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

Order read for consideration in Committee of Supply [6th Allotted Day].

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Head V (cont.) -

Resumption of Debate on Question [25th March, 1986],

"That the sum to be allocated for Head V be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead VA-01 Object Group 1100 of the Main Estimates." - [Mr Eric Cheong Yuen Chee]

Question again proposed.

Mr Tan Soo Khoon (Alexandra): Mr Speaker, Sir, since its establishment in 1983, the Trade Development Board has effectively represented Singapore's international trade interest and promoted our exports. Sir, I have high a regard for the TDB and its efforts. I think it is one of the very few statutory boards that does not see money-making as its objective. On the contrary, it is a statutory board that gives away money to our businessmen through its various assistance schemes. Perhaps the TDB's foresight and enlightened attitude is attributable to the fact that it is headed by a Member of Parliament who knows that success in endeavour is measured not just by having mere surpluses in the kitty.

Prior to the TDB's existence we can say that our exporters lacked proper guidance and direction of purpose. In fact, even today, sad to say, many of our businessmen still do not know much about international marketing or how to export their products and services. Perhaps this is attributable to the fact that most of our local manufacturers have for many years been contented with relegating themselves to the role of being supporting industries for the multinationals that set up shop here. This is a relatively passive role, different from the tenacity one needs to compete on the international markets. I believe the TDB can play an effective role in setting our businessmen on the right tracks. Unbelievable as it may seem, quite a lot of businessmen just do not know how to get about doing it and quite a lot of them do not know what the TDB can do for them.

There are a lot of medium-sized companies with good management and good products, but Singapore is still relatively new in the field of international marketing and proper guidance from the TDB would help. There are also a lot of companies which do not even have the right products, thinking that they can export them on the world markets. I think the TDB should intensify its efforts. Firstly, by publicizing more of its activities, identifying the right products and therefore it follows - the right companies - to enable us to fight on the international market.

Sir, one of the many schemes which is currently available to our businessmen under the EDB is the Small Industries Finance Scheme. This scheme operated by the EDB together with selected commercial banks provides various kinds of loans at very low interest rates to deserving manufacturers. But this is where the problem arises. The EDB interprets a deserving case with a yardstick quite different from that of the banks participating in the scheme. While the EDB identifies companies that in their opinion fit well into Singapore's industrial and export strategy, the commercial banks which disburse the money under the SIF scheme measure the worth of the company according to normal banking standards. Thus, for instance, a small company which manufactures a product that could contribute to the well-being of our country and thus could find the support of the EDB might find its access to low interest funds denied by the commercial banks participating in the scheme because it has a small capital base, the very reason why in the first place the company needed a loan. I understand that there are many companies which are, in fact, given approval by the EDB for loans under SIFS but have been turned down subsequently by the banks participating in the scheme. In order that the small manufacturers can benefit from this scheme, I hope the Ministry will look into this matter.

Sir, we have heard a lot about economic cooperation amongst ASEAN countries. In my opinion such economic cooperation still leaves much to be desired. Three of the ASEAN countries, for instance, impose exit taxes on their citizens travelling abroad, and such measures undermine the efforts of governments in moving towards economic cooperation. Just last week, we heard the Acting Minister for Trade and Industry telling the House about the increasingly hostile trading environment that Singapore faces. He cited acts of protectionism by our trading partners, and he mentioned a case that his Ministry took up last year with the Malaysian government which had taken a course of action that was outside the rules of the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT). I believe the Acting Minister was referring to the Malaysian government's action in exempting import duties on foodstuff pro- vided they were imported directly from their country of origin. This action, of course, discriminated against imports coming through Singapore, and it was definitely in violation of GATT rules which state that imports through third countries have to be accorded no less favourable treatment than direct imports.

Sir, Members will also recall that during the Lunar New Year or Chinese New Year we had the problem of two million oranges which were to have been exported through Singapore to Malaysia and these two million oranges were left lying at the Causeway, rotting away under the hot sun. I understand that the Ministry took up this problem with the Malaysian government which eventually agreed to remove the stipulation. But the efforts of the Ministry have only been partially successful as the Malaysian duty exemption on foodstuffs will only apply to goods brought in through Malaysian ports. As most of our goods enter Malaysia, not through ports, but by road, ie, across the Causeway, it still affects our re-exports to Malaysia. My question is whether his Ministry will take up this matter further with the Malaysian government.

Sir, I have two more instances of such discrimination against Singapore. There was a case of a Singapore company which was unable to re-export full-cream milk powder to Malaysia, and in another instance, another company could not supply electric jugs, meant for storing hot water, to a hotel in Kuala Lumpur. In both these instances, it was not a matter of the products failing to conform to the health standards or to the safety measures of Malaysia but that both companies were told in no uncertain terms that trading through third countries, in this case through Singapore, was not encouraged. In fact, I have the letters from the relevant Malaysian authorities to these two companies and I would be glad to pass these on to the Acting Minister. In the milk powder case, the Malaysian importer was told that he would be allowed to import the milk powder if it was done through Malaysian ports and this clearly shows there was nothing wrong with the product. It is merely a case of discriminating against Singapore.

There are also many other instances of discrimination which have become more and more common nowadays, notably the imposition of a 50% import duty on all goods brought into Malaysia by travellers. This has hurt a lot of our shopkeepers, particularly those in the Woodlands area.

Malaysia is our closest neighbour. Our relations with it are warm and friendly, and that is the way it should be. I would therefore urge the Minister to continue to pursue these matters, explain our position, and I am confident that in the spirit of cooperation that has existed between our two countries for so long, a solution can be found. Most of us in the House know our fellow MPs in Malaysia and by and large we find that the Malaysians are very amicable and, are prepared to listen to us. I am sure we will be able to solve these various issues through the usual channels.

Dr Augustine H.H. Tan (Whampoa): Sir, first of all, may I express my support for the sentiments expressed by the Member for Alexandra, especially in regard to the issue of protectionism by our neighbours.

Sir, I think it behoves developing countries like Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines and Thailand to support the free trade principles enunciated by GATT, the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs. We are in an era when protectionism is on the rise, particularly in the developed countries, and if developing countries want to be taken seriously by the developed countries then they ought to work together to prevent protectionism from occurring and increasing. If neighbouring countries like Malaysia were to take steps which are contrary to the GATT spirit and, even worse, contrary to the ASEAN spirit, then we shall surely lose the larger battle against protectionism by the developed countries.

Sir, let us not forget that protectionism is, first of all, a very short-sighted policy. It can give any country that is imposing the protectionist policy only very short-term gains and at very high cost because eventually the industries that are fostered through tariffs and quotas are very inefficient, very small scale in nature and have little or no export potential. Ultimately, the ones who are going to be hurt most are the people of the country itself that has introduced protectionism. In fact, big countries with larger domestic markets have found in the course of time that protectionism is no route to prosperity, and surely the lessons of the Great Depression should have been driven home to many countries in the world that it is a zero sum game. If all countries in the world were to play this game, then we are going to drag everybody down into another great depression.

Furthermore, protectionism is a double-edged sword. If a country like Malaysia becomes protectionistic, this would encourage retaliation by other countries. I am not advocating that we should start retaliating. But we should look at the trade figures. I read in today's Straits Times that we are the No. 2 export market of Malaysia. I referred to the 1985 trade figures for Singapore, and I find that we imported $8.3 billion from Malaysia last year and exported only $7.8 billion to Malaysia. In other words, there was a trade surplus in their favour of $500 million. As I said, I am not advocating protectionism in retaliation against Malaysia, but I believe that our neighbours should wake up and realize that we are not going to take things lying down.

Unfortunately, Sir, the foreign press and others have often accused Singapore of being aloof towards ASEAN, of holding back in terms of regional cooperation. But in the last few years, we have seen policy after policy acting to the detriment of ASEAN cooperation. My colleague, the Member for Alexandra, has drawn attention to some of these policies. Therefore, I would appeal to our ASEAN neighbours that instead of going the route of protectionism, why do we not go forward towards greater economic cooperation and all of us can benefit as a result. And not only that, we need to make a common stand together against the developed countries to show that we are sincere about advocating free trade in the world economy to our mutual benefit.

Sir, if I may move on to another subject since I have seven amendments on this particular ministry.

The Chairman: You are not going to take 70 minutes, are you?

Dr Augustine Tan: I might, Sir, with your indulgence. But I will not.

The Chairman: I might even cut you off!

Dr Augustine Tan: Sir, we are currently discussing in the National Wages Council and in the National Trades Union Congress the question of wage restraint for our workers in Singapore. This is a painful subject. This is not something which anybody likes to talk about and is something which our workers have to bear. But I would like to make a couple of points here that might aid the discussion.

One of the many principles enunciated by the Economic Committee's Report is that foreign investors would only come to Singapore if they find the rate of return here is greater than they find elsewhere. How much greater, it depends on the risk premia. What are the risks involved? Firstly, any investors, whether foreign or local, have to contend with market risk. After setting up the factory, they have got to market their produce, they have got to market their services, and if the market demand turns against them, then of course it would be a failure.

Secondly, there is the risk of exchange rate changing against them, and that often happens in investments in developing countries. And exchange rate changes are something which is really quite beyond the control of governments.

Thirdly, there is the question of whether political stability will continue. One finds that in countries where there is greater political instability, the risk premium demanded by investors is understandably greater.

Fourthly, there is the risk premium that is paid for the possibility of industrial strife. That is why, Sir, in Singapore over the last 20 or 25 years, we have emphasized tripartism, a climate of cooperation between Government, employers and employees. Getting our workers to realize that a climate of industrial peace is necessary in order to attract foreign investors into Singapore. And to the credit of our workers, they have responded remarkably well, and we have got to ensure that industrial peace continues. But that can only happen if our trade unions continue to be constructive.

Fifthly, Sir, the risk premium is also affected by comparative tax rates because in the ultimate analysis investors are interested in after-tax returns. That is why we had the recent tax revisions, in both income and corporate taxes. Government is trying to make after-tax returns more attractive to foreign investors. I hope these considerations would help our workers to understand the need for wage restraint, so that if they should happen to be working in a company that is showing profits at this time of recession, they should not be greedy and try to grab as much of those profits as possible because the idea is that we should allow companies to generate rates of return which are favourable compared to alternative investments elsewhere. If we fail to heed this all-important lesson, then I think our future may well be jeopardized.

Sir, may I now move on to the question of statistics, that we need to do better forecasting, better monitoring of what is happening in our economy. First of all, may I express my appreciation for the improvement that I have seen, especially over the last 5 or 10 years, in the quality and in the range of statistics that have been published. Having said this, as I look at the manpower provisions for the Statistics Department, I find that there are only nine senior staff (statistical staff) that are handling national accounts, only 10 senior staff dealing with economic statistics, and only seven senior staff dealing with coordination and demography.

Sir, our need for additional data is very pressing, particularly in the service sector. At the moment we only have a survey of the service sector every two years. We need to have annual surveys done. Then we need to de-seasonalize our data. This is quite a complicated procedure and requires a lot of expertise; it requires a team put on the job, and to do it properly. We lack data on flow of funds. We need to know how funds are utilized in our economy, efficiently or inefficiently, and the relationship between various sectors in the financial network. We need data on sectoral accounts and the relationship between sectors; for example, the relationship between the hotel sector and the corporate sector, and how the external sector impinges upon domestic sectors. We need to have national income accounts on the income side. I understand that while these may be available, they have not been published for certain reasons. We need to know certain components, like disposable income, if we want to make a proper analysis of the impact, say, of tax changes and other policy changes upon the economy of Singapore. These data are vital and necessary. We need to have data on personal savings, on marginal propensities to import, marginal propensities to save. We need to know what a multiplier looks like for an economy like ours. Right now, we only have guesstimates. We need to have balance of payments data, at least on a quarterly basis. If they are available, I have not seen them in a published form. We need to have public sector accounts, integrated with Government accounts, to show what the impact of the public sector is from year to year.

Sir, these needs are quite pressing and, in addition to this, we have the need to generate an econometric model and that takes additional manpower. So I urge the Acting Minister to look into the staffing requirements, especially in the Statistics Department.

I mentioned GATT earlier. I saw that the provision of $738,000 for GATT for 1985 was not fully utilized; only $533,000 was spent, and that for the current financial year, only $596,000 is budgetted. I want to know the reason why. I want to know the extent of support that the Ministry is giving to GATT. I want to reiterate and re-emphasize the need for Singapore to take the lead in international fora on free trade and protectionism. We need to sponsor conferences located in Singapore. We may want to have some of these international agencies that are fighting for free trade, perhaps, to be located in Singapore or at least to have some of their branches located here in Singapore. Because we live by free trade, we ought to give all the support necessary to professionals and international agencies that are propagating the idea of free trade.

Then, Sir, as I look at the input/output Table of our economy, here again there is a deficiency. The latest published Table is that for 1978. When one is trying to make policy decisions in 1986, it would not do to have to rely upon input/output coefficients which are eight years old.

Furthermore, as I look at the Tables, I find that our economy is truly very open, in that so little of any expenditure is on local goods and services. Can we do something about it? Can we encourage the formation of a greater domestic economy so that we are then less vulnerable to external forces? We can see that, over the years, the proportion of external demand to domestic demand has been changing towards greater dependence upon external demand. Can we not encourage greater purchase of Singapore goods and services through Government? Government could consciously encourage the purchase of domestic goods and services through the various Government departments and statutory boards. We had a recent exampleof the HDB wanting to furnish its new offices. Practically all the tenders specified furniture which were to be imported. I asked the question, "Why can't Singapore carpenters do the job?" And the answer was, "They lack the technology." But I said, "It is quite simple technology. Why can't you show them exactly what you need? Ask them to produce some mock-ups and give them preferential treatment so that we can generate employment domestically."

We have a lot of foreign contractors in Singapore. Contracts above $20 million each have over the past years gone to foreign contractors. And I am told that these contractors do not pay taxes in Singapore at all. They come to Singapore with financial packages virtually subsidized by their governments. Now, I know we benefit by the lower tenders but at the same time we should recognize a device called "dumping". What is dumping? If a country wanted to dump its goods and services abroad, what it typically does is to offer these goods and services at lower prices than their competitors. Then, having captured the market, they later will raise these prices, and then there is no way of escape. This is the practice of dumping. If we are operating in an entirely free market, it makes sense to do nothing about the situation. But if there is conscious dumping being done and problems of economies of scale and subsidies via government's financial arrangements for their contractors, then it is time that our Government does something in response. And when the time comes to promote the exports of our services and goods, we too should present a package to help our exporters. We should try to identify cases of dumping in the Singapore market so that we can give suitable incentives and help to our domestic producers and consumers. We cannot be throwing up our hands all the time and say, "Well, if these guys cannot compete, what can we do about it?" I mean, we have got to do something.

The Japanese government is very good at this. In fact, the whole Japanese psychology is geared towards Buying Japan, buying things made in Japan. If this were Japan and in a recession like we are in right now, we would be seeing banners all over the place, "Buy Singapore goods and services", and Government will be taking the lead in the process. Of course, we can do this to a far less extent than the Japanese can do. But to do nothing is also wrong. So I urge the Government to take my point seriously.

Now a comment on the Jurong Town Corporation (JTC). Why is it that for 1985 the provision of $111 million was largely not spent, and only $19.3 million was spent? Why is it there is a provision in 1986 of $117 million? What is the JTC going to do with this money in 1986 when there is so much excess capacity of factories and of warehouses? Further, is the JTC considering a further reduction in factory rentals? I am told through the grapevine that about 900 factories are in arrears of their rentals to JTC. If this is so, then it portends trouble ahead unless we do something about it.

On the Economic Development Board, I notice an increased provision, from $17.8 million to $20.8 million for this financial year. Is this enough? Because there are two additional burdens that the EDB has to bear from this year onwards: (a) the Small Enterprises Bureau; and (b) the promotion of companies that are service-oriented. So I foresee a much greater workload. Is the EDB equipped sufficiently to deal with both these additional burdens? At the same time, I am encouraged to note that the development expenditure for EDB has gone up from about $40 million to $85 million this year to give capital assistance to industry. It is all to the good.

I notice too, Sir, a provision of $25.5 million for financing the joint-industrial training centres. My question to the Minister is very simple: how cost-effective are these centres? What are they producing? Are they producing people of the right skills?

Finally, a word on the Trade Development Board (TDB). I notice a reduction in overall expenditure from $16.5 million to $15 million and a corresponding reduction of the Government subsidy from $9.3 million to $7.9 million. At a time when the TDB should be working harder, why is expenditure being reduced?

Mr Chiam See Tong (Potong Pasir): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have four amendments.

The Chairman: I know that.

Mr Chiam See Tong: The Member for Whampoa in his usual self is always carried away by his speech. In one breath, he says that we should not take retaliatory action against the Malaysians. In another breath, he says we should not take things lying down. What does he mean by that? Is he recommending that we take some kind of measures against the protectionism policy of the Malaysian government? He has to be very careful when talking about the relationship between Singapore and Malaysia. He is touching on the sensitivity of the Malaysians. I think this is an important point. Because the ground level there can always put political pressure on the leaders to take trade retaliatory measures against Singapore. So we must not take this matter too lightly.

Dr Augustine Tan: Do we take it lying down?

Mr Chiam See Tong: If you propose to have strong counter measures, that is your opinion. But I do not advocate that. I think we should have a closer relationship and our leaders should practise more tact and be more humble. When we are doing well, we do not go on the air and boast to the whole world, especially to our neighbours and tell them, "We are having 10%, 12%, 14% GDP growth despite bad world conditions. And look at our neighbours, they are only having 4-5% growth." I think this kind of talk is not good for neighbourliness.

There is another example of our First Deputy Prime Minister. Even a little talk about the Malaysian leaders, we received a strong protest. So if we want to have good relationship, I think we have to practise tact.

The other point I want to bring up, which I have already brought up in this House, is local demand. The Member for Whampoa seems to agree with me. I mentioned last year that we should have a "Buy Singapore Campaign". I am sure the Acting Minister, who was a Minister of State then, can remember what I said. His reply to what I was advocating was like this. "We are like a ship," he said. "When the wind is strong, our sails are full blown. And during a slack period", what he said I was advocating, "was to get a member of the crew to blow the sail and get the ship going." But the Member for Whampoa seems to agree that we should now support local industries. "Buy Singapore-made furniture", he says. Perhaps now that the Minister of State has been promoted to Acting Minister, I would like to hear him on that.

He says that two-thirds of our demand is external and therefore we do not have to stimulate local demand. What are these external demands, oil refineries, petrochemical industries, shiprepairing, shipbuilding? I think it is going to be difficult to have these demands pick up in two years' time? It may even be longer or never at all, if there is always going to be a continual glut of oil in the market.

Tourism is a big foreign exchange earner, 16%. The prediction now is that we would not be getting the five million tourists. In fact, there was a drop in tourist arrivals over the period 1980-85 as against the '70s. There is a hotel room glut. And the forecast is that it is going to be even difficult to fill 40% of the 30,000 rooms that we are going to have next year.

Construction is one-third of our GDP. It looks bad. There is oversupply. If we are going to put more money in construction, it will be suicidal for us. Probably if we stop building now, it is quite safe. Any time, there are always spare flats around for any takers at Yishun.

Garments, well, there are problems. They are short of workers. Electronics look like the only bright sector. So if the two-thirds demand that we are talking of is not forthcoming, do we just sit down and wait? And if there is no demand locally, the spiral downwards will even be more enhanced. We have just heard yesterday that there was a 4% drop over the first quarter. Our economy is still slipping, going down.

There is talk of buying local goods. But I think the other aspect is that a cut in the employee's CPF should be implemented. I would suggest, be bold, be radical, and have a cut to match the employer's CPF cut. I think we cannot exaggerate the usefulness of our local demand.

At this point, perhaps I would like to ask the Acting Minister what is happening to the Petrochemical Complex at Pulau Ayer Merbau. We have spent something like $2 billion, I believe. Since it is not doing well, it must be losing money. Perhaps he could tell the House what is the accumulated losses after the end of last year. May we have his answer on that?

The Economic Committee has identified certain fundamental requirements for economic growth. One of the fundamental requirements stated is good government. The Report says there must be good government, both in the sense of being stable and having popular support, and in the sense of carrying out rational wise policies. This is sine qua non of progress for lack of good government, many theorists of economic development have failed to deliver results in the Third world.

Does the present PAP Government qualify as a good government, as defined by the Report of the Economic Committee?

An hon. Member: Yes.

Mr Chiam See Tong: I would say that it is only good up to the point of attaining the present standard of living which is the highest it can go. It is just like an athlete whose capacity is only good for a certain performance and not higher than that.

The Government is good only for that. I think we have reached the summit of our performance. In fact, the Economic Committee's Report says that when the recession is over, there will be no high growth. That is what it says.

The policy of the Government as stated at the last general elections was to make Singapore a developed country by the end of the century. More precisely, it says, it hopes to attain the present-day Swiss standard of living which is one of the highest in the world by 1999.

Does this Government know how the Swiss managed to to attain one of the highest per capita income in the world? Do you really know that? The Swiss can do it because they have a good social and political system. That is what we lack.

Switzerland is a truly democratic nation. I would just state some of the things that it has in its political and social system, namely:

(1) It has a strong democratic tradition.

(2) It has a political system which prevents a strong leadership. The Presidency is rotated every year. I am not suggesting that we rotate our Prime Minister every year. But perhaps we could amend our Constitution and limit his term of office to two or three terms.

(3) It is a nation which is truly united, despite the fact that it has disparate cultures and has four national languages.

(4) It has 99% literacy. This is important. We have been told again and again that about 600,000 of our workers do not even have primary school education. You see the Swiss have got 99% literacy.

(5) It has an excellent apprenticeship system in all trades. Perhaps we could implement that here. I have looked through the Economic Committee's Report. It does not seem to mention any- thing about the apprenticeship system. I think each trade, each business, should train its own personnel. And it is a good system because you work and study at the same time.

(6) It has a labour force which is highly motivated.

Perhaps we could learn from the Swiss and implement these things in our social and political system in Singapore. And maybe we can really reach a highly developed state in our economy.

Mr Lim Chee Onn (Bukit Merah): Mr Speaker, Sir, over the past week, Members in this House have spent considerable time in debating and providing recommendations on how to increase employment opportunities, provide better jobs, and better paid salaries for our workers. In short, the emphasis has been, and quite correctly too, on wealth creation. Because without first creating wealth, it will be foolhardy and, in fact, futile to talk about distribution of wealth. Yet, time and time again, we hear Members from the Opposition rising and spending time to spew forth what they feel should be the right way to distribute wealth, and to propagate somehow or other their preoccupation with the dichotomy between employers and employees, without realizing that in this national effort to create wealth, workers, employers and the Government share the same objective And, therefore, they ought to pull together.

Indeed, the question we have to address ourselves to is, how do we create this wealth quickly and effectively. In this regard, I would like to divide my remarks into two particular aspects. Firstly, how do we promote investments locally? Obviously, this will be foreign investments as well as local investments in Singapore in order to create employment both directly and indirectly. And secondly how to promote our exports overseas. Because if we succeed in both these areas, then I think we have made some considerable way in creating the wealth we seek. In the effort to attract overseas investments into Singapore, I would like to just touch on two topics, because I think the Economic Committee has dwelt on this subject in fairly great detail, and quite a number of recommendations have been made.

First of all, the type of allowances we provide as incentives. There is a school of thought which feels that providing incentives is perhaps throwing away public money. Indeed, there are even a few, including Members from this House, who view tax allowances and incentives as handouts given out to employers and investors at the expense of workers. I would like to ask, is that really so? If they do really think that providing incentives to investors to set up shop in Singapore, so to speak, is giving away good money, then I am afraid they really do not understand that tax allowances and other fiscal measures to attract investors are a very important means of generating employment, and these are all done with the workers' interest in mind, not the employers alone.

I would like to dwell a little on the provision of investment allowance to companies in this regard, particularly to stimulate the expansion of existing operations as well as to invest in new types of operations. Generally speaking, investment allowance is really an incentive given in addition to tax depreciation normally allowed for industrial buildings, plant and equipment used in business. Presently, such allowance is given on a case-by-case basis and is restricted to approved projects. Nonetheless such allowances are very attractive, particularly for the capital intensive projects, especially if such projects have a long gestation period. In order to increase the attraction of such allowances, the Economic Committee has recommended that a 30% across-the-board increase in such an allowance be given to all expenditure on capital equipment and machinery. I think the Committee felt that this would stimulate further investment in production assets. However, this recommendation was not accepted by Government, possibly because it may be a bit premature to do so. I think the Minister for Finance did indicate that it will be a drain on revenue and it may not be the right time to do so at this juncture.

But perhaps there is another even more telling reason, and that is, an across-the-board incentive will not enable us to con- trol the type of investments we want to attract or,put in another way, it will reduce our ability to influence the direction of new capital investment. So instead of accepting the recommendation of the Economic Committee of an across-the-board increase in investment allowance, the Ministry of Finance has suggested that the EDB should adopt a more liberal approach in the granting of investment allowance under the existing scheme. This would imply a more flexible approach, perhaps even more flexible criteria in assessing applications for such allowances. I wonder whether the EDB could spell out what sort of revised criteria it will be using in assessing such applications because knowledge of such criteria will help investors considerably in deciding whether Singapore is or is not an attractive location for their new plants or their expansion plans. In spelling out this criteria I would like the EDB perhaps to explain - here, I suspect the Ministry, as a policy maker, would be in a good position to do so - what really is the primary objective of this scheme. Is it to attract mainly the capital-intensive type of industry, or is it the job creation which will be given priority? I suspect it must be a balance, but I would like the Ministry to elaborate on this objective. In short, could the Minister indicate clearly how liberal is this effort to liberalize the investment allowance scheme?

Next, Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to touch a little on venture capital. On the surface, the venture capital allowance would appear to just favour investors, entrepreneurs and promoting R&D activities, which would appear to benefit only a very restricted few. But if one really studied and examined the thinking that went behind the setting up of venture capital allowances or funds and in the promotion of R&D activities, one will find that we are really talking about job creation, creating new markets and even maintaining our market share. How is it so? Basically, infusing a new technology will enable us to become more competitive and reduce our unit costs. More importantly, because of changing demand patterns, it will enable us to penetrate new markets if we have more goods to sell.

The Chairman: Mr Lim, you have used up 10 minutes.

Mr Lim Chee Onn: Sir, I have two amendments. May I take both together, please.

The Chairman: All right.

Mr Lim Chee Onn: So really the emphasis on high technology is quite sensible, because with it we will be able to not only maintain our market shares but penetrate new markets. However, in our anxiety because of the relative downturn of late we ought not neglect this long-term objective of infusing new technology into our industry and merely concentrate on job creation, regardless of the nature of the jobs, just to absorb the surplus labour that is available. Because I fear the school of thought that says that the whole emphasis on high technology has been misplaced is wrong. This is really a wrong reaction to the current situation. To react in such a way would really jeopardize our long-term growth, although the short-term benefits may be there. I would therefore like the Ministry to consider seriously a review of the venture capital incentive which has been implemented. The relief proposed by the Minister for Finance in his Budget statement, I feel, is not adequate because the scheme is basically a form of income tax relief only when the shares pertaining to that project were sold at a loss. Hence, the scheme works along lines of that sort. It is not likely to succeed because investors are surely not thinking of a loss when they start.

Of merit, however, is the proposal of the Economic Committee which recommended a modified version of the business expansion scheme adopted in the UK, with a fair amount of success. Basically the Business Expansion Scheme gives tax relief on the initial investments, whether or not the venture is successful, of course subject to conditions which are fairly stringent. I would like the Ministry in its discussion with the Ministry of Finance to consider this scheme seriously in order to attract more R&D activities and more companies to adopt technology in their production processes. Such a scheme should not be just a case of providing relief to individuals and corporations, risk-takers or entrepreneurs. I believe, if properly structured, this venture capital, venture incentive, can succeed in helping to restructure our economy, an objective which we have been pursuing in the past many years. This, in turn, will ensure that we will create the jobs for a more educated, a more skilled workforce. In short, it is part of our overall national effort to create wealth and should not be seen as handouts to entrepreneurs and risk-takers.

Dr Wang Kai Yuen (Bukit Timah): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have a few words to say about the SDF.

The Skills Development Fund is levied by the Government on all employees earning less than $750 per month, and the disbursement of the fund is administered by EDB. As we all know, the percentage of the levy has been reduced from 4% to 2%, and to the current 1%. I am not advocating a reduction of the levy but I would like to draw your attention to the way that the fund is disbursed.

SDF disburses grants to support a multitude of industrial and continuing education activities. With the SDF support, vigorous continuing adult education training programmes, such as BEST as well as others involving both private and public organizations, have evolved, benefiting many thousands of employees. In fact, a whole new industry has emerged, providing continuing adult education for the working people. So much so that any course support by SDF is now viewed by the people as a quality course, having earned or having been vetted by SDF. So in the process the SDF scheme has effectively evolved into a national training scheme. This is a good thing and I strongly support a national training effort of this kind. Moreover, to sustain the economic growth of Singapore, as outlined in the Economic Committee Report, such an effort should continue. However, for a national funding organization providing training support for every sector of the economy and for every category of employees, SDF is too narrowly based, since it derives its money only from those earning below $750 per month. While I support the SDF activities wholeheartedly, I have some difficulties in reconciling the manner the money is collected and spent with the egalitarian principle.

I would suggest that SDF itself be modified to support the current national training effort with every employee paying a certain percentage of their monthly payroll into this fund, regardless of his or her wage. In that way it would be rational and logical to support a comprehensive national continuing training programme for every employee funded by every employee. If the revenue base is extended to cover every employee, then the levy at a very small percentage would be sufficient to generate a sizeable sum. Let us say this figure is a quarter of a percent. So in the transition from a selective levy to a comprehensive levy, Government could consider actually reduce the current SDF levy further to a quarter percent to help further relieve the cost on employers. And when the economy recovers, instead of increasing the levy back to 4%, we could actually increase the salary limits from $750 per month upwards, gradually until all employees are included in the plan. I submit this for the consideration of the Acting Minister.

Mr Chew Heng Ching (Kaki Bukit): Sir, the Economic Survey Report produced by the Ministry of Trade and Industry has come a long way. I find the latest edition most readable, well illustrated with beautiful graphs and the analyses more in-depth and perceptive. I am aware that the MTI officials have spent much time and effort to improve the report every year. While the report has become more readable, I still find the use of economic jargons too common in the report. We see the use of the terms GNP, GDP, GDP Deflator, Gross Domestic Fixed Capital Formation, Current Account Balance, Labour Force Participation Rate and so on. I think these terms, to the layman, sound foreign to them. I am not proposing that the MTI officials replace these words with much simpler words. What I am proposing is that perhaps in the beginning of the report the MTI officials could incorporate a list of definitions of these economic terms.

The other point is that I am aware that together with the annual Economic Survey Report, there is a quarterly report which is released once every three months, but only to subscribers. I understand that subscribers pay something like $200 per year to subscribe to four issues of this quarterly report. Given that the Annual Economic Survey Report costs $14 per copy in most bookshops in town these quarterly reports work out to something like $62 per copy. I think the Economic Survey Report is most useful and I am aware that members of the public, viz people in the banks and other companies do make use of such reports. Because of its restricted circulation, many companies have resorted to photostating sections of this report and circulate them among sister companies and associate companies. May I propose that the MTI review this subscription policy with a view to removing the subscription and sell such reports at $2, $3, $4, or $5 per copy and make them more readily available to members of the public.

Finally, these quarterly survey reports come to the market eight to 10 weeks after the end of the last quarter. It is perhaps far too long. Maybe the Minister would like to consider shortening this period to something like six weeks after the end of the quarter.

The Minister of State for Trade and Industry (Dr Lee Boon Yang): Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission, I shall continue from where I left off yesterday afternoon.

Before the moment of interruption yesterday afternoon, I was replying to the Member for Thomson on his question about the number of vacant Jurong Town Corporation's flatted factory and standard factories and whether JTC will reduce the rental rates to help small businesses which are being affected by the economic recession. As I was saying yesterday afternoon, Sir, in practice, JTC has to acquire and hold two to three years of prepared land sites for industrial use. In the case of ready-built factories, it is JTC's policy to hold not more than a year's projected demand. The current economic recession has adversely affected the demand for industrial land and factory buildings. As demand has dropped significantly, a temporary higher stock level is inevitable.

The current stock of industrial facilities which are available for allocation include 780 hectares of prepared land sites complete with infrastructure, 211 units of standard factory buildings and 252,000 sq metres of flatted factory space, and 123 units of industrial workshops. The occupancy rate of JTC's standard and flatted factory buildings stood at 80% and 71% respectively as of 31st December 1985. As the existing stock enables JTC to meet its responsibility of ensuring an adequate supply of industrial buildings, no new factory buildings will be constructed until there are signs that demand will pick up.

On the question of whether JTC rentals are competitive with our neighbouring competitors, such as Hong Kong and Taiwan, and whether JTC rental rates will be further reduced, I would like to inform the Member for Thomson that international comparisons of rental and sale prices for properties are rather difficult. We must take into consideration the location of the property. How far is it from the port, from the city? What are the infrastructures that are provided? Is water and electrical power readily available? What is the tenure of the land? Is it on a 30-year, 60-year lease or longer? What are the terms and conditions of the rental or sale, and what is the allowable plot ratio for the developers?

It is JTC's policy to reduce our land and factory rents if they are not internationally competitive with our nearby competitors. A recent study showed that our land rents are now lower than those charged in Hong Kong and comparable to those in Taiwan and Malaysia. Further, rent only averages about 2% of total manufacturing cost. Since 1st January 1985, JTC has already granted 15% rebate to its land lessees for those whose current rentals are not less than 50% of the JTC market rate.

With regard to the rent of factory, JTC has given a 25% rebate on rental and a further 6.9% reduction due to the passing over of the property tax rebate. This concession has further narrowed the gap between JTC's rates and those of the private sector and also our neighbouring competitors. Further reduction by JTC at this point of time would not be desirable as it would jeopardize the viability of private developers of industrial properties who are in competition with JTC.

Sir, I next come to the Member for Eunos who asked whether there is further scope for reduction in PUB tariffs in view of the drop in oil prices. As I have replied in this Chamber a few days ago, PUB will adjust its consumer prices for electricity on a three-monthly schedule. The next adjustment is due on 1st May 1986. Consumers can rest assured that savings in fuel cost will be passed on to them after allowing for the cost of holding the essential stock of fuel oil. PUB has also explored the possibility of using coal as a lower cost fuel for generating electricity. However, coal is a more pollutive fuel. It gives rise to both environmental and other handling problems. Notwithstanding that, PUB is still actively considering the construction of a coal-powered generation plant because we cannot expect the current low prices for oil to remain indefinitely and we ought to look for alternative fuel source.

The other point that was raised by the Member for Eunos concerns the PUB reserves. Sir, PUB deserves our thanks for being able to charge reasonable and competitive rates for a highly dependable service. Through a deliberately frugal policy of financial management it has managed to accumulate healthy reserves. This should not be cause for criticism but a feeling of relief that PUB did not go the way that many other state-owned monopolies in other countries have gone. PUB's main reserve is in the capital account. This reserve is needed for future development projects which are essential if PUB is to continue to be able to provide a dependable service to both our industries and home consumers.

PUB expects to spend about $3.3 billion in the next five years to improve on the services that it is providing. This money will be spent on electricity projects, for example, the Pulau Seraya power station, on water projects, such as the expansion of waterworks in Johore and, on gas projects, for providing gas network in HDB new towns. Even with this large reserve, part of these projects will have to be financed by loans and, as of end 1985, PUB's outstanding loan amounts to $1.3 billion. Therefore, Members should note that there is really no pot of gold at the end of the PUB rainbow. As the Member for Radin Mas has correctly pointed out, there is a need for statutory boards to be always on guard over its efficiency and to ensure that the service it is providing is made possible at the lowest possible cost.

I next come to the Member for Yuhua. She spoke of the difficulties encountered by small companies in making applications for grants under the Skills Development Fund. She suggested that two separate sets of criteria should be used in assessing such applications. SDF indeed has been adopting a more liberal stand when evaluating local companies' applications for grants. For instance, short appreciation training programmes for staff from local companies are supported but not so for large companies. Small companies which invest in common equipment, such as mechanical presses or packaging machines, are granted interest subsidies while the same efforts by MNCs are deemed as within their normal capability.

The other assistance that is given by the Skills Development Fund specifically for local companies includes the Development Consultancy Scheme. So far, 135 local companies have been given grants totalling $7.7 million under this scheme to assist them to upgrade their business, their management expertise. For other schemes such as the training grant and interest grant for mechanization where both local and foreign companies qualify, I would like to inform the Member that more than 50% of the grant goes to local companies.

On the remarks made by the Member for Bukit Timah about extending the base of collection for SDF, I think this is a suggestion which we will consider.

The Chairman: We shall stop here. It is already 1.00 pm.

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

Mr Speaker: This Sitting is suspended until 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 V (cont.) -

Dr Lee Boon Yang: Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to continue from where I left off before the lunch break.

Sir, I would like to move on to the comments by the Member for Paya Lebar on Trade Development Board, in particular, the Market Development Assistance Scheme (MDAS). The Trade Development Board has been and will continue to work closely with Singapore exporters and companies with export potential to map out overseas market development. TDB wil also provide the support necessary for these companies to implement their plans through various activities, such as providing timely market information, developing trade contacts and organizing fairs and missions and assistance schemes, which include the MDAS referred to by the Member for Paya Lebar, and also the Double Tax Deduction Scheme. Thus MDAS is not the only element of support that is available from Trade Development Board.

The Trade Development Board also makes available to Singapore companies and also on a world-wide basis the up-to-date trade information. For instance, I would like to inform Members that the Trade Development Board circulates 20,000 copies of Singapore Trade News on a world-wide basis through its overseas trade offices. It also circulates an annual publication containing calendar of events. 10,000 copies are circulated at the beginning of every year. There are trade circulars which are issued on a monthly basis. There are also publications listing trade contacts which are circulated on a fortnightly basis.

Coming back to the Market Development Assistance Scheme, the MDAS is designed to help companies defray the initial cost of penetrating new markets, introducing new product lines and also expanding their existing market shares. Grants are given up to a maximum of half the marketing development cost. As TDB has to ensure that there is no serious misuse of funds and that whatever grants given to companies are properly used, it is only right that TDB should be conservative and operate on the basis of putting up as much as the companies themselves are willing to foot. Sir, the average grant of about $8,000 per company may appear small but there are other reasons for such small grants. Some of the companies that come to TDB prefer to use a combination of the MDAS and the Double Tax Deduction Scheme for assistance to cover expenses on their market development. One possibility is that not all cases qualify for a maximum of 50% grant on their marketing cost. Some of these companies were actually applying for grants which will partially go towards promoting their domestic sales. Another possibility is that some of the companies may also be promoting products which are not wholly manufactured in Singapore, in other words this might be agents or products made in other countries who want to penetrate new markets. On the average, TDB gives grants of 44% of total cost of marketing to the companies that have applied.

Some of the small local companies that are making their first attempt at marketing products abroad are also cautious in their own way. This results in the small expenditure incurred in the first instance. They have not been reckless and they have not undertaken large projects, such as immediate opening of overseas offices, which would incur much higher expenditure. So it is not prudent for TDB to give grants which are disproportionate to the size of the companies that are applying for this grant. I would like to give an example to the Members here of a company which applied for a grant to set up an office in China. The total cost of establishing this office was much larger than the total worth of the company here in Singapore. However, TDB is most supportive of companies or groups of companies that have the capacity to sustain extensive marketing plans. For example, TDB has committed a grant of about $200,000 to a group of jewellery companies which are cooperating in an effort to open a marketing office in Los Angeles. This mar- keting office will assist this group of jewellery manufacturers to penetrate the US market.

Sir, I next come to the Member for Potong Pasir. He has pointed an accusing finger at the Trade Development Board's efforts to promote tourism. He said that tourists are not coming, the hotel rooms will be empty, there will be a surplus of hotel rooms. Sir, this is not new. I myself have said so in this House just a few days ago that the expected occupancy rate of our hotels will decline in the next few years, and it is expected to drop to 50% by 1988. Sir, it is not 40% as the Member for Potong Pasir has said earlier today. If he wishes to quote me, the very least he can do is to quote me correctly and accurately. Sir, he also said that tourist arrivals fell during the period 1980 to 1985. This is a gross untruth and a distortion. Sir, he should have studied closely the Report of the Economic Committee. May I refer him to page 194, Table 21-2.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Mr Speaker, Sir, may I clarify? The 40% refers to the occupancy of hotel rooms. As regards the drop in tourists coming to Singapore, the period 1980 to 1985 there was only an increase of 5.3%, while the period for the 1970s, it was 13%. Is it clear?

Dr Lee Boon Yang: Mr Speaker, Sir, this morning he said there was a drop. I am trying to correct what he said. Noticing that his own mistake has been exposed, he promptly jumped up to seek a clarification and to amend what he has said. But he did not deny that he said this morning that there was a drop in tourist arrivals. And I am trying to tell him that on page 194 of the Report of the Economic Committee, Table 21-2, shows very clearly that between 1980 and 1985, there was an increase in tourist arrivals. The number of tourists who came to Singapore in 1980, Sir, I quote, "2,562,100", and in 1985, "$3,031,000". There was an increase in the number of tourists coming to Singapore during that period. In fact, 1985 was a bumper year. We exceeded 3 million tourists. What has dropped was, in fact, the growth rate of tourist arrival. If he had said so this morning, there would have been much less confusion. As usual, the Member for Potong Pasir seems to be quite incapable of understanding simple arithmetic.

Mr Chiam See Tong rose.

Dr Lee Boon Yang: I am not giving way. Time is very limited.

The Chairman: He is not giving way.

Mr Chiam See Tong: I think this line is getting a bit too far.

An hon. Member: Not far enough.

Dr Lee Boon Yang: Sir, the Member for Potong Pasir's speech is significant only in one regard, and that is, it contains a great number of factual errors. Tourist arrival is not the only one. He said that Construction represents one-third of the Gross Domestic Product. Sir, this is far from the truth. If only he had spent $14 like the Member for Kaki Bukit, to buy a copy of the Annual Economic Survey, he would have noted from Table A (1.2) that construction contributed only $4 billion out of $35 billion worth of GDP for 1985. If he puts $4 billion above $35 billion, he will come to the conclusion, I hope, that it is only 11.4% and not 33.3%. So I do not wish to belabour the point on the Member for Potong Pasir's inability to grasp basic arithmetic.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I think it is fair that I should refer the Minister of State to page 5 of this Report of the Economic Committee which I have quoted. It says, "... a third of our economic growth -

Dr Lee Boon Yang: I am not giving way.

The Chairman: He is not giving way, Mr Chiam.

Dr Lee Boon Yang: You had your chance. You have had your say this morning, and if you have made a mistake, are you going to retract it now? Sir, I would only recommend that the Member for Potong Pasir study his tables and statistics carefully before coming to this House to make speeches.

Sir, the Member for Potong Pasir asked for the accounts of the Petrochemical Corporation of Singapore. He said that it is losing money, and he insinuated that the Government must have something to hide. If he wants to know the -

Mr Chiam See Tong: Yes, we do.

Dr Lee Boon Yang: - accounts, the profit and loss of the operations of the Petrochemical Complex, he needs only to pay a small fee to the Registry of Companies and he would be able to obtain an abstract of the annual accounts filed by the company. It is a limited company and like all other limited companies, they file their accounts. So there is nothing to hide. It is a matter of public record. But before he runs off to purchase this extract of the company's accounts, Sir, may I suggest that first he runs to the bookshop and buy a copy of a handbook on Reading and Comprehending Company Reports, such as profit and loss statement, balance sheet. A little knowledge can be very dangerous and if he reads the balance sheet of the Petrochemical Corporation, he may not be able to understand and that could do a lot of harm to himself.

Mr Chiam See Tong: What is your point?

Dr Lee Boon Yang: The point is that -

Mr Chiam See Chiam: We want the accumulated loss.

Dr Lee Boon Yang: If you want to know the details and if you are not willing to go to the Registry of Companies to obtain this extract, you can file a question to the Minister for Finance who is in charge of such companies.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Why are you afraid to give the figures?

Dr Lee Boon Yang: I am not afraid. The figures, as I said, is a matter of public record.

The Chairman: Let us have less interruption.

Dr Lee Boon Yang: Mr Speaker, Sir, could I please continue? This morning I told the House about PUB's reserves and plans for their use. This is indeed a point to note when we talk about balance sheet. I would like to add that it is a matter of balance sheet practice to state the reserves as total assets of the company and statutory board. Therefore, what is commonly perceived as bundles of cash salted away by the statutory board is very often money which has already been spent on fixed assets. Hence, PUB's $2.5 billion of reserves are represented largely by its fixed assets. The actual cash reserve of PUB is only $47.5 million. Likewise, the Jurong Town Corporation which has been counted to have $750 million worth of reserves, in reality, has only $25 million of cash reserves.

Sir, I next come to the points made by the Member for Whampoa on the need to collect a comprehensive set of economic data and statistics. I agree wholeheartedly with the Member for the need to have such comprehensive information and timely information. The collection, compilation and publication of statistics are regularly being reviewed and improved by the Department of Statistics and my Ministry.

As for economic forecasting, the Department of Statistics is constructing an index of leading indicators which could help in signalling in advance the turning points in our economic cycle. In addition, my Ministry will be building an econometric model. This model can provide at best an early indication but should not be looked upon as an infallible forecast. The small size and openness of our economy is subjected to a great deal of global influence. These externalities make prediction a more difficult and hazardous occupation. Even larger economies with more established econometric models cannot achieve ideal results. This is evident by the frequent revisions and conflicting forecasts on the US economy which are published by both the government and private sectors.

Sir, it has been and is still the practice of the Department of Statistics to release statistics as soon as they are ready and properly checked. Some series are released and published within four weeks or earlier after the close of the reference month. For example, the consumer price index, preliminary external trade statistics. The other series are released and published in the Monthly Digest of Statistics within eight weeks after the close of the month or quarter of reference. Some of these are also published as special monthly and quarterly reports.

The result of large-scale detailed surveys takes longer to be ready, not only due to the longer processing and tabulating time but also the constraint of respondent not being able to furnish the required data on time. For example, in the 1984 industrial census, some of the establishments that were being canvassed for information closed their financial accounts only in May 1985 and could supply information two to three months after May 1985.

Apart from carrying this work, the Department of Statistics and my Ministry have recently formed an Economic Research Unit which, as I said earlier, will undertake studies and research projects which have a direct relevance to economic planning and policy formulation. This Unit comprises seven economists and statisticians.

With regard to the Member for Whampoa's request for manpower provisions in the Department of Statistics, the point is taken. If more manpower is required, it will certainly be beefed up.

Mr Chandra Das: Include the Member for Whampoa!

Dr Lee Boon Yang: Sir, the Member for Whampoa also raised the question of cost effectiveness of the EDB joint industry training centres. In his usual eloquence, he has dropped a few gems of wisdom here and there which the Member for Potong Pasir hastily picked up. So the Member for Potong Pasir rose to the occasion and said, "There is something wrong with our training programmes. Why isn't there a better apprenticeship scheme?" He is implying that something is wrong with our efforts to train industrial workers' vocational skills.

Sir, the EDB training centres and institutes are geared towards training of new skills required by the industries. They complement efforts by other training institutes like VITB and the Polytechnic to meet skilled manpower demand. The EDB has the advantage of a close working relationship with industries and can identify and anticipate new skills required by industries. For this reason, the Board has formed joint partnerships with MNCs, foreign governments and manufacturers to establish and operate these training centres and institutes. These include three training centres for craftsmen, four training institutes for technicians, technical middle management personnel and EDB professionals. And five training centres for specialized training in areas such as industrial automation, computer aided drafting, computer aided manufacturing.

Expenditure and training costs are closely monitored. To date, some 5,000 students have graduated from the centres and institutions. Their cost of operation compares favourably with those of other training institutes in Singapore. For example, EDB's cost to train a trainee to the level of ITC course is about $3.60 per trainee per hour compared to the VITB's $5.30 per trainee per hour. For a diploma course, the joint training institutes' cost is $7.50 per trainee per hour compared to the Polytechnic's cost of $4 to $6.80 per trainee per hour.

Sir, owing to lack of time, I would now stop and let the Minister continue.

BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, the discussion in the Committee of Supply on the MTI estimates has really been about the practicalities of putting into effect the economic development plan outlined in the Report of the Economic Committee. How do we get our investments going, how do we get our exports up, how do we protect our trade, what is the role of local businesses and, most important, how do we get our labour-management relations, our wage costs, in line? I would therefore like to deal with these issues within the framework of the Economic Committee's Report.

The Member for Bukit Merah raised the question of investment promotion. Indeed, as I have explained, the key to recovery and to growth lies in getting new investments, new investments which will be able to generate new jobs, produce new products and go into new markets. The agency directly responsible for promoting investments is the EDB. The EDB will be promoting Singapore, not just as a manufacturing base for factories to set up here, but as an international total business centre, so that people can come here to set up their factories, establish their headquarters, manage their personnel, organize their funds, service their businesses overseas. A major component of EDB's message will be the Report of the Economic Committee, the New Directions of the Economy which the Government intends to follow consistently. And the message is: the Government is committed to reducing costs in Singapore, is committed to establishing a good business environment in Singapore, is committed, with the support of the population, to providing a good long-run framework of people, of facilities, of infrastructure, and therefore Singapore is a good place to invest money.

We have already spoken about Ministers and other officials going on investment promotion tours overseas. At the same time, the EDB will be strengthening its staff and its offices overseas,because we need to cover companies much more intensively. We can no longer wait for companies to come to look for us and say, "We want to come to Singapore. Tell us about it." We must go to the companies and say, "We think you ought to come to Singapore, because if you come, you will find that here is a place for you to do business. Come and see us." Therefore, EDB will be strengthening its presence overseas.

But we do not only depend on overseas investments. Investments by domestic companies also matter. They are already here. They have existing operations which they ought to upgrade and expand. Equal emphasis must be given to companies which are alredy in Singapore. In this respect, I think the investment allowance scheme is especially relevant. As has been announced earlier by the First Deputy Prime Minister, the EDB's investment allowance scheme will be broadened, made more liberal, and made more easily accessible to a wider range of companies. The EDB has been working at this and I would like to announce some of its preliminary proposals.

First of all, the scope will be widened. So far, investment allowances have only covered manufacturing and manufacturing related services, such as engineering services. The scope will now be extended to other services and other activities. For example, investments in tourism related projects, publishing services, educational services or medical services. Productive investments in all these areas will qualify for investment allowances. The experience in the United States has shown that when such investment allowances are given, a substantial amount of the allowances is claimed not for manufacturing, but for activities outside manufacturing. The scope for automation, for improving productivity in banking and other white-collar jobs, in service industries, is as large as it is in heavy capital intensive industries. We hope the same will be true in Singapore.

Secondly, the procedures for applying for investment allowances will be simplified, and guidelines will be worked out, so that routine cases can be dealt with expeditiously. The EDB does not wish to be swamped with a million cases, each one of which needs to be evaluated in excruciating detail. It is in their interest, as it is in the interest of investors, that the procedures be as simple and as straightforward as possible.

Thirdly, the EDB hopes that the volume of investment allowances granted will increase substantially. Last year, about 15% of new investments in manufacturing qualified for investment allowances. We hope that with the revised guidelines and procedures, this number will go up substantially, perhaps to 30%. How it works out depends on how enthusiastically investors respond to the scheme. The Gazette notifications and the specific details which are necessary to flesh out this scheme will be worked out within the next few weeks.

Next, trade and particularly protectionism. The subject was raised by the Member for Whampoa, who exhorted us to support GATT and other free trade agencies. And not only that, but to use our influence as best we can to support international free trade policy. We do this. We recognize that our influence is not large, because we are not a superpower like the United States, or a major trading and exporting country like Japan. But it is important to us, and we will develop whatever leverage, whatever influence we can to try and preserve an open trading environment, globally. In fact, this is the reason why when the Prime Minister spoke to a joint session of the US Con- gress, he chose the subject of protectionism. A hostile trading environment is there. I have explained what it is about. I have given some examples of cases where although we have not been guilty of unfair trading practices, we have had cases taken up against us and we have had to defend our interests expensively, but fortunately, often successfully.

There is one specific example which concerns textiles, which I would like to go into now. It took place in August 1984, when the US textile and garment industries complained to the US Department of Commerce that Singapore garment exporters were competing unfairly. It would have hurt us substantially, because our exports of garments to the United States come to more than $400 million per year. We were innocent, of course. But to prove ourselves innocent took eight months. We needed officials from the Trade Development Board, from the Economic Development Board, from the Attorney-General's Chambers, and from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, to coordinate the strategy, to develop a response, to rebut specific US allegations, and to prove our innocence. The Government supplied voluminous amounts of information and, having supplied it, we had to entertain a group of US officials to come to Singapore to examine our data to see whether we were lying. We had to hire a US lawyer to lobby for us, to argue our case, and to make sure that we completed the questionnaires according to US legal requirements. That cost us another US$50,000. The final result after eight months was that if there was any subsidy, it was minimal, and no countervailing duty would be imposed. In other words, we escaped.

Whether we can continue to trade, whether we can continue to fend off such unwarranted assaults on our trading practices, is a matter yet to be seen, but it will not be easy.

The Member for Alexandra raised the case of the problems we have had with Malaysia. I am aware of the cases which the Member for Alexandra mentioned, and the Government will be taking up the problems with Malaysia. We value our good relationships with our ASEAN partners, and we understand their desire to promote direct trade. But we cannot allow our interests to be hurt. In this respect, I do not take seriously the proposition from the Member for Potong Pasir that the correct approach to such problems is to humble ourselves, bow deeply and see to it that we offend nobody, so that people will be generous to us and we will get into no trouble whatsoever. I presume that that was the intention of the remarks made by the Member for Potong Pasir this morning.

It is our job as the elected representatives of the people of Singapore to defend the interests of the people of Singapore. And where the interests have to be defended tenaciously, we will do so. Where we must fight for our rights, we will do so. Where further steps have to be taken in order to safeguard our position, that also will be done. I took it from this morning's remarks that the Member for Potong Pasir was not at all in favour of any of these actions and that he would much prefer us to bow deeply and apologize.

Mr Chiam See Tong: May I make a clarification, Mr Speaker, Sir. What I am saying is that our attitude must be one of humbleness, and not to bow down to anybody. There is a distinction between the two. We do not have to go out of the way to hurt somebody. I think that is not necessary.

Dr Augustine Tan: On a point of clarification, Sir. I have here a copy of a newspaper called Utusan Malaysia dated 27th January 1986. On page 2 of this newspaper, there is a report from the newsagency Bernama which included an allegation by several MCA leaders that Mr Tan Koon Swan's detention in Singapore was linked to his financial support to a Singapore Opposition leader, Mr Chiam See Tong who is the Secretary-General of the Singapore Democratic Party and MP for Potong Pasir. Sir, I seek clarification from the Member for Potong Pasir, and I question his loyalty to Singapore on the basis of this report.

Mr Chiam See Tong: I am surprised that the Member for Whampoa should take up that report in this House. It is completely false that I have any connections with Mr Tan Koon Swan of Malaysia. There is no foundation whatsoever in that report. I think it is defamatory to say that he financed my election in Singapore. Is that what it says? I think it is completely untrue. I had one lunch date with him which was arranged by - [Laughter.] What is wrong with that? Why are you laughing? I had one lunch date with him which was arranged by somebody, and I wish to tell this House that that lunch was paid for by one of my party members. He did not pay for it. So we have got nothing from him, not one cent.

Dr Augustine Tan: Mr Speaker, Sir, earlier on when I made reference to the protectionist policies of countries like Malaysia and the problems that we are faced with, I expected support from all Members in this House. But instead the Member for Potong Pasir attacked me and stated that Singapore should humble itself and accept all these protectionist policies. Therefore, I consulted my colleagues and I was shown this particular report in the Utusan Malaysia. In fact, it was also published in the Utusan Melayu of the same date on page 7 that there was such a meeting and there was financial support. These are not my allegations, Sir. These are allegations reported by Bernama newsagency from Malaysia, and I suppose it is a reputable newsagency.

BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, if I may continue. I am happy to hear that the Member for Potong Pasir suggested we humble ourselves purely out of conviction and not at all out of personal interest. Nevertheless, we have no intention of doing so. It is our duty to protect our traders and we shall do whatever is necessary.

Mr Chiam See Tong: What necessary steps are you taking?

BG Lee Hsien Loong: The first thing we shalldo is to determine whether the actions against our traders are contrary to the rules of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. We believe that the actions are contrary to GATT. If this is confirmed, we shall take the case to GATT in Geneva and seek redress. There are procedures. If this is not satisfactory, we will follow further actions through fraternal channels to put the matter right.

Mr Chiam See Tong: May I have a point of clarification. What does the Acting Minister suggest in respect of the 50% tax across-the-board for all goods going across the Causeway and of the exit tax and also tax on lorries coming to Singapore?

BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not suggesting that we bow down. I am suggesting that we take up these matters with our colleagues on the other side of the Causeway and with any other countries with whom we may have trading difficulties.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Are you going to respond or protect them?

BG Lee Hsien Loong: What we do and how it develops depends on how the relationship works out, what progress can be made, and what it is good to do to defend our people's interests we will do.

Mr Chiam See Tong: There is no end to it, is it not? You start the ball rolling.

BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, if I may move on to a related subject. While we can defend the interests of our traders against unfair practices overseas, it is not possible to defend the interests of our traders by protecting the domestic market.

The Member for Toa Payoh mentioned the problem of agencies. The issue is symptomatic of a wider problem. The Economic Committee, despite strong lobbying from many quarters, set down unambiguously the commitment of the entire Committee to free trade. It was possibly our most unpopular recommendation, with perhaps one possible exception, namely, the consumption tax. But it is a correct recommendation. We cannot force foreign suppliers to hire local agents. If a foreign supplier is to hire a local agent, the local agent must have something to offer, something which will make it worth the while of the foreign supplier to do business with him and to deal through him. In fact, one of the reasons why foreigners like to do business in Singapore is that we do not require them to joint venture with local partners. Many countries have rules which insist that foreign companies joint venture with local partners. It usually works out most unhappily for the country at large. If we protect local entrepreneurs and local sectors, then in effect we are taxing the population as a whole in order to benefit the minority, namely, the suppliers of these services, of these goods. In the same way that the Government cannot force you to buy a locally-made good, it is very hard for the Government to tax a foreign-made good so that you have no choice but to buy a local one.

Members have asked why we do not push the domestic economy, which will do good for locals. Let me ask Members, what would happen if we stimulate the local economy in this fashion? What would you buy? We buy clothes, materials from overseas, ballpoints from overseas, watches from overseas, shoes from overseas, television sets, mostly not made in Singapore. So stimulating the local economy in this way, far from generating business for our factories, will merely result in a significant outflow of foreign exchange, with no good to the economy of Singapore. We cannot force private individuals to buy local goods. Supposing we pass a law saying, "You will not buy a television set unless it is made in Singapore", I think there will be an uproar. In the same way, to say that you cannot buy a foreign television set unless you pay a tax, I think is infringing on the rights of the general public. It is not only unpopular, but will be incorrect. We have to be efficient, we have to sell overseas, we have to earn foreign exchange in the process so that we can buy things overseas. If we sell to one another in Singapore we get no foreign exchange.

So we have to proceed to protect local businessmen and build them up in other ways. We formed the Small Enterprise Bureau last year. We expanded the scope of the Small Industries Finance Scheme last year to include non-manufacturing companies, to include export factoring, that means financing of exports, to give more loans. Last year, about $64 million of loans were granted. We think this year it will go up by three times, to about $200 million. About one-third of these loans will go to non-manufacturing businesses. We are having joint schemes between the Small Enterprise Bureau and the National Computer Board to help companies automate and upgrade. We are going to help our supporting industries to upgrade, with assistance from multinational companies, companies like Philips, Hewlett Packard, Seagate, AT&T. And we will establish competence centres, places where local companies with problems can go to and seek help, be they in tool and die design, plastic mould making, food technology, or whatever. We hope, with all these actions being taken on the Government side, individual companies in Singapore will take up the challenge and do the business.

Another way in which it is not possible to help local companies is to waive rentals. The Member for Yuhua asked about JTC rentals and whether there were large arrears. In a recession, arrears of rentals build up. The Government understands the difficulty. It understands the need for local companies particularly, but all companies in general, to reduce their costs as far as possible, including rental costs. That is why the rent reductions, the property tax rebates which have been passed on, all the actions which have been taken, add up to about a 30% discount on rentals for factories in Singapore, a substantial amount. These have been generous concessions. But having set the rentals at a fair level, the rent has to be collected. Because if JTC does not collect rent, then very soon word will get around that rentals can be ignored, that they do not have to be paid. JTC will then have vast unpaid bad debts on their hands, and they will be abdicating their fiduciary responsibility if they do so. Therefore, it is their job to make sure that rents are collected, to make sure that arrears do not get out of hand, and to make sure that businesses which use JTC facilities pay for JTC facilities.

Lastly, company profits. The subject was brought up by the Member for Whampoa, who pointed out the necessity of our allowing companies in Singapore to make profits as large as they can make elsewhere, and substantially larger than they can make back in their home countries. That is the basis on which we have to start. Companies do not beg us to let them set up in Singapore. We have to invite them to come to set up in Singapore. They have to be profitable. Not only must they earn a little bit of money and stay in the black, but they must earn quite a lot of money and stay substantially in the black. They must be as profitable here as they can be in Taiwan or Korea or Hong Kong. But they must be more profitable here than they can be in Britain or France or America or Japan. There must be some compensation for coming to Southeast Asia, to a small country, for dealing with trade barriers, for living with uncertainties. Therefore, when a company makes profits which are higher than average, we should allow them to keep the profits, and we must let them continue to make more profits.

These statements have major implications for the way in which we do our wage bargaining. It is very easy for us to persuade workers, employees in unprofitable companies to accept pay cuts, to reduce their take-home pay, to tighten their belts until the company does better and gets back into the black again. It is not so easy to persuade workers in companies which are not unprofitable, which are still making money, that despite the company making money, wages should not go up, that wage increases must be restrained, that the company must be given the opportunity to become even more profitable and that if we do not do that we will merely be squeezing companies. If all those companies which are profitable continue to pay, and all those which are not profitable are reprieved, then the way to get a reprieve, is to become unprofitable. It is unworkable. Long before the company has become unprofitable, its headquarters would have decided that this is not the country for them and pulled out. Far from having a wage increase, we would have unemployment.

These are considerations which the National Wages Council must take into account. At the same time, it is not only a matter of a few wise men in the NWC coming to a compromise which accounts for this. These are facts which must be understood in every company, in every union. It is not what the NWC pronounces which ultimately matters. It is how the settlements work out which ultimately matters. Here, we are not only talking about wages. We are not only talking about the labour market and labour costs. We are talking about the entire ability of the Government to carry out its economic package, to carry its policies and to bring growth back into the economy. This is an indicator.

MTI can change rules for investment incentives. SIFS can give grants and loans. But can we make the population accept the policy and work together to make it succeed? The test case is what happens in NWC, what happens in the branch unions and in the companies. If they get together, maintain labour peace and work productively under difficult circumstances, then I think the signal will be seen and we will be remembered for much longer than these two years of wage restraint. If we cannot hold it for two years, then I think companies will decide that they should not come here at all, no matter how cheap we are, no matter what our incentives are.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this is the factor which now determines the outcome of our economic policy. I hope it will work. We will try our best, and I hope all Members of this House will help us make it work.

Mr Eric Cheong Yuen Chee (Toa Payoh): Sir, in view of the comprehensive reply given by the Acting Minister and his Minister of State, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $83,438,700 for Head V ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates.

The sum of $284,006,000 for Head V ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.

Head J -

Mr Chai Chong Yii (Bukit Batok): ( In Mandarin): Sir, I beg to move,

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

The Ministry of Community Development has a special mission to perform. Singapore is a tiny country with a dense population of a very complicated mix of races of diverse language, religion and custom. Different races had been living here in different ways in separate communities before independence. Since independence, through the PAP Government's efforts and leadership, Singapore has gradually become a Republic, and not only legally so but it is also reflected by the way of life of the people and the attitude of the people. It has a unique form of social structure. We can see the special characteristics of the people of Singapore. I would like to avail myself of this opportunity to ask the Minister the policy direction of the Ministry of Community Development. What are its main policies?

I would like to ask this question because in recent years there have been certain undesirable manifestations, namely, more and more irresponsible individuals who are not very well informed of the history of Singapore are criticizing and cavilling over the development of our society and the efforts of our Government in developing our society. If this trend of criticisms and attacks is allowed to continue, then it will not benefit anybody. Singapore depends on its human effort to live and not on heavenly aid. The best chance of Singapore making a living is the good and harmonious relationship among the people who strive with concerted effort and common purpose and objective for mutual existence and social well being. If the people's conviction on this basic principle of survival is shaken, then it will bring about great disaster to our country. lherefore, I would like the Minister to give to the people of Singapore a clear directive as to the manner in which more efforts should be put in towards community development, so that the grassroots organizations may know which way to go.

Dr Aline K. Wong (Changkat): Sir, I think every person in this Chamber is feeling a bit tired from the long sitting and the seriousness of the subjects under discussion. So, Sir, if you will allow me, let me begin on a very light note.

I would like to request the Minister of State to give me a few things. First, a running tap. Second, an electricity outlet. Third, a toilet. Fourth, if he feels generous enough, a small locker where some barang-barang can be kept there. I am requesting them not on my own behalf, of course. I am requesting them on behalf of the senior citizens.

To-date, there are 14 senior citizens' clubs formed by the CCCs at the constituency level and 37 senior citizens clubs formed by the RCs at the zonal level. Together, they have a membership of about 8,200 with an average size of 90 for the RCs and 350 for the CCCs. In addition, there are 42 senior citizens clubs formed by the community centres under the People's Association with a total membership of 8,600 or an average size of 200. Whereas the larger groups sponsored by the CCCs and the CCMCs may have more resources at their disposal, including the use of the community centre facilities, this is not the case with the smaller groups organized by the RCs. In fact, some RCs may not even be anywhere near the community centres. So they have to make do with whatever resources they have now.

Apart from these smaller senior citizen groups formed by the RCs, there are many more small informal groups among the elderly who gather spontaneously, almost every day, at the void decks to chit-chat, to play chess, share newspapers or simply to watch the world go by. These small groups, in my mind, should receive some amount of attention and help from the authorities. In our eagerness to promote the senior citizens clubs, our attention should not be fixed on size and number alone. In fact, as the groups become bigger and become formalized, there is a tendency for emphasis being placed on rules and procedures. In this way, the groups actually lose the spontaneity and the majority of the participants become rather passive participants in group activities. So my point is that these informal, spontaneous small groups on void decks should receive every care, should be nurtured. They are as much a form of neighbourliness and a form of community as the larger associations or clubs that we are encouraging. In fact, I would even argue that in as far as they constitute an uncontrived community, they are even better than the formal organizations.

There is no need, in my mind, to hasten the formation of senior citizens clubs unless the Minister of State is prepared to grant them separate premises plus RC secretariat help plus whatever form of subvention he is prepared to give them. But I do not think this is the approach of the Ministry at the moment. The approach of the Ministry seems to be to let the RCs cater to the needs of the senior citizens through programmes that they can organize for them. However, the RCs themselves are facing some problems. Firstly, they are overtaxed in manpower and they also lack the financial resources. There are only that many newspaper collections that the RCs can organize each year or each month. In fact, they are also strapped by financial resources. Second, the RCs are also running out of space, especially those which are active. Within the average space of two, 3-room or sometimes 4-room units, the RCs have to run their meetings, hold tuition classes, sometimes students' art classes, library clubs and whatnot. It is very difficult for them to share the space with the senior citizens who may want to carry out their activities, not outdoors, but under some shade and cover.

Furthermore, the senior citizens need a space to gather, not just in the evening, but also in the daytime. So I think the best way to encourage them to gather is really to provide them with a space, call it "Senior Citizens' Corner" if you like, right outside the RC Centre. In this way you can encourage the senior citizens to integrate with the younger people at the RCs. They would also be providing a watchful eye over the people, the movements around the RC Centres and the lift lobbies. I am sure the HDB, together with the Ministry of Community Development, upon the latter's request, can work out some design of a Senior Citizens' Corner where the type and the kind of minimal facilities that I have just requested could be installed.

One often hears the argument that if you give such things to the residents, and if they are open to the public, then there is also the likelihood of vandalism. I personally do not feel so. It is not only just the teenagers who hang around void decks, who tend to turn semi-public space into territories, but senior citizens can also have in their own mind a piece of territory that they could watch over. I think the whole thing can work out fine if, as an instance of nourishing community development, they feel a sense of attachment and a sense of territoriality over the space that they will be allowed to use. If the HDB is worried about the costs of electricity and water used by the senior citizens, I am sure some method of payment can be arranged between the RCs and the senior citizens.

If the senior citizens are given the responsibility to run their own activities, instead of just being participants in mass events, I am sure there would be a great spurt of creativity among senior citizens. The idea may sound very simple but you can see that I am struggling to turn abstract ideas of community and community development into simple things that work. The tricks are how to turn ideas into implementable actions rather than remain as guidelines which sometimes go on ad nauseam for community workers and which remain confidential under cover. Now, if these simple tricks work, these should be better tricks because they cost very little, while at the same time they meet the simple needs of simple people.

Mr Abdullah Tarmugi: Mr Speaker, Sir, I have got three amendments on this Head. May I speak on two of them briefly, first, and take the third one later?

The Chairman: I would like you to speak on all the three together.

Mr Abdullah Tarmugi: Yes. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like us to take our minds away from our economic problems for a while and project ourselves into the future, into the kind of society that we wish to have for ourselves.

Among the visions for the next century is the burst of creativity, innovativeness and the blossoming of the arts. These cannot be created overnight, neither can they be created by edict. The foundation for an environment for such a society must therefore be made available now so that the blossoming of the arts can grow and can evolve and be available when we need them when the time comes.

Sir, the Ministry of Community Development can, I think, play a part in this scheme. I am well aware of the plans to develop an Arts Complex at Fort Canning and a recreational area in the vicinity of the Singapore River. While these are worthwhile projects, what I fear is that these may cater more for the professionals, the well-established painters, sculptors and performing artistes, rather than those individuals who are just as committed to the arts, the amateurs, weekend painters, weekend hobbyists but who for want of space may not be able to come to these places or may be even too shy to express their craft in such places. So I am talking of space which could be set aside, perhaps maybe on weekends, where occasional artists or amateur artists could gather to compare their work, to even demonstrate their craft, or even sell them. The Ministry of Community Development, to my mind, could work with STPB perhaps to identify such places where there could be spontaneity and informality, where people could come together to display their art, express their creative interest so that more citizens could take part in this creation of the arts in Singapore.

I have in mind, for example, the Esplanade. The Esplanade could perhaps be identified as a location where these amateurs could gather on weekends and display their work, to paint there, maybe even in groups to come together and dance, and in a very informal, spontaneous atmosphere, so that lots more Singaporeans could take part in these activities. The Esplanade, to my mind, is an ideal place for such activities because it is a place by the Singapore River where plans are now being made anyway to develop it into a recreational area.

The other area I thought could be ideal for such purpose would be the Orchard Mall. As it is now, the Orchard Mall is a popular place where people gather. Even tourists gather to see the world go by, to see how we Singaporeans live. So what could be a better place than the Orchard Mall, for example, where tourists can see how Singaporeans express themselves in terms of the arts.

Allow me now, Sir, to turn to the feedback services. Sir, when the Feedback Unit was established, there was considerable interest from the public on what it could do or what it should do or what they wanted it to do. But there were, too, certain sections of the community who were sceptical whether it could achieve what it purported to do and, more crucially, whether Government is serious in its commitment to have a dialogue with the public by taking heed of the feedback from the Feedback Unit. It is true that there have been occasional reports of what the Unit does and the number of issues that have been referred to it. But many people have asked me how effective is the Unit in bringing up issues to Government and how effective is it in modifying or changing policies and rules. In other words, they think that Feedback should be a two-way traffic. It is not a question of having feedback from the citizens to the Government but the other way round too. So can the Ministry perhaps enlighten the House on the kinds of policies, modifications which have been brought about as a result of the work of the Feedback Unit? Can the Ministry also enlighten the House on the kinds and amount of manpower available in the Unit to handle the activities, and whether they are sufficient? And lastly, does the Ministry also have any other plans to provide additional channels of communication between Government and public? In other words, in terms of communication, in terms of dialogue, where do we go from here?

The last item, since Mr Speaker, Sir, you wanted me to take all of them together, is about the Missionary committees, or what the Muslim community calls the Jawatankuasa Haiah Dakwah (JHD). Since the JHD was formed, there have been a lot of questions from the Muslim public as to what it does, what are its functions, and what are its powers, and where exactly do they stand vis-a-vis MUIS and other Muslim organizations. In particular, they want to know to what extent do these missionary committees have power over the local Muslim organizations and how are the activities of the various missionary committees from the various areas coordinated by the Central JHD. Now, I say this, Sir, because there have been comments both by the Muslim public and also in the press of just how confused some of them are with regard to the kinds of activities that have been carried out by JHDs. They are not too sure as to what exactly are these JHDs for, what do they do, and how they expect to react to these activities. The relationship or the communication so far has been between these JHDs and the Muslim organizations, but individuals somehow tend to be left out in all this. So could the Minister concerned enlighten this House on what exactly are the functions and roles of the JHDs, and whether coordination between the various JHDs in the various areas could be better made so that there will be no confusion among the Muslim public of which JHD or which committee an organization or constituency fall into? And this recently, in fact, has created some problems among residents because they are not sure which JHD they belong to and therefore they tend to quibble among themselves with regard to the kinds of activities they could or could not do. Thank you.

Mr S. Vasoo (Bo Wen): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have three amendments under the Ministry. I shall take them together.

Sir, I would like to just cast our mind a few years from hence. We will probably notice that our population characteristics will change dramatically. We will have more senior citizens. We will have more middle-aged persons and, Sir, we will have a declining number of children. These profiles are changing fairly quickly. And I feel that we have very little idea as to what really is happening in this changing population profile. I also feel that there is a wealth of information around for the various departments to collate such wealth of information. Such information, if properly used, will give us some clear-cut social indicators for us to plan and respond to new community needs which are emerging in housing estates.

Sir, as I see it, these changes will surface different types of needs and issues in the neighbourhoods of our various housing estates. The neighbourhoods of our housing estates will be the neigh- bourhoods where future problems and issues will rise.

In the light of these changing social circumstances, I am wondering how will the Ministry organize itself to meet the challenges in the housing estates in response to these changing social profiles of people and their needs. What directions will the Ministry take to encourage voluntary groups and organizations to participate in community problem solving? As I see it, Sir, the neighbourhoods of the future will be the base for the organization of people to respond to various social needs and unless we nurture such neighbourhood groups and community groups, and encourage voluntary efforts, we will not be able to build a more positive social network in the community of the highrise. Sir, I therefore feel that greater efforts and greater attention should be given by the Ministry in its role to help encourage, nurture and support voluntary groups and organizations. I see this is important because it will provide a basis for their growth and for their strength to be able to deal effectively with various needs in the community.

Sir, the voluntary social service organizations urge the Ministry to examine its policy on the provision of grants. Government grants to these organizations have not been reviewed for the last 10 years. These grants were based on assumptions which are not relevant today. I am particularly concerned about the minimum grant given to organizations providing care for the aged sick. The problem of the aged sick, as you all know, is likely to become more acute in the years ahead. Coupled with this, the aged in our homes for the aged will be vulnerable to disabilities. Sir, there is a case to reassess the need to provide additional financial grants to these organizations so that they can expand and improve upon their services and their programmes for the aged sick.

Sir, Government grants to these organizations account for only 2% of their total expenditure in 1984. Whilst they do not expect a substantial increase in grants, they will be further encouraged to expand their services if they can receive some grants to employ health care personnel, such as physiotherapists, occupational therapists and nurses, to help in the implementation of new programmes within their institutional set-up.

Sir, I also feel that capital grants and start-up funds can also be extended to organizations which are interested in initiating new programmes for the old in the community. Such seed money or start-up fund can lessen the burden of organizations interested in initiating such services. And I feel that unless such grants are available, community groups and organizations may find it hard to be able to initiate and take up additional responsibilities in pioneering into new areas of services. Sir, start-up grants can also help existing organizations to redesign their institutional facilities to cope with the changing needs in terms of the care for the aged sick.

Sir, moving on to another area is the area where the Ministry is trying to promote extensively, ie, in the area of child care services. The Ministry's plan to promote more child care centres will have to be carefully implemented after systematic assessment. These centres will have to be sited in estates where there are likely to be a demand for them. This is likely to be in new housing estates where there are more young married couples. In the siting of these day-care centres, I wonder what are the steps taken by the Ministry to assess whether there will be a demand for such services. Otherwise, we will find that there will be a glut of child care centres in many of these estates. They will remain under-utilized.

Sir, the popularity of child care centres depends on the parents' view of the ability of the staff managing these child care centres. It is therefore important that the staff have adequate training and orientation in child care. This is important because the children's development in these child care centres is going to be influnced by the type of staff, their training, their perspective and their orientation in the care for children. Many researchers have substantiated that children who are young, perhaps those under child care, can be influenced tremendously by the quality of staff that is available in such child care centres. Sir, I am wondering what are the steps taken by the Ministry to monitor and maintain minimum standards of care in these child care centres to ensure that the standards do not drop below the minimum level.

Sir, at present, the grant and the subsidies given by the Ministry for organizations interested in running child care centres are not too attractive to encourage more organizations to embark on such programmes. Perhaps the Ministry could look into the possibility of extending the subsidy period from three to five years and the support period to meet operational deficits from six months to one year. I feel that unless organizations are certain that they are going to be given a reasonable period of support, many organizations are not going to take the initiative to pioneer into this new area which the Ministry is promoting.

Finally, in the area of public assistance for the aged, I see from a report by the Ministry that there are 3,278 persons who are on public assistance in 1984, and the increase is only 1% over the previous year. The number is small because we have stringent criteria to ensure that those who deserve the support gets the assistance. Sir, if you look at the figures further, you will find that at least about 80% of those on public assistance are old persons above the age of 60. Some of these people live in old people's institutions and they get support. Others live with their friends and relatives. And some of them live alone in the housing estates together with other single old persons. The public assistance rate of $90 given to this group of single unsupported old person is meagre. I feel that though they may get support from other institutions, I do not think that it is fair for them to hop from one organization to another to get additional funds. Though they may be able to get further support from other groups, I feel that a more concerted effort can be made to provide them with additional support. Other kinds of support which are available could be organized in a manner that they can be given with some dignity.

At the same time I feel that, without adequate support, these single old persons who are living in the housing estates are more likely to get into institu- tional care. I believe that our effort is to try and encourage as many old people to live in the community. If this is our aim and objective, then adequate support should be considered for the old who are particularly single and unsupported because they deserve all our help.

On that note, Sir, thank you.

Dr Augustine Tan: Sir, I file my amendment to lodge a complaint about the Whampoa branch library. Actually I should have lodged this complaint last year but I missed the session. The opening hours of the Whampoa branch library have been curtailed rather drastically, and it is open now only on Mondays, Wednesdays and Saturdays for a few hours each day. I would like to appeal to the Acting Minister to restore the times of opening of the branch library to the original hours because libraries are very important places of study and access to source materials for students, especially those from poor families. And this particular branch library is sited in a former void deck of 1-room flats and it is right next to my community centre. So I hope that the Acting Minister will take steps towards the restoration of the times of opening.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I have three amendments under this Ministry and I propose to speak on all of them. But I hope I will not take up 30 minutes.

My appeal, and I suppose it might have been expected, is for the forgotten members of our community. I say they are forgotten because it would appear, from the provision that we are making for them in this affluent society, that we are embarrassed by them being in our midst. And so we try and pretend that they do not exist; they are not part of our community. And so we hide that by just making meagre grants and hoping that nobody will really take too much notice of these people.

Sir, may I make an appeal for a change in the attitude of society. And when I talk about society, I mean the Government as the agent of the society, because governments are nothing but agencies of the society. It is in the society's attitude to these people in our midst that I am appealing for a change. The agency's attitude, ie, the Government's attitude, would appear to be that the agency itself has no responsibility for these unfortunate members of our society, that it should be left to the private citizens, to the charity of our citizens and not to the whole community, to the agency of the society. There is a fallacy in this, Mr Speaker, Sir, because the agency acts as the agent to implement the society's responsibilities and its aims and objects. So if it is the citizens' responsibility to cater for these people as the agency would appear to be spouting forth - that the people should care for them, voluntary institutions should look after them and it is not for the Government - I say the primary responsibility must be accepted by the agency, the Government. But do we do this?

The Member for Bo Wen was talking about our grants to voluntary institutions and he said it was about 2% or something. We ask the voluntary institutions to do the work that the agency is responsible for and whose responsibility it is, and we give them a quarter of a million dollars. For 1986, I see that the provision in grants to voluntary institutions is something like $260,000. And then we think, "Oh, we have done enough. We can now forget about them. Let the institutions get on with the job."

There is talk all the time about us being an affluent society. But how does this affluent society discharge its responsibility to the less affluent? We provide $12 million for welfare services but about half of it (more than half, two-thirds of it) goes to manpower and operating expenditure. In subsidies and grants, most of it goes to Public Assistance. That is about all that we seem to be doing. The Member for Bo Wen has mentioned the magnanimous sum of $90 that we dole out to a single individual who is dependent on the society for his living, and we feel very proud of it that we have done our share in looking after him. I saw only the other day the Acting Minister beaming with his broad smile receiving a cheque for those who were unfortunate to have been injured or whose children or dependants have lost their lives in that tragedy at Serangoon Road. Is the Minis- ter's responsibility simply that of appearing at these functions and receiving cheques from the private citizens? Is that what he is being paid for in his responsibility for the underprivileged, for the maimed and the neglected in our community?

We must get used to the fact that these disabled persons in our society, these aged, destitutes, are still members of the community, and that they should be accepted as equal members of the society. I know, as I said, we are embarrassed by them and when we do something for them we tend to adopt a patronizing tone or attitude to them. But, they know that they are not getting their share of what they deserve in this community.Sir, in the book about Mother Teresa, written by Malcolm Muggeridge, "Something Beautiful for God", he quotes Mother Teresa as saying that the poor are prepared to accept their poverty. But what they find difficult and hurtful to accept is the feeling of not being wanted by the rest of the community. This is what we impose on our maimed, our disabled, when we do not make enough provision for their care and for their maintenance. We can, it would appear, without batting an eyelid, Mr Speaker, Sir, vote a sum of $320,000 for the purchase of a Rolls Royce for our President. But we cannot afford to buy equipment for the education of our disabled children, which they so badly need. I mention this year in and year out. The School for the Deaf in Mountbatten Road - they cry out for proper equipment to teach the deaf children. But the response from the Government is, "We can't afford the monies for this purchase of equipment." So it goes on. We cannot afford to look after members of our community who for no reason of their own are victims of tragedy, because it is a tragedy when you are paralysed, when you are debilitated. But we have money for lots of other things for the other members of society.

The attitude of the Government is reflected in the answer given by the Acting Minister for Labour to a question I tabled in this House for the sitting of Parliament on the 31st October, 1985. I wanted to know why the Government had not felt able to ratify the recommendations passed at the International Labour Conference in June 1983 to provide vocational rehabilitation and employment facilities in training for our disabled persons. The reply was, I quote, Mr Speaker, Sir:

'the Government has decided not to ratify [the various conventions] for the following reasons:

(i) Employment of the disabled is best left to market forces and enlightened employers rather than enforced through legislation.

(ii) With the tight labour market, disabled persons have been able to secure suitable employment after appropriate training.

Each country is run differently depending on its people, resources and state of development.'

So it goes on. The Government does not propose to ratify what are recognized training schemes in other countries for the disabled, does not propose to accept responsibility for those in Singapore because they should all be left to the market forces, to the private sector. This is the attitude of this Government.

The Minister of State for Education (Dr Tay Eng Soon): Mr Speaker, Sir, may I just interrupt with some information for the Member who is making quite a long impassioned speech about providing for the disabled?

Mr Jeyaretnam: What is it? On a point of clarification or point of Order. You can speak afterwards, if you like, please.

Dr Tay Eng Soon: Point of clarification.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I am not giving way. If it is point of clarification, you may speak afterwards.

I would like to know from the Acting Minister for Community Development whether there has been any improvement in the Government services for the education of the disabled children, the deaf, the spastics, the mentally retarded children, and all other handicapped children. What is the Government doing about them? Has there been any progress since last year when I last spoke on this subject? Last year I asked about the supply of specialist teachers for the education of these children, and I thought that the Minister of State for Education was going to reply, but he did not reply then. Perhaps he could enlighten us this year on what progress has been made with the training of specialist teachers for the teaching of disabled children. Let us have some information on that.

Dr Tay Eng Soon: You do not -

Mr Jeyaretnam: I hope you will. I hope you will when I have finished.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there is the Community Chest. Is it the Government's intention that all funding of welfare services should be done through the Community Chest? Do we have no responsibility. While talking about the Community Chest, I noticed sometime ago that there was a complaint from some staff in a Government department about some form of compulsion being brought to bear on donations to the Community Chest. That is all wrong, Mr Speaker, Sir, may I say. It is a double tax on our citizens. We are paying taxes to the Government, not only for the provision of hospitals and other amenities, roads, but also for the care and maintenance of the unfortunate members of our society. They should not be compelled to contribute towards the cost of something for which they have already contributed in the form of taxes. Somebody asked me to ask whether the Government propose to match the donations to the Community Chest, if it is the Government's intention that the Community Chest should fund all welfare services in this country. I would pass that question on. Does the Government propose to do anything about giving any grants to these victims of the Serangoon Road disaster? Or is it merely going to send its Ministers to receive cheques from the citizens?

My plea today is that we try and change our attitude. There are not enough homes. We have heard of this year in and year out: Not enough homes for the chronic sick. Not enough homes for the aged. Has the Government any plans to provide homes for the chronic sick? Or is it going to be left purely to private institutions? What about the children in the homes? I brought up last week the question of children in Government homes being provided with education. Is enough care being taken about their education? I have written to the Acting Minister, as requested, about the case of this child in the Katong Children's Home who is anxious to get into a school. Apparently nothing has been done to help put the child into a school.

Coming specifically to the items that I have raised, may I say just one thing about the Registry of Marriages, and that is this. The Registrar of Marriages is there to perform marriages between people who wish to get married and who wish to give notice. He has no discretion to refuse to marry two persons if they satisfy the requirements of the law for marriage. But I have had complaints from persons that the Registrar has refused to marry them. I have asked this once before and I have never got a satisfactory answer. Will the Minister tell us under what law, under what provision of the statute, the Registrar of Marriages refuses to perform the marriage? Talk about the Government not flouting the law, this Government continuously flouts the law.

One other group that I wish to speak about is persons who have been discharged from prison after paying their debt to society for having hurt society by their actions. I have had several people who have come to me saying they are unable to find any jobs, all because they have in the years past been sent to prison for some crime or other that they committed against society. They have asked me time and time again to bring this up because, they say, they are getting no help at all from the Ministry or the Government to try and place them in jobs. I see there is a Prison Welfare Service that the Ministry is responsible for. May I ask the Acting Minister whether he would exert some energy on behalf of these people so that they are again accepted and integrated into the society and not made to feel bitter against society when they have paid their debt. The only thing that would result if we continue to shun them and not help them is that they will return to crime.

Sir, with that, I will sit down.

Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon (Yuhua): Sir, in 1983, there were only 34 child care centres for 2,144 children before the age of 6. Today, there are 91 centres, an increase of 170% compared to 1983. They cater for 5,417 children. The Ministry of Community Development should be commended for this increase of more than 3,000 child care places in less than three years. Efforts to increase the number of centres were made to meet the need for female workers in a tight labour market.

As recommended by the Economic Committee, we should increase the female labour force participation rate from 46% to 50% by 1995. If we were to look at the current supply and demand for child care centres, we will realize that we are still very far off our target. At present, there are about 250,000 children below six years old in Singapore. If 10% of them, or 25,000 children, are in need of child care places we would have to set up at least 250 centres with a capacity of 100 each.

I am aware that with the current economic recession there may be a reduction in demand for child care services. In this case, I understand that a temporary adjustment will have to be made in the setting up of more centres. However, my concern is that, when the recession is over and more women are required to work, we should not be caught again by the lack of child care centres. Therefore, I would like to call upon the Ministry to continue with the original plan with only slight adjustment.

The other aspect which I would like the Ministry to look into is the provision of child care centres for the lower income group. Of the 25,000 children who need child care services, about 25% or 5,000 are from lower income families. Obviously, there is a need to build more low-cost child care centres. Last year, the Ministry introduced a scheme to subsidize low-cost centres. It has also provided a flexible budget for this scheme depending on supply and demand. However, to-date, only two low-cost centres with a total capacity of 140 places have been set up. Considering the number of low-cost centres needed, the setting up of low cost child care centres is certainly growing at a very slow pace. I would therefore like to propose that the Ministry of Community Development monitor the development of low-cost centres closely. The Ministry should review the policy of leaving low-cost centres solely to the private sector. The Ministry may have to consider setting up and operating low-cost centres itself on a national scale.

Sir, I have another amendment under this Ministry. Can I continue in Mandarin, Sir?

The Chairman: You are not allowed to switch to Mandarin.

Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon: In that case, I will speak later on.

Encik Abbas Abu Amin (Pasir Panjang): ( In Malay): Sir, I wish to touch on two matters. Firstly, matters concerning sports and, secondly, matters relating to the Muslim Religious Council of Singapore.

First, I would like to declare my interest because I am a member of the Singapore Sports Council. Sir, last year I raised the question of the Government's loan of about $16 million for the building of the National Stadium at Kallang. I appealed for the loan to be treated as a grant by the Government on the same ground as that of the Sentosa Development Corporation. I do not intend to repeat the reasons for the appeal. I would only like the Minister for Community Development to pursue this matter again with the Minister for Finance so that the Singapore Sports Council can organize its sports activities more vigorously.

The second matter is the floodlighting of the various athletic centres. I wish to appeal to the Minister to look into the possibility of providing floodlight facilities at some of the athletic centres in the bigger housing estates. With floodlights, more sports and games and competitions could be organized by the national sports organizations to attract more young people to participate in meaningful recreational activities.

Another matter I would like to talk about concerns indoor stadium. Much talk and discussion has been generated and many sports officials and enthusiasts are looking forward to the realization of this long-awaited multi-purpose indoor stadium. I would like the Minister to let us have more details on the progress and development made so far for the construction of the proposed indoor stadium.

Finally, the plight of sportsmen. We all know that our sportsmen are ordinary citizens and not professionals. They have made sacrifices to turn up for training. Finding time to train is not a problem. Getting leave for overseas competition is a tougher nut to crack. There are many examples I can cite and such news have been carried by local newspapers. A badminton player is going to Jakarta to represent Singapore in the finals of the Thomas Cup. He has exhausted his leave. Therefore he will have to take future leave due to him. This means that the player concerned will have to work without vacation for a long time. Another example concerns a boxer. He gave up his job so that he could train and participate in the last SEA Games recently. He was fortunate. He ended up with a gold medal. Likewise, the table-tennis player who sacrificed her time to represent the State, time which should be used to prepare for her 'A' level examinations. The good news is that she brought home gold medals for Singapore. In other words, our sports personalities are prepared to go to great lengths to win glory for our country. If only our employers would match such a sacrifice in the national interest, this would be ideal.

Sir, I also know that there are some employers who have been cooperative in giving time-off for training and granting leave to these sportsmen so that they can represent the nation. We are indeed grateful to such employers. What I hope is that the Ministry concerned should convey to the employers of these sportsmen to be more tolerant and to support our sportsmen so that they could represent the nation without worrying too much about their commitment and leave problems. They need the mental stability for this purpose. If we want more of our sportsmen to achieve glory, there must be all-round cooperation from all concerned.

Sir, I now move on to problems in connection with the Muslim Religious Council or MUIS. I would like to hear an explanation from the Minister on three matters. Firstly, the redevelopment of wakaf lands, secondly, improvement and renovation work of the Habib Noh Shrine and Haji Salleh Mosque and, thirdly, upgrading of MUIS administration. Concerning the redevelopment of wakaf land, I seek clarification regarding the type of existing wakaf and wakaf lands, and who are responsible for the redevelopment of these wakaf lands. What measures have been taken by MUIS to discuss with the Ministry of National Development and the trustees of these wakaf lands concerning the redevelopment of the wakaf lands in line with the development and redevelopment of urban areas or the districts concerned?

My second question is on improvement and renovation of Habib Noh Shrine and Haji Salleh Mosque at Palmer Road. In the Budget debate last year, I raised a query concerning work on the improvement and renovation of Habib Noh Shrine and Haji Salleh Mosque at Palmer Road. As we have ourselves witnessed, both these historical buildings are in an advanced stage of dilapidation. The reply that I received was to the effect that Government had already approved expenditure to carry out the works. However, to date the condition of the two buildings remains unchanged. One year has elapsed and the condition of the buildings has deteriorated further. In fact, the Mosque tower where the moon crescent symbol is located is tilting and dangling.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it must be remembered that besides being a place of worship, the Mosque and Habib Noh Shrine often become places of interest for Muslim tourists from neighbouring countries and from other countries also. In order to preserve the nation's image and also that of the Muslims in Singapore, I wish to make an appeal again to the Government not to delay any further work on improvement and renovation of the Habib Noh Shrine and Haji Salleh Mosque. Hopefully, there will be no need for me to raise this matter again next year. What are the steps that have been taken to expedite the renovation work? I hope to have clarification on the subject.

Finally, upgrading of MUIS administration. Since the establishment of MUIS in 1968, the duties and responsibilities of MUIS have increased and expanded. I wish to know whether the present staffing position is adequate and what measures are being taken to further upgrade the quality and efficiency of MUIS staff. I think MUIS should not concentrate on routine administrative work. On the other hand, MUIS should plan and study important issues and how the issues are resolved and convey them to the Muslim community accurately and without any doubts whatsoever. A good example concerns the activities of the Fatwa Committee which should continue to activate itself and issue Fatwa or rulings for guidance as quickly as possible. It is noteworthy if MUIS could compile the rulings issued so far for the guidance of the local Muslim community. I think there is no need for MUIS to wait until the question is posed to them and then reply.

One of MUIS's tasks is to collect and administer funds of the Muslim community for the construction of mosques in housing estates. The question I want to pose is: how does the Mosque Building Fund stand now in the light of the present economic recession? Will it affect MUIS's plan to continue to build new mosques in the second phase?

Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to know about the MUIS's office. I consider the present office at the Empress Place is no longer suitable. Has MUIS got any plans to acquire a new office which is more comfortable and modern,consonant with other developments in our Republic? 4.35 pm

[Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair]

Mr Leong Horn Kee (Thomson): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, my colleagues have covered various topics concerning day-care centres community services and sports. I shall confine my comments, to just one topic, which is the promotion of the arts in Singapore. I have looked through the Budget for this financial year for references to any programmes on the promotion of the arts. What I find is a brief reference under the Cultural Programme which states that the objective of the programme is "to make arts accessible to the people and promote the creation and development of a national cultural iden- tity". What I was hoping for is to find a specific programme that is tailored specially for the promotion of arts. As compared to funds allocated for economic development, I believe the amount of money to be spent on art development is relatively small. This large differential, I believe of course is correct because the emphasis should definitely be first given to our economic progress and our economic growth. But I do feel that we should at the same time spend some time on efforts to develop the arts.

Sir, I have a few points to make concerning the subject. First, I feel that, like having a long-term economic development programme, we should also have a similar comprehensive long-term plan for the promotion and development of the arts. Talking about arts promotion is not a new subject. There have been various calls and pleas for the promotion of arts for the past 10 to 20 years. But I think the Minister should at least consider setting up a group or committee who can spend some time to draw up a comprehensive plan for the promotion of arts in Singapore.

The following are some elements which I feel should be incorporated into this long-term arts development plan. First, to promote arts at all levels. We do now have quite active promotion of arts at the very lowest level which is the kindergarten classes. Many children attend art classes conducted by the People's Association community centres or other educational centres. Sir, in the schools it is also correct that emphasis should be given to the core subjects, such as sciences, mathematics and physics. But I feel that some attention should also be given in the school curriculum to topics which are related to the arts, such as appreciation of various forms of painting and appreciation of music. This will provide a good foundation for our young children. When they grow older, they will be able to appreciate the finer things in life.

To assist in the training of children, I do feel that it is important to train a sufficient core of teachers who could be able to teach art and music subjects in the schools. Therefore, I would like to propose that perhaps the Institute of Education could have a Department of Arts in its Institute.

Sir, the Member for Ulu Pandan during the Budget debate has suggested that there should also be an Arts College to be set up. I support this suggestion. I read in the papers a few months ago that there was a request to convert the old St Joseph's Institution into an Art college. May I ask the Minister what is the status of this proposal? Such a college will allow young budding artists and musicians to further develop their skills and techniques.

Sir, the next point I would like to raise is how to bring the arts to the common people. To bring the arts to the common people, I think there should be a broad pool of local performers who could conduct many performances so that there is a widespread enrichment of the lives of our people. One such move is the recent open air performances by the Singapore Symphony Orchestra at the Botanical Gardens. Such performances are quite popular with the people, especially with the young. So I would like to suggest that similarly other local artists or musicians or music groups such as the Chinese Xinyao groups should conduct exhibitions, talks or performances at the CCs, in the schools, our institutes of higher learning and even in HDB estates. Similarly, Sir, local artists could also organize such forms of exhibition or talks to enable our people to have a better understanding of paintings of various forms.

Lastly, I would like to suggest that the Acting Minister should also consider giving some form of financial assistance when such groups organize exhibitions or performances at open grounds in the HDB estates, and the CCs. There are also many self-supporting art groups or music groups which find it very hard to sustain themselves because financially they are quite weak. I would like ask the Minister to consider whether there should be some form of financial assistance given to such groups so that they can sustain their activities and maintain the level of programmes and works that they can do. Some of these groups might even find it difficult to have a simple or a regular office for them to hold their meetings and conduct activities. Sir, perhaps the Minister would like to consider some form of assistance in kind such as providing free office space or rooms for them to hold exhibitions, or at least some office space for them to call their own premises where they can gather together.

The promotion of arts is a long-term process. The Ministry of Community Development should start now to draw up a long-term plan so that by the year 1999 we can achieve our aim of becoming an economically, as well as culturally, progressive society.

The Minister of State for Education (Dr Tay Eng Soon): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to catch your eye. I regret I was I unable to catch the Chairman's eye just now to reply to the Member for Anson. But, alas, the Member is missing from the Chamber now. When he sought the information, I wanted to give it to him but he was not prepared for it. The same thing happened last Friday when I wanted to reply to him but he left the Chamber before I had the chance to do so.

Anyway, Sir, regarding the subject that he was speaking so emotionally about just now, the subject about providing for the education of disabled children, I think the Member is quite wrong in saying that Government "is doing nothing whatsoever" - those were his words. In fact, Government is doing as much as it can to provide for the education of the handicapped and the disabled. There are altogether 11 special schools run by various voluntary organizations who are doing an excellent job in providing these children with special education. Of these 11 schools, seven of the schools are, in fact, school buildings which have been provided by the Ministry of Education over the past few years.

As for funding of these schools, the Government is providing a lot of funds to help in the running of these schools. For example, the Government provides teachers for these schools and, in addition to that, provides instructors as well as equipment and other financial aid. Altogether for every child in these special schools, we are spending something like 40% or 50% more per child compared with children in the normal education system. So it cannot be said at all, Sir, that the Government is not providing for these children. We are, in fact spending more for each child out of taxpayers' money than for children in the normal education system.

There is a waiting list for such children, some 300 who are either ESN or children who are mentally retarded. My Ministry is working very closely with the two associations providing for the special education of these children to help them to get another one or two schools and also to help them get more teachers to run these schools.

Sir, the voluntary organizations are doing an excellent job in running these schools. They bring to the schools their own expertise, their own enthusiasm. And by being autonomous, they are able to shape the syllabus, the curriculum, which is very different from that of the normal school system, to meet the special needs of these children. I think there is an advantage in that they are autonomous and able to tailor the educational needs to fit these children. And we should think very carefully about coming in to take over these schools and running them as suggested by the Member for Anson. The approach we have taken is a better one. We should let these schools be autonomous, free to run their own programmes, and to provide them with as much support as we can in the way of teachers and funds. That is the approach that the Government is taking over this matter. As I say, I regret that the Member for Anson is not here. Anyway, I would like to say this for the record.

Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon: ( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, we all know that the present greatest problem confronting our country at present is economic recession. Therefore, the most important duty and task is to solve our economic difficulties. But we must look far ahead and be determined to develop our society in culture and the arts. We should not neglect its development. If we slow down in our activities in this field, then it is wrong and passive on our part. The standard of culture and arts of a country reflects the quality of a people. It has some relationship with the economy too. Arts and culture will help promote tourism. A high level of arts and culture will also enable specialists, professionals and well-known intelligentsia to come to Singapore to work, because these people are usually lovers of artistic activities. On the other hand, arts and culture can also cultivate one's character and spirit to enrich one's life, to help one to achieve not only in the academics, techniques and the craft of making a living but also contribute to one's spiritual and personality cultivation and balanced life. This will enable our people to have a balanced thinking, healthy physique, sound mind and good character. These will help promote and enhance their living and productivity. Ours is a newly independent country. We have not formed our own charactristic image or form of arts and culture. Therefore, we should not slow down our steps in our progress towards this goal.

I would like to give a few practical suggestions regarding what I have mentioned earlier. First, we must set up a national arts gallery or cultural palace. I think this is the best time to set up an arts gallery because it will also help give the building contractors some work to do. There are important reasons why we must build an arts gallery. First, the premises of our present national arts gallery which may accommodate art exhibitions is a bit constrained in time and space because the Government or foreign artists have booked the place for the whole year, so that local artists do not have an opportunity to exhibit their art pieces. If they were to go to any hotel for a hall of a suitable size, the expense is too high and this would generally prevent our artists from holding an exhibition.

Next, our national museum has a good store of art exhibits and continues to receive art pieces donated locally and abroad. But because of shortage of storage or exhibition galleries, we have often rejected such donations. If we can now build an art gallery, it would not only provide room for storage and exhibition of such store but also encourage our local artists to their creations exhibited so that our people, particularly the younger generation, will have a better opportunity to view these exhibits.

The next point is that we should renovate or rebuild existing old buildings of historic value or of beautiful architecture. I notice that a few such buildings in the city area should be preserved and renovated or rebuilt into places for arts. For example, there is one old building housing the Immigration Office in Empress Place and there is another place, a cluster of old buildings behind the National Museum and beside Fort Canning Rise. There is also the old Tao Nan Primary School in Armenian Street. All these buildings can be turned into places for children's museum and centres for artistic and cultural activities. Earlier many Members have quoted examples of artists and cultural activists or organizations engaged in artistic activities finding it difficult to have premises or space for their activities. So if these structures are renovated, then the authorities concerned can rent them out cheaply to such groups of people.

Another thing I would like to mention is the Singapore River which has donned on a new look after the cleaning up. Without the bumboats which had not so long ago liven up the Singapore River, it now looks desolate and lacks lustre. Along the banks of the Singapore River, there are old houses which could be converted into theatres, concert halls, art centres where artists could resort to as centres for activities and exhibitions as well as for the sale of art works. This will also attract tourists. Another point mentioned just now by the MP for Siglap is that Singapore is a small place, and we are wont to blame our younger generation roaming about and criticizing them that they are wasting their time roaming about aimlessly, and describing such activity as unhealthy. But it is because of the lack of facilities that these youths, who are yet in their formative age, are trying to discover a way of living. They go to such places and we call them Centrepoint Kids, and perhaps MRT Kids in future. I think the more important thing is to get some places, as in Japan, at weekends, where we can close up roads leading to such places, so that our children, older people and younger people and music and art lovers can all go to such places to exhibit their musical talent or artistic talent, to dance or to folk dance, or exhibit and sell their art work which in a way will also promote tourism. Just now Members mentioned about Orchard Road or the open field in front of the Museum as likely places where suitable structures could be put up to let the young people organize their own activities. This could replace the disco dance or rock parties organized by the Police not too long ago. Moreover, the older folk can also organize their activities or go there to spend their leisure time as well. I hope the Minister concerned will consider the three points I have mentioned and implement them.

Dr Lau Teik Soon (Serangoon Gardens): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have two amendments. First, I would like to touch on the cultural programme of the Ministry. We are a multi-cultural, multi-religious and multi-lingual society. We have the rich heritage of the best of Asian civilizations, the Islamic, Hindu, Buddhist, Confucianist as well as the best of the Christian and Western civilizations. From all these, we have such a wonderful variety of customs and traditions, languages and religions, all of which go towards the evolution of a modern society.

As I understand it, our cultural policy has been to allow for the free development of the various cultures and towards that objective, the Ministry has assisted various cultural organizations. At the moment, the diversity of cultures is being promoted by the various cultural organizations. There has been no attempt by the Ministry to forge one national cultural identity. Of course, this is not possible. It is not possible to pressure cook a national culture out of a multi-ethnic population. We should not, in my view, forge one national cultural identity. If we do, this is the road to disaster.

Sir, on this matter, I would like to seek the Acting Minister's clarification on three issues. Firstly, according to the Ministry, its cultural programme seeks to promote the creation and development of a national cultural identity. I would like the Acting Minister to explain what this means. What is meant by "a national cultural identity"? We have many cultures. But can we have a national cultural identity?

Secondly, I notice that the Ministry is assisting various cultural organizations. In fact, the contribution to these cultural organizations has increased from $191,000 in FY 85 to $300,000 in FY 86. May I ask the Minister which are the cultural organizations benefiting from these assistance? My concern is that this money may be going to a narrow group of cultural organizations. I would like to see that this assistance be given to as many Chinese, Malay, Indian and other cultural organizations.

Thirdly, Sir, the Ministry is maintaining and operating two theatres, namely, Victoria Theatre and Kallang Theatre, and also the Singapore Conference Hall and the Drama Centre. I would like to ask the Acting Minister how the operation of these theatres contribute to the promotion of a national cultural identity, assuming there is such a thing.

Sir, I would now like to turn to the Feedback Services under the Ministry. First, let me say that the establishment of the Government Feedback Unit is a very positive development which allows the public to give their views, make suggestions and voice their support or criticism in connection with various policies and administration of the Government. I would like the Minister's view on the effectiveness of the Feedback Unit since its inception. I am particularly interested in how feedback from the public is gathered. It would be useful to know whether the public can provide feedback on various matters of government through the following means: writing of letters, personal interviews with officials and telephoning in their comments and suggestions. If these means as well as other means are available, I would suggest that the Ministry publicize this as well as its role as to how the public can provide feedback.

Sir, I would also like to know how the unit responds to members of the public who have provided the feedback. Are members of the public informed of the outcome of their suggestions and comments? In my view, there should be a two-way flow of feedback. The public provides feedback to the Unit and the Unit in turn provides the Government's responses to the public. Is this being done?

Sir, to assist the officials of the Unit to be more effective, I would like to suggest that it be provided with a team of researchers whose responsibility will be to go directly to the public and invite views from them on various matters. The team of researchers should go out regularly to public places to interview first hand the people in the street. In this way, the Unit can be updated on the mood of the people concerning various issues.

Sir, I am aware that the Minister for Finance is anxious to cut down expenditure. But the Unit is a new service and therefore should be allowed to develop both in terms of manpower and equipment. I would suggest therefore that the Ministry provides more staff and equipment to the Feedback Unit. I know that the Member for Ayer Rajah is the Chairman of the Feedback Unit. I assure Members that I have not consulted him on this matter. I notice from the Estimates, Sir, that there has only been an increase of $26,000 from FY 85 to FY 86. There is no increase in staff at all to the Feedback Services Unit, yet we expect so much from the Feedback Unit. On this matter, Sir, I am sure the Minister for Finance will be generous, especially when it is recognized that the Feedback Unit is playing a unique role in attempting to establish a closer rapport between Government and the people.

Mr Goh Choon Kang (Braddell Heights): ( In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, first, I would like to know whether the Ministry of Community Development has any long term concrete plans for the promotion of fine arts and other forms of arts, especially traditional arts. I remember last year the Cultural Division of the Ministry announced a 5-year plan under which the Division was to spend about $11 million on assistance to arts activities. However, details have not been published in the press. The Cultural Division has also planned to set up a cultural complex or cultural centre after the completion of the Kallang Theatre Complex. This is encouraging news to the art circle. However, in February 1986 we read a report in the press that a fine arts organization had to give up its office because of its inability to pay rental to HDB. According to the report, this organization was set up in 1935 and was therefore the oldest arts organization in Singapore. It was the only arts organization that had its premises. So with the vacation of the premises by this arts organization, all arts organizations today have no premises of their own. Therefore I would like to know whether the Ministry has any plan to assist such art and cultural bodies. All our efforts to promote art and cultural activities would be hindered if these organizations do not even have their own premises. In this connection I would like to put forward three suggestions.

Firstly, the Ministry may discuss with the HDB to allow arts organizations a certain concession in rental. I believe the HDB is also interested in the promotion of arts and culture and would be very willing to contribute towards such activities. Therefore, I think there should not be any great difficulty.

Secondly, according to the press report, some performing arts organizations have moved into premises of clan organizations or old unoccupied school buildings. This is because certain schools have been relocated in housing estates and therefore the school buildings are left vacant. I believe there are still some old schools buildings left vacant. I wonder whether the Ministry would consider allowing such organizations to be sited in these unused school buildings so they may have a place to carry out their activities.

Thirdly, I think the work of the proposed cultural complex should be speeded up. When it is completed, the authority should consider allowing the various arts and cultural organizations to be accommodated there.

Let me now touch on the activities of the Residents' Committees. I agree to the statement by the Member for Changkat that the activities carried out by the RCs are many and vibrant, resulting in a shortage of places for these RCs to carry out their activities. RCs were set up in 1978. There are now about 280 such organizations. They have been very active and have widened their scope of activities. In addition to their own activities, they have also set up Junior RCs, Senior Citizens Clubs, Women's Committees, and tuition classes, arts classes and small scale libraries at the RC premises. Therefore, they find their premises inadequate to cope with these activities. Their premises are of standard size, about 70 sq metres, which is equivalent to a 3-room flat. Their token rental is $5 a month.

In my constituency there is one RC which is also very active. It has carried out various activities. There are the Junior RC and the Senior Citizens Club and more than 200 senior citizens in the Club. The Junior RC has quite a number of members. Therefore, they find the premises is too crammed. They would like to purchase certain fitness equipment for the senior citizens but there is the problem of storage. I would like to suggest that the Ministry liaise with the Ministry of National Development to allow such active RC organizations to expand their premises by one more unit and at the same time allow them to pay the token rental of $5 a month. I think this will be a great help to the senior citizens because gradually there will be more and more senior citizens among our population. At the moment they have no place to go. They can only go to the void decks of Housing Board flats to meet their contemporaries there. They do not have any other recreation or activities. If the premises could be expanded and if more fitness equipment and other facilities could be installed for them, I believe this will go a long way towards keeping them fit and happy and well taken care of.

Apart from the RCs, the community centres also organize senior citizens clubs. In certain constituencies the CCC also have their own senior citizens clubs. Is there any close liaison between these different grassroots organizations with the Ministry of Community Development in the running of senior citizens clubs? Or has it given any guidelines to them? I would like the Minister to enlighten us on this matter.

Lastly, we know that since the inception of the RC institution, it has played a very important role and contributed much in community development. I remember last year the First Deputy Prime Minister announced that the Government would issue certain awards or medals this year to those RC members who have served for more than five years and who have rendered meritorious service. I think this is a very excellent scheme because it will give encouragement to our RC members to be involved in community work. But what are the details in this scheme which have so far not been announced? I would like to know whether the scheme has been drawn up and when will this scheme be implemented.

Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam: Sir, I have two amendments under Subhead JK-01. I wish to speak on the development of community centres and the establishment of day-care centres together.

The Chairman: Go ahead.

Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam: The People's Association celebrated its 25th anniversary on 1st July 1985. In the last 25 years, the People's Association must be congratulated in that it has kept up with the changing needs of the community. The first generation of community centres in the 1960s consisted of one- or two-storey zinc and wooden buildings. In the 1970s and early 1980s, 61 modern generation CCs were built, each costing $2 to $3 million. In the next 15 years, 36 new CCs will be built. Sir, under the present financial arrangements for the building of a new community centre, the community will need to raise the initial sum of $100,000 for the basic facilities. The remainder of the cost will be borne by the People's Association. The basic facilities are indoors, general office, office for committees, conference room, homecraft room, games room, reading room, multi-purpose rooms, hall and stage, stores and toilets. Outdoors, one basketball or volley-ball court and one children's play area. For any additional facilities, the community will have to pay half the cost. The Government will give a grant of a dollar-for-dollar.

Sir, with changing times, what was previously considered additional facilities have now come to be regarded as essential. For example, kindergartens, health and fitness rooms, music room and squash courts are a common and very popular feature of many modern generation CCs. These are, however, considered as Phase 2 or additional facilities under PA's present regulations. For those of us who are planning for new CCs, it will also make good sense to plan for the needs of the future, especially day-care facilities for children and amenities for our senior citizens. The hon. Member for Telok Blangah has highlighted this problem. For a void deck space of a three-room flat for the use of senior citizens, the HDB will be charging rental of $300 per month. If we could plan space for the seniors' programme in our proposed community centres the savings will be that much.

However, Sir, we are in difficult times as far as raising funds is concerned. For our new community centre in Fengshan, we have to raise $100,000 for basic amenities and another $400,000 to $500,000 for our additional amenities which include a senior citizens centre, day-care facilities for children and sporting amenities, such as multi-purpose courts and squash courts. This will be a monumental task for us. Why do we not content ourselves with only the basic amenities and raise only $100,000? There are several reasons for this.

1. Cost of construction is low today.

2. To build in two phases will be more costly than to build the whole complex in one phase, not to mention the disruption to services.

3. A comprehensive and integrated plan will maximize land utilization and provide for the comprehensive needs of the community.

Sir, I respectfully request the Minister to consider whether more flexibility can be built into the system so that the community leaders can decide what is best suited for the community. I also make a plea to the People's Association Board that the Ministry of Finance should consider a one-to-two instead of one-to-one contribution for additional facilities in these difficult times, that is, for every dollar raised by the community, PA or the Ministry of Finance will donate $2 instead of $1. This will be an act of good faith by the PA and the Ministry of Finance which will be much appreciated by all grassroots organizations as it will show that the authorities are aware of the problems of fund-raising today. In this way also the activities of our grassroots organizations will not be centred around fund-raising but instead concentrate on activities to meet the needs of our community.

Encik Ibrahim Othman (Tanah Merah): ( In Malay): Sir, the Muslim Religious Council, Singapore, (MUIS) is charged with the task of the administration of Islamic affairs in Singapore. One of the services provided annually is the management of Haj affairs for Muslims. We know that pilgrims who have performed the Haj have made many comments upon their return. MUIS on its part has done its utmost to provide good services to the pilgrims, and it has received the cooperation and support of the pilgrim brokers and other organizations as well as individuals.

Every year, MUIS attempts to provide even better services than the previous year. This year, the MUIS is making a meticulous selection of prospective Sheikh Hajis for the Haj. In this connection, I would appreciate if the the Minister could elucidate the criteria adopted in the selection of these Sheikh Hajis. Secondly, how could MUIS determine that the selected Sheik Hajis would provide the essential services efficiently for the pilgrims during their sojourn in the Holy City during the Haj season? Thirdly, what action will MUIS take against those Sheik Hajis who have failed to discharge their obligations.

The second point that I wish to touch on concerns Islamic education in religious schools in Singapore which has been assigned to MUIS. Section 81(1) of the Administration of Muslim Law Act states:

'The control of Muslim religious schools shall be vested in the Majlis and the Majlis shall have power to register and to control the conduct of such schools and to approve the curricula of instruction in such schools.'

My question is: what steps are being taken by MUIS to control and approve the administration of all types of religious schools in Singapore, and also what steps are being taken by MUIS to coordinate the curricula of such religious schools? In my opinion, this matter is of crucial importance in order to ensure that our children receive proper religious education of the same standard in Singapore. I hope the Minister in charge will clarify the matter.

Encik Wan Hussin bin Haji Zoohri (Kampong Ubi): ( In Malay): Sir, I have two matters which I wish to raise with the Minister in charge regarding MUIS. The first point concerns additional staff for the Syariah Court. I raised this issue last year and was informed that an additional Muslim Social Case Worker (MSCW) had been given to the Syariah Court. However, in view of the ever-increasing number of cases over the years, I consider that the additional post provided for is inadequate. I therefore appeal that another MSCW be given this year so that the cases which have piled up could be disposed of expeditiously. This is because there were 1,398 cases in 1983 and in the following year 1984 it rose to 1,593 and in 1985 the number escalated to 2,764 cases. Although I realize that the Government policy is to effect a 10% reduction in manpower costs within a five-year period, this case could be treated as a very pressing need. I also appeal that this Court be provided with a Registrar because, in view of the increasing number of cases outstanding, the provision of a Registrar would lighten the workload of the Court. And if necessary, the salary scale of these officers, including that of the MSCW, be reviewed with a view to improvement in order to attract qualified applicants to serve in the Court.

I now move on to my second point which concerns the development of the Islamic Centre which will be built soon. Having regard to the fact that the Islamic Centre will become the central point for the development of Islamic Religious Knowledge, I am desirous to know whether plans are already afoot to ensure that the image of the Centre is maintained, as befitting its name. Within this framework, it includes the organizing of forums, seminars and so on as well as the attendance of leading Islamic dignitaries and scholars to deliver talks and lectures. This requires appropriate forward-planning because, if this is not done early, then when this Centre is built, I do not wish it to be left there standing, in name only. In view of the foregoing remarks, I hope MUIS will give serious consideration to my suggestions as I think by the end of 1987 or early 1988 the Islamic Centre will be completed.

Encik Othman bin Haron Eusofe (Geylang Serai): Sir, I have an amendment under Subhead JM-01 which is the financing of the Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura. But I would not go into that today because of the shortage of time.

I would like to take this opportunity to lend my support to the appeal which has been made by the Member for Fengshan for the Ministry of Finance's contribution for the development of community centres to be made on a one-to-two basis. I think Members here are aware of the difficulties which our community workers have to experience when they have to raise funds for the development of community centres. Some of the facilities which are now considered appropriate for Phase 2 of the building of community centres are really facilities which are required when we start building the community centres. These are squash courts, kindergartens and health centres. I think the appeal is most appropriate and in the current times of recession when there is difficulty in raising funds, I think we should get the Minister for Community Development to take up with the Minister for Finance to get funds on a one-to-two basis.

The Chairman: It is 5.30 pm.

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

The Acting Minister for Community Development (Mr Wong Kan Seng): 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.