MAIN AND DEVELOPMENT ESTIMATES OF SINGAPORE FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1ST APRIL, 1987 TO 31ST MARCH, 1988

[Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair]

Order read for consideration in Committee of Supply [1st Allotted Day].

[Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair]

11.20 am

The Chairman: Main and Development Estimates of Singapore for the financial year 1st April, 1987 to 31st March, 1988, contained in Paper Cmd. 5 of 1987. For convenience, I shall take the totals for each head of expenditure in the Main Estimates and the Development Estimates as they appear in the last columns of the schedules of Estimated Expenditure under the Main Estimates and under the Develpment Estimates on pages 27 and 28 respectively of Paper Cmd. 5 of 1987.

I shall deal first with the heads of expenditure in respect of which amendments stand on the Order Paper Supplement.

Head F -

Mr Tang See Chim (Chua Chu Kang): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head F be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead FA-03 of the Main Estimates.

Sir, in the last two days during the budget debate, Members of the House have made their contributions to the debate. Special efforts were made by the chairmen of the Government Parliamentary Committees. But I cannot help feeling, Sir, that if the various GPCs could get some research help the Finance Minister may not be so economical in the use of words in his reply. There is a vote for a Parliamentary Research Officer in the Estimates. It has been there since 1984 but it has never been filled. And it is only for a single researcher.

I know that GPCs are supposed to empanel their resource persons but I am afraid that would be of no help. Resource persons are there more for feedback than for research. I would imagine that if a chairman of a GPC were to come to this House and air any matter that the resource persons point out, I am afraid that the Minister concerned will dismiss such an airing gently if he is in a good mood and unceremonially if he is not, all with facts and figures, of course. So I think it is absolutely necessary to have more research help if the GPCs were to do a good job.

Sir, I see that some of the GPC chairmen are present and seated in the front row. All of them are supposed to be seated in the front row, and you too, Sir, when you are not presiding in this Chamber. All GPC chairmen are given seats in the front row, a row traditionally reserved for the Opposition. These GPC chairmen are supposed to analyze Government policies and, if necessary, take the Ministers to task. I should feel most uncomfortable speaking from the Opposition Bench, lest in the heat of debate the Minister should take me to be one of the real Opposition. But this is less likely to happen if the GPC chairmen were to speak from the Government side of the House but, of course, this Chamber is too small. It is not big enough.

This leads me to appeal to you, Sir, that we should have a bigger Chamber. I see that it is the fashion nowadays for every Ministry and every statutory board to have its own building, its own very posh building. All, of course, except Parliament which, I am afraid, seems to be the Cinderella in this case.

Dr Ahmad Mattar: This is a beautiful building!

Mr Tang See Chim: So you think, but there is not enough space. But I do not think, Sir, that we should contribute to the building glut. What we should do is to convert an existing building for our use. I am thinking of City Hall. It is a grand old building, dignified and spacious. I understand that the Foreign Office is moving out of City Hall to Raffles City. We might as well take advantage of this and get hold of City Hall and convert it into the Parliament House of Singapore. City Hall is an imposing building. It is dignified and has a history behind it. Our independence was proclaimed at the City Hall steps. How appropriate that it should become the Parliament House of Singapore. I am sure, with renovations, it would be a beautiful home for Parliament. The present Parliament building can be turned into a museum.

An hon. Member: And the exhibits.

Mr Tang See Chim: Yes, with all the exhibits around. Or an annexe of the High Court.

The third matter I want to bring up, Sir, is the televising of the proceedings of Parliament. As you know, we changed our meeting times so that our proceedings can be brought to the homes of Singaporeans on the same day. I for one am finding the present meeting times rather inconvenient. I am sure the Ministers do too. Previously, we had the whole morning to ourselves. Meeting times were from 2.30 pm in the afternoon to 8.00 pm in the evening, with a break in between. But now, Sir, when the meeting finishes at 4.30 pm, today it is 5.30 pm, it is too late to go back to the office and yet too early to go home, except possibly for golfers who may have time to put in 18 holes.

I am glad that the Leader of the House has asked the Standing Orders Committee to review the Standing Orders. I hope it will take my plea into account when considering amendments to the Standing Orders. I would urge that we revert to the old times for meetings. I am sure TV Singapore is now experienced enough to be able to manage.

The Leader of the House (Mr Wong Kan Seng): With your permission, Sir, I shall reply on behalf of Parliament.

The Member for Chua Chu Kang has spoken up for the GPC chairmen. He said that they are very busy people and need a lot of research help. For the Member's information, there is, in fact, a Research Officer's post in Parliament since 1983. There have been five recruitment exercises. In 1984, 1985 and 1986 there were mass recruitment exercises but no candidate was selected. On two separate occasions in 1984 and 1985, in-service officers were also asked to apply for this post. Again, no candidate was selected. When we find it so difficult to fill even one post, I think if we were to increase the number of posts of Research Officers, we will find greater difficulty in filling them. But this year I am told that the Public Service Commission will try to fill this post. And when we have filled this post, we will see how it works out. If it does provide useful service to the GPC chairmen and also to the other Members of Parliament, then we can consider increasing the number of Research Officers who could provide assistance to the GPCs.

The GPCs, of course, also receive help from resource persons but in addition to that I am sure they all agree with me that they also receive a lot of help from the Ministries concerned. Speaking for myself, our GPC has received a lot of information which I think if they were to spend time in reading it they will find a lot of useful information which they can use. If they are able to sieve the information from there, I am they you could make full use of the information that we provide.

The other question concerns a larger Parliament House. Sir, this Parliament House is probably one of the oldest, if not the oldest, building the Government has right now. It has history. Parts of it dated back to 1827. And it will be a shame if we were to move out of this Parliament House into something new because this Parliament House has tradition, has history. And the laws that we have legislated so far since 1954 came from this place. So I think we should preserve it. We should remain in this House for as long as we can. There is still enough room for a few more Members and, if need be, we can extend this Parliament sitting room to the Public Gallery or even slightly backwards nearer the Speaker's room. But we will consider this possibility when the time comes. It will not be a good idea to have our GPC chairmen sitting at the back because we will then not be able to see them. We want to have good visual and eye contact with them.

As regards shifting the sitting time back to the afternoon, I think we have considered this very carefully when we decided to move the sitting to the morning. We wanted to televise Parliamentary proceedings so that Singaporeans will know what takes place in Parliament and they can be informed and be educated about how the business of government is conducted. In order to meet this objective, it will be necessary to have Parliament sittings ending not later than 5.30 or 6.00 pm in order to catch TV time. I understand the concern of the Member for Chua Chu Kang but I think for the time being we have to live with this.

Mr Tang See Chim: Mr Chairman, Sir, I think the Minister is really not convincing in his answers to my questions. He said there is one post. Yes, I did say that there was one post of a Research Officer. But he said they could not fill that post. I wonder why? Is it because the salary is too low? I am sure that with a will that single post can be filled. But my point is that even after the single post was filled, it would not be good enough. We have nine GPCs. We must at least have nine Research Officers. I mean even if there was one officer, it would not be sufficient to service all the nine GPCs. I would suggest that the GPC Chairmen join with me in cutting the vote so that the Leader of the House will take note and will provide us with research help.

Also about this building. It is a historic building. There is no doubt. That is why I say we could turn it into a museum. But it is a very inconsequential building. You know, when people ask for Parliament, you say, "You look for the building with an elephant outside." That is what Parliament is. Whereas the City Hall is different. I am not asking that we move to a new building or we build a new building. I say we go to City Hall. It is a beautiful building with beautiful colonnades, an imposing building, and it also has a history behind it. So I think it is really a nice building to move to.

As to changing time, surely SBC can manage. And if they cannot, I think we privatize it. I am sure that with competition, SBC will be able to manage.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, the single post that Parliament has is not a junior post. It is a Division I officer post. So it is senior enough to attract suitable candidates to apply for this particular post.

City Hall is going to be used as an extension of the Supreme Court. As a result, there would not be space for Parliament to move there. Besides, it does not have the same kind of high ceiling and high roof for it to look more like a Parliament. So I am afraid we cannot move to City Hall because there is already a prior claim to it and that this Parliament building, although it is old and historical, it is not an inconsequential building. It stands out as one of the landmarks of Singapore.

Mr Tang See Chim: Sir, why can't we offer this place to the High Court, to be an annexe of the High Court. We can take City Hall. It is for us to decide. If we have a will, we have

a way. You know what is said of Parliament. It is said that Parliament can do anything except change a woman into a man or a man into a woman.

The Chairman: Mr Tang, are you withdrawing?

Mr Tang See Chim: No, Sir, I am not withdrawing and I would appeal to my GPC colleagues to vote against the Minister.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

The sum of $6,323,430 for Head F ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates.

Head H -

Mr Lau Ping Sum (Yio Chu Kang): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head H be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead HA-03-3310 of the Main Estimates.

Sir, in a meritocracy such as ours, a basic belief in hard work and academic excellence is deep rooted. Self-mad men showed, by their example since the early days of Singapore, what immigrants in all countries continue to confirm, that hard work would eventually be rewarded. Good results at school brought the dignity and security of good jobs in later life. Some immigrant groups do better than others. For example, the Asians in America. They work hard, believing that success or failure is not entirely dependent on destiny. Their own efforts and influence could determine their future. Of course, luck plays a part, but the longer the odds the greater the motivation in overcoming them. It is therefore not surprising that many Asian students outshine the others in America, especially in subjects like Mathematics and Science, where linguistic standards are less important than logic and consistent application.

Singapore parents are generally very concerned about the performance of their children. Some people may say that it is an excessive concern but all recognize the connection between education and occupation. The success of Singapore in the last 25 years is due in no small measure to this recognition and the social mobility of our population. Regardless of the family background the best students will be given the opportunities to receive higher education. The respect for learning in Asian societies went beyond the basic desire for improvement. It is extended to a reverence and respect for their teacher who imparted knowledge and transmitted moral values, a sense of responsibility to the family, the community and the country besides such values as honesty and thrift.

In our quest for excellence the need to foster a strong sense of social responsibility among our young is crucial. This is particularly so in the case of the scholarship holders. Among them will emerge the captains of industry and the leaders of our country. Professionally trained and familiar with high technology, they will have no problem at all in adapting to the way of life in the West. Indeed their services will be sought after. The tax- payers in Singapore have paid for their education. Will the scholars be willing to serve the country when it is going through a rough patch? Will they pay up the PSC bond and emigrate to the comforts of suburbia in Vancouver and Toronto, Sydney or Melbourne? A lot will depend on the sense of social responsibility, the sense of obligation to reciprocate the help the society gave them.

Whilst scholarships are desirable, it is necessary to caution against an obsession with examination results. Besides a strong sense of social responsibility, our students should seek to be well-informed, and their knowledge should extend beyond the prescribed textbooks. Not every student can make it to the scholarship level. It is important for them not to develop a sense of alienation and demotivation. Talents can be found in many forms. A competent technician or craftsman does not need a degree but his contribution is no less meaningful.

In moving this amendment I wish to seek some clarification on the following points. What are the selection criteria besides academic performance used by the PSC in awarding scholarships and bursaries? In the case of the estimates of $2 million and $2.3 million for scholarships and bursaries to the local institutions of higher learning, do they represent a greater number of scholarships to be awarded and are they based on the higher tuition fees for 1987?

Mr Tang See Chim: Sir, may I just urge the PSC to make a greater -

The Chairman: Mr Tang, could I have the Minister reply first before you come on?

Mr Tang See Chim: I have just one sentence, Sir.

The Chairman: Could you take your seat first, please. You can add on later.

Mr Tang See Chim: All right.

The Minister for Finance (Dr Richard Hu Tsu Tau): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I will reply on behalf of the Public Service Commission.

The proposed provision for subhead HA-03-3310 for FY 1987/88 is $8,856,300 as compared to the revised estimate of $7,194,700 for FY 86/87. The increase in the provision for this subhead is primarily due to the increase in the cost of overseas and local awards. There is no provision for an increase in the number of overseas and local awards.

The increase in the cost of overseas awards is due to the following:

(1) Increase in the Australian Overseas Students Charge from A$3,500 to A$4,666 each.

(2) Increase in the number of self-funded awards to Australia. The Australian Government has not provided funds for new Colombo Plan Awards for 1987, as the Colombo Plan allocation for Singapore will be entirely taken up to renew on-going awards.

(3) Appreciation of some currencies against the Singapore Dollar. For example, the Sterling is now S$3.30 compared to 1 equalling S$2.80 a year ago. French Francs, German Marks and Japanese Yens have all appreciated against the Singapore Dollar. We have to partially fund donated scholarships from France, Germany, Japan and self-fund awards to the United Kingdom, United States and additional awards to Japan.

More provision has been made for free tuition grants for Malay students, as the number of Malay students who qualify for admission to the National University of Singapore and the NTI and the Polytechnics is increasing. No provision, however, has been made for the substantial increase in fees at the NUS, the NTI, and supplementary provision is likely to be necessary.

Scholarships are allocated on the following basis. Firstly, to groom talents. Secondly, to meet the manpower needs for the Civil Service. For example, a large number of teaching awards are given to facilitate recruitment of good graduates into the Education service. With our small population, our talent pool is limited. Our Scholarship programme thus aims to nurture a good proportion of this talent pool to meet national needs.

Candidates for scholarship and bursaries are selected on the following criteria: Good and consistent academic performance. Good extra-curricular activities. For male students, satisfactory national service record. Sound character and leadership qualities and, finally, an interest in a career in the Civil Service.

Mr Tang See Chim: Sir, the Minister just said that one of the criteria of awarding scholarships is manpower requirement. Here we have a post of a Research Officer in Parliament which is not filled. May I urge that the PSC make greater efforts in filling this post and perhaps they could look at the returned scholars who are bonded and just assign a returned scholar to the post.

Dr Richard Hu Tsu Tau: I would certainly urge the PSC to exert every effort to recruit a scholar.

Mr Lau Ping Sum: Sir, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $12,124,950 for Head H ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates.

Head U -

The following amendment stood in the name of Mr Chiam See Tong:-

That the sum to be allocated for Head U be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead UA-01 of the Main Estimates.

The Chairman: Mr Chiam is not here.

The sum of $11,399,100 for Head U ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates.

The sum of $2,102,000 for Head U ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.

Head K -

Mr S. Chandra Das (Chong Boon): Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head K be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead KA-01-1100 of the Main Estimates.*

Sir, the Defence budget of $2.3 billion for the financial year 1987/88 shows an increase of 5.1% over the financial year 1986/87. It is pertinent to note that the increase in expenditure for Education is 5.9%, ie, an increase from $1.67 billion to $1.76 billion. The budget increase for the Health Ministry is, in fact, 15.8% and that is from $455 million to $527 million. Sir, the above clearly shows that we are not increasing our defence expenditure at the expense of our other social services like education and health. The increase in defence expenditure is modest, affordable and, more importantly, necessary.

It may be worthwhile to repeat what the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for Defence stated in this House last Friday. He mentioned that we are too small to threaten anyone and we are not preparing for war. What we are doing is really to have a defence capability in place so that we are not caught unprepared when confronted with the eventuality of having to defend ourselves. Our basic aim is to strive for peace which in turn will ensure that we can continue to build our economy and our social infrastructure for the betterment of our people.

Sir, in moving this amendment, I would like to raise an issue which has attracted much attention of late. Being small and peace-loving, we have been minding our own business and getting on with the job of improving the life of our Singaporeans and we sincerely hope that we will be left alone to go on this course instead of being told, firstly, on how we should handle criminals - criminals who break our laws. It must be clearly understood that if somebody breaks our laws, he is not above the law in Singapore, whatever his position may be. Again, Sir, we are told how we should conduct our foreign policy and who we should invite and who we should not. I suppose next, we will be told with whom we can have and cannot have diplomatic relations. And finally, Sir, in the last few days we are now told how we should manage our Armed Forces.

Sir, it was reported in the Straits Times that a foreign politician has strongly criticized BG Lee Hsien Loong's statement on the position of Malays in the Singapore Armed Forces and this strong statement was made second time in a row. This apparently is a political answer by this politician. Unfortunately, Sir, it was the same politician who earlier in the month said that he regarded the statement as "purely an internal affair." Apparently, this was his diplomatic answer. This is an example of straight talking from a politician of a friendly neighbouring country.

The statement of BG Lee, it seems, is a serious statement and it involves the question of the Malay race. If one were to extend the same logic, it would mean that if tomorrow some statements are made regarding the Chinese then it becomes a major question of the Chinese race and the PRC government must then interfere. Similarly, if it involves the Indians, then the Indian government must intervene because the Indian race has been hurt. Of course, they all say that these are internal matters and yet they feel compelled to take issue with us.

I would urge foreign politicians to refrain from meddling in our domestic issues. I do not think one can make a statement as a Minister one day and state that these are internal matters and the next day criticize a foreign government as a politician on the same issue. Maybe I would suggest that such politicians find other ways to ensure re-election and do not make use of Singapore as a whipping boy or a useful scapegoat.

Sir, one of my colleagues from the GPC will elaborate on this subject even further. It will suffice for me to ask the Minister to tell this House the position of the Malays in our Armed Forces today as compared to the time when we became independent. I am posing this question not to placate any foreign government but really for our citizens to understand the situation and also what we are up against.

Encik Wan Hussin bin Haji Zoohri (Kampong Ubi): Sir, may I be permitted to elaborate on the subject that has just been mentioned by the Member for Chong Boon who is also the Head of the GPC for Defence and Foreign Affairs.

Sir, there was a time when this subject of Singapore Malays in the Armed Forces was considered taboo and the public shied away from discussing it. But today with growing political maturity on the part of Singaporeans, including the Malay community, it is now possible to have such a sensitive subject discussed openly and at the same time calmly and rationally. It is in this spirit that I wish to present the issue to try and address the realities of the situation and to call upon all of us to gradually work towards resolving this delicate situation.

As I see it, Sir, the question of Malays in the national defence of the country vis-a-vis the present Government's position is a result of our own recent history. This history has three different phases of developement. The first phase goes back to the events in the sixties. The experience of the racial riots in the sixties showed us that because of the nature of the Armed Forces then there were problems in dealing with the riots. As a result of this, corrective measures were taken to rectify the unsatisfactory situation in the Armed Forces.

This brings us to the second phase of development in the seventies. And during this period, in the effort to correct the racial imbalance in the Armed Forces, many Malay youths were not enlisted for national service. There was, in fact, a near-exclusion of Malay youth from the national service. Unenlisted, unemployed, some of them sought solace through drugs.

However, when it came to the third phase, ie, the beginning of the eighties, things began to change. Malay MPs began discussing this issue with 1DPM. There were signs of flexibility in the intake of Malay national servicemen, and now every eligible Malay youth is taken in for national service. There was also indication that some of them are now being deployed into units where previously there were no Malays in them. Some progress has been made.

Unfortunately, the Herzog visit in November 1986 and the unusual response of some of the Singapore Malays have made it necessary for the Leadership to have another look at the present position. The recent statement by BG Lee, the Second Defence Minister, on the possibility of a conflict between a soldier's emotions for his nation and his emotions for his religion has put the issue into sharper focus. The statement has regrettably upset, if not angered, the Malay community. However, it has also alerted us on the latent problems in a multi-racial society as he reminded us:

'It is a reality of life and it is something we cannot dodge but which, gradually as a national identity develops, will grow to be less of a problem.'

Sir, before attempting to offer any solution to the problem, let me just briefly sketch the perception of the Malay community on this issue. The first time that the Singapore Malays experienced what I term the 'psycho-emotional dilemma' was during the Separation of 1965. It took some time before they began to accept the political fait accompli. Today they accept that their future and their destiny lie with Singapore. However, since the Herzog visit and the recent controversy on the participation of Malays in the Armed Forces, they are again undergoing the same psycho-emotional strain. There exists some sense of alienation in some of them. They begin to ask many searching questions.

The Malays are asking how is that after nearly 22 years of independence their national orientation is still being questioned. Are the ingredients and the environment towards a Singaporean identity still lacking? Like other Singaporeans, the Malays go through the same national education system with the Singaporean curriculum. They repeat the same national pledge, sing the same National Anthem. They live in the same HDB flats. Their children play in the same void deck and run around the same children's playground. Like other Singaporeans, these are their common experiences. Out of this, they manifest the same shared values. To them, Singapore is their home, their only home. Their orientation is towards Singapore and no other country. They cannot understand why, having gone through these long years of Singapore's version and experience in nation building, that their national orientation is still being questioned. Is there a missing link somewhere? If there is, what is it? Where is it? If it is in their religion, the question is whether their religion is incompatible or in conflict with the national interest. I do not think so. In fact, they can co-exist. They can even be mutually self-reinforcing. May I therefore suggest that to help us resolve this, we get some guidance from the Muslim Religious Council. They are the supreme authority on Islam in Singapore. Perhaps they can help enlighten us on this problem.

To me it is clear that there seems to exist a perception gap between the Leadership and the Malays. I am confident that given time this perception gap can be bridged. It needs an honest and a rational approach. It is my belief that Singapore Malays are Singaporean in outlook and orientation. If the Leadership has reasons and evidence to believe otherwise, we can find an acceptable way to make these known to them. I am sure, as rational Singaporeans, they would come round to reason. It is in our collective interest to better understand and appreciate the sensitive and delicate problem. If it is the very small number that we are concerned with, let us identify them, isolate them and contain them. Let not, because of the incorrigible few, we deny the vast majority of their obligations and responsibilities towards the nation. We must work towards bridging this perception gap by strengthening our mutual trust. Like in a family, father and son must have trust in each other. It is the father's duty to bring the son back to the right path if the son unknowingly strays away from it. When the son realizes his mistakes, he will rectify them and grow up to be a better son to his father.

As I see it, Sir, the situation is not closed or static. It nevertheless needs a fresher look. Unlike other problems, this one needs a longer time to resolve. Let us give it the time it needs. But let us hope that, with reason and mutual trust, this issue could be resolved faster than expected. I am confident that this Government known for its sense of justice and fair play would work towards it. This is our challenge of making this country a Singaporean Singapore, a truly Singaporean Singapore.

Before I conclude, Mr Chairman, there is one other thing that I need to mention and this is in relation to the unsolicited comments by foreign politicians, as mentioned by the Member for Chong Boon. Just as we have refrained from making judgments on their issues, we would expect that they reciprocate by not passing judgments on our domestic affairs. The Malays have their own unique problems in Singapore. Let these problems be resolved by Singaporeans in a Singaporean way.

The Chairman: Mr Lim, are you speaking?

Mr Lim Chee Onn (Bukit Merah): I am not speaking.

Mr Abdullah Tarmugi (Siglap): Sir, I would like to join the debate on the Ministry of Defence.

Sir, people must feel that they are part of the community, part of the country. One of the ways that they can be made to feel so is for them to know that they have a stake in the country, that they are valued as citizens. Home ownership is one way and I think we have gone a long way towards achieving this. Participation in defence is another and this, it seems to me, is more important, psychologically, for it gives a man the feeling that he is wanted, that he can be depended upon. Unfortunately, however, of late this point has become a bone of contention vis-a-vis the Malay community since the Herzog visit and statements made by the Second Minister for Defence.

I would like, Sir, to put the whole question into proper perspective. This has been mentioned somewhat by the previous Member. To be fair, Sir, the position has improved somewhat. Where previously not enough of the Malay community were drafted into the Army, there has been, in fact, Sir, noticeable effort in increasing their number in the Army. There has even been an effort to put Malays in units hitherto denied to them, for example, the Commando unit. And while it is undeniable that the position has to be improved, and could be improved to the point where it should, this, Sir, I is a question which we will have to resolve ourselves and to find solutions to.

I therefore join the Member for Chong Boon in protesting the foreign interference in our internal affairs vis-a-vis the Malays in the Army. To my mind, far from helping the Malay community here, these inter- ferences have, in fact, made our own effort at finding solutions to the problem that much more difficult. But that being said, what then should we do? To my mind this is a problem which both Government and the Malay community have to resolve together. The Government on its part must be willing to reach out to the community. The sense of alienation has been creeping in. Before it has gone too far it is for us to retrieve Malay feelings for the country. I suggest this and I sincerely hope that we work at it.

But the community, Sir, on its part must also choose. They have to choose where their destiny lies. They have to choose where their orientation should be. Now that we are an independent nation, they should not and they cannot look to elsewhere for help. They should try and they must try indeed to develop themselves, to grow in the country that they have decided to make their home. So trust must be worked on and it must be worked on by both sides; the Government and community.

I do hope, Sir, as has been requested by the Member for Chong Boon, that the Minister would elaborate in this House the actual and true position of the Malays vis-a-vis the Army.

Now, Sir, trust is something which has to be won, something which has to be deserved, something which has to be worked upon. But in trust too, there must also be a willingness on the part of Government to give that trust to the community, to give opportunities for the Malay community to display that trust. Being able to feel part of the community, being able to feel part of the country, being able to have a stake in the country is indeed an important facet of psychological defence, which is, I think, part of Total Defence. So I will be waiting, just as the Member for Chong Boon will be waiting, for elaboration and for explanation by the Second Minister for Defence on this issue.

Encik Othman bin Haron Eusofe (Geylang Serai): May I join in the debate now, Sir? I have a cut.

The Chairman: No. I will ask the Minister first to give his reply to those Members who have given notices of amendments. Other Members may join in later.

The Second Minister for Defence (Services) (BG Lee Hsien Loong): Mr Chairman, perhaps I would hear all the Members on this subject and give my reply before moving on to other Defence issues.

The Chairman: All right.

Encik Othman bin Haron Eusofe: Thank you, Mr Chairman, Sir.

Sir, I am glad that this sensitive issue of Malay/Muslim participation in the SAF can now be discussed in an open, frank and constructive way. Previously, as mentioned by the Member for Kampong Ubi, we tended to shun away from discussing such sensitive issues openly for fear that it would create misunderstanding and tension among our citizens. However, we cannot remain silent on this crucial issue for long, and sooner or later we must address it squarely. In fact, we cannot continue avoiding this issue. To do so really means lack of integrity and also that we are not honest with ourselves. And if we continue to avoid it, it would in the process allow suspicion and mistrust to breed. We must, therefore, have the courage to deal with this issue to the best of our ability. I also believe that we have achieved a certain degree of maturity to be able to discuss this sensitive and emotive issue critically and not be too uncomfortable about expressing our true feelings and concerns.

Let me just emphasise that the objective of raising this issue is to help build an even better Singapore - a Singapore where all citizens can have opportunities to contribute to the best of their ability, not only in defence but also in other spheres of activity as well. This delicate issue is raised for discussion and consultation because we want to find appropriate solutions. We have not raised it so that foreign politicians can use it for their own ends. To them, like the previous speakers, I would like to stress that this is an internal matter for us to deliberate and to find solutions. We want to deal with this issue in a way that is best for Singapore and her citizens. Let me add also that the Malay MPs have discussed this issue vigorously with our leaders, particularly the younger leaders led by 1DPM, and we are glad to see improvement and progress in Muslim participation in the SAF. We have the will, the capacity and the confidence to deal with this issue. So to foreign politicians, I stress again, this is an internal matter. Do not interfere in our internal problems. We hope that there is respect for our sovereignty.

The Second Minister for Defence made a statement on this issue during his recent visit to the Yuhua Constituency. It was a sincere, honest and straightforward response to an emotive question. I would like, however, to get a clarification on this statement.

We strongly uphold the policy of meritocracy in the selecting of persons to fill key positions in our Ministries, statutory boards and departments. The best qualified and the most able are selected. Yet for sensitive, critical and key areas in the SAF, we appear to have a policy of selective appointments with considerations other than merit. Is there a contradiction? How do we reconcile this? Further, do we need to extend this selective appointment policy even to staff in some low-level grades, particularly in the Air Force and the Navy? I am thinking of technicians, signals vocations, and so on. And even if we have to be selective, say, for security reasons, which apply to all citizens, regardless of race and background, could this not be applied on an individual basis and not on an across-the-board basis against a particular group or community?

I would also like to ask the Minister to sketch the scenario, say, in the next five to 10 years on how multi-racial the SAF will be. I think here it is important to bear in mind that the SAF should be an institution which should bring about greater integration and unity. What are the difficult issues to be solved as we strive towards this objective?

Sir, in conclusion, as we discuss, participate and consult each other on this sensitive issue, it will, I feel, bring about greater understanding of the issue. And if we are realistic, practical and honest with ourselves, we can bring about an environment where there is greater trust and goodwill, and also a greater scope for accommodation of the differences which exist in our society. So let us discuss these this issue in a calm and rational way.

Mr Chai Chong Yii (Bukit Batok) rose.

The Chairman: Mr Chai, are you speaking on the same topic?

Mr Chai Chong Yii: Yes, Mr Chairman, Sir.

The Chairman: You have five minutes.

Mr Chai Chong Yii: I have a cut under National Day but I would like to bring up the same issue. Can I speak now?

The Chairman: You have five minutes on this amendment as you have not given notice previously. So could you confine yourself to this topic?

Mr Chai Chong Yii: Yes.

The Chairman: You may move your cut on the other matter later on.

Mr Chai Chong Yii: Mr Chairman, Sir, the feelings with regard to our race, to our religion and to our language are three feelings which are very intimate to one another. I will say it is part of our soul. When we became independent in 1965, those of us here who were all born before that date, were born as Chinese, as Malays, as Indians or Eurasians or even as other races. We were not Singaporeans in the legal sense. When we became independent on 9th August 1965, we were legally made Singaporeans. Our feelings towards our race, our religion and our language cannot change overnight. And, we have to live with this. We inherited from the British a multi-racial, multi-cultural and multi-lingual society. This is what we have.

Sir, our culture can change but slowly. Our emotions and our spirit will be even more difficult to change. But if we have the will, since this is within our control, we should be able to work conscientiously towards the objectives of a true Singaporean. If we work as Singaporeans, we think as Singaporeans, we play as Singaporeans, we even sleep as Singaporeans, and if we are prepared to fight and die as Singaporeans, then we can truly and proudly call ourselves Singaporeans.

Sir, the world as we know today is full of bloody conflicts directly or indirectly due to religious beliefs. We can only hope that Singapore at the crossroads of the world will be exempted from this sort of troubles. If all Singaporeans vow to be true Singaporeans and put nation above everything else and set this priority right emotionally and spiritually, ie, the nation's interest is above racial groups and it is also above our family's and above the individual self, then we should have no fear. We should be able to call ourselves patriotic Singaporeans and our loyalty, our patriotism, to the State will survive all criticisms and all attacks from any quarters.

The Second Minister for Defence (Services) (BG Lee Hsien Loong): Sir, let me respond to the remarks of the Members for Geylang Serai, Kampong Ubi, Bukit Batok and also Chong Boon.

Let me start with what I said in Yuhua Constituency on the 22nd February 1987. I did not have a script then but I chose my words carefully, and I repeat them now as they were reported in the Straits Times the next day:

'We live in South East Asia. If there is a conflict, if the SAF is called upon to defend our homeland, we don't want to put any of our soldiers in a difficult position where his emotions for the nation may come in conflict with his emotions for his religion, because these are two very strong fundamentals, and if they are not compatible, then they will be two very strong destructive forces in opposite directions.'

Soldiers in combat must have no qualms about what they are fighting for.

'And we don't want to put anybody in that position where he feels he is not fighting a just cause, and perhaps worse, maybe his side is not the right side. That would be an intolerable position for the person and an unworkable position for the armed forces.'

'It's a reality of life and it is something we cannot dodge, but which, gradually, as a national identity develops, will grow to be less of a problem.'

All this is true. My answer was more open than earlier answers which the Government had previously given in public, in recognition of the greater maturity of Singapore society and the greater readiness of Singaporeans to discuss sensitive but important issues which face the nation. But it is not a new problem, nor have I said anything which the Government has not previously discussed in private with Malay leaders over a period of several years.

In 1977, 10 years ago, during the debate on the President's Address in Parliament, the then Member for Telok Blangah, Mr Ahmad Haleem, raised the problem of youths not being selected for national service on reaching the age of 18. This is in Hansard of 15th February 1977, Vol. 36, col. 144. The then Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence, Dr Goh Keng Swee, replied. His reply is in Hansard of 23rd February 1977, Vol. 36, cols. 398-9. And this is what he said:

'In the past, recruitment into the SAF had to take into account the ethnic distribution of soldiers, both national servicemen and regulars. This is an accepted practice in multi-racial societies because military service is a matter of importance and the ethnic distribution of soldiers is obviously an important, yet delicate, subject. When national service began, there was a large preponderance of Malay soldiers in the army because the regulars of the two battalions we inherited from the British were preponderantly Malays. The non-Malays, especially the Chinese, were simply not interested then in joining the army. This was especially true of the regular NCO ranks. Because of this, the intake of Malays into national service was limited for some years. This did not present any problem to the army because total numbers available were in any event much more than could be absorbed into the army.

Now, over the years, we had increasing numbers of non-Malays entering the regular service as NCOs and the ethnic balance of this important group of military personnel has moved nearer towards the proportion in the general population. So, as from this year, increasing numbers of Malay youths are being enlisted into the army and this will be evident at the decentralised National Day parades this year. The problem ... raised is, therefore, a passing one.'

That was on 23rd February 1977. In the decade since Dr Goh spoke, we have made significant progress. Some of the MPs alluded to this just now in their speeches. I will just identify a few major milestones.

Firstly, the proportion of Malays who have been called up for national service has increased steadily. And for the past two years starting with the March 1985 intake of national servicemen, every eligible male citizen without exception, including Malays, is called up to serve national service, either in the SAF, in the Police, in the Civil Defence or in the Fire Brigade. Apart from medical and security cases, nobody is left out.

Secondly, in the SAF itself, the proportion of Malays amongst national service enlistees has doubled since 1977.

Thirdly, now that more Malays are serving in the SAF, they are being posted more widely in the armed forces. For example, as noted by the Member for Siglap, and also by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Trade and Industry, Encik Sidek Saniff, earlier in a speech, several Malays are now serving in the Commando Battalion.

Fourthly, and this is the question of meritocracy raised by the Member for Geylang Serai - where a person is posted in the SAF, depends on many factors. But whether a person is promoted and advanced, depends only on his individual performance and on merit. More Malay 'A' level national servicemen are now making it to OCS and becoming officers. They are still few but the number of Malay national service officers is constrained by the small number of Malay 'A' level students, not by any discrimination policy of the SAF.

Particularly heartening, fifthly, in preparing my answer to this question, we discovered that four Malay and Muslim officers have been given SAF scholarships to study in the National University of Singapore on Local Training Awards. We did not lower our standards to accommodate them. We did not even know that they had taken up these schemes. There was no discrimination. We are proud of them.

So we have made progress. But we cannot simply rescind a policy which has proven to be wise. Our policy is to call up 100% of the eligible Malay NS enlistees for national service, because having everybody serve NS is part of nation building. But where a national serviceman serves, be he Malay or non-Malay, depends on where he will be making the greatest operational contribution and where he can contribute most effectively to the Total Defence of Singapore.

The SAF is not only an institution for nation building; it also has an operational role. Its operational role is to defend Singapore against armed attack in case of war. We cannot post a soldier, a national serviceman, to the SAF, or for that matter post him to any particular post in the SAF, simply for purposes of nation building alone. He is there not just for his education but to fulfil a role, an operational role. We have to take this into account. We still have to remember that in a multi-racial society, as was pointed out by Dr Goh 10 years ago but it is still true, "the ethnic distribution of soldiers is obviously an important yet delicate subject."

Singapore society is still not fully integrated. The Prime Minister has said this at the NUS, that in the 60s and 70s, the Chinese community looked towards China. Developments in China and upheavals in China caused ripples and reverberations in Singapore. The same was true of the Indian community and India. Over time, with intensive nation building efforts, this problem has lessened, but it would be foolhardy to say that it has been completely solved. On some potentially grave matters, eg, the Herzog visit, it is still obvious that Singaporeans react on racial and religious lines.

This does not mean that the present situation will never improve. The solution is not to do nothing; it is to proceed with caution. A mistake now might lead to racial and religious disharmony in the SAF. Not only would this weaken the SAF's operational readiness, but much more important, it would set back all our efforts over so many years to build unity and trust amongst our various races.

I am optimistic about progress. The new generation of Singaporeans are more rational, more pragmatic in their thinking. There are already signs of a change in outlook among younger Malays who have grown up in Singapore since independence, who have been educated in national stream schools. They say their pledge everyday, they sing the same national anthem, as pointed out by the Member for Geylang Serai just now. It is because there has been this change that the SAF has been able to make the adjustments and the progress which I described earlier. As Singapore society becomes more integrated, so too Malay participation in the SAF will increase.

This is really a wider problem. The full discussion will be beyond the scope of today's debate but the wider problem is not Malay participation in the SAF. It is a national problem: how to integrate a multiracial society. Today I would just like to make two comments. Firstly, greater participation in the SAF will follow greater integration, not the other way round. It is not a chicken and egg problem. It is not the case that unless we completely change our SAF policies today further integration is impossible. Progress can be made but progress will be made patiently, incrementally, step by step. There is a Malay proverb which puts it accurately, "Sedikit sedikit, lama lama menjadi bukit". That is what we want to achieve. One grain of sand at a time and eventually we will accumulate a mountain. Secondly, as the MPs have pointed out, the way to deal with this problem is not to sweep it under the carpet and to pretend that it does not exist, but to discuss it frankly, sensitively, responsibly, as we hope to do in discussing the National Agenda, and as I had in mind when I decided to give an honest answer to a serious, sober, constructive question, in Yuhua.

My answer generated intense discussion, not just in this country. I think the response within this country from the Malay MPs and leaders and Majlis Pusat has been constructive and heartening. I particularly agree with their views on two points: Firstly, this is a Singapore problem. We will solve it ourselves. Only Singaporeans can determine our own destiny. Secondly, let us take a problem-solving approach to this issue. Let us study how to quicken the pace of progress, how to strengthen the sense of belonging and mutual respect of all Singaporeans.

If we proceed resolutely in this direction, then over the next few years, steadily and surely, Singapore society will become more integrated; our national identity will be strengthened. The Government looks forward to cooperating with leaders of the Malay community to build a stronger multi-racial society, both in Singapore in general, and particularly in the Singapore Armed Forces.

Mr Chandra Das: Mr Chairman, Sir, as stated, the discussion of this problem is not a new one, except that the problem is now discussed more openly. For this, I am grateful to the Second Minister for his very frank and detailed explanation. Sir, on this note, I withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman: Amendment No. 2, Encik Othman.

Encik Othman bin Haron Eusofe: Mr Chairman, I have spoken.

The Chairman: Amendment No. 3*, Dr Ho.

Dr Ho Tat Kin (Boon Teck): I am not moving, Sir.

The Chairman: Mr Chiam, Amendment No. 3.

Mr Chiam See Tong (Potong Pasir): Sir, I beg to move,

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

Sir, I would just like to have certain clarifications because this is a very important topic from the Second Minister for Defence.

There is much talk of the interference of Singapore's internal affairs by foreign politicians. We have to ask ourselves the question, Why? Unless there is a reason, they do not react that way. The statement made on the 23rd February by the Second Minister for Defence has the effect that if the Malays were put in key positions in the SAF they would have a conflict of interest. Their emotions would be tested - whether to side the country or to be on the side of their religion. So this is the issue.

This has got strong implications when the Second Minister for Defence said that. This would imply that our enemies are not from Vietnam or from China or from some distant countries where they have got no Muslim religion there. This implies that our enemies are of a Muslim religion. I see it as quite an obvious implication of what is said. This is the reason why our neigh- bours, the Muslim politicians, are so angry. This is the implication - that we do not want Malays in key positions in the SAF. Why? Because it is a question of religion that is involved. If the question of religion is involved, that means our enemies whom we are fighting are also Muslims. So I think that is one of the reasons why they are so annoyed.

This is a very sensitive issue and for a long time it was never put that way, and now after 26 years it has come out. I do not know what is the reason. Perhaps there might have been some other good reasons for it. Is this true, the question we want to ask, whether or not this conflict of religion comes into play? We look at the war that is raging in Iran and Iraq. Probably they will say they come from different schools of the Muslim religion. Yes, I was anticipating that. But nevertheless they are Muslims. We have seen in other countries where the people are deeply religious and yet they go to war against another country which has the same religion, like in Europe where many of them are Christians and not only Christians but they are of one particular sect, Catholics. So I do not think this argument about the conflict of religion really holds.

We import a lot of foreigners into key positions. We have just heard the other day that we have got a Gurkhas battalion here taking charge of key positions. We trust all kinds of foreigners but we do not trust our own Malay citizens. This is surely something I think the Malays are going to find it hard to stomach. In our Constitution we have got an Article which gives a special position to our Malays. What special position is there, as far as the SAF is concerned? They are our step-children. Where is the special position? Perhaps one of the Malay MPs here should take this up in our court and challenge what the SAF is practising is unconstitutional. As far as I know, the only special position the Malays enjoy today is only in regard to education, and I believe nothing else.

What we are actually hurting our Malay brethren in Singapore is not material. Material things can be corrected fairly quickly. So when the Second Defence Minister quotes a Malay saying that a grain of sand at a time can build a mountain or something, that is in regard to material things. But we are talking of emotions. Just like a child, when his emotion is hurt it is going to be there for a long, long time. I do not know whether it can even be healed. In some cases it is not healed and the child grows up into a man who cannot fit in, socially. I hope this is not the case in regard to our Malay community. Of course, when they join the army they are expected to fight. It is an operational role. They do not just join the army and march up and down on National Day Parade. That is quite understandable. So the best way to build a nation is in fact to show trust to everybody. If you show trust to somebody, that trust will be reciprocated. There is no doubt about that and I am sure many of the Malay MPs here would want a commitment from the Government as to the time frame. In fact, I think this policy of putting Malays into key positions should be corrected and implemented immediately. That is the only way we can have nation building. There is no other way.

BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Chairman, Sir, may I seek clarification from the Member for Potong Pasir. He has made many points. I just want one basic issue resolved before we enter into details. Does he fundamentally agree with our policy of caution and gradual, steady progress? Or is he recommending that we abandon our present cautious policy?

Mr Chiam See Tong: This, Mr Chairman, Sir, certainly depends on how you look at it, whether you are a Malay or a non-Malay. If you are a Malay, of course, you would see it as a discrimination against them, and there is no two-way about it. Of course, if you are a Chinese, you look at it as caution.

An hon. Member: We are Singaporeans.

Mr Chiam See Tong: We are all Singaporeans. We should not discriminate against the Malays. Put them into key positions immediately.

BG Lee Hsien Loong: May I ask the Member to confirm that, were he the Minister for Defence, would he abandon our existing policy immediately?

An hon. Member: If he were in charge.

BG Lee Hsien Loong: Let us assume he were in charge. Perhaps the Minister for Defence has not this authority; the Prime Minister does. Were you the Prime Minister, would you abandon this policy immediately?

Mr Chiam See Tong: Mr Chairman, I have on my own accord voluntarily gone over to Malaysia to work in the East Coast there for two years amongst the Malays. And I am proud of that. I went there on my own. So I have full trust in the Malays, Singaporean Malays as well.

BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am not asking this question to humiliate the Opposition Member. I merely wish to know what a potential Prime Minister of Singapore wants to do.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Mr Chairman, are you saying that I am a potential Prime Minister? Well, I never had that ambition.

An hon. Member: Your last election speech.

Mr Chiam See Tong: What last election speech. Please tell me what last election speech?

Mr Dhanabalan: Please answer the question put to you.

An hon. Member: Head of a political party and you don't want to be Prime Minister?

Mr Chiam See Tong: First of all, let me make it clear. I have got no ambitions of being the Prime Minister of Singapore. What we want to see is democracy. What we want to see is nation-building. What we want to see is a Singapore that can prosper. But what we are seeing here is discrimination. I feel very unhappy about it and I would speak out. You were saying, "What should I do?" What is wrong with including the Malays who can qualify for key positions to put them there? What is wrong with that? You just tell me.

BG Lee Hsien Loong: Sir, I am not saying that there is anything wrong. I am merely requesting a clear statement from the Opposition Member that the day after he is elected as Prime Minister of Singapore, should it ever happen, he will issue an instruction to rescind this policy. That is all.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Certainly. I think if our Malay Singapore citizens, our fellow brethren, our fellow countrymen are suited for the job, put them there. You advocate meritocracy. On the one hand, meritocracy is only for certain people. Meritocracy is not for the Malay community, and they are our very substantial minority, and I think it is important that for regional cooperation, and for regional harmony we should be seen to allow our Malay community here, if any one of them should qualify for SAF posts, they should be put there, by all means. I think it is a short-sighted policy, for the sake of regional harmony, not to do that. I am sure all the Malay MPs here agree with me. Let them say no.

The Minister for the Environment (Dr Ahmad Mattar): Mr Chairman, Sir, I would like to ask the Member for Potong Pasir what authority has he to speak on behalf of the Malays? Is he politicking? We have just been telling the Malaysians to lay off. This is a Singapore problem and I am telling the Member for Potong Pasir that this is a Malay problem. The Malay MPs will solve them.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Mr Chairman, may I be allowed to speak?

The Chairman: Yes, carry on.

Mr Chiam See Tong: I was asked by the Second Defence Minister to answer him. He says if I were the Prime Minister, what would I do and I told him exactly that. What is wrong with that?

An hon. Member: Before that.

Mr Chiam See Tong: It is high time the Malay MPs in this House spoke up for the Malays without fear. That is what I am asking them to do. Otherwise they will all be out the next time they come into this House.

Dr Ahmad Mattar: You are politicking.

BG Lee Hsien Loong: I presume the Member for Potong Pasir believes that the Malay MPs will be out because he will become the next Prime Minister.

Mr Chiam See Tong: I did not say that. Don't put words in my mouth.

BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Chairman, Sir, I have stated our position carefully, unambiguously and, I think, frankly. I have not said that we are enemies with anybody. I have said that we live in Southeast Asia. I do not think even the Member for Potong Pasir would find that an objectionable statement. He has drawn wild consequences, implications, from this statement. The Members will have to judge the merit and validity of his implications. Singapore is on excellent terms with both Malaysia and Indonesia. We make no enemies. We seek no enemies. But we acknowledge geo-political realities which will not go away and we take precautions against threats whose exact nature cannot be specified until it is far too late to do anything about them.

The Member says that on emotional matters, hurt cannot be healed. It is not like building a mountain. I do not think, with due respect, that the proverb was intended only for material things. It is precisely because emotional hurt is very difficult to repair. Because if we upset the very delicate and patient efforts at conciliation, nation building, confidence building which we have done for so many years, it will take us decades, if not generations, to repair the damage. That is why we move slowly in the SAF. That is why we incrementally increase the role which the Malay community plays, not in Total Defence of Singapore - they already play a major role there - but in the military defence of the nation.

I have explained we have not reached the end of the road. We are not in a final configuration. Progress will be made gradually, cautiously, sure-footedly. More daring, more reckless, more irresponsible abandonment of the policy which we have done, that we will have to leave to a Defence Minister from a different political party.

Mr Chiam See Tong: What about the commitment? Come on. When are you going to put the Malays in the key positions?

BG Lee Hsien Loong: Sir, the Member asked for commitment. I have explained the philosophy on which we work and the progress which has already been achieved and I think if we continue along this path, step by step, in 10 years' time further progress will be achieved.

The Chairman: Mr Chiam, are you withdrawing your amendment?

Mr Chiam See Tong: Yes, I withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Encik Abbas Abu Amin (Pasir Panjang): Sir, I beg to move,

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

Sir, I would like to clarify certain positions envisaged by many Members here and I have to declare my interest. I am a Commanding Officer of the Reservist Unit and have served in the Armed Forces for more than 22 years. I have served in the colonial days. I have served during confrontation and I am still serving the Armed Forces now.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Encik Abbas Abu Amin: As soldiers, we must be prepared for any eventuality and I take very strong exception to the remarks made by the Member for Potong Pasir in that this type of debate may incite the emotional feelings of our Singaporeans. The less we say, the better. But there are approaches that we can -

Mr Chiam See Tong: Mr Chairman, Sir, may I clarify?

The Chairman: Are you giving way, Encik Abbas?

Encik Abbas Abu Amin: Yes.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Who started it all? Please. Somebody must have started this debate. So I am just continuing the debate. I am not inciting -

The Chairman: Mr Chiam, can you proceed with your clarification? Where is your clarification?

Mr Chiam See Tong: He says that I am inciting, some very strong words to that effect. Where is it?

An hon. Member: Go through the Hansard again.

Encik Abbas Abu Amin: Sir, allow me to speak freely without any interruption so that we can get a clear picture.

The Chairman: Please proceed.

Encik Abbas Abu Amin: I take strong exception to what he said that the Malay MPs are doing nothing. They should speak up now.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Right. Why not?

Encik Abbas Abu Amin: For the information of Members of the House, the Malay MPs have been continuously discussing with the young leaders of the Government on how best we can work together towards this. The only mistake the Malay MPs have done is that they did not publicize what they have done. I think that is the greatest mistake and I would suggest that most probably this should be done in the open and we explain to our society what we have done so far.

Dr Ahmad Mattar: Long before the Member for Potong Pasir came into this House.

Encik Abbas Abu Amin: Yes, long before the Member for Potong Pasir came into this House.

Mr Chiam See Tong: What was the commitment you got from them?

Encik Abbas Abu Amin: Well, let results speak for themselves.

Mr Chiam See Tong: What results?

Encik Abbas Abu Amin: Sir, I have certain observations to make with regard to this amendment. First, I would like to say that I am quite happy with the increase in the Defence budget. Whatever the economic situation may be, we should not curtail our Defence expenses and compromise on the state of operational readiness and upgrading of the Armed Forces.

Sir, last year I raised the question of improving the training and retraining of our reservists and upgrading the other capable other-ranks to be more responsible by giving them appointments that will be on par with their high position in their civilian professions. I would like to know whether relevant courses are available for these intelligent young leaders at the lower ranks to upgrade themselves and be promoted to the higher command posts.

The other point that I would like to raise again this year is the need for all soldiers, whether regulars or reservists, to be imbued with the correct attitude with a sense of pride and commitment and to play their part seriously as defenders and protectors of the nation.

Sir, we must always inculcate a sense of patriotism among young national servicemen. There are two institutions that play important roles in moulding the minds and the hearts of our young citizens and instilling in them the sense of belonging, the sense of dedication and loyalty to the nation. First, the schools through the flag-raising ceremony, singing of the National Anthem and the reciting of the pledge. Another institution is, of course, the Singapore Armed Forces. The SAF plays a more important role in nation-building in the context of a multi-racial and multi-religious society. Like schools, where every school-going child has a place, the SAF should also take in all eligible young men into the NS training and train them, educate them, discipline them and mould them to be loyal and patriotic to the country.

Sir, while I welcome the assurance that more and more young Malays will be absorbed into the SAF, I would like to see that this be fulfilled, cautiously of course, but within the shortest possible time. Otherwise we will lose the opportunity to produce loyal and patriotic Singapore Malays.

In 1967, at the early stage of our SAF build-up, the then Minister for Defence, Dr Goh Keng Swee, introduced the Code of Conduct. Several senior commanders and also several civilians, prominent leaders, gave very long and useful courses to our commanders at all levels, whether they are divisional commanders, battalion commanders, company commanders and so on. What I wish to ask is whether these Code of Conduct lessons are now properly being taught by instructors who them- selves are motivated so that they can permeate that sense of patriotism to our young national servicemen. For the information of Members of this House, in the early days in 1967, every soldier had to keep this [indicating], to learn and, if need be, to memorise some of those points just to make sure that they understand this. I doubt whether our soldiers do carry this nowadays, or whether they take this as just a low priority lesson in their classrooms where more priority is given to physical training and other forms of weapon training. To me, this is important because you can have all the best facilities, the best weapons, but if the hearts and the minds are not behind those weapons, you will never motivate them to be patriotic. What I would like to know is whether the Ministry of Defence is still conducting these lessons, and how effective and how serious are these lessons taken.

The Chairman: Order. It is 1.00 pm.

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

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

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

[Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair]

Debate in Committee of Supply resumed.

[Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair]

Head K (cont.) -

Encik Abbas Abu Amin: Mr Chairman, Sir, I was talking about the important role played by the SAF in nation building when we were interrupted by the lunch break.

Sir, nation building is a long and tedious process, as explicitly explained by the Member for Bukit Batok. One way of instilling a sense of patriotism and for our young soldiers to take NS training seriously and take pride in the SAF is through the proper teaching of Code of Conduct. There are six rules, and with your indulgence, Sir, I would like to read only three rules:

Rule (1) We always honour our Nation. We will do everything to uphold it and nothing to disgrace it.

Rule (2) At all times, we must bear in mind that we are the protector of our citizens.

Rule (3) We are loyal to the Armed Forces and we take pride in our unit, our uniform, our discipline, our work, our training and ourselves.

In order to be effective this subject must be taught by competent instructors or, better still, by the commanders themselves. I would like to seek assurance from the Second Minister for Defence whether there is an effort to revive and review the teaching of the Code of Conduct in the Singapore Armed Forces.

Mr Chiam See Tong: I am obliged to you, Mr Chairman. I have got two points to raise under this head of Armed Forces. The first is the period of national service. I would advocate that this period of 2(r) years be shortened. I believe in Switzerland they have an initial training period of only 19 weeks. If they can do it, I do not see why we cannot do the same. Surely the principle must be that NS training should not interfere or disrupt the education or the jobs of our young citizens, in particular, in the Singapore context today where education and jobs are so very important when compared, say, to Switzerland where they have already a very high educational level.

The reasons I would like to put forward for my proposal are as follows. I would say that there is really no great hurry to build up a big army. In fact, we have already got enough reservists. We are in peace time and everybody assures us that we have got good neighbours. We have just heard the Second Defence Minister say that we have good relationships with Malaysia and with Indonesia. So who are we preparing war for? Now we go further up - Thailand. Is it our potential enemy? They have their hands full. They have a very hostile neighbour in Vietnam. I do not think they would be marching down the Peninsula towards our direction. Burma, of course, I do not think it can embark on a war adventure. Then we have the Philippines. They have problems of their own. I do not think they can really start any war at all. And I think President Aquino at this moment has no such ambitions. I think that is least in her mind. They have so many other problems. Now we look up to Vietnam. Vietnam has its own internal political problems. We have just read they have got leadership problems there, and they have got China to contend with, just to the north of its borders. Also it has got a massive reconstruction programme going on and therefore there is no chance at all of an attack from Vietnam. After the death of Mao Zedong in 1976, Mr Deng Xiaoping has taken over and since 1979 or thereabouts he has embarked on the fourth modernization programme and he has also embarked on this open-door policy. They have disclaimed the policy of exporting revolution.

So who are we preparing our Armed Forces for? I think the PAP, as usual, is just over-reacting. We have got peaceful neighbours. We have a good relationship with them and yet we are arming ourselves almost to the teeth, so to say. Our school leavers are told a hundred and one times, "You must take your NS training seriously."

Mr Chandra Das: Do it otherwise?

Mr Chiam See Tong: I said, "Please do not over-react." Of course, those who go into NS will have to take their NS training seriously. We are definitely in peace time. There is no danger over the horizon. So why are we putting our school leavers to this lengthy 2 1/2 years? There is really no need to. You can stretch out the training over a period so that their jobs, their education, will not be disturbed. I have heard it over and over again, especially of a one-man business, a father running a company whether it be a carpentry workshop or whether it is a foodstall or whatever, he needs the son to help him out: but all of a sudden he is called up for 2 1/2 years and the poor father is left in a limbo. And again, we have heard of the educational prospects of our males, of course, our male students, being disrupted. So I think there is a case to shorten this NS period of training.

The other point I want to make is that we have already a big pool of reservists. So in case if really there is an emergency, we can always call on this pool of reservists. You see, we have already built up this pool and it is not really necessary to add an equal number to it. Even if the intake is of a smaller number, we have this pool already in hand. So if this intake were to come in smaller doses but it is regular in any event, I think there is a case to shorten this period of training. Of course, you can cut down costs. We are always thinking of money in Singapore. Why not cut down the cost of the period of training? Just imagine, you have to go for 2 1/2 years compared to, say, four months or so, or slightly more. It does make sense. Then we have spoken of our procreation problem. This is one small item which we can assist our young boys. We have heard of it before. They are together with their female counterparts, the same cohort in the Pre-U. When our young males have to go off on a national service stint, they are left behind in their career. And very soon their girlfriends have gone ahead and got their careers in place at an earlier date and they date someone else instead. So perhaps in a small way, this could help. There is a case really to shorten our period of training for our boys.

I hope the Minister-in-charge will look into this. And what I do not understand is why is the Second Minister for Defence always answering all the questions? I wonder what the Defence Minister is doing. [Laughter.] Well, I do not know. It would appear that Singapore is "The Land of the Rising Son", they say.

Anyway, I suppose it is the Government's prerogative to delegate whoever they like to answer the questions. But I am only wondering. It appears unusual to me.

The Chairman: Have you finished, Mr Chiam?

Mr Chiam See Tong: Well, all right, I will stop there then.

BG Lee Hsien Loong: Sir, let me briefly take the points made by the Member for Pasir Panjang. On upgrading reservists from NCOs to officers, no, we do not have a plan to upgrade reservist NCOs to officers. It takes too long, too much effort and already active national servicemen generate sufficient numbers for the ORBAT. We do upgrade reservist NCOs to become company sergeant-majors, regimental sergeant-majors, attend upgrading courses which make sure the battalions are well utilized. Teaching of Code of Conduct - this is still being done. It is done by the commanders, platoon commanders and company commanders. They give lectures and there is also an SAF pledge which the soldiers have to learn. So we have not forgotten the importance of nation building within the SAF.

As for the Member for Potong Pasir, I was astonished to hear that he now proposes to reduce the period of national service from 2 1/2 years to 19 weeks -

Mr Chiam See Tong: Why not?

BG Lee Hsien Loong: - on the analogy of Switzerland and on the argument of "Why not?" He gave us the benefit of a geo-political tour of the horizon, explaining how there are now no threats in the region and because of this happy conjunction of favourable stars, we should give up spending money on national defence. Perhaps I should ask him, why he stops at 19 weeks? Why not in that case just stop producing soldiers altogether, after all there is no threat? He is totally convincing - Deng Xiaoping is secure, the Chinese are concentrating their energies on economic development. So why does he want an army at all? Perhaps he should go all the way to the logical conclusion of his recommendation and have the courage of his convictions to suggest to the House that he would prefer not to have an armed force. I think that if he would propose that, we can have a serious discussion. Half measures are not worth debating.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Well, my only answer to the Second Defence Minister is that I am not a foolish man. Of course, I believe that there must be national defence. But let us not overdo it. In our present circumstances, the position as I have stated, and I say it again, that in my view the initial period of 19 weeks should be enough. If weighed and balanced against the disadvantages, it is overwhelmingly against the 2 1/2-year period. Because I think there is a case for it. I would say that if Switzerland can do it, why can we not do it? I think our soldiers are just as good, just as keen learners as the soldiers in Switzerland and I am sure they can be just as well equipped. I say again that, in fact, Europe has got a history of greater and bigger wars than this part of the world. And I think they know what they are doing, unless you are saying that they are wrong. So why not let us have a shorter NS training period?

BG Lee Hsien Loong: The Member for Potong Pasir said that 19 weeks is sufficient on grounds that Switzerland does it. Is he aware that the West Germans do 9 months and are raising the period of national service or discussing it very seriously because they have a population problem? They do not have enough soldiers and therefore they need to do more than 9 months. Is he aware that it takes us more than one year to train an officer cadet and commission him as an officer? Does the Member have a new training syllabus available for our consideration which will create officers within 19 weeks?

Mr Chiam See Tong: I am sure the Government with all their experts and all their Generals, including Brigadier Generals, they would certainly know what to do. I am sure they can train enough men to take care of our armed forces. We have got a regular army and I am sure those people can take care of the key important units. As for the reservists, they will be called up when it is necessary. And what are our schools doing? I think our schools should have a better ECA programme, in the context of sports and make the students really tough. What are our schools doing? They have 10 years in school. I am sure they can be trained at least in the area of physical fitness. Or are you saying that you need this extra time in the army just to build up our youngsters so that they are physically fit? I think our schools should contribute in part to the overall NS programme.

BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Chairman, Sir, it is absurd. Not very long ago, the Member was complaining that students were over-stuffed and over stretched in schools. And now he is proposing that children in schools should in addition to all their responsibilities learning for examinations, studying to become citizens, seriously, simultaneously become soldiers. We try to take the Member seriously. But it is becoming increasingly a strain. Are we or are we not in favour of national service because we need every Singaporean to be a soldier?

The Member suggests that we can solve the problem with regulars. There are 40,000 children born every year. That means 20,000 boys every year. About 20,000 people are called up for national service every year. Does he realize how many regulars we would need in order to replace them? Does he realize what the cost to the Government would be of maintaining a regular army instead of a national service army? What was the reason we embarked upon this massive effort of national education, nation building and total defence in the first place? He says there is no need to tell people to work hard in the national service because they will automatically work hard and that there is no need to encourage them. I do not doubt that he is an exceptionally self-motivated person. But I do not see anything wrong whatsoever in telling every Singaporean how crucial it is that it takes every moment of his training in the SAF, whether full-time or reservist, totally seriously, because he never knows when he will be called upon.

The Member may say that there is no threat on the horizon. What would happen if his over-the-horizon radar fails or malfunctions? Surely not an inconceivable prospect. For him, it is easy. He is a professional. He is qualified. He is mobile. If such a threat develops, he has it within him to find another perch elsewhere in the world. I am not saying he will but he has that option. For 2 1/2 million Singaporeans, less perhaps 2% off the top, there is no such option. This is our home and, as the SAF says, Singapore is our homeland. This is where we belong. Either we live, fight and die here or we go no place except into the ocean as boat people. And we can be sure under those circumstances, the Member for Potong Pasir will not be in the same boat.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Encik Yatiman Yusof): ( In Malay): Sir, before we adjourned, we heard the Member for Potong Pasir giving a picture as if we, the Malay Members of Parliament, have not done anything concerning the issue of national service and Malay participation in the armed forces. Mr Chairman, he tried to mislead the people of Singapore and also be a hero in championing the Malay cause. I wish to ask him, since when he has been fighting for the future and destiny of the Malays which we have never heard before. He tries to give a picture that we Malay Members of Parliament are all cowards.

Mr Chairman, we Malay Members of Parliament are not a group of opportunists who want to exploit every issue for our own political ends. We have fought for the fate and destiny of the Malays long before the Member for Potong Pasir came into this Chamber. Such remarks are not only misleading but also most regrettable.

Mr Chairman, the issue of national service, the issue of Malay participation in the Singapore Armed Forces, are issues which are very closely connected with nation building. The Malay Members in this Chamber have been fighting for the the participation of Malays in the armed forces seriously by discussing, debating and making recommendations up to the highest level, with the Prime Minister himself, with the First Deputy Prime Minister and other Members of Parliament. And we have made several suggestions through what we call politics of accommodation, politics of mutual help. This has resulted in the benefits that we see today where there are clear signs that there are changes to basic policies in respect of recruitment into national service and the armed forces. I wish to emphasize that we are committed to our tasks and will continue to discharge our responsibility wholeheartedly without any fanfare or publicising our efforts. That is our modus operandi and we have seen the results of our efforts and I do not see why we should not continue in this manner.

BG Lee Hsien Loong: ( In Malay): Sir, I will answer the questions raised by the Member for Kampong Kembangan briefly. The problem of communalism in the Singapore Armed Forces is a sensitive problem but it is not a new one. This problem has been discussed with Malay leaders, including PAP Members of Parliament over the past several years.

After Singapore separated from Malaysia, almost all members of the armed forces and the Singapore Police Force were manned by Malays. In 1977, the then Minister for Defence, Dr Goh Keng Swee, whilst answering questions raised in Parliament had spelt out the Government's philosophy in respect of Singapore's defence. He said that a long time was necessary to form an SAF which reflected our multi-racial society. But 10 years later, we have achieved certain progress. Today, each young male Singapore citizen, whether Malay or not, is called up to serve national service, except for health or security reasons. The percentage of Malays in the SAF has doubled since 1977. Malay members of the SAF serve in new areas like in the Commmando Battalion, as stated by the Member for Kampong Ubi. There are more Malay national service officers. Their number is not, in fact, restricted by the SAF but it is because there are too few Malay students who pass 'A' level examinations. That is the reason why there are fewer Malay officers than Chinese or Indian officers. There are four Malay and Muslim officers who have been given scholarships by the SAF to study at the NUS. They were selected not because of their ethnic background but because of their ability. And we are proud of their success.

The Singapore Government has to carry out a cautious policy because although Singapore is becoming a matured society, we have not, as yet, achieved a 100% integration. The greater our progress in integration, the greater will be Malay participation in the SAF. I am happy at the reactions of the Members of Parliament and also the reaction of the Majlis Pusat Committee which are constructive and responsible towards my statement. I agree with their conclusion that this is an internal problem of Singapore and must be resolved by Singaporeans themselves, not by outsiders. I am confident that we will continue to achieve progress as a new generation of young Singaporeans who are rational in their thinking are emerging now. And if we can discuss these issues in a sensitive and conscious manner, then our success will be that much quicker. 3.00 pm

The Chairman: It is guillotine time. Are you withdrawing your amendment?

Encik Abbas Abu Amin: Mr Chairman, Sir, before I withdraw my amendment, I would like to get the assurance from the Second Minister for Defence to monitor and, if need be, to review the teaching of the Code of Conduct so as to enhance the process of nation building in the SAF. Sir, I would like now to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The time allotted for Head K having expired, the following amendment, standing in the names of Encik Wan Hussin bin Hj Zoohri and Mr Chai Chong Yii, was not proceeded with:-

National Day Celebration Expenses

(5) That the sum to be allocated for Head K be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead KA-04-2610 of the Main Estimates.

The sum of $2,173,753,090 for Head K ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates.

The sum of $180,000,000 for Head K ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.

Head S -

Mr Heng Chiang Meng (Jalan Kayu): Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head S be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead SA-01-1100 of the Main Estimates.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I understand that it is the Land Office policy to alienate State Land by tender. If a site is capable of independent development, there is no doubt that this is an equitable procedure, as it gives all interested parties to bid for limited available sites. After all, when the Government decides that a piece of land is suitable for development for whatever use, all interested parties should have equal opportunity to that site. But, Sir, the problem arises when an individual businessman finds that a piece of State land, totally unused for any discernible purpose, has potential for a good business venture. He then applies to the Government for use of the land. After applying for approval to lease the land, after all the hassle that normally comes with such application, after being pushed from pillar to post, from department to department, he probably would be told that even if the site is suitable, that is, if the Government is willing to alienate the land for that particular use, the Government would tender out the site to all interested parties.

Sir, entrepreneurship involves opportunities. The successful entrepreneur is one who can see opportunities for profit while others do not, and who dares to act in accordance with his foresight, that is, put his money where his mouth is. If after all the time, effort and money expended into developing a germ of an idea into concrete plans for implementation, all that an enterprising businessman gets is a tender form. I doubt, Sir, that we will see much entrepreneurship in this area.

Sir, I would like to urge the Minister to look into the implications of this policy, especially at this time when we are encouraging the private sector to be our engine of growth for the economy. We have here apparently an area of conflict. On the one hand, it is right that we should have a fair system; and Sir, tendering is a fair system! On the other hand, we should not rob an entrepreneur's ability to profit from his foresight because it is this foresight and willingness to dare which forms the foundation of the private sector. Take away that incentive and you will take away the rationale for private enterprise. The issue, Sir, as I see it, therefore is, what price this foresight? Hence I would like to suggest that the current practice of tendering permits a concession such as a discount of the tender price for the person who first brought up the idea.

The Second Minister for Law (Prof. S. Jayakumar): Sir, I am replying on behalf of the Minister.

Sir, the Land Office cannot sell State land on a first-come-first-served basis simply because the first applicant may not be the best developer from the viewpoint of overall development. We will have to ensure that our scarce land resource is utilized in the most beneficial manner. It is therefore desirable to subject State land to public tender so that the availability of these valuable sites is made known to a wider circle and everyone, including businessmen, private entrepreneurs, companies, multi-national developers, etc, has an opportunity to bid for the land. In this way of open competition, tenderers with the best projects could be obtained.

Tendering would also prevent allegations of favouritism or corruption. If we did not have a tendering system, businessmen or entrepreneurs who develop close associations or who have frequent dealings with the relevant departments would have an undue advantage or be seen to have an undue advantage over other competitors who may be better developers but have no such opportunity of close contact or frequent dealings with the Government department. This would give rise to malpractice or the appearance of malpractice, both of which would be bad. Developers who thought of the project first would not lose out as their proposals would have an edge over others in competition by open tender. Tendering therefore is the best method in ensuring fair competition, not only in the alienation of land but also in other types of Government services, goods and public projects. No doubt the person who first applied might feel unhappy, but tendering is a tried and tested practice enshrined in our State land rules to avoid favouritism, opportunities for malpractice and corruption. I think we should stick to it. But if the Member can devise an equally fair method which is practical and not cumbersome, my Ministry is prepared to consider it.

Mr Heng Chiang Meng: Sir, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman: Amendment No. 2. May I remind you that the guillotine time is at 3.10 pm.

Mr Heng Chiang Meng: I am aware of that, Sir. That is why earlier I begged leave to withdraw the amendment. Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head S be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead SC-03-1210 of the Main Estimates.

Sir, land is one of the most common collateral used by businessmen to borrow funds from financial institutions. Since a property usually assumes 1973 prices once it is gazetted for acquisition, the financial lending institution normally freezes the borrowing account of the business. This is purely a defensive move since the final compensation award is uncertain and could well be below prevailing market values. The difficulty for the business then is that, through no fault of his, he finds his line of credit dried up. His ability to continue business suffers tremendously unless he has alternative sources of financing. The process of determining the award at 1973 prices, Sir, normally takes months, much longer if the land owner decides to contest the acquisition order. In the meanwhile the business suffers and may die a premature death.

In the context of the current situation, Sir, may I suggest that the following be instituted to alleviate the problems of businesses caused by land acquisition:

(1) If it is possible, amend the 1973 Act to pay prevailing market values. Sir, the Prime Minister has said in this House that the Government had to play Robin Hood. Perhaps in the early days this Singapore version of land reform was necessary. Is it necessary now? Should the Government not pay prevailing prices for the land it now acquires?

(2) If this is not possible, could the Government compute a provisional compensation award as soon as possible? After all, with all the experience of past cases it should be an expert now. If this figure could then be made known to the owner, the lending institution could perhaps be persuaded to allow utilization up to 100% of the provisional award. Liquidity for the business then continues and the business perhaps will be saved.

The Chairman: 15 seconds left.

Prof. Jayakumar: Sir, first, his points will be considered. Second, the procedure has been in accordance with the law. Third, to give a minimum sum at the outset would appear to be highly arbitrary and would still be subject to criticism. Fourth, it is not very wise to do so.

Mr Heng Chiang Meng: I beg to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $30,357,040 for Head S ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates.

The sum of $1,315,884,400 for Head S ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.

Head O -

Mr Chandra Das: Mr Chairman, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head O be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead OA-01-1100 of the Main Estimates.*

Sir, in moving this amendment, I have four general points to raise with the Minister. My first point refers to the so-called landmark Vladivostok Address made by the Soviet Chief, Mr Gorbachev, last July.

Sir, since this statement was made, Soviet foreign policy seems more relaxed and pro-active. Of late, Sir, one gets the impression that the Soviets are taking most of the initiative, particularly in Arms Control talks, talks on Afghanistan and the Cambodian conflict. Sir, I am wondering whether the Minister for Foreign Affairs sees this as a substantial shift in Soviet foreign policy worldwide and, in particular, with special reference to our region.

Sir, apart from this new Soviet style diplomacy, there has also been a hive of activity in Southeast Asia very lately. Here, Sir, I am particularly referring to the visits of the Soviet Foreign Minister to Australia, Indonesia, Vietnam, Laos and Kampuchea and that of Mr Natwar Singh, the Indian Minister of State for External Affairs, who in turn visited Indonesia, Thailand, Brunei, Malaysia and Singapore.

What I would like to ask the Minister is whether these visits are mere public relations exercises meant to create activities without substance, or are they positive steps taken to end the long-drawn Kampuchean conflict?

Sir, my third query refers to our relations with Indonesia. Particularly, I am referring to the successful state visit of President Suharto to Singapore recently. The personal bond of friendship established between President Suharto and Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew has been built over a long period of time and this to a large extent has brought about the present level of relationship between the Republic of Indonesia and Singapore. Sir, it is common knowledge that both Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew and President Suharto are getting on in years. And I am wondering what the Minister for Foreign Affairs and his Ministry is doing to build on this relationship so that the younger leaders of the Singapore Government can continue to expand and further develop this bond of friendship developed by our two current leaders.

Sir, fourthly, I would like to touch on a point and express my personal unhappiness in that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is moving away its office from the City Hall to Raffles City. The only thing that is common in this shift appears to be the word "City". The comparison, I am afraid, ends there. Mr Chairman, Sir, I have travelled extensively to most of the world capitals. I think I will be correct in saying that Singapore may be the only country to have the Foreign Office located in a commercial building. Sir, the move from City Hall to Raffles City in my judgment is an unwise one and is definitely not in keeping with the status, the dignity of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. I only hope that when they are in their new abode, foreign dignitaries and visitors to the Ministry will not be unwittingly directed to Sogo Department Store and the managing director of Sogo Department Store be mistaken for a senior official of the Ministry or even the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Sir, I must also point out more seriously that this move is also seen in some quarters as an attempt to fill up the empty space in Raffles City.

If the Ministry has to shift from City Hall, I ask: why not to Treasury Building or other Government buildings? Frankly, Sir, I see no compelling reason to move the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to Raffles City. I also find it very difficult to understand how the Ministry of the Environment can occupy a very prominent place in Scotts Road. A more suitable location for the Ministry of the Environment, I believe, would be near the incinerator in Tuas. However, Sir, I am very reliably informed that, to correct this image, the Minister for the Environment will be very shortly moving his residence near the incinerator and the Minister for the Environment must be congratulated for his foresight. Maybe the Minister for Foreign Affairs has some good reasons for agreeing to move to Raffles City.

The Chairman: Messrs Lim Chee Onn, Leong Horn Kee and Chng Hee Kok are all not here. Mr Dhanabalan.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr S. Dhanabalan): Sir, I would like to take the first three points raised by the Member for Chong Boon covering general foreign policy. Then I will allow my Second Minister for Foreign Affairs to deal with the last item regarding the move to Raffles City.

Sir, the Member for Chong Boon spoke about the new initiative taken by the Soviet Union as set out in Mr Gorbachev's speech in Vladivostok in July 1986 which clearly indicated that the Soviet Union wanted to project itself and be recognized as a power in the Pacific area. It is clear that the Soviet Union is already well poised to do this because it has access to bases in Vietnam and it has the military muscle to enable it to project itself in political terms. Therefore, it has taken new initiatives to improve its relations with China and also has made moves to improve its relations with the countries of ASEAN and the other Pacific countries. But in spite of the good intention mentioned in the speech and in subsequent moves, the fact remains that in substance there has been little change.

The Soviet Union is well aware that in order to improve relations with ASEAN it must seriously address the problem of Cambodia or Vietnamese occupation of Cambodia, and to-date there is no real evidence that the Soviet Union is doing so. There is still no recognition by the Soviet Union, through its actions, that this is a serious obstacle for improved relations between the Soviet Union and the members of ASEAN.

Sweet words have been said during Mr Shevardnadze's visit to Bangkok but as soon as he got to Hanoi at the end of his trip through Indonesia and Australia, he reiterated in fact, the traditional Vietnamese position and fully backed Vietnam in its cause in Cambodia. The press has, in fact, reported that Mr Ngyuen Co Thach, the Vietnamese Foreign Minister had said that Vietnam and the Soviet Union are in complete agreement on the Cambodian issue. Nothing that Mr Shevardnadze has said so far indicates that there is a shift in the Soviet position.

As the Member for Chong Boon mentioned, there has been a flurry of activities. Not only Mr Shevardnadze's visit but also the visit by Mr Natwar Singh, the Minister of State for External Affairs of India. Mr Natwar Singh made clear that he was not bringing any new proposals and that he merely wanted to share India's impressions of Vietnam's position on the Cambodian problem and he made it very clear that there was no signficance beyond that. In the case of Shevardnadze, I have already mentioned that his discussion with my colleague in Indonesia again did not indicate any shift in the Soviet Union's position.

Basically, Vietnamese policy has not changed. They are aware that they cannot get the world to accept what they have done in Cambodia. What they would like to do now is to get the world to lose interest in Cambodia. One way to get as many countries of the world to lose interest or not to be actively involved in supporting ASEAN is to create the impression that there is an active dialogue and movement towards a solution on this problem. And in this, I must say that they have set about their job with great subtlety. They have used their friends like the Soviet Union and others who are well-intentioned to create the impression that there is a dialogue and that there are moves between ASEAN and Vietnam to finding a solution. And the more they can succeed in creating this impression, the greater their success in getting others to disengage themselves from active support for ASEAN.

We must be aware of this policy of theirs and look for the substance and if we look and search for the substance in all these moves, I am afraid that we will have to conclude that it is very difficult to see any real positive steps, and that all this flurry of activity is part of a PR exercise.

The Member also raised the question of our relations with Indonesia. He quite rightly made the point that the present very good cordial and warm relations between Singapore and Indonesia are based very much on the personal excellent relationship between our Prime Minister and President Suharto. This very good personal relationship, understanding and appreciation of each other's interests and position did not come about overnight. It has taken more than 15 years to arrive at this happy state where although we may have differences, we have not allowed these differences to generate distrust or hostility. The two leaders have met frequently and have a clear understanding of each country's aspirations and problems.

We are well aware that we cannot allow the relationship between our two countries to rest solely on the personal relationship between our two leaders who, as the Member for Chong Boon has mentioned, are both getting on in years. The Foreign Ministry has for some time had a programme to encourage and bring about closer personal relations between the new leaders, ie, the younger generation leaders, in both countries. The First Deputy Prime Minister and the Second Deputy Prime Minister have led separate delegations of Ministers and Members of Parliament to Indonesia. More such visits are in the pipeline. These visits are not intended to discuss any specific issue. They do not go with an agenda or with a shopping list. These visits are informal in nature with no structured agenda or discussions but over a period of time these visits will enable leaders of both countries to develop personal contacts, keep in touch with developments in each other's country and evolve over a period of time the same kind of relationship that now exists between the Prime Minister and President Suharto. I am satisfied with the progress so far in this respect. More can be done and more will be done.

On the last point about the move to Raffles City, I will leave it to the Second Minister to deal with it.

The Second Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Wong Kan Seng): Mr Chairman, as I said this morning, the Supreme Court is going to increase the number of court rooms and the quickest way for it to do so would be to find a building adjacent to it. It will take some time for the Supreme Court to build a new building to accommodate new court rooms. So we have decided to make way for the Supreme Court and since we only have very short notice to move out, the fastest way would be to look for existing available office space. We have considered the Treasury Building but the Treasury Building floor space costs more than the Raffles City's floor space. So we decided to move to Raffles City.

I agree with the Member for Chong Boon that we should have our own distinctive building, a separate building for MFA. But that would take time and definitely we would look into that when the time comes.

Mr Chandra Das: Another building?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: The Raffles Tower block that we are moving into is a separate building and it is not mixed up with the hotel block. We have separate access and separate lift lobby as well. There is no need to worry that you will walk into the wrong place.

Mr Chandra Das: Sir, I would like to thank the Minister for Foreign Affairs for his very clear statement on the three issues which I raised. As for the Second Minister's remarks on the move to Raffles City, I am not very convinced. The question of cost really does not arise because I think Treasury Building is largely owned by the Government. Raffles City is a commercial building. It is paying from one pocket to another pocket. I understand there is time constraint and therefore the Ministry has to move. The point I want to make is that the Ministry has made the wrong decision.

On this note, Sir, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Encik Othman bin Haron Eusofe: Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head O be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead OA-01-1210 of the Main Estimates.

Sir, we all like to see ASEAN develop and become stronger, and I believe one good way to achieve this objective is to encourage and promote contacts between business groups, professional organizations, cultural bodies, youth groups and so on in Singapore, and their counterparts in the other ASEAN countries. I believe in this connection the Ministry of Foreign Affairs could give more support and provide direction and give adequate encouragement and moral support to the efforts of these associations and bodies.

During discussions which members of the Feedback Supervisory Panel have with leaders of business and professional groups, we note that they have the perception that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs does not appear to be too enthusiastic or keen about their programmes and activities to develop closer rapport with their counterparts. I would like to ask the Minister whether he would look into this and review the assistance and support given to these business, professional and even private bodies, particularly in their programmes and activities to develop better rapport with their colleagues in similar organizations in ASEAN.

On economic cooperation, I would also like to ask the Minister to give an assessment of the level of economic cooperation among the ASEAN countries, especially in efforts to combat protectionism.

Mr Dhanabalan: Sir, I agree with the Member for Geylang Serai that it is very important in ASEAN to encourage what we call the NGOs (non-Government Organizations) to also have close relationships whether in the business, cultural or other areas. In fact, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has been very active in encouraging participation of the private sector in ASEAN co-operation, not only in co-operation between the different private bodies but also in tapping the views, opinions and knowledge in the private sector in official co-operation projects. We supported the proposal, for example, to invite the ASEAN Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ASEAN CCI) to present the private sector's views on ASEAN's economic co-operation at the ASEAN Economic Ministers' meetings. In Singapore, of course, that includes our own Chambers of Commerce.

Businesses, private business organizations like the Chambers have played an active part in presenting their views to the various economic committees of ASEAN, such as the Committee on Trade and Tourism, Committee on Industry, Minerals, Energy, and so on. In the case of the Committee on Trade and Tourism, Singapore is the Chairman, and we have given full attention to the Chambers of Commerce's preferences as well as their views on certain specific industries like industries covering chemical products and subjects such as the ASEAN Preferential Trading Arrangement.

It is not true that we do not encourage. The perception is wrong. We want them to play a part and, in fact, we have also helped them to establish contacts with their counterparts - the other Chambers of Commerce in Australia, European Community, Japan, and so on. We have a good working relationship. I think the source of this perception that we are not very enthusiastic may go back to a refusal to a particular approach, and that was an approach by the Singapore Federation of Chambers of Commerce and Industry for financial support for them to send Singapore delegates to meetings of the private sector. In other words, they asked for financial support to meet their counterparts in the other countries. We turned down this request for good reason because these trade and industry organizations are not charities. They are made up of businesses and I assume that these businesses form these organizations for very good, sound business reasons. And the best test of the usefulness of any meeting or project is whether they are prepared to pay for it. I stand by the decision of the Ministry that we should not use public funds to finance trips to attend meetings by members of the Chambers of Commerce. So that could be the source of this perception that we are not very enthusiastic or very supportive. But I can assure the Member for Geylang Serai that that is not so, and that in all our policies we have made it a point to try and bring in the private sector as much as possible to participate in ASEAN projects of co-operation.

The other point that the Member raised was that he wanted an assessment of ASEAN co-operation, especially in the area of fighting protectionist trends in the developed countries. If we look at various areas of ASEAN economic co-operation, we would note that it is in the area of joint approach to third countries on protectionist measures that ASEAN has been most active and most successful. Apart from that, of course, generally on trade matters in negotiating with third countries, ASEAN has been quite active. For example, in the Uruguay Round of the new round of multi-lateral trade negotiations, Singapore was the leader (the Chairman) and the Minister for Trade and Industry acted very effectively as the spokesman for ASEAN.

On another matter, we took a joint approach in the Multi-Fibre Agreement. This is negotiations on textile, cotton and synthetic textile agreements with various countries, with the US, with the European Community, and so on. ASEAN took a joint approach and we made our concerns known to the other side jointly. I think this joint approach enabled the ASEAN countries to get much more out of these agreements than they would have if they had done the negotiations individually.

The most famous example of ASEAN co-operation in rolling back protectionist policy was ASEAN's action against Australia on civil aviation. Some Members who have been here for some time may recollect that in the late 1970s there was this new Australian policy on international civil aviation which tried to protect or reserve traffic going out of Australia for Australian airlines. Singapore together with the ASEAN countries made a very strong stand against this policy, and we were successful in getting Australia to drop this policy.

Of course, there were later examples. For example when New Zealand decided to graduate Brunei and Singapore from their GSP scheme, ASEAN again made a joint representation and we were successful in getting New Zealand to reinstate those products which affected Singapore and Brunei. Similarly in the case of the US, we have made joint representations whenever bills have been presented in Congress which affected the interests of the ASEAN countries.

Another example that I am sure Members will remember was just a couple of weeks ago when ASEAN made representation to the European Community because there were proposals to increase the duty on vegetable oils and such new taxes on vegetable oils would have seriously affected Malaysia, the Philippines and Indonesia.

So these are areas where ASEAN has been quite successful. I can mention quite a few others where we also negotiated with Japan on items ranging from boneless chicken which was of interest to Thailand to plywood for Indonesia, palm oil for Malaya and so on. In the case of Singapore, we also took up jointly the question of the JIS (Japan Industry Standard) mark which we thought was one way of imposing non-tariff protectionist measures against exports from Singapore to Japan.

In all these areas we have been quite successful in making joint representations and getting the other country to look at our problem seriously. And in a number of cases we have been able to get them to concede to our concerns and either not impose a duty or proceed with whatever policy that they had intended. There is general agreement among the ASEAN countries that it is in this area of negotiations with Third countries that we can make most progress. Therefore, it is not surprising that every time we have a problem with a Third country, even though the problem may apply only to one or two ASEAN countries, all ASEAN countries have got together in order to make a joint representation.

So I would say, in summary, that in combatting protectionism we have been on the whole fairly successful. But, of course, the fight is by no means over. Basic economic conditions have not changed and we have to be constantly on our guard and have to be active in making sure that new protectionist measures are not introduced.

Encik Othman bin Haron Eusofe: Sir, I am happy to hear that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs does give support to efforts and programmes of business organizations, professional groups and private bodies. But this is a perception they have, and I think the Ministry of Foreign Affairs should look into this. Perhaps officials from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs could meet members or leaders of these bodies and associations. And this feedback is not just from the Chamber of Commerce but also from quite a number of other bodies like the Planning Association. And the complaint is not just about finance, but I think they also complained that there was little moral support. So I hope that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs will look into this.

On this note, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Chandra Das: Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 0 be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead OA-01-3310 of the Main Estimates.

Sir, I have just two queries for the Minister on this. Firstly, there is a reduction in the ASEAN training awards from $240,000 to $200,000. I am just wondering whether this reduction is because of a lack of takers or is it because we are on an austerity drive.

My second question to the Minister refers to this allocation of $4.5 million in terms of Technical Assistance to Philippines. Maybe the Minister could elaborate on the details of this technical assistance.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, the Member for Chong Boon is right that the reason why the ASEAN training award budget is reduced is because in the last few years, it has not been fully used up. For example, in the last three years' provision, only slightly less than 50% of them were taken up. One reason, I speculate, could be that there are other awards available to these other countries. But if there is a need for more than the $200,000 that is currently provided, we will ask Treasury for the money and I am sure they will be glad to oblige.

As regards the technical assistance that we are offering to the Philipines government, this offer of $5 million was made by the Prime Minister when he visited Philippines last year between 30th June and 3rd July. This assistance is to spread over a period of three years, for the payment of services in those areas where Singapore has technical competence or expertise. And these services will be rendered by nominated companies, Singapore-owned companies, institutions and from professionals both private and the public sectors. Branches and subsidiaries of Singapore companies in the Philippines can also qualify for consideration by the Singapore Government. The Singapore Trade Development Board is appointed as the agency to implement this aid on behalf of the Government and the overall liaison is done by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

In August last year, a comprehensive list of service projects that Singapore could finance under this technical assistance scheme was presented to the Philippines government. The areas covered were port planning and development, airport development and maintenance, housing and urban renewal and consultancy services in the development of industrial estates and primary production. In December last year, the Philippines National Economic Development Authority submitted a list of 14 projects for consideration. These projects included airport and port developments, animal vaccine technology, civil aviation, shipbuilding and repair training programmes. The TDB has made a preliminary study of these proposals and its officials were in Manila recently to discuss with the Filipinos the guidelines and technical issues connected with these projects. The relevant Philippines officials are now studying the matters raised and will communicate with us shortly. Upon receipt of their comments, TDB will place advertisements in the Singapore press to invite Singapore companies to indicate their interest to participate in this scheme.

Mr Chandra Das: Sir, I thank the Minister for his answers. I would only like to make one suggestion. We should make the ASEAN awards more attractive so that these awards will be taken up.

On this note, Sir, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Encik Wan Hussin bin Hj Zoohri (Kampong Ubi): Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head O be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead OA-02-3310 of the Main Estimates.

Sir, it is obvious that when we make contributions to international organizations, we derive certain benefits from these organizations. With particular reference to the Commonwealth Institute, I assume that its role is to enhance the interests of Commonwealth countries. Having contributed to the Commonwealth Institute all these years, has the Ministry made any appraisal of the benefits derived so far? Has Singapore's image or standing been enhanced through this Institute?

Now that Singapore has undergone a phenomenal change both socially and economically, may I know if the Singapore's section in the Institute has been updated? Does the Institute have the latest literature and information on Singapore? Have the exhibits on Singapore been regularly updated? I hope with decreasing contributions over the years as reflected in the budget estimates, our interest and image in the Institute have not been affected.

Similarly, Sir, I would like to know what is our present role in the Colombo Plan Council for Asia and the Pacific. I recall that in the early years of our development, many of our students benefitted from the Colombo Plan scholarships. Now that Singapore has made remarkable economic progress, are we now performing the role more as a donor country or as a recipient country? If so, what are the areas of training and expertise that we are offering to the other member countries? If we are on the other hand still receiving aid from the Council, what types of training are we getting that helps contribute to our economic needs?

These are some of the questions which I hope the Minister could respond.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, the Commonwealth Institute was set up by an Act of the UK Parliament with the objective of fostering among the peoples of the Commonwealth a better understanding and greater knowledge of one another, and of the importance and worth of the Commonwealth Association. This objective is still relevant and valid today. And to this end, I believe the Commonwealth Institute has organized a number of activities to promote understanding of countries among one another.

The first Singapore exhibits were done, I believe, in 1961 when we first became part of the Commonwealth Institute. Late last year, these exhibits were updated to show the changes in Singapore, its prosperity and dynamism that we have achieved so far. So let me assure the Member that the exhibits in the Commonwealth Institute today are updated.

The permanent exhibits, I was told, attracted more than 100,000 visitors to the Institute per year. And these exhibits do give foreigners or tourists a good understanding of the things that are done in Singapore.

As regards the Colombo Plan assistance, the Colombo Plan assistance on undergraduate scholarships is handled by the Public Service Commission. Post-graduate scholarships and training awards are handled by the Public Service Division of the Ministry of Finance. We do not know the full value of the awards given to Singapore because donor countries do not keep figures or they do not want to reveal the full value of the awards. But in terms of numbers, Singapore received 448 scholarships and training awards from the developed countries between 1981 and 1985. And during the same period, Singapore offered 607 awards to developing member countries of the Colombo Plan valued at $2.44 million. Just in 1986 alone, Singapore received 108 scholarships and training awards.

The Chairman: Order. It is 3.50 pm, guillotine time. Encik Wan Hussin, can you withdraw your amendment?

Encik Wan Hussin Bin Hj Zoohri: Sir, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The time allotted for Head O having expired, the following amendments were not proceeded with: Mr S. Chandra Das: Overseas Missions (5) That the sum to be allocated for Head O be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead OA-03-1210 of the Main Estimates. Dr Wang Kai Yuen: Overseas Missions (6) That the sum to be allocated for Head O be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead OA-03 of the Main Estimates. Mr S. Chandra Das: Mr Chai Chong Yii: Purchase of Properties for Overseas Missions (7) That the sum to be allocated for Head O be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead OA-03-8101 of the Development Estimates. The sum of $56,192,200 for Head O ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $20,776,000 for Head O ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.

Head T -

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Mr Chairman, Sir, I beg to move,

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

Sir, in moving this amendment, I would just like to make a few points and observations and thereafter leave much of what has to be discussed under the various subheads to Members of my GPC.

First, Sir, I notice that in the allocation of time for debate under the Head of the Ministry of National Development, it is from today until Thursday, 12.20 pm. I note that from the first amendment to amendment No. (38), no less than 40 hon. Members have indicated their desire to speak. Hence, one can see the importance of this Ministry and the matters that draw the attention of hon. Members.

Sir, if I may turn to page 27 of the budget, the estimated expenditure under the Main Estimates for FY 87/88 under Head T, Ministry of National Development, a sum of $280 million is to be voted. But the actual fact is that this Ministry has the biggest appropriation of $7.624 billion, with $7.34 billion for development and nearly $100 million for manpower development, compared to other Ministries like Education, Health, Home Affairs and Environment. So it is in this context, Sir, that I say the Ministry of National Development is indeed a very large Ministry. And I have a very serious question to pose to the Minister for National Development. Should there not be effective control over the many departments under this Ministry with regard to the implementation of the policies and where Government sees the need to have two Permanent Secretaries, one of whom is a very senior Permanent Secretary? In other words, what I am trying to suggest is: would the Hon. Minister not consider this question of setting up more statutory boards so as to devolve central authority? It is just like the case of the Ministry of Communications. It has got various statutory boards like the Port of Singapore Authority, the Singapore Broadcasting Corporation, the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore, the Telecoms and so on. That is the first point.

On the second point, Sir, I would like to refer the Hon. Minister to HDB's new accounting system vis-a-vis on the following points. First, the pricing and sale of flats. There needs to be explanation on how losses are incurred in the sale of flats, how valuation is done and the ways and means of buying land from the Government at the market price. Coupled with this, there is the likelihood of a slowdown in the housing development programme. Here again, I would like to ask the Minister to intimate to the HDB that with the slowdown in the housing development programme, they should consider proper planning and design for the development of new towns. Earlier in the day, in replying to a question of mine, the Hon. Minister for National Development said that Punggol New Town would be envisaged in the year 2000 and after. In other words, there must be a conceptual plan and design for these new towns. If we are to go one step further, it is to have better quality housing and a more gracious living environment.

Sir, I notice that in the HDB's Financial Statements for 1984/85, the Auditor-General made a qualification on the question of costing. He said:

'As reported in previous years, the Board's accounting system does not provide for the costing of flats built by the Board and the leasing of land. However, a new costing system has been implemented with effect from 1 April 1985.'

Whereas in the 1985-86 Report there is no qualification. I am glad that this is so. Nevertheless, Sir, on page 4 of the Report for the year ending 31st March 1986, explanatory note 12 says that there is a Government subsidy of $1.17 billion. So herein lies the question of what I mentioned earlier that the public has to be informed as to how such costing of the flats has been arrived at. I believe one of my Members, the Member for Paya Lebar, will be touching on this aspect in greater detail.

Sir, the third point that I wish to make is that I welcome the Hon. Minister's announcement on the 11th March as reported in the Straits Times on the 12th March that HDB may seek a commitment from applicants to buy flats so as to enable the HDB to get more accurate information. However, the HDB should ensure that in so doing and when the time comes for allocation, all applicants for a particular new town or zone will get their flats.

Finally, Sir, on the evolution of town councils. This will be touched on in greater detail by my colleague, the Member for Bo Wen, who is one of the chairmen. I would like to seek further support that town councils will not only be given greater autonomy but also authority in the management of the housing estates.

Dr Ow Chin Hock (Leng Kee): Sir, I would like to raise two points.

First, I would like to reiterate my reservations and doubts about the implemention of town councils in old housing estates. There are a few reasons. Let me summarize them here:

(a) The need for repairs, maintenance and upkeep of old flats is much greater and they cost more.

(b) There are inadequate amenities or a lack of facilities such as playgrounds, parks, sports facilities, polyclinics and so on in older housing estates.

(c) The percentage of rental flats in old housing estates is generally higher. In 1985/86, out of 58,893 1-room rental flats in Singapore, 11,366 are in Toa Payoh estate, 5,943 in Kallang Basin and 3,052 in Bukit Merah. This is just an example. Given the fact that most of the tenants in rental flats are from the low-income group, their ability to pay for maintenance and upkeep of estates is therefore much lower, and limited. So if we have a town council in an old housing estate, the council would face very serious financial constraints and difficulties.

Even at the national scale, with cross- subsidization, HDB still incurred a deficit of $102 million last year in services and conservancy activities. But Singaporeans like to compare and contrast. Whether they live in old or new housing estates, they expect the same kind of facilities, the same standard of services and the same kind of living environment. It is therefore neither fair nor equitable to ask MPs and grassroots leaders in old housing estates to run town councils.

My second point, Sir, is about the current relocation exercise. Not only are old housing estates getting older but the people living there are getting older also. Their children grow up, get married and move to new towns or suburban areas. This is obvious if we look at the number of babies born, or the number of children aged 4 and below, or the number of kindergarten pupils, constituency by constituency.

We have discussed population issues at length but we have not discussed or focused on another dimension of population, namely, the locational or geographical redistribution of population from the old city centre and old estates to suburban areas and new housing estates. This redistribution of population has serious social and political implications. In this context, I see the current relocation exercise as a means to arrest this trend or solve this problem. I also see that this exercise could achieve two objectives: (a) to inject new blood or infuse the younger generation to revitalize the old housing estates; and (b) to allow tenants in old housing estates to upgrade themselves to bigger flats. But under the relocation exercise, the current rule is that if the vacancy rate of a rental block reaches 30% (I stand to be corrected), it is earmarked for demolition. But this rule should not be applied rigidly. For instance, if a rental block has 120 units, the HDB needs to resettle 84 households. But if a rental block has only 20 units, HDB needs to resettle 70% or only 14 units. So the resettlement problem is quite different. It is not only the percentage that counts, but number also counts.

There is another problem. Some rental blocks have not yet reached the 30% vacancy rate and yet they are becoming increasingly isolated. The tenants living in these blocks are therefore worried about their safety. Here, I would like to suggest to the Minister that when he applies the vacancy rule in this relocation exercise, he should take the whole neighbourhood or zone into consideration, and not block by block. Secondly, he should give top priority to the redevelopment of old housing estates and to offer new flats to tenants or applicants on the joint balloting scheme so as to encourage children to stay with their parents in these estates.

Dr Koh Lip Lin (Nee Soon): Mr Chairman, Sir, I just want to comment on one area under this Head, ie, planning and development.

The Planning Department of the Ministry of National Development is in charge of the overall physical planning of Singapore. I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the Department on its achievements in transforming Singapore into what we are today, a modern, beautiful and ideal city state. However, at local or constituency level, the planning and development does not seem to proceed as smoothly as one would expect. There are frequent changes in the plans resulting in various projects being delayed, shelved or postponed, and this creates a sense of uncertainty and confusion among the local community.

In the Nee Soon constituency, for example, as early as in March 1982, I was informed in this House by the Minister that a certain area was acquired by Government for the development of a middle-income housing estate, and another area was also acquired for the development of the so-called Seletar New Town. In 1983 I was also informed that another area was acquired for a Ministry of Defence development project. It has been four or five years since, and nothing has happened. Changes of this nature have generated a lot of anxiety, confusion and hardship among those affected. I shall comment more on this under another amendment.

Sir, I do agree that social and economic conditions change. There is often the need to change the plans, and quickly also. In fact, that is how we Singaporeans survive, to be adaptable, flexible and changeable. My complaint, Sir, is that in the initial stage of planning the use of the land as well as in a decision to change the plans, the local community, including the Member of Parliament, was not consulted or even informed. As a Member of Parliament, I find it necessary, very often, to file Questions for Oral Answer in this House to find out what is being planned for my constituency, and quite often the answers given are incomplete or incorrect.

The Ministry of National Development has the full authority to decide on planning matters and the development of projects. But I think that, for any development that affects the local community, there should be channels for consultation and getting feedback from the ground. Such channels appear to be lacking.

As Singaporeans become better educated, there is an increasing desire for them to participate more in public decision-making. The Town Council pilot project and the National Agenda discussion are new developments in this direction. I think we should expect more to come. I would therefore like to suggest to the Minister for National Development to think of some ways to allow the local community, ie, the CCCs, the RCs and other grassroots organizations, to have a certain degree of participation in planning and development at local or constituency level.

This can be done by having frequent forums or dialogues between the planners and the community or other forms of discussion or consultation. Recently I was quite surprised at being invited by the Public Relations Department of the PWD to a briefing on expressway projects affecting Nee Soon Constituency. I found the briefing very useful. This type of briefing should be conducted more often and extended to community leaders and grassroots organizations.

For the last 20 years Singaporeans have depended too much on the Government for making so many decisions for them, be it the question of to smoke or not to smoke, to have one, two or three children, to speak Mandarin or to speak dialect. All these questions seem to be decided upon by the Government. It is about time Singaporeans learned to think for themselves and to contribute more to assist the Government in decision-making.

Mr Philip Tan Tee Yong (Paya Lebar): Mr Chairman, Sir, I would like to touch on the question of the new accounting system. It was said that under the old system we were unable to find the cost of sales of the flats and subsequently, under the new accounting system, in answer to a question on the subsidy of HDB flats, this House was told that all the answers can be obtained in the Financial Statement and the Report. Sir, I received the Financial Statement for 1985/86. I have looked through it actually, and frankly I could not find any information which could help me look for the kind of subsidy that HDB is subsidizing the flats. So basing on this Report I would like to bring up some examples and maybe suggest that further information in the form of Notes could be added in this financial statement to make it clearer.

The first point, for instance, is the balance sheet. I will just give one point so that I would not take too much of your time. In the balance sheet, under "Properties for sale" it is stated that they have $1,139 million (I will just round it up without going into the details). With an item called "Properties for sale" here, it does not show how many units of flats there are, and how many types of units there are in this particular item. I would assume that this figure will be the "cost of sales" when the HDB sells these flats to the people, which means that I can assume that the land cost or land value is already included.

Then in Note 13, there is a note which says that this includes an amount of $3,382 million due to the Government on the purchase of land. Sir, I would like to know whether there is interest involved? If so, how much? And whether this is included in the interest expense in the respective expense items. The next item is Note 14 "Sale of flats". Sir, I take it that the "Proceeds of Sale" refer strictly to the sale of flats and it does not refer to anything else. Then the "Cost of Sales". Can we have the breakdown as to the cost of land, the cost of construction and others in these three main categories? Is this cost of sale an apportioned cost of sale? Or does it include units not sold, shops for rental, market stalls for rental, Area Office, sports facilities, carparks, social facilities, commercial and industrial projects?

The reason why I bring up these examples is that some of these items which have been noted in the other notes have income but no cost involved. For instance, you receive a lot of money from carparks but I do not see the cost of building carparks there. Can the HDB give us a further breakdown of the "Proceeds of Sale", "Cost of land" and "Construction cost" by estates? For instance, how much land was paid for Pine Grove, the construction cost and the others involved, and how much revenue was received for that estate? In this, then we can settle the question of whether the HDB or the HUDC are already subsidized housing units in Singapore. But in conjunction with Note 2 where it is stated:

'When the Board commenced the sale of property to homeowners, the old system as operated by the Board, was unable to measure the profit or loss on such sale because the Board's system did not maintain records of the costs of individual units but only of the total costs of property in general. As such the accounting system became inappropriate to account for the Board's activities and a decision was taken to implement a new system.'

Then the new system was implemented, and it says that:

'The creation of a costing system which allows the Board to record the costs of all individual units of property under development; the previous accounting system was unable to break down total development costs to individual units of property.' Now with this new accounting system, can the Board give us the cost of individual units that have been built?

Next, Sir, can the Minister tell this House how much land will be bought for residential, commercial, industrial and sports and social amenities? And on these lands, how many flats, factories and sports and social amenities will be built?

Note 15 is on service and conservancy. There are three main costs in this particular note that I see. They are repairs and maintenance which amount to $132 million. Manpower is $92 million. Utility and cleansing is $76 million. These three items add up to a total of $300 million. This represents some 95.5% of the total cost of service and conservancy charges. Due to the insufficient data in this note, I take it that these three items refer to two main items. They are materials and labour because that is what repairs and maintenance really is all about. Can the Minister let us have a breakdown as to how much has been expended for materials and how much for labour? Also, can the Minister tell this House, out of the income collected from HDB estates, how much has been paid to the Ministry of the Environment for refuse collection?

Finally, Sir, before time is up, I just want to say one last point. Although I have other points I had better cut them out. There is this item "Manpower and affiliated costs". I take this out from the various notes that accompany the financial accounts. The total manpower and affiliated costs to HDB come to $125.5 million. Can the Minister comment whether this amount is reasonable?

Mr Bernard Chen (Clementi): Sir, I made reference to the state of the construction sector last Friday in the debate on the Finance Minister's Budget statement. I am afraid I did not get any answer then and I hope to get some from the Minister today.

To recapitulate, our construction sector which accounted for 6.8% of GDP in 1980 rose to a high of 12.8% in 1984 because of the concerted push in construction of HDB flats, infrastructure, offices, hotels and private residential buildings. Consequential to the glut that has been created, the construction share of GDP is now 8.5% and with the slowing down of HDB construction and the virtual stoppage of hotels, offices and private residences and also the tailing off of infrastructure development such as MRT, roads and highways, it is expected that the construction sector would probably return to the pre-1980 level, ie, about 5% of GDP.

The point I would like to make is that the construction capacity has been built up to the level which constituted almost 13% of GDP. What happens when the construction sector shrinks and what will happen to the surplus capacity? Of particular importance is manpower. We have been turning out architects, civil engineers and mechanical engineers from the universities on the understanding that the construction sector will grow at historical rates. This is not going to take place. We will find in due course a glut of architects and engineers and, in fact, this already exists. In terms of numbers, the next level of skills is more alarming, ie, the semi-skilled technicians being turned out by VITB, the electricians, plasterers, painters, etc. They come out by the hundreds, if not thousands. When the construction sector goes down and with shrinkage of volume, one can imagine the real impact this will have on this category of skills.

If we look beyond the construction sector, there are also the supporting services - the hardware stores, industries that supply paint, cement and so on. The multiplier effect of the construction industry is substantial. All told, we are going to have, I am afraid, quite a glut in skilled and semi-skilled manpower in industrial establishments which are used to support a very highly active construction sector.

As we all know, the lead time in training manpower is a long one and we have to act early to arrest any alarming developments and I consider this manpower surplus an alarming one because it affects all levels of skills. It is better for us to inform those who are going to be affected now that they may have to seek alternative employment or get themselves retrained or diverted to other sector's activities. For highly skilled people such as architects and engineers, they may have to go abroad beyond Singapore to look for jobs to occupy their time. As I mentioned on Friday, the Government could devise incentives of some sort to help them along the way. I think the Construction Industry Development Board which looks after the manpower aspect for the construction sector should address themselves these important questions and plans made to anticipate what is likely to come about in the next two to three years. The Ministry of National Development should, being in charge of the construction sector, look into the various excesses in terms of manpower, supporting services and recommend plans for implementation.

Encik Abbas Abu Amin: Sir, I have two issues to raise. They are Pine Grove HUDC housing estate and the Pasir Panjang Wholesale Centre.

Under Pine Grove HUDC estate, I would like to enquire on the following. The Pine Grove RC has requested for facilities to enhance the housing estate but so far there has been no positive action from the Ministry of National Development. We understand the problems faced by residents during the "no-buy back" policy by the HDB recently. At the Parliament sitting on 27th October 1986, the then Minister for National Development said that HDB would consider the provision of these facilities. Could the Ministry elaborate what plans it has to enhance the estate outlook? How many units are still vacant in the Pine Grove Phase 1 and Phase II respectively? What is being done to market these empty units? One way is, of course, by enhancing and adding popular recreational facilities to attract the would-be buyers.

Next, what is the vacant land next to Pine Grove adjoining the canal to be used for? This land is not the big URA land adjoining Clementi Road/Commonwealth Avenue West but rather immediately facing Pine Grove Block 1C and Block 1D and 1F respectively. This piece of land has been neglected for the past three years with the exception of occasional grass-cutting.

Would the Minister consider allowing a resident living in Pine Grove to upgrade by returning his earlier flat to HDB and paying the difference in price between his earlier flat and the latter? For example, from a 3-room to a 4-room or to a maisonette or from an apartment to a maisonette in the same estate.

My last query on Pine Grove, Sir, is: would the Town Council concept be subsequently introduced in this area? If so, with which adjoining area would it be merged?

Now I would like to deal with the plight of the vegetable and fruit wholesalers at the Pasir Panjang Wholesale Centre. The merchants at the Pasir Panjang Wholesale Centre have approached me on several occasions about their problems and grouses. I would like to know what is the main objective of Government in building this trading centre. What is the main role and what are the prospects of the wholesalers at this centre? The shop tenants gave up the convenience of their former low-rental places and moved into the wholesale centre in response to the call by URA, in the belief that the wholesale centre would be the only and the largest central trading area for vegetables, fruits and dried food in Singapore. They are surprised that other wholesalers still exist in Joo Chiat Road, Thomson Road, Woodlands Road and Teck Guan Street. They feel that this is an unfair competition as wholesalers in other areas do not pay rentals and are more conveniently located. Besides, the Malaysian fruit and vegetable traders, especially the fruit traders, do not have to pay any tax, rentals or PUB bills, etc. and they sell their goods direct to the retailers without going through the wholesale centre. These practices affect the merchants' business at the Pasir Panjang Wholesale Centre. Some merchants have shifted out or are preparing to shift out from the centre to the roadside to sell their goods. Most of the wholesalers find it difficult to do business in this vast wholesale centre.

The relevant authority could help to alleviate the problems of the merchants by, I suggest, first, building more car parks and loading and unloading lots for the tenants and improving the design of the building. The stalls and the vegetable paths are too small and too narrow, especially at Blocks 9, 10 and 12. Adopt the import system similar to that of the Central Fish Wholesale Market. It would be more effective if the authority could ban or control those illegal sellers.

Sir, the stringent control of pesticides used on fruits and vegetables to meet the environmental sanitation requirements and the publicity given to this perhaps would help to attract more tenants and customers to buy from the wholesale centre rather than buying from any other sources. Next, reduce the rentals to help the present tenants ride over their difficult times now. Lastly, provide a bus service since the bus station at West Coast Highway was built four years ago. Perhaps I would raise this again under another amendment under a different Ministry later on.

The Chairman: Dr Tan Cheng Bock and Mr Heng Chiang Meng are not here. Mr Abdullah Tarmugi.

Mr Abdullah Tarmugi: Sir, no Ministry affects and determines the physical character and environment of a country as much as the Ministry of National Development, and no department within this Ministry could transform a piece of land like the HDB does and with it determines the socio-economic structure and relationship within this piece of real estate.

Sir, for a Ministry with such awesome powers, it becomes incumbent upon it to adhere to the highest form of responsibility and to be very mindful of the needs and feelings on the ground. Of course, Sir, the easiest way to carry out this responsibility is to surround itself with a myriad of powers and regulations covering the entire spectrum of life and activity of residents. This, Sir, to a very large extent is what has happened and one can hardly step out of one's house without having to contend with one regulation or another before one even reaches the bus stop.

Sir, while I concede that rules are needed to protect the majority interest, there must be flexibility to cater for individual or minority cases where they do not hurt others and where their peculiar circumstances merit a special and deeper consideration than merely slapping on existing legislation rigidly. I am sure, Sir, as MPs, we have come across many, perhaps too many, instances of rules being applied without due regard to special or peculiar circumstances. I am certain too that my MP colleagues could cite many instances of rigidity, from the type and colour of door to be installed, to the so-called 30-month debarment period, rules governing settlement, to regulations specifying how and where signboards should be put up.

Sir, I am by no means advocating anarchy. But there is a place for some colour, place for some interest, place for some rounded and not sharp edges in our policies. Only yesterday the Member for Ayer Rajah made an impassioned appeal for Government to pay more attention to processes, to be more people-conscious. I, Sir, cannot agree with him more especially in the case of National Development, particularly in the case of HDB. I wonder if the Minister can say whether there is any move to look into the powers, rules and regulations resident in the Ministry and HDB especially, in minute detail to see if there are any rules or regulations which need to be modified or even dropped altogether to make the running of the Ministry more responsive to the needs of citizens.

The other issue, Sir, which I would like to comment on is the question of preservation. The way and speed at which we demolish what we have and build anew prompted one of my Professors to remark that we seem to have a phobia against our past and history and we appear literally to bury the vestiges of the past for fear others will see us as we were. Of course, Sir, he was exaggerating because he did not understand the space constraints under which we live and the need to provide a balance between what to retain and what to build for the needs of our citizens. But maybe, just maybe, he has a point as the balance apparently is tilted a bit too heavily against the retention of what we already have. However, I am glad to say that there have been, to be fair, efforts recently at preservation and restoration. Perhaps such efforts could and should be continued.

But what seems to persist, Sir, even appearing to gain momentum, is the tendency of HDB to change names of existing streets and roads into new names. Even a few HDB estates bear names which have no relationship to existing, already well-known, locations. The rate at which old names disappear and new ones crop up makes those over 30 or 40 years like myself, feel lost when we want to get around these few places.

Sir, I am glad that the name, Bukit Panjang for example, has been reinstated instead of the proposed Zhenghua. But why Shilida? What is wrong with Seletar? I would like to see the time when they decide to pinyin-ize Kadayanallur Street, which incidentally is very near to the Ministry of National Development Building.

Sir, are we so ashamed of the different road and street names in the different languages that we have? Is direction-finding in new HDB estates that difficult if some existing street names are retained? Is a little bit of effort in trying to retain some of our characteristics and history an obstacle to effective planning? Perhaps the Minister could clarify some of these points for us.

Mr Lai Tha Chai (Henderson): ( In Mandarin): Mr Chairman, Sir, the Ministry of National Development is a very big and important ministry and the Minister has taken on this additional portfolio with very heavy duties to perform. Among the duties that the Minister will have to discharge, the most important is HDB under his care. Because the functions of the HDB are many, there are inevitably some short-comings. I do not mean the job is not well done. Let me give two examples for the Minister to see whether there is anything that needs to be corrected. There are certain things done which have not been reasonable. For instance, there are five to seven storey-high buildings. Some of the flats in such buildings are rented out while the others are purchase flats. There are no lifts. I asked HDB officers in charge why there were no lifts. His reply was the rented units were temporary ones and the blocks either had been demolished or would be demolished soon. As regards purchase flats, the reply was because there were very few people in such small units, unlike higher and bigger blocks, therefore there was also no need for lifts in such blocks. But I told them I personally saw the handicapped and old people walking up the staircases with much stress, panting and sweating all the way up, out of breath. What happens if they should die on their way up? Who is to blame? Also pregnant women, nearing time of delivery, are seen walking up the steps carrying a basket of vegetables. They have got to stop and rest for a few minutes after every step. I asked the officers concerned, "Do you not have any compassion for these women? Do you want to force premature birth?"

Another example is the hawker centres in the HDB estates. Many stalls are vacant for many years. Nobody cares. I say, this is a big problem and these are important things. I said to the HDB inspectors, "You do not have to pay so much attention to small things but you have to take care of this matter." But the HDB officers would not care, as though they did not hear. Every day the officers would turn up at the HDB hawker centres to chit-chat with the hawkers and workers, talking about unimportant things like there is one stool too many. And on occasions they would threaten to take back the stalls if the stall- keepers did not clear such things away in one week. I say they should pay more attention to major matters and should not be concerned too much with minor and unimportant things. To matters like whether there are lifts in the flats, they seem to be nonchalant, it does not matter to them. Whether the vacant stalls are filled or not, it does not concern them. They just enforce regulations. Everything else is a matter for the higher-ups. All these things do not concern them.

Sir, yesterday the Member for Telok Blangah talked about the problem of noise. The Minister's reply seemed to be very good and apt. His reply seemed to be well grounded in law, in reason and in compassion. And if HDB officers could similarly treat matters also with compassion and with reason besides the law, then things will be easier for the Minister to deal with. Does it strike a resonant cord in the Minister's heart? If it does, I hope he would pass the message on to his officers as a code of guidance.

Mr Lim Boon Heng (Kebun Baru): Mr Chairman, Sir, I raise this amendment because I anticipated that the subject of town councils could possibly be raised by other Members of the House, and I wanted the opportunity to be able to contribute to the discussion.

Sir, I think the first question that we should ask ourselves with respect to town councils is: do we want to have town councils? What are the reasons for wanting to have town councils Very simply, my answer to that is that, with a rising educational level among our people, there is an increasing desire on the part of our people to participate in activities, in the setting of policies which affect them. And one of the areas which affects them is the living environment. Since 86% of the people in Singapore live in HDB flats, then this presents, I think, an excellent opportunity for the people to participate in deciding how to upkeep their environment.

The next question I think we should ask is whether the subject of estate management is an important subject. I think the answer to that must be yes, because the HDB flat represents the largest single investment of our people. I think, for most Singaporeans, that is their largest single investment and invariably it also may mean that it is the life-long savings of the people concerned, particularly when we allow the use of CPF for the purchase of homes, and now with the question of the withdrawal age of CPF settled at 55 with the provision that if a person owns a property in excess of the Minimum Sum value, then that person can withdraw his entire CPF savings at the age of 55. Therefore, it is very important that we see to it that the HDB apartment blocks are properly maintained. So I think this is an important subject. And linking the two, the desire for participation and the need to preserve the value of homes, I think it is beyond doubt that the setting up of town councils will provide us with that solution.

There is also an important area which we have to look at with respect to estate management. And I think that the point which the Member for Leng Kee raised is a valid one. He refers to one. He refers to the older HDB housing estates like Toa Payoh, Queenstown and elsewhere where the state of the blocks is not as good as newer housing estates. This highlights a very important factor in estate management and that is the requirement for planning for long-term maintenance of HDB housing estates. Some people think that in the management of HDB estates, the role of town councils would be that of sweeping the floors, keeping the common areas clean, collecting and removing refuse. I think that is, of necessity, one essential aspect of the work of town councils. But the greater long-term and more important job of town councils is to see to it that the long-term maintenance work is carried out and that there are sufficient funds for that purpose. And such kinds of long-term repairs and maintenance work will include, say, the 5-year repairs and redecorations, ie, the repainting of the blocks; the 10-year re-treatment of the roof; the replacement of the lift cage also about once every 10 years; the replcement of the lift machinery perhaps once every 20-25 years. In addition to that we have got the question of rewiring of the housing blocks and also the replacement of the plumbing system. And to do this kind of work, we must have the funds and we must be able to plan, set aside a sum of money for that purpose. With the establishment of the town councils, we have got the sinking fund. I think that the earlier a sinking fund is established for HDB flats, the better it would be for the residents because we should plan from as early a stage as possible.

The problem which the Member for Leng Kee is worried about is: who pays for the kinds of expenses that may be expected of the older housing estates, and where would that money come from? If a town council is established, say, in Toa Payoh or Queenstown, then that is a question that has to be answered because the flats are about 20 years old now and also whether a sinking fund has been established for that purpose. Unfortunately, with the manner in which HDB has been operating all these years, the question of the sinking fund has not arisen in the past and that has not been a part of the HDB's normal planning process. But to be fair to those MPs in the older housing estates who may be faced with the possible implementation of town councils in their constituencies, I think this is a question that has to be thoroughly discussed and solutions found.

I would just like to say that apart from the organizational aspects in terms of setting up town council structures, I think the far more important fact is: how do we get the residents themselves to be involved? Because if we want to carry out work like replacing the plumbing system, invariably you would have to have the full cooperation of all the residents in the same block. Without the full cooperation, the work would be difficult, if not impossible, to be carried out. So I think with the establishment of town councils, it presents us with an excellent opportunity to organize the residents for their own mutual benefit and for the upkeep of their flats and the long-term maintenance of the value of their flats.

The Minister for National Development (Mr S. Dhanabalan): Mr Chairman, Sir, as usual under this Head, a whole host of items have been raised from very general questions of broad principle to very speci- fic and particular inquiries about a particular piece of land next to a drain.

Sir, as expected too, a number of points have been made about HDB. This is not surprising because, as a number of Members have stated, when we have 80% of the population living in HDB flats, it is not surprising that HDB and the Ministry of National Development attract so much attention. So I thought that I should take this opportunity to just say a few brief words on some broad areas that are now engaging the attention of the HDB and the Ministry officials on the subject of public housing. Then I will go on to deal with some of the detailed items raised by Members.

First of all, I think Members are probably already aware that the HDB manages close to 600,000 flats, 580,000 flats to be exact. This is a very large number. It houses 85% of the population of Singapore. Since the start of the home ownership scheme in 1964, some 440,000 flats have been sold. But in addition to building all these dwellings, there are a lot of other facilities that the HDB builds which may not be apparent to everybody. In the building of new towns, land is set aside for schools. In some cases, even the schools were built in the past. Sports complexes are built and handed over to the Singapore Sports Council. Community centres; places of worship, eg, mosques are designed and built by HDB for MUIS; shops, industrial premises, parks and all the other infrastructure necessary to make a new town a community.

I think by any standard this is a tremendous achievement. But also by virtue of the fact that HDB covers such a wide area, it is to be expected that there will be areas which are not completely to the satisfaction of the users or of the residents. But one must see the functions and the achievements of the Government through the HDB in proper perspective, and not allow dissatisfaction with particular aspects to cloud and distort the total perspective.

In the beginning, of course, HDB concentrated on building as many flats as possible. And I must say that since speed and numbers were the most important factors, quality and design of the flats in the initial building phase were not really up to what Singaporeans want today. Because of rising aspirations and standard of living, the quality and design of flats over the years have improved.

Of course, the success of our housing programme can be attributed to a number of favourable circumstances. The most important I would say is the Government's philosophy on land acquisition. Our public housing programme has succeeded not only because we have good architects and good engineers, but most important, the Government has had the political will to put in place a land acquisition programme and a land acquisition procedure which enabled the Government to buy/acquire pieces of land, amalgamate the pieces together, resettle the people on these lands and then redevelop the vacated lands. If the Government had followed accepted practice elsewhere on land acquisition, we would not have the success in public housing that we have today. The best architects and the best engineers and the best town planners in the world cannot achieve what we have achieved if the land had not been made available to them. One of the reasons why Tokyo and the Japanese are not short of good people has never been able to really plan and develop is because of the tremendous problems they have in land acquisition. In a main street like the Ginza you can find a wonderful new building next to a very narrow two-storey building. And the owner of the two-storey building just refuses to give up because land is sacrosanct and he has a right to hold on to his land and he will not give it up. Whole roads, whole airports, have been held up.

So I think we must not forget that the primary success of our housing programme must be attributed to the political will of the Government to put in place the kind of land acquisition, laws and procedures and processes that have enabled the HDB to proceed to do the actual construction. Of course, our strong economic performance, the cooperation of the residents, the people, all these have made public housing on the scale that we have possible.

The HDB, of course, cannot just look upon its past and rest on its laurels and assume that past practice will be relevant for the future. So it will have to set its future directions taking into account the political, social, economic and environmental changes. And we have set a target for the HDB that by the year 1999 we should have a nation with full home ownership.

Having broken the back of the housing problem, HDB's building programme will have to be scaled down. In the coming years, I expect HDB to build around 20,000 flats a year. But this does not mean that the architects and the planners in HDB will have less to do. This lesser number of flats will be of a much higher quality and will require even more work on the part of the architects, planners and other technicians. And not only will these flats be of higher quality but we intend to put in the kind of facilities necessary to improve the social and physical environment in the new towns and in the new estates. Over and above that, we also have a programme to rejuvenate the old estates. This programme again will engage the HDB officials to a great extent.

Our population is also changing. The Member for Leng Kee pointed out that not only our flats are getting old but the people are also getting old. And an ageing population means that HDB's designs will have to be improved to give greater accessibility to the elderly, a point made by the Member for Henderson in very graphic terms. He talked about old people and pregnant women and young children not being able to climb staircases. It is also necessary for the HDB to introduce incentives to encourage our young to live with their aged parents. We intend to do more in this respect, more in terms of incentives for them to live together. Then, of course, in line with the Government's effort to check falling birth rates, the HDB will introduce some new housing incentives to encourage families who can afford to have a third-child.

We will also have to review HDB's policies, rules and regulations. The Member for Siglap raised the point whether HDB is reviewing this. Yes, rules, policies, regulations are constantly under review - not only to remove rules which are not relevant anymore but also to bring these rules and regulations closer to the practice in the private sector. Some of the Board's functions which are not in line with long-term public housing objectives will have to be hived off to either the private sector or to other authorities. I have already mentioned that, in the case of industrial buildings, the Housing and Development Board is already considering hiving off these operations of construction and management of industrial buildings to the Jurong Town Corporation, so that the Housing and Development Board can concentrate on public housing and the Jurong Town Corporation on industrial buildings.

A new allocation system for the sale of HDB flats is also being considered to bring the system more in line with market practices. At present all it takes is maybe an hour or two for somebody to register for a flat. And all it requires is a letter from the applicant to switch from one zone to another zone. This takes just a few minutes to write and to post. But the HDB takes three to four years to build a flat from the time they identify the area, acquire the land, clear the land, construct and allocate. HDB has been going thus far on the basis of applications to assess demand for different types of flats and the areas in which the flats are in demand. I think this procedure has to change. We cannot continue to follow a practice that made sense when there was tremendous housing shortage. We are not in that position and we have to change this procedure. It is also more necessary now that we do not have such a backlog that HDB should be able to gauge demand more accurately. When you have a tremendous backlog, you do not worry about demand. You are concerned with supply. Now that we have, as I said, broken the back of the housing problem, it is important for HDB to pay greater attention to accurate estimation of demand.

I also mentioned that HDB should concentrate on housing. This means that shops and other commercial buildings should as far as possible be hived off. HDB is considering the sale of shops and, I think, in the first place we will start with the sale of new shops. This will cause the least disruption. And after we have some experience from the sale of new shops, then we can go on to sell the older shops.

In the case of markets, here again, the social and environmental changes have resulted in more people being prepared to go to mini-supermarkets and the like. So HDB has already discontinued the building of wet markets. In place of wet markets, dry markets will be built as dry markets promote greater efficiency and better utilization of space as well as of labour.

In estate management, town councils will be progressively extended to as many constituencies as possible. But this is a big subject and we can talk about this in the course of debate more in detail.

People will have to learn to make choices with the amount of money that they are prepared to spend on maintenance. At present, Housing Board flats are maintained by the HDB and the service and conservancy charges are not sufficient to maintain not only the routine requirements of the flats let alone the periodic cyclical maintenance. HDB will have to move to a system towards zero subsidy of services and conservancy charges except for the very poor. HDB will also have to consider discontinuing non-essential services to residents and moving towards market rates for the provision of essential services. I was very surprised to learn, during the course of the briefings to me, that residents could call the HDB to change the washers in their water taps or deal with certain electrical faults within their homes. I think this is not an area in which the HDB should be involved. There are enough private plumbers and electricians to deal with the demand for such services.

All these moves are necessary as we mature as a society and as our residents become more independent and more self-reliant. The point has been made that people depend too much on the Government. Well, they have to depend upon themselves and they have to learn for themselves that there are many areas in life where they have to exercise choice and where there are trade-offs. You cannot have everything. If you want to have one thing, you have got to forgo something else. They have to learn to make this choice themselves. They must make rational and economic choices, given our scarce national resources.

The whole of the public housing policy is currently being reviewed by a Ministerial Committee on Public Housing which is chaired by the First Deputy Prime Minister. This review by this Committee will be completed by about June this year and the findings of this Review Committee will set the future directions of public housing in Singapore.

I would now like to take some of the other points raised by various Members.

The Member for Punggol quite rightly made the point that the Ministry of National Development is a very big Ministry covering a multitude of functions. I think Members would remember the days when it covered even more functions when many of the functions of the Ministry of the Environment were part of the Ministry of National Development. But even after hiving off these functions, the Ministry is still a very large Ministry, dealing with very serious and important problems as well as maybe not so serious and not so important problems.

I am not sure whether forming more statutory bodies will solve the problem because the statutory bodies will still be under the Ministry and the Ministry will still have to be responsible, although statutory bodies do have advantages. But I can think of one area which, from the point of view of proper utilization of land in Singapore, should not be in the Ministry of National Development. I refer to the Planning Department which determines what kind of use different pieces of land or parcels of land should be put to.

The Ministry of National Development is one of the largest users of land in Singapore; probably next only to the Ministry of Defence. Roads, housing, parks, all come under the Ministry of National Development. I do not think myself that it is good management practice to have the largest user of land also in charge of allocating the land. This subject has been under consideration by the Government, and although no decision has been taken, I think the ideal solution will be to have the Planning Department in another Ministry so that all the various Ministries who need land for various purposes will have to satisfy this other independent Ministry that theirs is the best use of the land. Well, maybe it can be in the Prime Minister's Office. I do not know, but certainly it should not be in the Ministry that is the largest user of land.

As to whether some of the other functions can be hived off, I am not certain at the present moment. But I can certainly think of this one area. I think this will make for a better Singapore because each Ministry that wants to use the land will have to convince the authority or Ministry in charge of allocation of land that its use is the most economic use of the land. As I said, this will improve land utilization. After all, this is the one factor that we are really short of.

The Member asked whether in the development of new towns there is a conceptual design and plan. Certainly there is, and the new towns will be of a better standard than the older towns.

A number of questions were raised on the accounts. Maybe I can take them together. The Member for Leng Kee has a number of reservations about the town council concept, especially because he thinks that the older estates with higher maintenance costs, less facilities and more rental flats, will have a greater burden of maintaining the community at a satisfactory level. People compare with what is happening in other constituencies. I agree with him that the older estates do have a problem and many of these old estates have flats which were built to meet a particular need at a particular time. Many of them are 1-room flats. Some of them even had 1-room old generation or 1-room communal flats. I think most of those have been knocked down. But even the 1-room improved flat is not up to the standard and expectations of people today. This is the reason why the HDB has embarked on a relocation programme to move people out of these old 1-room and 2-room flats, knock down these blocks and redevelop the area thus freed. And when we redevelop, of course, the flats will be of the latest design. It will bring in new young people and they will help to provide leadership as well as improve the general business environment of the area. One of the complaints that shopkeepers and markets make about these old areas is that the purchasing power in the old areas has gone down. So we have to bring in new people. Whether this relocation and redevelopment can take place area by area rather than block by block is something that I will ask the Housing Board to look into.

One of the problems about selecting a whole constituency or whole area or neighbourhood and clearing all the people out is that many of the older people who live in these blocks do not want to move too far from where they are now. If you were to select a whole area and knock down all the blocks, this would mean that the older people who have got used to living there and who have friends in the area may be very disorientated when they move out. In fact, the pressure is for the old people to live as close as possible to the existing area. There are some problems here. We should adopt a very flexible approach because what we are doing is something new. It is important that we study our experience all the time and make adjustments in the light of experience. I will, as I said, ask HDB to consider whether whole zones and areas should not be cleared.

Perhaps I can now take the item about acquisition of land. The Member for Nee Soon brought up the point about more consultation with the local community on plans for the community. I am not sure whether there can be consultation in the sense that we want the approval of the local community because the community may not be able to appreciate the larger interest in terms of defence or of any other important subject. But one thing I would agree with him entirely and, that is, it is important that when there is a major project in a constituency, the community leaders and of course the MP should be kept informed long before the project is implemented so that they know what is coming. I am glad that the PWD gave the Member for Nee Soon and his community leaders a briefing on the expressway system in Singapore. I will certainly ask the other departments in the Ministry to brief Members when there are major pro- jects so that the community leaders are kept completely informed.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Opposition Member also.

Mr Dhanabalan: I do not think I should answer the question now. You can raise it later.

As for the accounts of the Housing Board, the Member for Paya Lebar would have noticed that the total Government subsidy is shown but I think the Member wants a lot of details. It is not that the Housing Board does not have these details. Obviously, when the Housing Board costs the flats now, it will know how much a 3-room or 4-room or 5-room flat costs in particular areas. But I question whether the accounts should show such great detail that any member of the public can expect to open the accounts and find out exactly how much his own flat costs. These, after all, are the accounts of the Board as a whole. The Member has raised a whole series of questions on the accounts which frankly I am in no position to answer. I know broadly the principles that were adopted, and the most important principle here is that land is now valued at market price. In the costing of the sale of flats, in answer to a point raised by the Member for Paya Lebar, land is included at the price at which HDB pays the Government.

As to the other points whether I can give a breakdown in terms of materials and labour, how much was paid to Environment and what are the manpower costs, I am afraid I cannot give them. If the Member wants to pursue this, he can write to me and I will try and give as much of the information as possible. The other important change in these accounts is that HDB is now able, as the Notes show, to know what is the cost of the various developments that it undertakes - not only the flats but the shops, the car parks and so on.

He also asked a series of questions on Note 14, whether the cost of sales of flats included other non-residential items. Speaking from memory, it does not. The cost of sales of flats is all those costs directly attributable to the dwelling unit, not the shops, the parks, the stadium and so on. Of course, the cost of land is included in the cost of sale. As to whether HDB has a breakdown of this cost of sale into land and construction costs, certainly it has and, as I said, if the Member writes to me I will be prepared to give the answer. If there are any general points on the accounts, the Member can raise them again and I will try and answer his questions.

Now can I take the subject of Town Councils. Yes, this is a very important innovation in Singapore because, as the Member for Kebun Baru pointed out, it involves the people in the management of their immediate surroundings. As I said, they must learn to make the kind of decisions that everybody has to make to allocate scarce resources. They must plan what they want for their area. Of course, the experience that we have had so far is just over six months and we have not really discovered all the problems that there will be in implementing this concept.

The regular maintenance of flats and the cyclical maintenance is just one part of the Town Council's responsibilities although it is a major part. But the building of a community, not just the maintenance of the physical buildings, is a very important part of the Town Council's functions because you can build beautiful buildings, lay out nice parks, but a community is more than just a conglomeration of buildings and parks. It is people interacting, learning to live together, learning to make decisions for themselves.

In the intial stages, of course, the present system of subsidies will continue. But, as I said just now, HDB is working towards a system of zero subsidy for these various maintenance items. How the Town Council will fund itself, what kind of facilities in the town will be given to the Town Council, whether the car parks, for example, will be given, are all matters which have to be studied further. I myself am approaching this with a very open mind. We must have the fundamental principle, the fundamental aims of Town Council clearly in mind. The aim is not for the Government and HDB and see how much we can keep for ourselves and how little we can give to the people. No. The fundamental aim is to enable people to manage their own surroundings and make the kind of difficult decisions that have to be made which are now being made by the HDB and which people who do not agree with can grumble loudly about. But when they make their own decisions, then they have to defend and live with their decisions.

The Member for Kebun Baru made a very important point - one of the key problem areas for the Town Council is how to get the residents involved and how to organize them and bring them into the management of their own towns. The Members of Parliament as well as the grassroots leaders will have to really apply themselves and learn through a very difficult process how to do this.

The question that was raised about Pine Grove is whether it will be part of a Town Council and which part will it be. The general policy is that ultimately all public housing areas and perhaps even those areas which do not have much public housing will form themselves into groups which they will manage on their own. We think that three constituencies is an ideal size but we will have to learn through experience. Pine Grove and the constituency in which Pine Grove is, which is Pasir Panjang, will have to be put together with some surrounding constituencies to form a Town Council. But when it will be done, I cannot tell you because we have to see the experience in the present three Town Councils.

The Member for Clementi is not here but he raised a number of points about the construction sector. It should be clear to all of us that the construction sector cannot reach the peak that it reached two years ago and that the construction sector as a whole must learn to operate at much lower levels than in the past. Of course, this does mean that we will have to look at our manpower problems. The Construction Industry Development Board is seized with this problem. But I am not too sure whether the fact that the total level of construction activity has come down will necessarily mean that a great proportion of the technicians and professionals that we have trained will find themselves redundant. The type of construction, though at a lower level in terms of units, will be of a much higher standard. Take the Housing Board as an example. Although they will be building less flats in the coming years, the flats will require much greater input of professional and technical knowledge and expertise because these flats are of a better design. That means more work. Retrofitting, ie, converting old buildings and upgrading them, very often involves more professional work than building something from scratch. So we cannot just look at the downturn in the construction sector and apply that same percentage downturn and project that our manpower will be unemployed to the same extent. But there is a problem. I think we should not delude ourselves that our construction industry is not going to go through difficult times.

But there is one area that the construction industry can really build up, and that is, in the area of construction management and project management. We have had many foreign contractors who have come to Singapore to bid for jobs and have obtained large jobs. They do not bring their own workers. They just bring a team of managers and they use local subcontractors and local workers to do the job. This is an area where we have a long way to go - construction management and project management. This is one kind of expertise that we can sell. We cannot hope to go to other countries and build buildings or roads using ---

The Chairman: Order. It is 5.30 pm.

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

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply has made progress on the Main and Development Estimates for the financial year 1987/88, and ask leave to sit again tomorrow.

Mr Deputy Speaker: So be it.