax, wholesale sales tax, retail sales tax, or multi-stage taxes, such as turnover tax or value-added tax (VAT). The Minister has acknowledged that consumption taxes are unpopular and therefore its introduction will only be carried out after due consideration. In fact, people in general dislike paying taxes because taxes cut the link between payment and the service bought by the payment.

Sir, a tax can be evaluated in terms of equity, simplicity and economic efficiency. All governments accept the necessity of the equity principle, and that, is those with higher income should pay a higher proportion. A simple tax is one that is cheap for the Inland Revenue Department to collect, easy for the taxpayer to understand and difficult to dodge. And economic efficiency means that essentially taxes should not make people do things they would not do if those taxes did not exist, that is, taxes should be neutral so that incentives, as between work and leisure, are not affected.

Objections to a consumption tax are based on its regressivity and the burden it imposes on the lower income group. As such a tax is collected from vendors and not from individuals, adjustment of the tax according to the personal circumstances of the individual is not possible. It is therefore regressive, relative to income. To meet the complaint, 21 states out of the 45 in the USA with sales tax exempted food. In Canada, all provinces exempted food as well as a long list of items, such as medicine and drugs, books, clothing, farm machinery, fuel and others. Exemption of food and other items tends to lessen the degree of regressivity and some studies even suggest that the tax is more or less proportional with these exemptions. However, enormous administrative problems are created by exemption and apart from interpretative matters, there are the difficulties in ensuring that the tax is applied correctly and reported correctly. In the context of Singapore, with a large number of retail outlets, without any system or cash registers, the collection of retail tax will be very difficult. Therefore, a complete review of our tax system is desirable.

The Member for Jalan Kayu has mentioned the possibility of expenditure tax which was first discussed 40 years ago by the US Treasury, as he pointed out in a letter to the Straits Times a few days ago. Nicholas Kaldor, in the 1950s, strongly advocated this tax and implemented it in India and Ceylon for short periods. The idea has since been revived in both UK and USA. The tax would apply to consumption expenditure calculated by deducting the net increase in savings from income during the period. However, expenditure tax is not without its problems. For example, housing. Is it a consumption expenditure or a form of savings? Secondly, gifts. Is it equitable to tax both the donee and donor? And relatives may give gifts to lessen tax liability. Therefore, there is a loophole. Thirdly, there are certain transitional aspects which have to be looked after, for example, retired people spending their accumulated savings which had already been taxed previously would, in effect, be paying tax twice.

All these factors ought to be considered in the overall review and we look forward to seeing a comprehensive review done as soon as possible.

The Chairman: The guillotine time is 5.00 pm. How much time do you require, Dr Hu?

Dr Hu Tsu Tau: About half an hour.

Encik Othman bin Haron Eusofe (Geylang Serai): Sir, I will be very brief. I would like to touch on the performance appraisal system in the civil service, particularly on the appraisal of performance of junior staff. Are senior staff and supervisors given adequate training or guidance to help them assess the work performance of their staff effectively? I believe that the system which is now used, which is described as a closed appraisal system, is a passive one. The officers who are being assessed are not told how they have performed during the period under review. The exception is when the assessment is an adverse one. As a result, most officers do not know how well they have performed. I think there is a need to review the present system of performance appraisal. I feel that senior officers should discuss the performance of their staff with them and in the process find out their problems and difficulties. They should guide them to overcome these problems. In this way, they would help to motivate their staff to improve on their performance and to increase productivity. It is because of this lack of proper assessment that we get staff approaching union leaders because they feel that they have been victimized when they are suddenly assessed as poor performers.

Sir, I have raised this issue because of the programme to reduce the permanent staff complement of ministries and statutory boards by 10% of the current level over the next five years. Members of the House, particularly the PAP Members, have stressed that this programme has caused many public sector employees to become nervous and anxious. Public sector employees fear that they would be suddenly told that their performance is not up to standard, and I have been told by union leaders that there is a tightening of the performance appraisal. But what the staff are unhappy about is the way the performance appraisal has been done. They are not happy because some of their staff suddenly found themselves being told that the performance is not up to standard. So I hope that there will be a review of this system and I also hope that the Ministry will look into this seriously.

Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon (Yuhua): Sir, the question I am going to raise is not a new one. It concerns the Government's refusal to extend medical benefits to the family members of its female employees. Though an old issue, it still affects many people. I hope that the new Finance Minister will not give us the old reply.

The recession, as Members know, has hit wage-earners hard. Many have had to accept a severe wage restraint or even a wage cut. Others have lost their jobs. Some may be under-employed. Even the self-employed operating small business have not been spared. Some of those affected will have wives working for the Government. Of the 65,094 people employed by the Government, 32,058, or about half, are females. This means that half the public employees are deprived of this benefit for their families. The high rate of female participation in the civil service is an indication of the significant contribution of women to the public sector.

Sir, I am not here to be the champion of the women's liberation movement. In my view, this is not a woman's issue. This is an issue that concerns many families and their benefits. It concerns the improvement of a family's welfare. It must therefore be re-examined in this light.

In Singapore today, the average family with husband, wife and two children must have at least two people working. The median income for men is about $700 and for women it is about $500. Otherwise the family would have difficulty making ends meet. Women may come out to work for various reasons but the most frequent and compelling one is the need to help support the family. This can become critical when the husband loses his job, which is not uncommon in the current recession. Then the wife's income becomes the sole means of survival.

I must say, Sir, that women in Singapore have come a long way. The female labour force participation rate today is 46%. The Economic Committee has, in fact, recommended that this rate be increased to 50% by 1995. To attract more women into the labour force, the condition must be made more attractive to them. Besides, the various measures like part-time work, flexi-time work, tax relief, child-care centre, etc., extension of medical benefits to the families of female employees would certainly be an added incentive.

Since 1961, with the passing of the Women's Charter, the recognition of women's rights and protection of women are given legal basis. Among the employers in Singapore, the Government has also been the pioneer in implementing the equal pay and equal opportunity principle for equal work. While I must acknowledge the Government's contribution towards improving the women's lot, there are, however, I feel, certain existing policies applied to female Government employees that ought to be reviewed. One such policy is the refusal to grant medical benefits to family members of female employees while their male colleagues enjoy such benefits.

The answers given on previous occasions when this issue was raised were not convincing. These answers appear to be based on the premise that men are the sole breadwinners. The situation today, however, is vastly different, as I have pointed out earlier on. The ratio of men and women in the tertiary institution is already 1:1. The chances of women marrying men less educated than her are higher. There is no justification to deny their family of this benefit.

Employment policies, in my view, cannot be formulated in isolation. It must be reviewed and, if necessary, amended from time to time to suit the changing needs of employees. Likewise, this particular policy ought to be reviewed as it is based on the argument that men are the sole breadwinners which is no longer relevant today. There are compelling reasons to have a serious rethink of this issue. I therefore hope that the new Finance Minister will be more enlightened and will give a favourable reply to this question.

Dr Ang Kok Peng (Buona Vista): Sir, I will be very brief, if I may.

The Chairman: I am afraid the Minister requires half an hour to reply.

Dr Ang Kok Peng: Two minutes only.

The Chairman: All right.

Dr Ang Kok Peng: Thank you, Sir. Over the years, there has been greater flexibility in the use of money from the Skills Development Fund for the purpose of upgrading skills. This is a good sign. However, as far as I know, and I stand to be corrected, no money has been spent on providing training for workers who have become handicapped as a result of industrial accidents and are no longer able to continue with their particular occupation. For them, the question of upgrading their original skills is irrelevant. Humane employers would retain these persons in their establishments and deploy them to less demanding jobs, which though helping them financially can no longer provide a meaningful life. These persons, especially the younger ones, should be trained in other skills with career prospects so that they can once again look forward to a meaningful life in our society.

If the SDF is prepared to finance such training, then some publicity should be given to it so that it will be generally known among employers and employees. If under existing guidelines SDF is unable to do so, would the Minister consider changing the guidelines to allow SDF to do so?

The Minister for Finance (Dr Hu Tsu Tau): Sir, because of limitation of time I will deal with three general questions touched on by various Members and will only take up those other questions where time permits. For those questions which I am unable to answer today, I will deal with them separately by written answers.

The first one would be the question raised by the Members for Jalan Kayu and Chong Boon on how the Commercial Affairs Investigation Department operates, and also the question by the Member for Anson, because his is inter-related. First, the operations of the Commercial Affairs Investigation Department. This Department was set up in March 1985 following a study made by the Management Services Division of the Ministry of Finance. Commercial crime was on the increase and commercial law was becoming increasingly complex. A separate agency within the Ministry of Finance staffed with legal experts and specialists was therefore created to investigate and prosecute serious and complex offences which come under the following statutes: the Companies Act, Securities Industry Act, 1973, the Trust Companies Act, Finance Companies Act, the Banking Act, the Insurance Act.

As the major part of CAD's work involves dealing with listed companies, it cannot investigate without having adequate cause, as this could adversely affect the reputation of companies and, therefore, their share prices. The Department therefore acts only on legitimate information and complaints. Where substantive cause can be established, the CAD does not hesitate to take prompt action, as in the Alfa-Pacific Securities case and Pan-El case subsequently. It must be understood that the CAD does not have surveillance powers and cannot be expected to anticipate crime. Its actions are, therefore, necessarily reactive. In the case of a listed company like Pan-El, its operations are governed by the provisions of the Companies Act and the Securities Industry Act, 1973, with primary supervision exercised by the company's auditors and the Stock Exchange of Singapore. Present statutes do not provide the supervisory authorities with sufficient surveillance and investigative powers. This would be remedied under the proposed legislative changes to the Securities Industry Act, 1986, and proposed amendments to the Companies Act which will be tabled at the end of this Parliamentary session.

4.35 pm

[Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair]

The Minister for Finance (Dr Hu Tsu Tau): As I mentioned, the CAD became operational in March 1985 with its staff strength and scope of work determined prior to the start of operations. It was agreed, having regard to existing investigative resources, that CAD should investigate only serious and complex commercial fraud cases. The less serious or less complex cases were to be dealt with by the Police and other Government agencies through an established working arrangement with the CAD. It is not the Department's policy to leave minor cases to be dealt with under civil law. If an offence has been committed, it will be investigated by CAD if it comes within its purview; if not, it will be channelled to the appropriate investigative agency.

As the CAD is a new department, it was decided that CAD's scope and workload should be periodically reviewed. Staff numbers are not as critical as the quality of its staff and productivity. Emphasis has been on quality and productivity. Should it be necessary, staff strength would be increased.

Coming to the question raised by the Member for Anson, I think he has made some statements which are technically incorrect, and I will have to correct these. He said that the Minister said that in the case of Pan-El the insider trading was only known in 1985. That is not true. The insider trading, I think I recall saying that we knew about it in 1984 but it was investigated by the Stock Exchange and nothing came off it. I think the Member for Anson, as a lawyer, should know that insider trading cases are extremely difficult to prove, much less convict under our present laws. I believe there is not a single case of conviction brought in the courts of Singapore. Neither have there been successful prosecutions of insider trading, I believe, even in the UK under the existing laws. Few cases have been brought to court and successfully prosecuted in the United States even though the laws there are much more strict in this matter. The laws we are proposing in the Securities Industry Act 1986 would be similar to those in the United States.

Secondly, he said that the MAS was aware of the forward contracts involvement of Pan-El in early 1985. This is totally untrue. The forward contracts it knew about were in connection with Alfa-Pacific Securities. Alfa-Securities was under investigation by the CAD Department on other matters. It was only as a peripheral item of investigation that the matter came to the attention of the CAD. The CAD then referred the issue to the SES for a ruling on the legality of these contracts and, as far as the SES Committee was concerned, it was not illegal under their rules. Now, whether or not it is a proper way of running a business is quite a separate issue.

Here, I want to divert slightly on this issue of forward contracts and their legality, as it has some bearing on the inferences laid by the Member for Anson. I have taken advice from the AG's Office and in their procedures for forward contracts as such are not illegal. They are merely contractual devices made to extend credit in the normal course of business by Stock Exchange members. Now, whether the amounts which were extended and the terms under which they were granted were prudent is an entirely separate issue. The advice is that there are some forward contracts which could be illegal, particularly those in which two parties to the contract are common or there might be cases where parties enter into collusion to manipulate forward contracts in order to influence prices in the market. These would clearly be illegal, and I believe certain cases are pending in the courts. Therefore, I think it is best to leave it to the courts to decide because each case is different.

On the other point raised by the Member for Anson concerning the powers of the MAS under the Securities Industry Act of 1973, indeed I am aware that Section 3 does give the Minister the power to call for an investigation, but only on substantive evidence. That is the difficulty in which the MAS found itself when it took over the management and administration of the Securities Industry Act in the latter part of 1984. MAS reviewed the provisions and found that there were severe deficiencies in the Act which provided, practically speaking, no surveillance powers what- soever. There were no returns required from members of the Stock Exchange in which their performance could be monitored. Neither has the MAS any powers of entry to inspect the books of stockbroking companies without specific court orders, which can only be obtained for specific causes. It is against this background that the MAS quickly realized that the existing laws were totally inadequate. Therefore, MAS immediately began to draft new laws to provide it with the necessary powers to take action; not on rumours or allegations because clearly it is not practical for the CAD or the MAS to mount a major investigation or for the Minister to call for a committee to be set up to investigate the affairs of publicly listed companies on the merest allegation, because you can imagine the chaos that would take place if we did so. The practical solution was to change the laws so that powers of surveillance are available, powers of entry and seizure of books and inspection will allow the MAS to keep tabs on companies, as we do with the banks, because that is the only way you can anticipate problems, not react after the event.

Section 3 of the Securities Industry Act, 1973, is like an owner of a house hiring a pest exterminator to get rid of flies in his house and he gives him a cannon and says, "Kill all the flies using this cannon." Well, you would not have a house left either. So the problem MAS faced was not that it was unwilling to act because it has never hesitated to do so when clear hard evidence is available. In the Alfa-Pacific Securities case investigations were started in early 1985 and led to the prosecution and conviction of certain directors of the firm.

I therefore believe that there are no grounds for the allegations made against the MAS by the Member for Anson. I am satisfied that the quality of staff is exceptional. Following the reorganization of the MAS in 1981, a programme was immediatelly launched to review all legislation under their control. So far, with the exception of the Securities Industry Act, they have introduced and amended legislation covering the Banking Act, the MAS Act, Finance Companies Act, the Insurance Act, proper gold trading through Simex, Merchant Banking Ordinances, guidelines for the Futures Trading Act, and amendments to the Companies Act. So with the passage, I hope, of the new Securities Industry Act, we will be in a better position to ensure that another Pan-El will not take place.

The reasons for the failure of Pan-El, I will mention briefly here. There were three main reasons. Firstly, mismanagement by the directors. Pan-El was facing major downturns in its business operations, like everybody else, but the management simultaneously borrowed considerably in excess of the company's capital base. Secondly, there was widespread misuse of company funds by directors and by third parties, in collaboration, for stock market speculation which resulted in substantial losses. Finally, there was failure by the external auditors to report deficiencies in the company's accounts which is still inexplicable. It is in this connection that we are proposing to introduce amendments to the Companies Act in order to ensure that adequate reporting of a company's accounts is made in future to allow not only the Government but also investors to assess more closely the performance of the company.

So the basic cause for the problems arising from the Pan-El case was deficiency in the statutes which govern the operation of the company, which are essentially the Companies Act and its reporting requirements and the Securities Industry Act 1973 which did not provide adequate surveillance and monitoring powers.

I will now move on to the second question of concern to Members of this House, which is, the issue of consumption tax. I have dealt with this in some detail in the Budget debate but I think it bears repeating because it is an issue of major importance which I hope the public will understand. As I have mentioned in the Budget Statement, Singapore is a price-taker. Its productive sectors must be competitive in order to survive. We may therefore have to lower our corporate taxes to meet foreign competition. When that happens, we are likely to be faced with a permanent budget deficit unless we take steps to find alternative compensatory sources of revenue. The alternatives are very few. Taxing statutory boards is one although, as I have mentioned, the amount that can be collected is likely to be small on a continuing basis. Raising statutory charges and fees is another, but this will increase business costs and reduce our competitiveness. The need for consumption taxes is therefore a compelling consideration.

Of course, we must ensure that the adverse effects are mitigated. I should point out that consumption taxes already exist in the form of taxes on liquor, tobacco and petrol and as a cess on hotels, although these were and will continue to be imposed for social and other reasons and not for revenue reasons alone. It is a little premature at this stage to consider the manpower resources needed to administer the consumption tax. This is because it will depend on the type of consumption tax to be imposed, the type of goods and services to be included and the level at which the tax should apply, whether at the manufacturing, wholesale or retail level. These questions will have to be carefully studied prior to making a decision.

The next main issue which concerns Members is Government's proposed manpower cuts. Again, I have discussed this at some length in the Budget statement but I think the subject is important enough to bear repeating. Manpower reductions will be effected only after detailed reviews of the activities of each Ministry and statutory board by in-house scrutiny teams. The object of each scrutiny would be to determine whether the activity is necessary and, if so, whether it could be conducted at lower cost and with less manpower. The scrutiny teams will examine whether manpower requirements and operating costs could be reduced through simplification of work procedures, streamlining of organizational structures and investment in computerization, automation and other labour-saving devices. The extent of manpower savings, including the number and type of staff which would be affected, can only be determined after the completion of the scrutinies. However, it is expected that, on an overall basis, there will be reductions in most grades of appointments and not merely lower-level staff. It is recognized that the cost savings arising from reductions in higher grade staff will be much more than the reduction in an equivalent number of lower grade staff.

I will now try and deal with the specific questions raised by various Members, not necessarily in their order. The Member for Thomson has asked whether there is a law to protect companies from creditors when they go into liquidation and suggested that we might adopt something similar to Chapter 11 of the United States. He wanted to know, I believe, what is the position in regard to the control of company directorships under the amended Companies Act.

The Ministry of Finance will be making suitable amendments to the Companies Act to protect companies from creditors and from going into liquidation. The amendments, which will also cover the control of company directorships, will be made known with the introduction of the Companies (Amendment) Bill in 1986 on completion of the debate on the budget in the committee of supply. It is proposed that the Bill will go to Select Committee.

The Member for Thomson has also asked whether Government could consider employees' stock option schemes. I agree that stock options can play a useful role in fostering employee loyalty and commitment. However, preferential tax treatment for gains arising from stock options can open up many opportunities for tax avoidance. There is also the question of equity as stock options are only available to senior management. If at all favourable tax treatment is to be accorded to stock option schemes, I would like such schemes to be made more widely available and not just to directors and senior staff. My Ministry is presently looking into these and related issues.

The Member for Radin Mas has asked about the question of powers of directors and the consequences, if they were directors of companies going into liquidation. This will be dealt with by the proposed amendments to the Companies Act.

The Member for Jalan Kayu has asked why the Ministry has suddenly raised the interest rate on renovation, micro-computer and vehicle loan schemes. The reason why Government has decided to do so is that despite the increase in interest rates, Government loan schemes are still very attractive compared to commercial loan rates. The move is made, in fact, in consonance with Government's attempts to reduce subsidies, where it can and to cut costs. The Ministry is of the view that the small increase in the interest rate will not deter the increasing use of micro-computers.

The Member for Chong Boon has raised a question regarding Government's computerization programme, and I would like to give a few details. The civil service computerization programme commenced in late 1981. Originally, this programme called CSCP involved the development of 110 application systems for seven Ministries. The scope of the CSCP has since been extended and now covers 12 Ministries, for whom 200 application systems would be implemented by the end of 1989. The total cost of the scheme is estimated at $150 million. Slightly more than $65 million, or 43%, has been spent up to the end of 1985. A total of 50 application systems or nearly half the systems, included originally in the CSCP, were operating by then. Full details of these systems are given in the National Computer Board's annual report of 1984.

Projects included in the CSCP were chosen after an assessment of the benefits, both qualitative and quantitative, to be gained from the computerization and the costs involved. The benefits would include improvements in administrative and operational efficiency of departments, better services to the public and also savings in manpower and operating costs. The National Computer Board, together with the CSCP Ministries, have commenced a programme of post-implementation audits to assess the extent to which the anticipated benefits and savings have been realized in practice. NCB's preliminary assessment is that for most of the completed systems, the expected benefits and savings have been achieved.

For example, the Civil Aviation Authority spent $1.5 million on its computerization programme under the CSCP. After computerization, the Authority has been able to reduce manpower requirements by 32 posts. Computerization of the Authority's billing system has resulted in prompt collection of revenue, with consequential gains on interest on bank balances. In all, annual savings of some $1 million has been realized, more than justifying the investment in computerization.

Apart from the monetary savings, other application systems have resulted in a better level of service to the public and the business community. For instance, the inward/outward trade declaration processing system implemented for the Ministry of Trade and Industry and the Trade Development Board allows for the release of monthly trade data within two weeks as compared with four months previously. My Ministry and the NCB are closely monitoring the implementation of the scheme to ensure that the anticipated benefits of computerization are fully realized.

The Member for Geylang Serai has asked what schemes the Ministry may have to help public officers evaluate performance of their staff. The system of staff appraisal for junior officers was last revised in 1973. Generally, supervisors report on the performance and conduct of the staff annually. The criteria and attributes used are known to all junior civil servants. Supervisors are required to inform their subordinates of shortcomings and to help them improve on their performance. Supervisors attend supervisory management courses at the Civil Service Institute where they are taught how to help their subordinates perform at their best. There is therefore no question that junior civil servants do not know what is required of them in their jobs.

There are adequate safeguards against victimization. The staff report form is countersigned by the supervisor. In addition, all staff reports are collated and checked by personnel sections within each department or Ministry, which among other things look for instances of victimization. Grievance-handling channels are clearly spelt out in the Instruction Manuals. An aggrieved officer may approach his senior officers, Permanent Secretary, recognized staff associations or unions for help. Cases of victimization are thoroughly investigated by the authorities. Because the present system is working well, the Ministry does not intend to make any change to the staff appraisal system for junior officers.

On the question raised by the Member for Yuhua, I regret that the reply has to be similar to ours given in the past. But perhaps I could restate the reasons. The question of extending medical benefits to children of female public officers who are not widows or divorcees was studied by the Ministry of Finance in 1985. It was then noted that the most cogent reason for extending the medical benefits to these children is the principle of equal treatment for the sexes, which is especially important in our meritocratic system. However, while this principle of equal treatment per se is commendable, any liberalization of medical benefits for public employees will have financial and other implications for the private sector. If the dependants of female public officers are provided with medical benefits, there will be pressure on the private sector companies to provide similar medical benefits to their employees. At present, many companies do not even provide medical benefits to dependants of their male employees. However, extension of medical benefits to children of female public officers will be quite costly and this would not be consistent with current measures taken by Government to trim public sector costs. As the present economic situation weighs against any move which may be interpreted as setting a trend and leading to additional costs, the Ministry thinks that the extension of medical benefits to children of female public officers should be considered at a later date. Given the current employment situation, it is unlikely that the non-provision of medical benefits for their dependants would discourage women from working if they are otherwise inclined to work.

Finally, the Member for Buona Vista raised questions about the use and application of the Skills Development Fund. The SDF secretariat is conscious of the need to provide training for handicapped persons so that they can pursue new vocational opportunities beyond entry level positions. The Fund has in the past supported generously efforts of companies and social service organizations to train handicapped persons to assume meaningful work responsibilities. Some of these efforts include the training of visually handicapped persons to become typists and telephone receptionists.

The Fund has also given generous incentives to encourage charitable organizations to train qualified teachers and trainers who can render job training to handicapped persons. In fact, the SDF secretariat recently met with the Council of Social Services to discuss the Council's plan to coordinate and organize the training for these personnel. The plan was to prepare them for jobs in electronic gadgets assembly, computer operations and book printing and binding trades.

In the case of workers who have met with industrial accidents and become handicapped, it is likely that the retraining will be in areas of work which do not involve significant skills retraining or upgrading. Fortunately, the secretariat has not encountered such request for support from employers to date. In normal circumstances, training grants are given in support of skills upgrading. In the case of retraining of workers who become handicapped as a result of industrial accidents, sympathetic consideration may be given if the employers concerned really require incentives and encouragement from SDF to enable them to provide retraining for these workers. 5.00 pm

I agree that more publicity should perhaps be given on the possibility of SDF funding support for the retraining of this group of handicapped workers.

Mr Jeyaretnam: May I just ask the Minister one question.

The Chairman: It is guillotine time.

Mr Leong Horn Kee: Sir, in view of the excellent and clear answers given by the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $170,525,400 for Head N ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates.

The sum of $1,048,560,600 for Head N ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.

Head P -

Dr Aline K. Wong (Changkat): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

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

Sir, I would like to speak on the Ministry's Health Plan for the Aged Sick. As our population is ageing, the Ministry is following a two-pronged approach to provide for the medical care of the aged sick. One approach is to build community hospitals. The second one is to provide community based health services. As for the first type of approach, ie, the building of community hospitals, these are less sophisticated hospitals with about 200 beds for convalescent care and also minor surgical operations.

It is said that the community hospitals would be located in the large population centres and that the first one would start to be built in 1987. I have two questions for the Minister. (1) Has the plan been drawn up with regard to the total number of such community hospitals that would be built? (2) Where would these community hospitals be located? The new HDB estates have younger populations whereas the older HDB estates have older populations. This trend may be accentuated in future, as our population is ageing rather rapidly and as more and more young couples move out from the town centre to the outer urban and suburban areas. So does this mean that the community hospitals will first be set up in the urban and inner urban zones?

With regard to the community based health services, this appears to be our major approach in future because we want to encourage the elderly to remain in their homes with support from their families and from the community. So towards this end, two types of health services have been announced. One is the expansion of the Home Nursing Foundation. The other is the setting up of Senior Citizens Health Centres.

The Home Nursing Foundation was set up in 1976 as a voluntary association, dependent on funds from donations while the Ministry is supplying some form of subsidy, ie, it deploys the services of some 48 nurses for home visiting and counselling services. The Home Nursing Foundation received quite a bit of attention from the Howe Yoong Chong Report on the Problems of the Aged. I understand that subsequently the Ministry has drawn up a concept plan. According to the Annual Report of the Home Nursing Foundation 1984-85, it was reported that 2,852 patients are receiving home visits from 48 nurses. The rate of expansion of such services appears to be rather slow to me. According to the 1983 National Survey of Senior Citizens conducted by the Ministry of Health itself, it was estimated that at least 8,400 elderly persons are semi-ambulant and 1,200 are non-ambulant. These numbers are likely to increase again because our population is ageing rapidly. So my third question for the Minister (he has just left, so it will be left to the Minister of State) is how many years would it take before the Home Nursing Foundation can provide for the total estimated needs of the target groups. The fourth question is that the subsidy received by the Home Nursing Foundation right now is simply in the form of salaries of the nurses plus the partial salaries of the administrators of the Health Services for the Elderly Department. My question is, should not the medicine, the food supplements, the surgical equipment and materials as well as the salary of the driver also be met by Government subsidy? After all, if the patients have been ambulant, they would have gone to the Government clinics and would have obtained these supplies in subsidized form anyway. So what is the reason for not subsidizing these kinds of materials given out by the Home Nursing Foundation? As we know, the voluntary associations spend a lot of effort every year in fund raising. I think it will be far more effective if there is centralized fund raising, even for the Home Nursing Foundation, through the Comunity Chest so that the Foundation can concentrate its efforts in recruiting volunteer nurses as well as other kinds of volunteers in the community.

As for the Senior Citizens Health Centres, again it was recently announced that two such centres will be set up this year in Kuo Chuan and Kampong Ubi. Since these two constituencies have had rather successful community health projects for the elderly, through their RCs and their Youth Groups, I suppose it is natural for the two pilot health centres to be set up in these two constituencies. My fifth question for the Minister of State is, what would be the criteria for setting up health centres in other constituencies in future? Since the CCCs, CCMCs, and even voluntary associations, are keen to set up such health centres in their respective constituencies, what kinds of help could they request from the Ministry? Question 6 is what kinds of services are offered in the Health Centres? Do they include the running of day-care rehabilitative services for the aged sick?

Finally, I would like to recall the Minister of State's memory again with regard to the recommendation of the Howe Yoong Chong Report where it was said that the teaching and research in the field of geriatric medicine as well as the development of sociological and psychological research on gerontology should be given top priority. Are steps being taken now to expand the recruitment and the training of medical and social science personnel to deal with the health care and problems faced by our ageing population? Is the Ministry closely working together with the National University in attracting and recruiting staff to do more research on gerontology? So if the Minister of State will remember, I have raised seven questions.

Mr Eric Cheong Yuen Chee (Toa Payoh): Sir, I understand that the Ministry of Health is currently discussing with various insurance companies on a nation-wide catastrophic medical insurance scheme. I support this idea which is commendable. Since kidney failures would normally be considered a serious illness, I assume that there is a strong possibility that this disease would in some way or another be covered by this insurance. If this is so, I would also give my support, as many patients cannot afford the $12,000 needed for dialysis treatment.

However, one cause for worry is that patient-load is undoubtedly high. For instance, if there are 250 new patients each year, and assuming only 200 are able to take advantage of dialysis and survive, the additional cost from these 200 patients is $2,000,400 per year. In ten years the bill for dialysis alone will rise to $24 million. Since the insurance scheme is meant to cover all serious illnesses, such as cancer and heart diseases, the Ministry of Health must take precautions to ensure that this scheme is not overloaded by just one group of patients. I would therefore suggest that the insurance scheme provide for only a specific period of dialysis since dialysis is really meant as a temporary measure while waiting for the donor organ. Instead, the Ministry of Health should look into what some other countries have done towards obtaining organs.

I understand that many have legislated for automatic donation of organs when a person dies of accidental death. Sir, I would suggest that the Ministry of Health look seriously into this possibility before implementing the catastrophic medical insurance scheme. But the Ministry of Health should ensure that those people who object to the automatic donation of their own organs are allowed to opt out of this scheme.

Mr Heng Chiang Meng (Jalan Kayu): Sir, it appears that the Member for Toa Payoh has sort of read my points here because they basically cover the same thing but in a slightly different way.

Last year, in reply to a question that I submitted, the Minister of State for Health and Foreign Affairs said that the Medisave Scheme was introduced to avoid the pitfalls of a general medical insurance scheme. He added that experience in other countries has been that (a) it gives consumers an illusion of free medical services resulting in increased demand for such services; and (b) it provides no incentive for providers of health care to economise since they are reimbursed on the fee-for-service basis.

Sir, from personal experiences with those who have used their Medisave Account funds for their medical bills and comments from various doctors, it appears that the Medisave after about two years of existence have helped patients to make more use of hospital facilities. It certainly has not discouraged potential patients from abusing these hospital facilities. This is because in order to make use of their Medisave funds patients may insist on being hospitalized, although such hospitalization may not be necessary. Some doctors may simply just go along with them to avoid problems or arguments with them. Worse, there may be some other doctors who may prescribe expensive preventive medicine, but perhaps unnecessary medicine.

Sir, although these expenses are paid for by the patients with their Medisave funds, most of them do not realize that Medisave is their own money and not a Government fund or an insurance scheme because they do not see the funds in the Medisave Account. It will thus appear that the Medisave has all the disadvantages of an insurance scheme as outlined by the Minister of State last March, but then, Sir, what an insurance scheme. Because this is a scheme whereby all the patients are in fact their own insurers since the payment for the bills come out of their own pocket, that is, their Medisave Account.

I would therefore urge the Minister for Health or his Minister of State to reconsider after these two-odd years of experience that the Ministry will allow a health insurance scheme to be paid for by Medisave funds. At present consideration of an insurance scheme for only catastrophic illness is simply not good enough. After all, if it is cheaper in the long run for members to cover their medical bills by a private insurance scheme, I cannot see any reason for the Ministry's objections. May I, Sir, conclude by saying that Medisave funds belong to the CPF member. And as long as he has arranged to cover to pay for his medical expenses in such a manner so as not to tax public coffers, I do not think the Government should object. 5.15 pm

Mr Chng Hee Kok (Radin Mas): Sir, I have one matter to raise with the Minister, and that is, the Accident and Emergency (A&E) services available at the hospitals.

A frequent complaint in this House as well as in the press was the public's dissatisfaction with the A&E services. The main complaint was that there were large crowds of people seeking medical attention at the A&E services. Often these people have to wait for long periods of time before they were given any medical attention, even though some were in urgent need of immediate medical help. When they were examined by the doctors, many complained that the examination was very brief and there were cases of errors of judgment and diagnosis. Some even complained that there was lack of sensitivity on the part of the hospital staff.

Sir, I recall that there was a publicity and educational campaign on the A&E services organized by the Ministry in November last year. In this connection, may I ask the Minister what have been the results of the publicity and educational campaign on the A&E services and whether there have been any improvements in the A&E services with regard to three main points:

(1) the number of attendances; (2) the percentage of non-emergency cases handled by the A&E; and (3) the waiting time for medical treatment.

Finally, if this campaign was deemed to be effective, are there any plans to repeat this campaign this year?

Dr Augustine Tan: Sir, I filed two amendments in order to speak on three issues. The first one concerns a complaint by some nurses whom I met last year at a conference on human resource development organized by the National Productivity Board. These nurses told me that they were attending this conference without being given any leave by the authorities concerned. They had to use their vacation leave and, secondly, that they had to pay their own expenses. So I wrote to the Minister for Health about this, I think the issue should be made known so that nurses, in future, would know what they can expect on it.

The second point that I wish to speak about concerns Medisave. First of all, about the limit of $15,000 that has been set. I feel that although over the longer term this may be a desirable target to aim at, but for the next two or three years, because of the recession, this is an unrealistic figure and that, by having this figure of $15,000, we are freezing funds unnecessarily, especially for those people who need extra funds to finance their housing in view of the 15% CPF cut.

In connection with Medisave too, I view with some alarm the recent extension of the use of this fund to private hospitals and for the use by relatives or next-of- kin. I am afraid, Sir, that if insufficient controls are placed upon the use of Medisave, then in time to come, we may end up with the problem that hospitals and medical services in other countries, such as the US, have encountered, namely, escalating medical costs simply because the money is there. In America, it is because of health insurance being available, whereas here we have Medisave. Other Members have pointed out that people may become too liberal in the use of Medisave funds by placing their relatives and perhaps themselves in wards that are rather too expensive for them simply because as I said, the funds are available, so that over the longer term they may have insufficient funds for their use.

The third issue is the one which I have raised year after year and, that is, the question of abortion. In 1985, the figure went up to 23,512. This means one abortion for every two live births. Of these cases, repeat abortions constituted 39%, or nearly 40%. 9,120 cases were repeat abortions. Sir, quite clearly, abortion is now being used widely as a means of contraception. Further, about 26.6% of all the cases of abortion involved unmarried mothers. This points to increasing immorality that the abortion law has brought about.

Some two-thirds of the abortions involved women below the age of 29 years. In other words, two-thirds of the abortion cases involved the most fertile of our women. This has serious consequences because later when these women would like to have children, they find themselves infertile because, as doctors can point out, one of the side consequences of abortion is infertility. Furthermore, Sir, when one looks at the educational level of the women who have abortions we find that nearly 47% involved those with 'O' level and above education. On the one hand, we have the Government decrying the fact that our better educated women are not reproducing themselves sufficiently and, on the other, we have the Abortion Law which allows these women to have abortions so liberally.

In terms of income level, so far as the married women who had abortions are concerned, 75% of them had incomes above $800 per month. It is not a question of people being unable to afford to have these children. In fact, the biggest group of women who had abortions involved those earning between $800 per month and $1,499 per month. 46% of the cases were in this income group. If one were to study the detailed reasons given by the women for having an abortion, we find the following reasons given:

Those who felt they have completed their family size,36%;

Unmarried mothers, 27%;

Too close to the last confinement, 15%;

Not ready to start a family, 12%;

Unable to afford the child, only 5%;

Failed contraception, 1.6%; and

Medical reasons, 1.5%.

From all these reasons and relavant percentages, one can see that the original rationale for the Abortion Act is completely wrong.

Further, Sir, if one were to look at the distribution between abortions undertaken privately, that means by private doctors and clinics, and those in Government hospitals, we find that in 1985, 69% or 16,177 cases were undertaken in private clinics. I am told that the average cost for having a private abortion is somewhere between $200 and $500 whereas in the Government hospital the charge is $5. From this, one can see that the private clinics make somewhere between $3.2 million and $8.1 million out of abortions. There were some 57 clinics involving 86 doctors. The average earnings per clinic range from $56,000 to $142,000 and the average earnings per doctor range from $37,200 to $95,350. The top three clinics earned together about $1.5 million between them in 1985. The top three doctors earned about $1.3 million between them. It is no wonder that one hears about some of the doctors going about in Mercedes 280 cars. This is blood money which is used for these luxurious Mercedes cars. I would not be surprised if many of these cars end up in accidents.

Sir, these statistics are statistics of shame for the whole of Singapore, and the whole process began with the Abortion Act of 1969. Greater impetus was given to abortion by the Abortion Act of 1974 because in 1975 the statistics on abortion went up by 79% in one year as a result of the liberalization of the Abortion Act, 1974. There were three key provisions of the Act of 1969 which were relaxed in 1974. Firstly, the Pregnancy Termination Board was abolished. Hitherto, a woman had to appeal to this Board in order to get an abortion. Secondly, the maximum period of gestation was extended from 16 weeks to 24 weeks. Thirdly, the specific age of consent of 18 years old for unmarried women was removed. Sir, it is time to tighten legislation on abortion.

The Chairman: It is time, Dr Tan.

Dr Dixie Tan (Ulu Pandan): Sir, by strange coincidence, the three of us, the Members for Toa Payoh, Jalan Kayu and myself have kidney disease on our minds. But let me give a few more figures.

Every year about 200 people develop this very serious disease. Many of these people are young adults who may have recently started a career or recently started a family. The patients with this condition have three choices - death, dialysis, or kidney transplantation. Sadly, most of them die but certainly not from choice. Let me explain.

In 1985, 141 patients with chronic renal failure sought treatment at the Renal Unit of the Singapore General Hospital. 107 or about three-quarters of them had to be turned away. Haemodialysis has been available in Singapore since 1968 and patients with non-functioning kidneys can be kept alive and actually fairly well if they are hooked up to dialysis machines for a five-hour treatment three times a week. At present, there are in the public sector some 30 machines providing service to 120 patients. A few of these patients have been stout-hearted and managed even to buy their own machines and have their dialysis at home. However, the costs are really formidable, as the Member for Toa Payoh has pointed out.

Funding aside, patients with chronic renal failure on dialysis are literally tied to their machines for half a day, three times a week. The patients run the risk of contracting complications at each dialysis and run long-term complications, such as brittle bones. It is also a poor quality of life. Patients cannot find jobs because of having to take time off to go for dialysis. Nor is the patient alone in his suffering. Family members suffer along, emotionally as well as financially. Many family members, such as wives who could work, have to give up their jobs so as to be able to help husbands to do their home dialysis or else to escort them to the dialysis centres.

Every patient with chronic renal failure dreams of a new life with a new kidney. Kidney transplantation has been available in Singapore for many years. The techniques for the control of rejection of kidneys have also been available and are now so good that transplantation ---

The Chairman: Order. It is 5.30 pm.

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

Mr Yeo Cheow Tong: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply has made further progress on the Main and Development Estimates for the financial year 1st April, 1986 to 31st March, 1987, and ask leave to sit again tomorrow.

Mr Deputy Speaker: So be it.