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 the Committee of Supply [4th Allotted Day].

[Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair]

Head L (cont.) -

Resumption of Debate on Question [19th March, 1987],

"That the sum to be allocated for Head L be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead LC-01-1210 of the Main Estimates." - [Dr Tan Cheng Bock.]

Question again proposed.

The Minister of State for Education (Dr Tay Eng Soon): Mr Chairman, Sir, at yesterday's rising of the House the Member for Chong Boon raised an important question which I would like to respond to this morning. The question he raised was this: is it the policy of the Ministry of Education to allow schools to group their students into separate classes on the basis of the second language that they are doing? The implication of that question is that students would then be grouped along racial lines. Let me say, Sir, that it is not the policy of the Ministry of Education that schools should be allowed to group students on the basis of second language. In fact, our policy is that schools, if they have to group children, may do so according to academic performance but they should not do so on a second language basis. It is undesirable that they be allowed to do so because it will lead to segregation. It has come to the notice of the Ministry that some schools have done this for reasons of administrative convenience and we have looked into this matter. We will continue to do so and to instruct principals that this should not be done in their schools.

Dr Koh Lam Son: Mr Chairman, may I join the debate at this stage.

Sir, one of the four areas of concern mentioned by the Hon. Minister yesterday was for us to work towards a more effective teaching environment. In fact, the other goals that we hope to achieve, the single-session school and the reduction in the student/teacher ratio, are measures to help to achieve a more effective teaching environment. So far the Hon. Minister or the Hon. Minister of State has not enlightened us on what he meant by "a more effective teaching environment." I am interested to know whether there will be a radical change in the present methodology of teaching or will we continue with the present pressurized exam-orientated system of teaching.

Sir, I would also like to find out from the Minister how he would define excellence in education? I know he would not say that it means to have higher standard of academic achievement because, if that is excellence in education, I think there is no necessity for us to change the present system which is well geared for that. However, if we mean more than that, if excellence in education means an all-round education to our children so that they would develop into confident, matured, cultivated and responsible citizens of tomorrow, then I believe that our teaching methodology has to change. And for a start, our teachers must move away from the rigid force-feeding method which some people say are producing intellectual robots.

Sir, if the aim of the present exercise in education is to develop a more rounded and cultivated Singaporean, which is part of our vision for 1999, then I would like to ask the Minister why he thinks that the Western model of education is the better one? Why follow the British or the American? We are Singaporeans. We are proud to be Singaporeans and we want to preserve the Singaporean identity. In my view, the British are more individualistic and forceful people, whereas we Singaporeans are more gentle. What about the educational systems in the East? I understand that the Minister had visited Japan to study the educational system in Japan. Surely, a successful society like the Japanese must have something to offer us. Sir, I would like the Minister to comment on what I have said.

Finally, I would like to make a suggestion to the Minister. Since the matter of independent school is of great concern for all parents in Singapore, can I suggest that the Report by the school principals be translated into the other three languages?

Mr Chiam See Tong: I have one point which I would like to clear up which I brought up yesterday. I say that democracy as a subject should be taught in schools. The Minister just brushed me off and said, "Go, look up the civics book." Well, I have gone to try to look up. But I was informed that Ethics and Civics are no longer taught in our schools. Moral education has taken its place. Can perhaps the Minister clear up this point? If, in fact, moral education has taken the place of civics, then I do not know whether we have been misled.

The Minister for Education (Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam): Mr Chairman, Sir, first I would like to respond to some of the points raised by the Member for Telok Blangah when he asked as to why we only looked at British and American schools in considering a model for our education system here since we are a different society in Singapore, we are not as individualistic as the British and this may not be the right system. Sir, perhaps before the Member makes his points, may I suggest to him that he reads the Report first. I will just quote from the first page of the Report, Mr Chairman, Sir, where the principals have put in perspective the framework in which they have set out their recommendations:

'Our recommendations have been made bearing in mind our own social milieu and national priorities. We do not suggest that we try to replicate the schools visited; rather that we be guided by the insights we have gained. We are of the view that we should work towards the conditions and circumstances we have found crucial in achieving excellence in schools. Society and parents must be prepared to make the necesary investment for the benefit of our children.'

I think, Sir, if you look at this paragraph carefully you will find that what the principals have in mind was not to try and copy the conditions, the setting, or to bring to Singapore exactly what is happening in America or in Britain. I have made exactly the same point previously - that we cannot simply go and see what is done in other countries, whether it is in Japan, or in America, or in Britain. What we must do, Sir, is to find out from whichever country which will give us a good example of what is right, how best we can foster the conditions, the arrangements, the milieu which will go towards making excellent schools and which will provide as good an education for our children as we can provide in Singapore. This is what the principals have tried to do in visiting schools in Britain and in the United States and coming back and forming their recommendations. So, Sir, it is not our intention to simply copy exactly what is in America or what is in Britain. It is our intention to find out what is the best in America, what is the best in Britain, what is the best in Japan; indeed, from any other country where we can learn useful lessons and then to see how these lessons can be modified and adapted for our use in Singapore. With that, Sir, may I leave it to my Minister of State to reply to the other points.

Dr Tay Eng Soon: Mr Chairman, Sir, just to refer to the point made by the Member for Potong Pasir.

I think he may have looked up the wrong books. If he had looked up a series of books that we have published for primary school moral education known as the "Good Citizens" series, that series contains many stories as well as lessons on moral education, family relations, and even aspects on democracy that he mentioned. So I recommend him to look up to the more up-to-date materials that we provided.

Mr Chiam See Tong: I am not satisfied with the Minister of State's answer. This "Good Citizen" series teaches the pupils to know more about themselves, their own strength, their own weaknesses and to know their own potential. The stress is basically on the character of the person. We are talking of a government. We are talking of how Parliament works. We are talking of the Constitution of Singapore. We are talking of the rights and duties of a citizen. These are the sort of things that concern the running of the country and these are the concerns of the things that will promulgate democracy in Singapore.

Mr S. Chandra Das (Chong Boon): Primary school students? At Primary 1 level? At what level?

Mr Chiam See Tong: Whatever level. We can always present it in a palatable form. Perhaps we should get this clear unless the Minister is misleading the House. Because as far as I know, there is no such subject in our schools and the Minister says that there is. Let us get this point cleared up.

Dr Tay Eng Soon: Sir, I do not want to prolong this discussion. I think the best lessons that students and even adults can learn about Parliament and so on is watching "Today in Parliament" as well as other programmes that have been televised. There are many channels of education. Sir, may I proceed with ---

Mr Chiam See Tong: Please. I am still ---

The Chairman: Mr Chiam, will you let the Minister of State finish? He still has the Floor.

Mr Chiam See Tong: I think this point has to be cleared up because it comes to a very fundamental principle.

The Chairman: He still has the Floor. Could you sit down?

Mr Chiam See Tong resumed his seat.

Dr Tay Eng Soon: Sir, I would like to continue to answer the questions raised by the Member for Telok Blangah. He asked how can schools be more effective. What do you mean by a more effective teaching environment? I think certain concrete steps have been spelt out by the Minister yesterday in his statement. Two very important points were made. One is to make it easier for school teachers to concentrate on their teaching role by providing them with ancillary support in the way of executive officers, clerks and technicians who can then take over the more administrative and mundane chores in the school. Secondly, to work towards smaller classes with the goal that classes should not be more than 30. This, of course, requires recruitment of teachers. I think if we can carry through these two concrete measures, the teaching environment in the school will improve immensely.

Then he asked a more general question about excellence in education. Sir, this is a very broad subject and I would love the opportunity to expand on it but I think we do not have the time here in Parliament. But let me just say briefly that an all-round education consists of really four major parts. (1) Academic education, (2) the development of character of students through various means including moral education, (3) to help them have an appreciation of the aesthetics, music, art and so on, and finally (4) physical education so that they are fit and develop habits of physical fitness. I think it is a blend of all these four areas. There is no doubt in our mind that the academic side of education is very important. This is what enables the student to embark on his career. So we should not under-emphasize academic education but, at the same time, the other three areas which I mentioned must be given their due weightage and we do so in school not just through the formal classroom but through extra-curricular activities and through the whole school environ- ment which supports all this. If there has to be a definition of excellence in education, I would say it is a correct blending of all these four areas provided by the principals and teachers who are interested and enthusiastic in furthering this.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock (Ayer Rajah): Let me respond to the reply given by the Minister of State on the grouping of students wishing to learn a second language in a particular class.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Are you a Minister?

Dr Tan Cheng Bock: He has made some comments and I want to respond.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Respond to what?

Dr Tan Cheng Bock: Because he has made some comments. I have the right to reply.

The Chairman: Order. Would the Members refrain from talking to each other and address the Chair, please?

Dr Tan Cheng Bock: I am sorry.

Mr Chiam See Tong: I asked him to get the point clear. He says he is replying.

The Chairman: Mr Chiam, I have not asked you to stand up. Please take your seat.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock: He has made a certain statement. I have a right to see whether I agree or disagree. I am sorry, Sir, for having this side discussion.

This grouping of students wishing to learn a second language in a particular class is definitely wrong. It is an administrative convenience. I would like to let the Minister know that the repercussions are tremendous. It separates our students into racial groups and it also places children into the wrong class and this will definitely be bad for national cohesiveness.

The other matter that I asked the Minister was his views on "setting" and whether he would like to review streaming in the light of the policy on "setting". Instead, Sir, I got a lecture from him on the merits of streaming and a plea to me and to this House to be more patient and allow this streaming to continue and see whether it will work. I think I have been very patient. I brought this up in 1981 and I have watched how streaming progressed.

The Minister for the Environment (Dr Ahmad Mattar): And you gave up.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock: And I gave it up, yes. And the reason I gave it up was not that I was won over by the Ministry but that I really had no alternative. Having gone through the Report by the 12 principals, I realize that there is a way out for Singaporean students. That is why I have come back to this House to ask the Ministry to reconsider this policy of streaming. I am not asking very much. I just want to be convinced whether streaming is better than "setting" and if he can convince me and convince this House, then I will have to wait and see whether there are better alternatives.

All that I want to ask him now is to study this policy and perhaps ask the Ministry officials to have a project on this. We all are very familiar with the Ministry of Education. They have many projects. They have the single-session projects and I am sure there are so many other projects. I just cannot remember what they are but I can tell you that one more will not do much harm. I think the study of "setting" is important because it is more challenging and more useful than even the single-session project.

Before I withdraw - in fact, I have half a mind not to withdraw - but as time does not permit me, I would end by requesting the Minister not to close this option. It is something worthwhile to study because if at the end of the day you find that "setting" is better, then our whole population will give you the thumbs-up because you would have removed a very important source of unhappiness and, that is, the labelling of our children as Normal, Express, Special, Monolingual and Extended students.

I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Dr S. Vasoo (Bo Wen): Sir, I beg to move,

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

Sir, in our efforts to promote excellence in schools, I see that there is an urgent need to review the school appraisal system. School appraisal system is necessary in order that schools can be helped to improve and perform better. An objective appraisal system conducted in a manner which is professional will be most welcome by principals and teachers. In reality, the present school appraisal system is rather traumatic to teachers and principals. Why is this so, Sir? The present appraisal system is primarily geared towards identifying the faults of principals and teachers rather than understanding their problems and constraints that they face. Principals and teachers not only face problems related to teaching but they also face other related problems as regards logistics and other needs for the school.

Based on the current emphasis in the appraisal system, it does not really appraise at all. The actual problems do not surface. Hence, we are only touching the problems which are the tip of the iceberg. There is not much trust between the appraiser and those appraised and unless you work out a more cogent system to surface issues which will really help to improve the school system, then we may not be able to strive towards more excellence.

The old appraisal system is better than the present one because it has been conducted on an on-going basis. The present appraisal system is undertaken by the inspectorate which gives very little notice to the principal. The criterion of the appraisal system is not clearly defined and hence it is not fully appreciated by the principals. A better objective appraisal system is necessary. A more professional approach could be undertaken with the objective of helping the school system to be better. On-going assessment with strong guidance and support will be essentially necessary to help the school to be better. Perhaps a more independent appraisal system should be instituted in order to help the school develop and strengthen.

Finally, Sir, I would like to make a plea. In our present efforts to pursue educational excellence for our children, I feel that we should not forget about the needs of the disabled children. They are still our children who require support for their programmes and their educational needs should not be seen as a welfare problem but an educational problem. I hope that the Ministry will continue to be responsible for providing the necessary support and resources to help these children to grow and develop too.

Mr Sia Khoon Seong (Moulmein): I am not speaking, Sir.

The Chairman: Mr Goh Choon Kang is not here. Mr Chiam.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Before I go on to the topic, I think this matter has to be cleared up. It is of importance because I say that schools do not teach the subject of democracy and the Minister says that they do, and this is taken up by the press and ---

The Chairman: Mr Chiam, we have disposed of that matter. We are on to another motion and if you are not raising anything new I would ask you to take your seat.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Yes, all right, I am much obliged to you.

We are talking about control of schools. I had a look at the Education Act and what does it say? It says that all schools that are not Government schools must have a committee of management. In the mission schools I believe they call them school boards. Of course, in other private schools I suppose they just call them committee of management in accordance with the Act. This is the basic difference in regard to school management between Government schools and non-Government schools. On the one hand, for non-Government schools, on the surface at least, we perceive that the school board can manage the school itself. But in the case of Government schools, they come under the direct control of the Ministry of Education.

Of course, in truth, really all schools are very tightly controlled in Singapore. Teachers and managers of schools all have to be registered. As I said, teachers, managers and other personnel in schools come under close scrutiny of the Ministry. This scrutiny sometimes can be arbitrary. You look at this section 32(f). A person can be disqualified as a manager if the Director in the Ministry of Education feels that he is "prejudicial to the interests of Singapore or of the public or of the pupils of the school that such person should be so registered." This is very arbitrary. How are you going to say that a teacher or some personnel in a school is prejudicial to the interest of Singapore? Usually, as far as Government practice goes, no reasons are given. I do not know whether the strictness of this Education Act should be relaxed but I am of the opinion that it should because this Act was, I believe, first passed more than 20 years ago and conditions have changed. At one time, of course, the Chinese schools were the hotbed of communist ideas. The situation is no longer so. Our standard of living has gone up. We are affluent and communism is no longer an attractive ideology. I believe there is really no serious danger to have so strict an Act because we have come to a stage where we must have more education. We want to give citizens a chance to open schools. I am sure many of them are highly qualified and they want to open schools. But because of all these restrictions they are not inclined to do so because to start a school you not only have to do a lot of organizing but also money has to be sought and a huge sum of capital laid out and half-way through he is told, "You are prejudicial to the interest of our Singapore." What happens then? All his money that is sunk into a project may be lost. So I am urging the Government Ministry to look again at this Act and see whether it could be amended to make the situation in Singapore more conducive to opening up more private schools and perhaps educational facilities in Singapore so that they can really make this place a brain centre.

The other point I would like to touch is PTA (Parent-Teacher Associations). Again in the Mission schools, I believe PTAs are well established and there is good rapport between the parents and the teachers in the school. But in Government schools, I think more could be done in this area. The best way to do it is for the Government to speak out loud and say, "Yes, we encourage Parent-Teacher Associations. By all means, go ahead and establish them." If this kind of encouragement is forthcoming from the Ministry, I am sure more Parent-Teacher Associations could be formed and those already in existence could be more effective. I think it is an evident fact that parents do play a part in the education of their children. We always hear the parents say, "Well, the schools must do something for the child." And then the teacher will say, "No. It is the duty of the parents." But I believe both have an equally important role to play. And what better for the pupils than for parents and teachers to come together to discuss the problems of the child and perhaps to, even if there are no problems, make improvements in the school environment.

But, of course, I understand that there are already certain committees in Government schools like the School Advisory Committee, and now there is a new committee called the School Executive Committee. I do not know exactly what these committees are formed for. Perhaps the Minister could explain. But I have always the impression that the School Advisory Committee was more of a fund-raising committee. Whenever the schools are short of funds, they run to the School Advisory Committee, either they can foot certain bills for certain projects or help to get the funds. I am not exactly clear as to the School Executive Committees, whether these comprise of the parents, old boys or old girls of their schools.

I understand that the Ministry is also setting up this school link - I believe it is a good thing - where the Ministry has got a central computer and it is linked to all those schools with computer terminals. Perhaps the Ministry could enlighten us on this set-up. Thank you.

Dr Tay Eng Soon: Mr Chairman, Sir, I would like to respond first to the point raised by the Member for Bo Wen - question of school appraisal. Today the appraisal of schools is carried out in several ways. Periodically, a school will be appraised by a team from the Ministry of Education comprising inspectors, specialist inspectors and others from Curriculum Division. They go to a school with the primary objective of appraising the school's programme, what the school has set out as its objectives, and what programmes the school is carrying out or intends to carry out. So the focus is on the school's programme. This is quite different from the old days when an inspector went to the school to inspect the performance of a principal or a teacher. That was very much based on the individual. So I would like the Member to appreciate that there is a difference. The reason for this change is precisely the point he has brought up, that is, through this means, it would concentrate on programme rather than on performance of individuals and therefore more mutual trust can be built up for the good of the school. And in the process, of course, advice, discussions will bring about better programmes for schools. In addition to this, schools carry out their own self-appraisal. In other words, every year they map out their own objectives and their own programmes. This is a process that every school does for itself.

Specialist inspectors in the Ministry of Education also make visits to schools periodically, and specialist inspectors are people with background in the various subjects that are taught in schools, and the purpose of their visit is to consult with teachers to help them where there are problems in subject areas, in teaching, in methodology, and so on. So the whole thrust of a school appraisal is based on the school with intentions of helping the school overcome its problems and to make improvements as they go along. I think the Member will agree with me that this is the right direction and this is way the Ministry has been conducting school appraisals since 1981.

He raised the point about disabled children. I do not disagree with him at all, Sir, that we should do whatever we can to help disabled children acquire some form of education. Indeed, the Government is doing as much as it can in this direction in three ways. Firstly, providing financial help to the special schools which are run by various voluntary organizations. Financial help goes towards paying for teachers employed by these schools and, in some instances, it includes teachers seconded from the Ministry of Education to these schools and they are paid by the Ministry of Education. That is a very substantial form of help provided for these schools. Secondly, professional help is given to these schools through the Institute of Education who run courses on special education. Teachers employed by these schools can go to the IE to attend these courses and improve their own skills. There is also help provided by specialist inspectors in the Ministry of Education who are familiar with this area of special education, and they make regular visits to the schools. And thirdly, in the provision of buildings and renovation of buildings, the Government is providing buildings to special schools as and when the need arises and the Government carries the financial burden of renovating these buildings, and they are leased to the schools at very nominal rentals.

As far as help and support is concerned, I think as much as possible is being done. But at the same time, we respect the position that these schools are autonomous schools. They are independent, able to make their own policy decisions on enrolments, on the curriculum they wish to follow, on the staff they wish to employ. I think the position is a good one where the schools continue to enjoy full autonomy with financial and professional support being provided by the Government.

Sir, I want to move now to the points raised by the Member for Potong Pasir. There is only one point that he raised which I want to touch on, that is, Parent-Teacher Associations. I agree with him that parents can be and should be more involved in schools. They can bring a lot of experience to help the schools. And there are many schools in Singapore that enjoy this kind of parental support. As to the setting up of Parent-Teacher Associations, this is a matter which we have never discouraged. In fact, the initiative is left with schools and, indeed, a number of schools have taken the initiative to set up Parent-Teacher Associations, either formal or informal ones, with the main objective of involving parents in the welfare of the school and drawing their support, not only financial support but even their personal presence in the school, helping the school's programme.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education (Mr Tang Guan Seng): Mr Chairman, Sir, the issue of pre-primary education was touched on yesterday by the Member for Boon Lay and the Member for Tanah Merah and this issue may not be brought up again today. So can I respond to it?

At present we have 44 pre-primary centres in our primary schools catering to about 5,000 five-year-olds. This pre-primary programme complements kindergartens in the provision of education for our four- and five-year-olds.

The issue of whether to extend the pre-primary programme to all children is a major one because it touches on the important question of how early an age should children enter the formal environment of a school. The Ministry has to study the effects of early schooling at five years and the long term implications of lowering the school admission age from six to five. We must weigh carefully the merits of the above system against the present arrangement where the majority of our five-year-olds are educated in the less formal setting of private kindergartens which are linked to the pre-school programme for four-year-olds. We are looking at related experiences of other countries, seeking expert advice and studying the matter carefully before making a final decision. Should the Ministry decide to expand the pre-primary programme, it will be extended to include ML2 and TL2 classes. In the meantime, we will continue with the present arrangement.

Dr Vasoo: Sir, I would like to thank the Minister of State for his response. I feel that it is not sufficient to provide support to the voluntary welfare sector to run special schools. But support in terms of financial support particularly should be adequate enough for them to run a proper programme for children who are disabled. So with that note, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman: Amendment No. (7). Dr Tan Cheng Bock.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock: Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head L be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead LC-02-1210 of the Main Estimates.

Mr Chairman, since I have another amendment, can I just take the whole lot together?

The Chairman: No, it is not possible. Please move amendment by amendment.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock: Then I would not move this amendment. I move the other one.

The Chairman: Dr Tan, since you have moved your amendment, are you withdrawing it?

Dr Tan Cheng Bock: Yes, I withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman: Amendment No. (8). Now you can go ahead.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock: Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head L be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead LC-04-1210 of the Main Estimates.

Sir, about many budgets ago I criticized the Science textbook prepared by CDIS. I pointed out the poor presentation and the style. Today I am glad to note that the textbooks are much better, and much better not only in Science but also in the other subjects. I move this amendment to congratulate the CDIS for a job well done and I hope they will keep it up.

As curriculum is one of the major areas that should be further upgraded, I would just want to know from the Minister whether more support will be given to CDIS to meet the newexpectations arising from the principals' report.

The other very small query I would like to make is about school libraries. You know, libraries are important to schools. They can help to enrich the local content of CDIS textbooks which I know have a lot of local content. I just want to know again what support has the Ministry given to the schools for their school libraries.

Dr Tay Eng Soon: Mr Chairman, I thank the Member for Ayer Rajah for his support for CDIS and his confidence in CDIS. He mentioned the Science textbook that was published six years ago. CDIS did not start writing Science textbooks until a little later than that. I think he must have been referring to a private re-written textbook. CDIS textbooks are of a high standard because they are written by a very professional teamwith outside consultants who monitor the work of the team. I assure him that the Ministry will continue to support the work of the CDIS in producing better materials for all our schools.

On the question of school libraries, the Member will recall that the Ministry has a large budget to build up the libraries in all our schools. In fact, if I recall correctly, we have between $25-$30 million dollars to build up all the libraries. And the norms that we are building up to are eight books per pupil for primary schools, 10 books per pupil for secondary schools and 12 books per pupil for junior colleges.

Mr Jek Yeun Thong (Queenstown): ( In Mandarin): Mr Chairman, Sir, I will avail myself of this opportunity to talk about the question of textbooks for Chinese education. Perhaps you may think that I will be duplicating what I was saying yesterday. But I would like to touch on the speech of the Member who a while ago touched on CDIS. In my view, the teaching or learning of Chinese does not consist of how many thousand Chinese characters or phrases should be learnt alone. It is not as simple as that. I do not mean to say that if your head is as bald as the Member for Leng Kee's, then you are the same person. You cannot identify one with the other just by the look of your head.

The question of Chinese education goes back to a few years ago when Chinese education fell into the hands of those so-called experts who were English-educated but did not know any Chinese. Even now Chinese newspapers have met with the same fate. The problem lies in the design of the Chinese textbooks which is entirely wrong. I remember when I was a Minister of the Government, I had also mentioned this problem relating to the teaching of Chinese which was by a tikam-tikam type of method or lottery type of method, such as using forms for filling up the blanks or marking true or false. These were multiple choice questions for the students to try their luck. In other words, it was the easy way for the students to learn Chinese and they did not have to put in hard work or memorize how to write Chinese characters. The students need only fill up the answers with plus or minus signs, choosing either number 1, 2 or 3, filling up the blanks with choice words, or showing whether a sentence is true or false, and so on. So in this way the standard of Chinese has gradually been lowered. This kind of teaching, to say the least, caused harm to the students, in that even if they did not pay any attention to studying, there was still a 50% chance of passing the exams.

I was not so lucky in my school days, particularly in primary school. Everyday the teacher asked me to write a short diary and then every week there must be a weekly diary. During school holidays, the teacher also set a set of extra-curricular books for me to read, after which I had to write a report on what I got out of reading such books. Some students, of course, would ask somebody else to write for them. But I wrote it myself. Sometimes I would write for other students. Because of this, whatever the length of time I spent and whatever Chinese education I received in Chinese schools in those days had been very brief compared with the present time. Altogether I think in total the time I spent in Chinese schools had been only 6-7 years, and if I was not fully loaded with Chinese literature or education, I had at least some substance in Chinese education. This problem is not unique to Singapore. It has something to do with the use of Chinese language by the Chinese population, say, in Hong Kong ---

The Chairman: Mr Jek, your time is up. Mr Tang.

Mr Tang Guan Seng: ( In Mandarin): Mr Chairman, Sir, I would like to reply to the Member for Leng Kee who spoke yesterday and the Member for Queenstown who spoke just now. These two Members touched on Chinese education and the Chinese language and this shows that they attach much importance to the teaching of Chinese. This is very encouraging because the learning of the mother tongue ensures the achievement of our bilingual policy.

However, there are certain points in their speeches that need to be clarified. The Member for Leng Kee, in speaking on the implementation of the bilingual policy, said that some people have doubts or have little confidence in it. I should say that the bilingual policy is the foundation stone of the Government's education policy. The Government is not only sincere in promoting the bilingual policy but also persistent in implementing it. This is clear in the statement made by the Minister for Education yesterday when he said that even independent schools would also have to abide by our bilingual policy and could not abandon the learning of the mother tongue.

Also, when a student joins the university, he will be required to have achieved a certain standard in his second language. For students enrolling in junior colleges, certain incentive is given if they take Chinese as an additional first language. All this goes to show that the Government is sincere in carrying out the bilingual policy.

Both Members have touched upon the standard of Chinese. We must be very clear about this. When we talk about standards, we must have a yardstick by which to measure. So when we talk about the standard of Chinese, we should distinguish very carefully between the criteria used to judge the standard of Chinese of the present students and the yardstick used in yester years as propounded by the Member for Queenstown. Similarly, the standard for CL1 cannot be used to judge the standard of Chinese of the present students. The fact is that at the moment Chinese is a second language for most of our students. Everybody knows that this is due to the changes in our education system. If we were to use the yardstick of yester years to measure the standard of Chinese of the present students, it is not fair or just. Even if we use the standard of CL1 to measure the present students, it is also not right. Hence, when I replied to the Member for Delta's query on the 13th of this month and said that the pass rates of both 'O' level and PSLE exams in Chinese language would show that the standard of Chinese has not been lowered, I was in fact referring to Chinese as a second language. This is a more realistic way to assess the standard of Chinese.

Regarding the comment by Member for Leng Kee that the passing mark could easily be manipulated or changed, I think it is groundless talk. Because in the field of defining the syllabuses, setting questions, vetting of answer papers and the markings of the examination scripts, the whole system of examination has been tested and proven to be accepted as a credible one. If the results of the examinations could be easily manipulated or changed, that implies our students need not study hard, our teachers need not teach the students well and that the parents need not supervise their children well. That is an implication which we all could not accept.

I would like to stress a point which some supporters of Chinese education might have overlooked. With the step by step implementation of a national stream of education and with Chinese students learning Chinese as a second language, the present number of students learning Chinese as a subject differs greatly from that in the days of the Member for Queenstown. Since 1980, the Ministry of Education stipulated that all primary 1 Chinese students should learn Chinese as a second language. In other words, every single Chinese student should learn his mother tongue. In former times, it was not possible. Certain sections of the Chinese community in those days could not read or speak or understand Chinese. But nowadays it is entirely different. Just look at our local Chinese nowadays, whether they are locally born or whether they came from China, their children are learning Chinese. Therefore, in popularizing the learning of Chinese through our bilingual policy, we have achieved good results.

The Member for Leng Kee also touched on the ability of students to read Chinese newspapers. My point of view is that the style of Chinese newspapers has changed with the times. In the 1940s or 50s, it was half in the literary style and half in the verbal style. Nowadays, the trend is towards a simple style which makes reading easier. This is what the newspapers are striving for. It is a trend towards the right direction. In order to help our students read Chinese newspapers, newspaper materials have been incorporated in the textbooks at the secondary school and junior college levels. With this two-prong approach, we shall be able to achieve our targets.

The Member for Leng Kee also touched upon the problem of the supply of Chinese teachers, a problem which everybody is concerned about. The Ministry is also paying much attention to this problem. We are considering several measures to deal with the matter, including strengthening the teaching of Chinese in the Department of Chinese Studies in the NUS, and providing more opportunities in the Institute of Education for students to strengthen their learning of Chinese. We are also considering giving encouragement to any junior college which wishes to strive for excellence in the teaching of Chinese as one of its distinctive features. We have employed various ways and means to promote the study of Chinese and to raise the standard of Chinese with a view to ensure an adequate supply of Chinese scholars.

To sum up, there are now more Chinese learning Chinese than ever before and the Government will remain firm and resolute on its policy on bilingualism.

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: ( In Mandarin): Sir, having heard from the Parliamentary Secretary, I should say that the present method should be differentiated from the previous method. The question is whether the present method could produce people who are well-versed in Chinese. If so, then you can retain the present method. If your present method cannot produce people well-versed in Chinese, but half-baked stuff then you can chuck it away. Don't retain it, but adopt the old ways.

If you say that nowadays more people learn Chinese than before, maybe it is true. Is he aware that in the past many people did not attend Chinese schools and did not read Chinese? For example, my own parents had never attended any Chinese school, yet they could recognize Chinese characters, particularly my mother, who could even read Chinese newspapers. She could also sing Chinese tunes. When I was in the primary school, my knowledge of Chinese history, classical stories, and so on, was mainly taught by my mother who had not even attended any Chinese school. But now, what a pity, though so many people are in school for 10 years studying Chinese, how many of them could read Chinese newspapers? As the Member for Leng Kee has just said, nowadays they could not even read the Chinese newspapers. This is really a pity. So what is the crux of the problem? Is it a problem relating to the person or to the system? I think it is a matter of system, not of the person, as the people now are more or less as the people then. So we should not wrongly direct our attention. I am not directing myself at the Ministry of Education. Chinese is a very wide problem. Even in Hong Kong, almost 100% of the population is Chinese. There is such a problem also.

Nowadays, the teaching of Chinese is in the hands of the English-speaking people. As a result, in Hong Kong we could see such unChinese, ungrammatical translation of sign boards as " ". Even in Singapore there are also examples such as Zhujiao becoming "pig's leg", and other terms like that. This term Zhujiao was first mentioned by me in a debate here in 1985. The Member for Nee Soon has plagiarized it by mentioning it. But I would not like to claim copyright to it. These are very funny expressions. When the present Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Communications and Information was in the Ministry of Education, he also had some criticisms. The Government seems to have recognized that there is something wrong in this respect. Is it because of this, or has it got something to do with the Senior Parliamentary Secretary's transfer to the Ministry of Communications and Information? We have this problem here. In Hong Kong there is such a problem. Even in mainland China there is also this same problem. In the matter of simplifying Chinese, they are confused. Those charac- ters which had been simplified earlier have to stay put. They are befuddled about the further simplification of the Chinese characters, they could not decide for sure. Because of the 10-year cultural revolution, they claimed to have lost 10 years. I would not say they have just lost 10 years. Since May 4th Movement onwards they have lost many decades, they have lost very much more than that. They have not ---

The Chairman: Mr Jek, your time is up.

Dr Ow Chin Hock (Leng Kee): ( In Mandarin): Mr Chairman, Sir, the Member for Queenstown has criticised us for our bald heads. But I take comfort in the knowledge that in the past no eunuchs had bald heads. So we are just oversexed.

What we are discussing here is a more serious matter of the learning of Chinese language and Chinese literature. I am glad to hear the Parliamentary Secretary reiterating the Government's determination to implement the bilingual policy, including the learning of Chinese. It is an undeniable fact that the standard of reading and writing of Chinese has fallen. We should judge a student's standard by his comprehension and ability to express. We cannot judge them on the passing rate of examination which by itself does not reflect truly their standard of Chinese. Expression in writing is the best way to judge a student's standard. The best criterion is not how many characters or phrases a student can memorize, but his ability to comprehend and express himself by using these characters and phrases and whether he can read the news reports in the newspapers or other articles, whether he can write a simple letter or write a simple essay well. We have heard a familiar joke - some students describe their mothers as: " "!

On the question of supply of Chinese teachers, on 9th March, there was an article in the Lianhe Zaobao newspaper on the training and supply of future Chinese teachers suggesting the selection of students from the SAP schools for training. The various civic and clan associations, including the Chinese Chamber of Commerce and Industry and SNPL can provide some assistance by offering scholarships so as to train not only Chinese language teachers but also Chinese language journalists.

Dr Lau Teik Soon (Serangoon Gardens): Sir, my Parliamentary colleagues have just focused on the problem of the learning of Chinese language. I would like to refer to another area of study which I feel has been very much neglected in our school system, and that is the study of our neighbours, their history, their cultures, their traditions, their laws. I wonder whether the Ministry has any plans to introduce Asean studies in the secondary schools. In my view it is vital. It is, in fact, vital to our national interest for Singaporeans to understand the history of our neighbours, their cultures, their traditions and their laws. Because whatever happens in our neighbouring countries affect us directly.

This, of course, has been emphasized at the official level. For example, the Ministerial visits to our neighbouring countries. One of the major objectives is to get to know each other better, to understand their thinking on various issues. Why is it not possible then for our school system to introduce Asean studies? When our citizens go out, they interact with our neighbours, they are involved in all kinds of businesses, all kinds of projects with our neighbours. And in the course of their dealings with our neighbours, I think it is vital that they recognize that there are certain sensitivities and that there are certain matters which have to be dealt with delicately.

I have spoken about this before, Mr Chairman, about the disinterest on the part of the Ministry to emphasize the study of our history, not to mention Asean studies. But I would like to add on now the need to study not only our history, cultures and traditions of ourselves, but also those of our neighbours.

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Communications and Information (Mr Ho Kah Leong): Can I join in the debate since my name was mentioned?

(In Mandarin) Sir, these few days we have heard the Member for Queenstown talking at great length. Some of his speeches were quite reasonable or rational, while others were not so. I know that he was a journalist before and he is able to write good articles. He had also been a member of the Government and a High Commissioner to London. He should not be speaking on things in a jesting and ridiculing manner to belittle himself. He talked about the place named zhujiao in Chinese. We are using Hanyu Pinyin to teach our students Chinese hoping that our next generation students would be able to master the Chinese language and to pronounce the words correctly. The appearance of Hanyu Pinyin may cause some confusion to those who are not well-versed with the Hanyu Pinyin system. Chinese pronunciation has got four tones. We should use Hanyu Pinyin phonetic system, not English, to help pronounce the words. I do not think anyone can mistake Zhujiao as zhujiao meaning "pig's leg" because four big Chinese characters zhujiao zhongxin are placed alongside with Zhujiao Zhongxin. So I do not agree with the Member for Queenstown that we committed some big mistake in naming of places.

What he said just now about Chinese textbooks was not quite fair. At present the Chinese textbooks are written by two different project teams in CDIS under the Ministry of Education. One is for primary school and the other is for secondary school. All these textbooks give equal emphasis to the four skills, speaking, listening, reading and writing. It is not what the Member for Queenstown said just now that the students learn by the "tikam" method. Our new teaching method is very effective. Even students in primary 2 and primary 3 are able to write a fairly good piece of composition. This is all due to the efforts of the dedicated Chinese teachers.

With regard to the standard of the Chinese language, this is a matter of opinion. Some may think that the standard is not high enough, but others may think that the standard is already too high. We must adhere to a standard which is functional within the given circumstances. In the primary schools we expect students to master 2,000 characters. These are single characters and the characters can combine to form vocabulary. Based on the 2,000 characters a lot more vocabulary can be formed. Therefore, if a student could master 2,000 characters it would be sufficient for him to be able to write some simple compositions or letters and to read simple books or articles. When he completes secondary school, he is expected to have learned 3,000 characters. If he is diligent, equipped with this number of characters he will be able to read and write reasonably well in Chinese.

Mr Goh Choon Kang (Braddell Heights): ( In Mandarin): Language is a very sensitive issue, so when discussing this sensitive issue of language we must be calm and rational in our attitude. On the question of Chinese language we must be pragmatic and realistic. All Chinese students in schools are learning their mother tongue as a second language. What is the standard of second language? Our students learn this language from Primary 1 onwards up to Secondary 4. The reason why they must study mother tongue is that through the study of mother tongue they would be able to retain the root of their culture. In other words, after the compulsory learning of mother tongue they can basically use the language to read, write, listen and to speak. Therefore, they will be able to achieve the objective of learning such language.

Most students, after completing their 'O' level education, is the standard of their second language sufficient enough to enable them to read and write? Has the Ministry of Education carried out a survey or test to find out whether students completing their 'O' levels are able to use the Chinese language to read the Chinese newspaper articles?

Another question which should merit our concern and attention is that Chinese in our society has been relegated to the status of second language and the functional value of the Chinese language has been reduced. Under such circumstances, there is a possibility that future parents and students will look at the question of Chinese from an utilitarian angle. This is a very objective or practical result. They will treat the Chinese language in the examinations from the angle of utility. If people generally believe that there is no utilitarian value, then they will not be keen or motivated in studying the language. Therefore, the fault may not lie with the Ministry of Education. It may lie with the parents. They would be under pressure to relax and lower the standard of the mother language so that they may be better disposed to the study of other subjects. Has the Ministry of Education foreseen such a development and what will be its policy to deal with such a trend?

The Minister for Education (Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam): Sir, this debate started with a rather innocent motion from the Member for Ayer Rajah commenting on Science textbooks and on the role of the CDIS. Since then, Sir, it has gone beyond that to involve the intricacies of the Chinese language and the complications of international diplomacy. Perhaps Members will allow me a few minutes to bring the discussion back to more basic levels, and that is, regarding what should be taught, what should be contained in the curriculum in our schools.

One of the problems of education is that there is so much to learn today and everyone has got his pet subject which he feels is absolutely necessary to be included in the school syllabus. But the problem is that the mind of any child, no matter how brilliant, is of finite capacity. You cannot keep on stretching it. You cannot, as it were, keep on adding more and more knowledge of the various subjects and expect the child's ability and his capacity to expand indefinitely. This is one of the reasons why there is such concern about the stress on examinations. I believe the Member for Changkat yesterday made the point that there is great stress in our schools and that we should do our best to try and relieve some of the stress.

The problem of what is a proper curriculum in our schools is not an easy one to solve. It is much more difficult in a multi-racial, multi-cultural and multi-religious society such as the one we have in Singapore. Not only do we have to make sure that our children in Singaporegrow up to be responsible adults, conscious of their responsibilities, conscious of the fact that they live in a multi-racial society here and that they have to get on with one another, but we also have to make sure that they grow up to be healthy children, robust and rugged (as the Member for Moulmein said yesterday) for boys, able to shoulder the onerous responsibility of serving their national service and of fulfilling their obligations to the nation and for girls, grow up healthy and intelligent, not only capable of knowing their lessons but also how to build a home, how to look after children and how to fulfil their family responsibilities.

When you combine all of these, you have to decide, within a school day, what is it that you want your children to study? The first thing that we have to realize is that we live in a world which is constantly changing, and if we want to prepare our children so that they do not become redundant when they leave school, and so that they will be able to fit into the new Singapore which they will grow up into in, say, 10-15 years' time, we must provide them, first of all, with an education that will enable them to undertake this life-long task of learning which is so important today. This means that we must make sure that fundamentally our curriculum, first of all, is broad-based. It is not possible for us today in 1987 to see what are the jobs, what are the openings, what are the new opportunities that will become available, say, in 1994 or towards the end of the century. If we confine our children to a very narrow area, this will make them inflexible. What we have to do is to give them an education, broadly speaking, in all the major areas but without overloading them.

In our context in Singapore, this means specifically, first of all, that all children should have a mastery of English, and this is fundamental. English is the language of access to the world's scientific technology. It is the language of business. In an open city like Singapore, without a knowledge of English, our children will be handicapped. If there is one thing where we in Singapore have got an advantage over our competitors in the other NICs, Taiwan, Korea and Hong Kong, it is that our workers in Singapore, by and large, have a facility in English and are able to master new technology much quicker than workers in these other countries. We do not work as hard as them and the fact that foreign companies are willing to come here and invest in Singapore and pay higher wages than for more hardworking workers in these other countries is because the companies here are able to have what they call "quick start-up" and they know our workers here are able to absorb new knowledge quickly. So English is fundamental.

Secondly, Sir, a knowledge of the child's mother tongue. This is not to enable him, for example, if he is a Chinese, to be a literary scholar, to be able to recite the classics. But, as the Member for Braddell Heights has said, it is an avenue to the child's own culture. It is a reminder to the child that notwithstanding the necessity for him to know English he is an Asian, he is Chinese, he is Malay or he is Indian, and without a knowledge of his mother tongue it is not possible for him to retain this link to his heritage. So English and mother tongue constitute the two basic tenets of our bilingual policy which, as I have repeatedly said, Government regards as the foundation of our educational policy in Singapore.

Beyond these two requirements, what else? Mathematics. We live in a technological society. Without a knowledge of elementary mathematics, at least for everyone, for boys as well as for girls, no one can get very far in the world today. After mathematics, then at least, Sir, I am sure Members will agree, some knowledge of Science is important and some knowledge of at least one of the humanities - literature, geography, history, because science teaches children about the world, about how things move, how things work. The humanities teach children about people, about human emotions, about human feelings. All these constitute the basic requirements for a well-rounded education and beyond this we must also find room for subjects such as moral education in order to teach children their responsibilities as children and as adults and as citizens.

Then, of course, Sir, we do not want our children to be mere bookworms, spending 24 hours on their books. We want them to grow up into healthy adults. We want them to have time to play games, to take part in sports, to develop healthy, rugged bodies. And beyond that, we should also enable them to develop an appreciation for the arts, whether it is painting, dance, music or drama. If we wish to develop or to become a gracious society, if we want to go beyond what we are today, then I think we should not set our sights too low. These requirements, when you put them all together, the Ministry of Education, the principals and the teachers have to juggle them and fit them within the framework of a normal school day. To attempt to include one subject after another without taking out what is already there will, in my view, Sir, lead us to a curriculum which is overloaded and to children who will miss the joy of childhood. We, in fact, will not be giving them an education. We will merely train them for whatever purposes they have to be in later life and I am sure Members will agree with me that this is not what the Ministry of Education should be aiming at.

The Chairman: It is approaching guillotine time. Dr Tan, would you like to withdraw your amendment?

Dr Tan Cheng Bock: Yes, but a very short statement first. I am surprised to see that my amendment for a small cut to praise CDIS has generated so much debate, especially on Chinese education. I wonder why you allowed it to be debated under my amendment. It should be under policy matters. Perhaps the matter is important and emotional. Sir, with that note, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The time allotted for Head L having expired, the following amendments were not proceeded with: Mr Sia Khoon Seong: Curriculum Development (9) That the sum to be allocated for Head L be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead LC-04 of the Main Estimates. Encik Abbas Abu Amin: Extra-Curricular Activities (10) That the sum to be allocated for Head L be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead LC-05-1210 of the Main Estimates. Encik Wan Hussin bin Hj Zoohri: Computer-aided Instruction for Primary Schools (11) That the sum to be allocated for Head L be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead LC-04-8101 of the Development Estimates. Dr S. Vasoo: Encik Ibrahim Othman: Encik Sidek bin Saniff: Mr Chiam See Tong: Primary Education (12) That the sum to be allocated for Head L be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead LD-01 of the Main Estimates. Encik Sidek bin Saniff: Secondary Education (13) That the sum to be allocated for Head L be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead LD-02-1210 of the Main Estimates. Bursaries and Scholarships for School Children (14) That the sum to be allocated for Head L be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead LD-02-3310(3) of the Main Estimates. Dr S. Vasoo: Encik Ibrahim Othman: Encik Sidek bin Saniff: Mr Chiam See Tong: Secondary Education (15) That the sum to be allocated for Head L be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead LD-02 of the Main Estimates. Dr Tan Cheng Bock: Junior College Education (16) That the sum to be allocated for Head L be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead LD-03-1210 of the Main Estimates. Mr Chiam See Tong: Junior College Education (17) That the sum to be allocated for Head L be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead LD-03 of the Main Estimates. Mr Ng Kah Ting: New Primary Schools (18) That the sum to be allocated for Head L be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead LD-01-8101 of the Development Estimates. Major Extensions to Existing Primary Schools (19) That the sum to be allocated for Head L be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead LD-01-8102 of the Development Estimates. Mr Ng Kah Ting: Provision of Audio-Visual Materials and Equipment for Primary Schools (20) That the sum to be allocated for Head L be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead LD-01-8104 of the Development Estimates. Encik Wan Hussin bin Hj Zoohri: Mr Ng Kah Ting: Development of Campsite at Ponggol Malay School (21) That the sum to be allocated for Head L be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead LD-01-8106 of the Development Estimates. Mr Ng Kah Ting: Relocation of Schools (22) That the sum to be allocated for Head L be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead LD-01-8108 of the Development Estimates. Installation of Water-Saving Devices in Primary Schools (23) That the sum to be allocated for Head L be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead LD-01-8111 of the Development Estimates. Mr Chai Chong Yii: Grants-in-aid (24) That the sum to be allocated for Head L be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead LE-01-3110 of the Main Estimates. Mr Ng Kah Ting: Government-Aided Primary Schools (25) That the sum to be allocated for Head L be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead LE-01 of the Main Estimates. Government-Aided Secondary Schools (26) That the sum to be allocated for Head L be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead LE-02 of the Main Estimates. Government-Aided Junior Colleges (27) That the sum to be allocated for Head L be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead LE-03 of the Main Estimates. Capital Grants to Government-Aided Schools and Junior Colleges (28) That the sum to be allocated for Head L be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead LE-00-8200 of the Development Estimates. Mr S. Chandra Das: Financing of the Institute of Education (29) That the sum to be allocated for Head L be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead LF-01 of the Main Estimates. Dr Tan Cheng Bock: Financing of the Institute of Education (30) That the sum to be allocated for Head L be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead LF-00 of the Main Estimates. Encik Abbas Abu Amin: Development of the College of Physical Education (31) That the sum to be allocated for Head L be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead LF-01-8211 of the Development Estimates. Mr Philip Tan Tee Yong: Dr Ow Chin Hock: Financing of the National University of Singapore (32) That the sum to be allocated for Head L be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead LG-01 of the Main Estimates. Dr Ow Chin Hock: Financing of the Singapore Polytechnic (33) That the sum to be allocated for Head L be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead LJ-01 of the Main Estimates. Encik Abbas Abu Amin: Financing of the Vocational and Industrial Training Board (34) That the sum to be allocated for Head L be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead LL-00 of the Main Estimates. Relocation of the Vocational and Industrial Training Board Headquarter's Division (35) That the sum to be allocated for Head L be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead LL-01-8221 of the Development Estimates. The sum of $1,385,211,300 for Head L ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $383,743,900 for Head L ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. 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 M -

Dr Aline Wong (Changkat): Mr Chairman, Sir, I beg to move,

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

On behalf of the GPC on Health and the Environment, I would like to start off by first commending the work of the Ministry of the Environment in providing a clean and safe environment for all Singaporeans.

Some of my GPC members will be speaking on the work of the Environment in aspects such as drainage, noise control and waste management, while I shall take up several other issues on their behalf.

Sir, with increasing population size and rising affluence, the task of domestic refuse disposal is going to take on an increasing proportion. The problem of refuse disposal in the HDB estates is made all the more serious because each unit of flat has direct access to an individual rubbish chute. This gives rise to a large number of collection points and makes the job of removing refuse much more difficult. The present system of garbage collection in the HDB estates is based on the division of labour between the HDB and the Ministry of the Environment. It seems to us that the process can be rationalized. The job of collecting and disposing refuse can be made faster and cleaner if modern equipment is used and mechanization will also bring about savings in labour costs. As we all know, it is so difficult now to engage labour in removing garbage because this occupation is obviously not very attractive even to the most lowly-skilled. The entire process of collection and disposal could also be made more efficient if it does not require coordination between the two separate authorities, that is the HDB and the Ministry of the Environment. We feel that a case can be made for privatization on a trial basis in order to see if better cost effectiveness can be attained.

The Member for Ayer Rajah had in the past raised this question of privatization and mechanization before in this House, and recently we are very glad to learn that the town councillors involved in the Ang Mo Kio Town Councils are, in fact, looking into the possibility of implementing a pilot scheme of privatization. We would therefore appreciate some assurance from the Minister that he is looking into this matter in close connection with the Town Councils and that he himself would give every support to the idea and its implementation on a trial basis.

Another point I wish to touch on is that some of the scientific and technical aspects of the Ministry's work, such as noise and air pollution control, microbiology, waste recycling and the designing of sewerage and drainage systems, can be done with the cooperation of the staff at the National University. Could the Minister please inform the House whether such cooperation is, in fact, going on and whether he has any plan to increase the areas of cooperation any further?

I come to the problem of hawkers. The Government's policy towards hawkers has always been a strict one. This is necessary because of public health hazards and problems involving traffic congestion. Another reason is that if we allow too many young people to go into hawking, this will thwart our national efforts at restructuring the economy. So our strict policies are correct. However, correct policies need not always start from a negative perspective. Hawking, in fact, performs some useful functions. So if we adopt a more positive outlook on hawkers, we could be more flexible in our policies and we would be able to make some headway in terms of resolving the perennial, perpetual deadlock which has existed for years between officials in the Ministry and Members of this House over the question of hawkers.

We should look at hawkers as comprising three major groups, each group calling for a different type of policy approach. These groups are: (1) the older generation of hawkers; (2) the presently poor; and (3) the younger hawkers. The older generation of hawkers have already been accommodated through resiting into cen- tralized hawker centres. This generation has no other skills and hawking has been a life-long employment. So it is right that they are allowed to carry on their present occupation. In due course they will pass and already they are having difficulty in obtaining assistance as their own children who have more education are not always willing to follow in the parents' footsteps. So for those grown-up children who still wish to remain in the food business, we should encourage them to operate in the modern eating houses or restaurants where market forces will determine the supply and demand of their services.

By comparison, giving hawker licences to the poor, the handicapped, widows and others who cannot secure stable employment is a form of social welfare. Rentals for hawker stalls are heavily subsidized. No doubt there are some who make the business a success but there are many others who barely survive. Thus, we must not be obscured by the common belief that hawking is a lucrative business to the extent that we feel nothing more should be done to help those who are in need. We must also remember that the hawker centre serves the public. Thus, money spent on improving centres is money well spent. Some of the older hawker centres are in need of upgrading in terms of basic facilities. They need a better design and layout, better tables and seats. Improving such facilities will benefit the public as well as the business of those hawkers who are barely surviving.

The recent attempt by the Ministry to introduce disposable crockery in several hawker centres is another method of helping the hawkers to improve their services. Thus, in principle, we support the Ministry's efforts and hope to see such schemes being extended gradually to all other hawker stalls. Using disposable crockery actually helps the hawkers to reduce labour cost because they would not need that many washers. However, in implementing the scheme we would like to urge the Ministry to give due consideration to the specific needs of those who serve some traditional dishes. Plastic forks and knives are obviously not suitable for cutting certain types of food. So the Ministry officials should adopt a more flexible approach where culture, tastes and preferences are concerned.

As for the problem of disposing the disposables, this is a question of management of the stalls. Apart from providing an adequate number of garbage bins, the Ministry should encourage the hawkers to share the costs of hiring a few attendants whose duty will be to remove the used utensils and clean the tables regularly. Practical problems such as these should be thrashed out before we rush into full-scale implementation. And in due course, both the public and the hawkers would realize that this scheme works to their mutual advantage.

Let me come then to the third category of hawkers. The relatively young who have the enterprising spirit, who wish to be self-employed or do hawking on a part-time basis, should be allowed to do so within certain limits of environmental public health. They may even have innovative ideas of how to go about the business. Allowing them to operate would be encouraging the entrepreneurial spirit and would add colour and life to our city. Already there are kiosks along the Orchard Mall where hawkers sell articles including food items. And Members of this House had mentioned in the past the colourful modernized hawkers commonly seen in the streets of big cities in other countries. So we believe that the Ministry could begin to think along these lines. In fact, could we not have a pilot scheme of issuing a block of new licences to those applicants who can come up with some bright ideas as to what they can do with the stalls. The number of licences should be kept small. But, Sir, we believe this would at least be making a small beginning at some innovative thinking in our hawker policy. Could the Minister please comment on this? Thank you.

Dr Augustine H.H. Tan (Whampoa): Mr Chairman, Sir, first of all I would like to add to the comments about hawkers and hawking raised by the Member for Changkat. First, I think most people imagine that when somebody applies for a hawker licence, the person is qualified to be a hawker in a particular trade. And very often it turns out not to be the case. The person may want to have a cooked food stall of a particular type but if the food which is served does not meet the standards of the people who come to eat, that person will lose his business in the course of time or very, very quickly. So may I ask whether the Ministry of the Environment would consider an educational programme, a trade course if you like, for would-be hawkers or even hawkers presently holding licences so that they can be upgraded or they can be taught the requisite skills in whatever trade they wish to pursue? In connection with this too, perhaps courses on hygiene could be given to the hawkers as well so as to upgrade the standards of hygiene in our hawker centres.

With regard to the use of disposable utensils, I have tried it out at some of the hawker centres. I do not like it and I have seen cases where the contents are disposed of upon the lap rather than ingested the regular way. So I would urge the Minister to re-consider extending the use of disposable utensils.

I have a couple of other queries. One is with regard to Sungei Whampoa. The Ministry has done a good job cleaning up Singapore River but there are other waterways that are also important, particularly Sungei Whampoa. Is he going to clean it up quickly?

Then I have a question concerning Bugis Street. It was not long ago that the Minister told us in this House that he was taking action to remove all the hawkers in Bugis Street because of both physical and spiritual pollution. At least he agreed with me there was spiritual pollution as well. Now we read in the newspapers, Sir, that the Tourist Promotion Board is trying to revive Bugis Street. May I ask whether he is taking care to see that both types of pollution will not recur in the new Bugis Street?

The Chairman: Dr Tan Cheng Bock.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock: I am not moving, Sir.

Mr Lai Tha Chai (Henderson): ( In Mandarin): Mr Chairman, Sir, I fully agree with the speeches and the opinions of the previous two Members of Parliament who spoke. A few days ago, there was talk about whether the vegetables that we consume here contained any poison or not. The Minister replied that there was no more poison. The problem has been solved. But today I read in the newspaper that certain hawkers complained that the prices of vegetables from Malaysia were very low, very cheap, but very few people would like to buy. From this we can see that Singaporeans are very concerned about food and about the hygiene of the food they take. This is good. All along we like to take fried kway teow. I also used to take fried kway teow. I believe you, Mr Chairman, also like to eat kway teow. But one day the Ministry of the Environment said that the cockles that are fried with the kway teow contain substances that would cause cancer. The news spread. Because of that many people gave up eating kway teow or ordered kway teow without cockles. This shows that we pay attention to what we eat.

The Minister for the Environment is also paying attention to the problem of eating, which I entirely agree. The previous two Members have pointed out, particularly the Member for Changkat, that we should also pay attention to the eating environment. There are many hawker centres under the various organizations. Some are under the Singapore Tourist Promotion Board, some under the HDB, some under the Jurong Town Corporation and some under the Ministry of the Environment. I have visited various hawker centres including one in the constituency of the Minister for the Environment. There have been certain improvements in the facilities and environment of the centre. This is good. Just like what the Member for Changkat has said, we should modernize and beautify all the hawker centres and the food should also be improved upon. Singaporeans like to eat. For the Malays, there is rojak and mee siam. For the Indians, there is mee siam and kambing soup. For Teochews, there is kway teow. For the Cantonese, there is char hor fun. For the Foochows, there is a kind of noodle called mien sian. For the Hainanese, there is chicken rice. For the Kheks, beef. There are so many different kinds of food for the people of Singapore to enjoy. We can say that Singapore is a paradise for food. So we should develop Singapore well into a famous food centre, a heaven or paradise for food.

The young people used to say, "Let us go to the coffee house. Go to MacDonald or Kentucky." Some older folks would say, "Let us go to take coffee." I think we should develop our hawker centres into sites where people of various stations of life can go to drink coffee or to take food and chit-chat. This is all very good. I hope the Minister for the Environment could do well in the work of developing Singapore into a paradise for food and we shall all be gratified. I hope the Minister or his Parliamentary Secretary will comment on this.

The Minister for the Environment (Dr Ahmad Mattar): Mr Chairman, Sir, the Member for Changkat has spoken on the need to privatize refuse collection service. I believe the Member for Chong Boon who is also the Chairman of Ang Mo Kio East Town Council will be speaking on the subject and with your permission, Sir, and with the concurrence of the Member for Changkat, I will give a reply after I have heard from the Member for Chong Boon.

Sir, the Member for Changkat has also spoken on the need for a more innovative and forward-looking hawker policy. In particular, she would like my Ministry to consider the setting up of, if I got her correctly, handicraft type of street hawking. I am heartened that she is not advocating that we bring back the traditional street hawking which the Government took 15 years and spent about $100 million to relocate about 20,000 street hawkers involved in the exercise.

Apart from this, Sir, the Member also wants the Ministry to do two things: (a) to work closely with the staff of the universities; (b) to introduce the use of disposable crockery to more hawker centres, although the Member for Whampoa, as I was listening to him just now, seems to be against the idea. I think it is up to him to argue it out with the Member for Changkat.

Dr Augustine Tan: Where do you stand?

Dr Ahmad Mattar: I will give my answer soon. Sir, with regard to the Member for Changkat's suggestion that disposable crockery should be introduced into more hawker centres, I will ask my colleague, the Senior Parliamentary Secretary, to respond to her. But nonetheless I would like to thank the Member for Changkat and Members of her GPC for supporting us in the implementation of this new policy.

On the suggestion that the Ministry should work closely with the staff of the universities, I am happy to say that my Ministry has tapped the expertise in NUS especially, in areas such as epidemiology, food control and drainage systems. Examples of research projects which the NUS have done for us include hydraulic survey by the Civil Engineering Department for the provision of mechanical debris removal facility at the Singapore River near Kim Seng Bridge; hydraulic model study, again by the Civil Engineering Department, for the proposed sand beaches in Kallang Basin; analyses of refuse ash from incineration plants by the Chemistry Department. I think the Member for Buona Vista and the Member for Nee Soon can attest to this. And an ecological survey on the Singapore River and Kallang Basin by the Zoology Department. We will continue to tap the expertise from NUS and of course NTI wherever possible.

Sir, apart from doing work for us, staff of NUS also carry out joint projects with the Environment Ministry, eg, in researches in legionnaires disease and hepatitis with the Department of Microbiology. And staff of my Ministry are also helping in teaching in certain departments of the University. For instance, the Head of the Ministry's Quarantine and Epidemiology Department is helping in teaching in the University's Community, Occupational and Family Health Department.

Sir, the Member for Whampoa has suggested that perhaps an education programme should be conducted by the Ministry for the hawkers so that they can be taught the requisite skills. And he has also suggested that standards of hygiene should be included in this course. I will certainly look into his suggestion. As I mentioned just now, he is against the idea of disposable crockery.

With regard to the resuscitation of Bugis Street, I will leave it to my Senior Parliamentary Secretary to respond.

The Member complains about Sungei Whampoa. For his information, Sir, except for 16 remaining unsewered premises in the catchment, all the other main sources of pollution have been removed from the Whampoa catchment. And the remaining 16 unsewered premises are scheduled for resettlement and will be cleared soon. Although we have removed the main source of pollution, we still have some perennial problems due mainly to anti-social or bad habits. Some people still persist in carrying out their activities outside their premises and discharge their waste water into the drains. Littering is still a problem in Singapore. When it rains, the litter is washed into the drains and eventually into the rivers. The water in Sungei Whampoa is also brown after heavy rains because of the silt that is washed down from the construction sites upstream. The Member may wish to know that as an interim measure, my Ministry is installing gratings at various outlet drains to prevent litter from getting into the rivers.

As for the Member for Henderson, Sir, I hope I've got him correctly because I was depending on the translation which came quite slowly at times. I believe he spoke on modernization of hawker centres and he would like Singapore to be developed into an international food centre. As the hawker policy is under the charge of my Senior Parliamentary Secretary, I will ask him to respond.

Sir, I think I have covered the points raised by Members which I have to respond to. I shall now ask my colleague, the Senior Parliamentary Secretary, to reply to matters pertaining to the hawker policy of the Ministry.

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment (Mr Eugene Yap Giau Cheng): Mr Chairman, Sir, I will take the points very quickly. First of all, I wish to thank the Member for Changkat who is also the Chairman of the Environment GPC and her Members for the good word that they have given to the Ministry of the Environment. I am very sure that the officers in the Ministry will work doubly hard after her encouragement, especially from an attractive young lady.

The Member for Changkat has suggested that our hawker centres ought to be upgraded. Am I correct?

Dr Aline Wong: Yes.

Mr Eugene Yap Giau Cheng: I think that suggestion also ties in with the Member for Henderson. The Member for Henderson however suggested that over and above this, he also wanted Singapore to be an international food centre, which we are, of course, trying. A good example would be the new Bugis Street. The new Bugis Street is exactly for that purpose. The old Bugis Street was very well known for its hawker food. If you go there, you can find all kinds of hawker cuisine, Hokkien, Cantonese, Indian and Malay food. And people go there for the food. We are recreating the new Bugis Street exactly for that purpose and to give it an international name.

As regards upgrading of hawker centres, I think there is an end point that we have to consider. After that end point, I think anything we think of doing will be almost impossible because it involves knocking down and rebuilding the centre. But before that end point, there is much we can do. For example, retiling, doing up the tables, doing up the walls and so on and so forth. I believe that every year we spend about $1.5 million just on the upgrading of hawker centres. And the Member for Henderson can rest assured that it is not only done in my constituency. It is done in phases and it goes round Singapore and one day the repair works will also come to the Henderson Constituency. But, of course, knowing the condition of his hawker centre or market, I think one of them is not in very good condition and if repair works cannot be done, then demolition work may have to be carried out.

The Member for Changkat has supported us in our move to introduce disposables at the five pilot hawker centres. I thank her for that again and I thank her GPC members for their support. The Member for Whampoa disagreed with this idea of disposables because he has seen at times contents on the lap of some customers and therefore he disagreed with it. Actually this subject of disposables had been disposed of a week ago when I answered a Question for Oral answer by the Member for Cairnhill. But just to give him a quick reply, all I can say is that the first step is always very troublesome. There are teething troubles and so on. But that does not mean that we should not go ahead with it. We will on the other hand be careful, like the Member for Changkat has suggested, in rushing into this whole idea of disposables and then getting ourselves into maybe a quagmire which we cannot come out. We will bear that in mind.

Where the revival of Bugis Street is concerned, I have already replied to that as an answer to the Member for Henderson and I do not think I need to go any further into it.

Mr S. Chandra Das (Chong Boon): Sir, I have to declare my interest. I am speaking in my capacity as Chairman of the Ang Mo Kio East Town Council.

Sir, at the outset it must be stated that the Ministry of the Environment provides a very useful service in that in our Town Council refuse is cleared daily. Although I must confess that this service may not be perfect, nevertheless, it is satisfactory and I would like to thank the Ministry for this useful and dependable service on behalf of the Ang Mo Kio East Town Council.

Sir, the 19 town councillors in the Ang Mo Kio East Town Council together with the Member for Cheng San, the Member for Jalan Kayu and myself, we feel that the same job can be done, maybe a little more efficiently if this job was handled by a private contractor. In fact, Sir, for the same price, $5 per month, we are convinced that we can get a higher level of service if this activity is privatized. The private contractors have also convinced us that they have a better system for collection and removal of rubbish on a daily basis. For example, the use of compactors. I also have just been given to understand that the Ministry of the Environment is also seriously thinking of upgrading its service and is seriously considering the installa- tion of compactors. Although a little late, I am quite happy to say it is better late than never. My officers in the Town Council have discussed this question of privatizing this activity with the officials of the Ministry of the Environment, and the tactics adopted by the Ministry is one of frightening the town councillors and the officials. The Ministry of the Environment has not totally rejected the idea of privatization, but, Sir, at the same time they are not too enthusiastic about it, and understandably so.

Sir, apart from the scare tactics which they have used, they have also informed us that they are going to upgrade the service and maybe it is not necessary to privatize. However, Sir, I would like to ask the Minister to review this request from the Ang Mo Kio East Town Council most sympathetically.

Sir, the main objective of the Town Council is to serve residents better. So I ask the Minister, why not give us a chance to try instead of trying to scare us? A very positive answer from the Minister will help the growth and promotion of Town Councils in Singapore.

Dr Ang Kok Peng (Buona Vista): Mr Chairman, I would like to take the opportunity to commend the Ministry of the Environment for the excellent job in cleaning up the Singapore rivers. I understand that the task would be completed by September this year. But my concern is how are we going to ensure that the good work of the Ministry will not be undone by irresponsible people dumping refuse and industrial wastes into these rivers. Could the Minister let the House know of his plans to keep our rivers clean and beautify the surrounding areas and, where space permits, to develop such areas into recreational areas.

Another matter I wish to touch on is our hawker centres. Like my two colleagues who advocated the upgrading of the centres, I am all in favour for it and would lend my support to this idea. In fact, our hawker centres, if my memory serves me right, looked presentable 15 years ago. Indeed at that time we were rather proud of them. In today's context, many of them are below standard in terms of comfort to the customers, and in some cases the standard of hygiene practised by the food handlers leaves much to be desired.

Apart from upgrading these hawker centres, I wonder whether the Minister would consider the privatization or devolution of the management of these hawker centres because now it is fashionable with respect to the governance of Singapore to privatize Government companies or devolute authorites and I hope that we can do something along this line with regard to our hawker centres.

Concerning the disposable ware, I think we should try to promote as wide a usage of the disposable ware as possible. But I would suggest to the Ministry to issue a little pamphlet to provide a guideline on the usage of such disposable ware because research work in America has shown that one has to be careful about the proper usage of such ware.

Mr Chew Heng Ching (Kaki Bukit): Sir, I have a matter to raise which has policy and funding implications.

Sir, I notice that the Ministry of the Environment has budgetted some $170 million for drainage project for the next financial year. Of this, $96 million is for on-going drainage projects while $73 million is for new projects.

Sir, our efforts to stop the flood seem to get more and more costly every year. In FY 84 we spent some $35 million on drainage projects. This went up to $42 million in FY 85 and $100 million last year. My question to the Minister is,why these increases? Is it because we are receiving more rainfall in recent years? Or is it because while we solved one drainage problem we have inadvertently created drainage problems elsewhere? Is there a total and coordinated effort to tackle the flooding problem in Singapore? Can the Minister enlighten the House on his Ministry's longer term plan to tackle the flood situation in Singapore?

Dr Ho Tat Kin (Boon Teck): Sir, the Member for Changkat has spoken on the individual refuse chutes. What I want to know is that with the shortage of labour in the workforce, how long can the Ministry keep up with such labour intensive methods of waste collection? Will it be necessary in the future to move away from individual refuse chute system? Has the Ministry worked out more productive methods of waste collection?

Currently the refuse is disposed by two methods. Around 64% is incinerated and around 36% is dumped. I would suppose that the composition and the content of the refuse would influence the method of disposal. If the composition of the refuse is analysed, I think it could be roughly divided into vegetable content, paper content, matter content, rags, grass, plastics and unclassifieds. I would expect the components of plastic content and paper content to have increased. I would like to know if the Ministry has done any studies on the composition of the refuse by content over the last few years to see if there has been any variation in the composition of the refuse.

Sir, this information may seem trivial but I think it helps to a great extent to ensure that the waste disposal methods used are appropriate. For example, if there is a great amount of matter content, should the matter not be extracted by mechanical extractors before it is dumped or it is burnt? If all the hawker centres switched to disposable crockery, will the increased content of polystyro foam affect the existing matter of waste disposal? Or if there are more paper or plastic contents in the waste, will it not be better to incinerate rather than bury the waste since there will be a greater calorific output during the incineration process?

When the refuse is incinerated, I believe there is waste heat generated. Has the Ministry explored the feasibility of using the waste heat to desalinate sea water for human consumption? I would also like to know if the Ministry has made studies on the amount of domestic refuse generated per person per day. Has there been an increase over the last 10 years? What is the projected amount of refuse generated up to the end of this century? I understand that after 1996 there will be a shortfall in incineration capacity against the projected quantity of incinerable refuse and this shortfall may be quite substantial after the year 2005.

There may be a need to look into the building of a fourth incineration plant. Will a fourth incineration plant be sufficient? Will it not be better to educate the public to reduce the amount of refuse generated by trying to recover and recycle some of the wastes that are now being discarded, particularly metallic wastes and glass wastes.

Sir, I understand town councils are looking into the possibility of allowing private waste collectors to collect and dispose of solid wastes. I believe a certain amount of competition will be good for the Ministry of the Environment and may even help the Ministry to improve its productivity. But I would like to caution the Ministry not to allow 100% privatization for solid waste management. The entrepreneurs are in business to make money, not to do a social service. So long there is money to be made in rubbish, they will be in business. With the shortage of labour, when they find the cost of labour to be too high to make rubbish business viable, they will pull out of the market. What will happen to the rubbish then? Solid waste will still be generated every day. I would like the Minister's assurance that in such an event the Ministry could still provide the essential service to maintain a clean and healthy environment.

Sir, I think the Member for Buona Vista has touched on the matter of allowing the hawker centres and markets to self-manage. I agree with that suggestion and I hope the Ministry could look into it.

I would like to turn to illegal hawking. Sir, in the last few years illegal hawkers seem to be on the increase. I think this is because the illegal hawkers find the business rather lucrative. But I think the business is lucrative because they are organized and I think they know where to sell, what to sell and when to sell. They seem to be able to site themselves at places where business is good and people patronize the illegal hawkers because they are conveniently located. Could this mean that our hawker centres are sited in the wrong places leaving the better hawker sites vacant which could then be taken up by the illegal hawkers? I would think that if the Government could allow some form of street hawking ---

The Chairman: Order. Dr Ho, your time is up.

Dr Koh Lam Son: I also welcome and support the intention of the Ministry to implement the use of disposable crockery. However, this scheme would not have served its useful purpose if the disposable crockery is still left on tables or not disposed of in an orderly manner. I would suggest that in addition to implementing disposable crockery, the hawkers should also be instructed to perhaps employ cleaners to collect the crockery, clean the tables properly and place the disposable crockery in properly designed disposable receptacles.

Sir, I would like to say a few words on the cleanliness of our hawker centres. Generally speaking, our hawkers are quite clean. But if one looks closely there are still a few unhygienic habits and practices to be seen. Sometimes, I notice stray cats and dogs loitering about in the hawker centre. They climb on chairs and tables and carry with them infected bacteria. Sir, as an obstetrician I have to very often warn pregnant mothers and to avoid stray cats because of the disease called toxoplasmosis which stray cats may transmit to the pregnant mother and to the unborn child and cause foetal damage. Perhaps the Ministry may want to organize a national campaign to turn in all the stray cats that are found in the hawker centres.

Those of us who eat at hawker centres are often perturbed by the unhygienic handling of food. For example, seeing glasses being held by unclean hands with a thumb or finger pressed on the inside of the glass, handling of food with unclean hands, the use of soiled towels to clean crockery or tables repeatedly, washing dishes in the same pail of unclean water and handling ice-cubes with unclean hands. I would like to suggest to the Ministry that perhaps during the annual medical check-up of the hawkers they should enforce a health education programme to ensure that better hygienic habits are kept and perhaps fines should be imposed on those who lapse in good hygienic habits.

The Minister for the Environment (Dr Ahmad Mattar): Mr Chairman, Sir, I shall first deal with the Member for Chong Boon. Whilst I agree with the Member that my Ministry is not too enthusiastic about privatizing refuse collection, I certainly cannot accept his statement, if not allegation, that my staff have resorted to scare tactics in order to discourage the Ang Mo Kio East Town Councillors from proceeding with it. To be fair to them, Sir, they are being cautious about the new concept which the Ang Mo Kio East Town Councillors are about to embark on. It is only proper, Sir, for them to share their wealth of experience in this field, and gratis, with people who are about to get into it.

Mr Chairman, Sir, they are not worried about handing over refuse collection service to Ang Mo Kio East Town Council. On the scale it is operating, it cannot but succeed; and even if it does not, the refuse collection service of the Ministry will still be available to pick up the bits and pieces. But if refuse collection for the whole of Singapore is privatized, they are not so optimistic. In fact, they are fearful of the possible consequences. I shall elaborate on it later. But for the time being, Sir, I think the Member for Chong Boon may be happy to know that as a flexible person I have a piece of good news for him. If he and his Ang Mo Kio East Town Councillors say that they can get a higher level of service elsewhere and perhaps cheaper than what is being provided for by the Government through the Ministry of the Environment, so be it. Please proceed.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock: How about Ayer Rajah?

Dr Ahmad Mattar: We will consider separately. That is what Town Councils are for, Sir, and I wish them good luck. But I think it is only proper for me to make known to this House the reservations that my staff are having if refuse collection service for the whole of Singapore is privatized.

Mr Chairman, Sir, refuse collection service is an essential service. In most cities in the world, refuse is collected directly by municipal authorities. This should be the case as it must be reliable and regular as otherwise there will be public health hazards and nuisances. And this is particularly so in a country like Singapore which is hot and humid. Organic waste from private households decomposes very rapidly and this will give rise to smell problems and the breeding of mosquitoes and rodents.

Sir, Singapore is perhaps the only country in the world where refuse is collected from every household every day throughout the year and we are able to do this because the Government has, over the years, developed a solid waste management system that is efficient and reliable. Our operations are computerized. We have continuously upgraded our fleet of refuse collection vehicles and set high maintenance standards with a modern vehicle workshop. Despite all this, cost is still kept low because we enjoy an economy of scale.

Sir, there are serious implications in privatizing refuse collection service, especially when it is done for the whole of Singapore. Any mismanagement in the service can lead to serious consequences and health hazards which will not be tolerable for the population at large. If there is mismanagement in refuse collection service there will not be any fall-back support from the Government as its services and resources would have been wound down. This is the main concern of my Ministry. We may sound pessimistic but on matters where the health of the population is involved, I think we need to move cautiously and not too overly optimistic.

Sir, my Ministry is not totally against the privatization of refuse collection service. In fact, Sir, since 1985, private waste collectors have been allowed to collect refuse from industrial and commercial premises as well as condominiums. My Ministry's philosophy on refuse collection is simple. The Ministry should continue to collect waste from public housing estates and the private waste collectors from the rest, in other words, from industrial and commercial premises, condominiums. We feel, Sir, this arrangement is necessary so that any problem that may arise in the collection of refuse from non-public housing sectors can be arrested and overcome quickly by the Ministry through the redeployment of existing resources.

I come next to the Member for Buona Vista. I thank the Member for his praises for the Ministry's efforts in cleaning up the Singapore River and Kallang Basin. My Ministry is acutely conscious of the continued need to keep our rivers clean. Although daily refuse removal and a comprehensive network of sewers have been provided in our urban areas, there are the minority few who either due to bad habits or anti-social behaviour would continue to litter, dump refuse or discharge sullage water into the drains and canals. We will have to continue with our efforts in public education, surveillance and enforcement. As the Member has rightly pointed out, in September this year we will mount a publicity campaign in conjunction with the Clean Rivers Commemoration to draw public attention to the advantages of clean rivers and to remind the public of their role in keeping the rivers clean.

Sir, we can have preventive measures but, as a long-term goal, we hope that every citizen and every company in Singapore will have enough pride and civic consciousness to not only refrain from littering and polluting our environment but also exert peer pressure on the minority to eliminate the bad practice.

Next, I come to the Member for Kaki Bukit. The Member for Kaki Bukit has expressed concern over the increasing expenditure under my Ministry's drainage programme. He therefore wants to know the reason or reasons for these increases. He wants to know if the increases in expenditure are due to the increase in rainfall in recent years. No, Sir, there has been no increase in rainfall in Singapore. The increases in the expenditure are that the Drainage Department of my Ministry's Master Plan for flood alleviation scheme in Singapore. In 1985, Sir, my Ministry embarked on a programme to accelerate the construction of the drainage infrastructure. We propose to spend about $700 million over the next five years. This is to alleviate flooding in the existing flood-prone areas like Bukit Timah, Paya Lebar, Tanjong Pagar and Tanjong Katong and also to provide drainage infrastructure for new towns like Bukit Panjang, Chua Chu Kang, Serangoon South, Tampines, Bukit Batok. In fact, Sir, during financial year 1986, the Drainage Department spent a sum of $103 million and proposes to spend a sum of $170 million for financial year 1987. By 1990, most of the drainage infrastructure plans under the five-year programme would have been completed. This will alleviate much of the flooding in Singapore.

The Member for Boon Teck wants to know about the Ministry's long-term solid waste programme. Mr Chairman, Sir, my Ministry has a long-term solid waste programme which we review regularly. In 1986, Sir, the average daily output of refuse was about 4,500 tonnes and we expect the output to increase to about 5,000 tonnes per day by 1990 and nearly 7,000 tonnes per day by the year 2010. Disposable facilities, therefore, should be planned well ahead in order to cater to the projected increase in refuse output. In land scarce Singapore, the method of disposal must not and cannot be land-intensive. Since incineration achieves the maximum volume reduction, it has to be adopted as the main method of disposal. Presently, Sir, about 65% of the daily refuse generated are incinerated at two incineration plants - one at Ulu Pandan and another at Tuas. The remaining 35%, Sir, are dumped. My Ministry is planning a third incineration plant in Senoko. With the commissioning of this third incineration plant in Senoko, it is estimated that about 85% of the daily refuse generated will be incinerated.

My Ministry presently operates two dumping grounds, one at Lorong Halus in Tampines and the other at Lim Chu Kang. An extension of 63 hectares to the Lorong Halus dumping ground is being developed, and it is expected to be ready for use by 1988. Dumping grounds, Sir, will still be needed for the disposal of non-incinerables as well the ash from the incineration plants. These two dumping grounds would be able to cater to our needs up to the year 2000. Thereafter, we may have to start to consider using one of our offshore islands for the disposal of non-incinerables.

Sir, the Member for Boon Teck is quite right in saying that we will be facing a shortfall of incineration capacity against the projected quantity of incinerable refuse after 1996, and the shortfall will become substantial after the year 2005. There is, therefore, need for us to look into the building of a fourth incineration plant after the year 2000 to conserve our available refuse tipping grounds.

The Member for Telok Blangah has talked of disposable crockery and cleanliness in hawker centres. I think it is very revealing, at least to me today, what stray cats can do, the harmful effects of stray cats, that is. I think I have covered most of the points. I shall ask my colleague, the Senior Parliamentary Secretary, to reply on matters pertaining to hawkers and hawker policy.

Mr Eugene Yap Giau Cheng: Mr Chairman, Sir, many Members spoke on the standard of food hygiene practised in our hawker centres. They lament on the rather shoddy way in which food utensils and so on are handled. I agree with them. I would also like to assure them that the Ministry does keep a very close watch and surveillance on hawkers and the way they handle food. I believe the inspectors go round every day to check our hawkers on food handling. And, of course, if they are found to contravene any food regulations, as far as food handling is concerned, then they would be summarily, I would say, summoned. So Members can rest assured that we are doing our work.

Maybe, as a matter of interest, Members would like to know that we have very recently thought of revising our system of law enforcement, and that is, in the possible introduction of a points demerit system, somewhat like what the Traffic Police have. The only difference is that, with our points demerit system, we do not have a compounding system. Demerit points are given for the various kinds of offences. If a hawker accumulates enough points over a one-year period, then of course his hawker licence will be retained for two weeks, or one month, or for a longer time depending on how serious the offence is or how many points he has accumulated. The system has not been finalized yet. We will probably be discussing it with our GPC members to get their inputs. But suffice it to say, that is a new system of control of food handlers that will be introduced in the near future.

I think the Member for Buona Vista and perhaps the Member for Boon Teck spoke on privatization of hawker centres. Perhaps what they mean is self-management of hawker centres. If they mean self-management of hawker centres, then we agree with them. In fact, currently there are pilot projects going on in Singapore at three hawker centres - one at Cuppage Road, the others at Adam Road Hawker Centre and Newton Hawker Centre - where the hawkers work together with a cleaning contractor. The cleaning contractor goes round collecting all the disposables, cleaning tables, and so on and so forth for a fee. This is a pilot project. If it is successful, then we will want to further this idea of self-management of hawker centres.

The Member for Buona Vista suggested that we issue some pamphlets in relation to the proper use of disposables. I will ask my officers to look into this.

The Member for Boon Teck, before he was cut off, I believe, raised the question of the return of the street hawkers. I hope he does not mean the old street hawkers that we saw many years ago which my Minister has earlier on referred to. But I hope he is referring to what the Member for Changkat has raised, some of the more ---

Dr Ho Tat Kin: Mr Chairman, what I am referring to are modern built vehicles that can be used for street hawking, not the old type of street hawkers that the Government has spent so much and time to clear them away. This type of street hawking is, in fact, permitted in developed nations. They do not do any washing, as no washing is required; so they do not really have a lot of waste to clear or water to throw that will pollute the drains, and so on. It is, in fact, an extended form of the type of street hawking allowed for ice-cream stalls and things like that.

Mr Eugene Yap Giau Cheng: All I can say, actually for a start, as a prelude to this discussion on street hawkers, is that I only hope that what you see as swans are not geese in the Western countries. In other words, do not see these geese as swans. We have to be very careful because we cannot transplant an idea directly from a Western nation or Western country, a developed country, into Singapore. We have our durians, they have their apples. If we want to eat apples, it is better to eat fresher apples in countries where apples are grown. But they do not taste as nice in Singapore.

So with that preface, I will now move on to discuss whether or not we agree with the idea of the Member for Boon Teck and, the Member for Changkat. As you know, we have already got our own colourful fairs. Once in a while you see them in the form of the Hongbao Special which was recently organized to celebrate the Lunar New Year. You will also see some of these fairs at the Handicraft Centre. But if you mean the kind of fairs of a higher value-added kind of activities ---

Mr Chandra Das: Using high-tech.

Mr Eugene Yap Giau Cheng: Yes, "high-tech" more or less, then we will support the idea. But if you mean just marking out some pitches along Shenton Way to sell hot-dogs or to sell curry puffs, I think we have to be very careful before going into this kind of idea.

The Member for Telok Blangah wanted a campaign to eradicate stray cats, if I have got him right. Let us recap the objective of a campaign. I thought a campaign is for human beings to talk to human beings. But for human beings to talk to cats, it is not possible! When we have a campaign, we try to pass a clear message, for example, Don't Spit, Speak Mandarin, Don't Litter, or Keep Singapore Clean and Green - very short clear measages. I do not know how we are going to organize a campaign to keep the cats away. They are stray cats.

Dr Koh Lam Son: Mr Chairman, can I just clarify? We can keep the cats away by killing them. That is one way of getting rid of them. And the campaign is not to talk to cats but to make sure that stray cats do not come around with their infected bacteria to places where high hygiene is important. That is the point I am trying to make.

Mr Eugene Yap Giau Cheng: I think we will end ourselves up with a lot of problems trying to kill all the cats that walk along the streets because the moment they leave somebody's compound, theoretically they become stray cats. So I do not think that this idea can work. Nevertheless, I will have a chat with him over lunch or something to find out how we can talk about how to keep the cats away from the streets.

On organizing health education programmes and so on to educate our hawkers, I support the idea. We will get our officers to look into how we can further educate our hawkers on the proper way to handle food and the proper way to keep their hawker stalls clean and so on, so that the public can enjoy better public health when they patronize these hawker centres.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock rose.

The Chairman: I thought you were not speaking, Dr Tan.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock: But can I join the debate?

The Chairman: All right.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock: Actually I did not make a cut but I had to when the Minister for the Environment mentioned about privatization. I remembered sometime ago in this House last year, I brought up this question of privatization of refuse collection in my Constituency to the then Minister for National Development. He did actually ask me to discuss this matter with the Minister for the Environment. Well, I did discuss with his officials, and I think the answer I got was somewhat similar to what the Member for Chong Boon received.

Basically the Minister's argument is that: (1) it is an essential service; (2) that it is low cost; and (3) he is afraid of mismanagement. On the question of essential service, I would like to ask the Minister what is essential service? Is health an essential service? I think it is essential service but we have allowed it to be privatized. Transport is also essential service, and we have also allowed it to be privatized. So I do not see any reason why collection of refuse should not be privatized. Then he mentioned about low cost. The private refuse collectors are also prepared to bring down their cost. They have told me that they are prepared even to do the refuse collection at the price that is at the moment paid for by the HDB residents - $5.00. Mismanagement - I do not know why he assumes that these companies will be mismanaged. If he fears mismanagement, then why not spread the task of this refuse collection to more companies and let the Ministry of the Environment have a back-up service. That is his role - the Ministry providing us with a back-up service and then these people will do the job. And if you find that one of the companies mismanage or is not able to do it, then perhaps, as the responsible body in charge of the environment, you should provide the back-up service.

Sir, the Senior Parliamentary Secretary, in responding to a point brought up by the Member for Boon Teck about hawker vans, said that he was not in favour of having special hawker vans. Am I right?

Dr Ho Tat Kin: Right.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock: That is right. I think his idea is worth looking into. I remember when I was in Washington, I saw some of these vans parked at designated places. They move into a particular site in the day-time and they move out in the evening or whichever time of the day they are allowed to park there. There are special attachments on these vans which are connected to special attachments on the road for the removal of refuse and waste material that is discharged from these vans. It is very clean and I see no reason why you should close that option. They can be towed away, according to your requirements.

Mr Heng Chiang Meng (Jalan Kayu): Thank you, Mr Chairman, Sir. I did not submit an amendment but I would like to bring up this subject under the Environment Ministry although it may involve the National Development Ministry. The reason is that my amendment under the HDB unfortunately was never reached. This is in regard to the allocation and the process of approving applications for hawker licences for hardship cases. I understand that the Ministry's policy right now is not to give any more licences to non-hawkers who apply for hawker licences unless they are hardship cases. Under this criterion, after they have gone through a difficult and rigorous examination, they are finally given a letter to go to the HDB for allocation of a stall. And then what happens? Normally, the stalls that are given to them are those stalls where business has failed not once, twice, but even three, four, five or six times before. The business climate in those areas is so bad that it is impossible for anybody, much less a hardship case, to really succeed in doing business there. And on top of this problem we are giving these stalls not to ordinary persons or to persons who can make a success out of things in a normal way, but to persons who are in financial hardship. And this may include widows with three or four kids. Moreover, they must be over 40 years old. I really do not understand the reason for placing the minimum age of 40 years as the criterion for hardship cases. I can understand that if they are not hardship cases; because we do not want young and able bodied men to work as hawkers. But I cannot understand the minimum age requirement for hardship cases.

Sir, the allocation mechanism is such that you can only apply for a particular stall once a month. And if there is more than one application, it will be ballotted, which means that you can continue to apply for years without being successful. In the meanwhile, I would like to ask, who takes care of these hardship cases?

I know that the allocation of stalls is not the Ministry of the Environment's responsibility. But at the same time, this is a hawker problem and I think they have a responsibility to these applicants. I would like to urge the Minister to intercede with his Cabinet colleague to look at this problem.

Dr Ahmad Mattar: Mr Chairman, Sir, I would like to respond briefly to some of the points raised by the Member for Ayer Rajah. This subject of privatization of refuse collection service has been hotly debated between him and me either officially at Ministry level or privately over lunch at Parliament Annexe. So I do not want to go into the details again.

I would like to touch on one point which he has mentioned just now about the Ministry maintaining a back-up service. A back-up service can be provided for by the Ministry if and only if the refuse collection service is not privatized for the whole of Singapore. If the refuse collection service for the whole of Singapore is privatized, I do not think my colleague, the Minister for Finance, who is not here now, will agree to engage workers just to hang around doing nothing. Then what about the refuse collection vehicles which have got to be maintained? And what about the vehicle workshop which we have set up? So the question of back-up service can be met only if refuse collection service is not privatized for the whole of Singapore.

In the case of the Ang Mo Kio East Town Council, and if the Member for Ayer Rajah so wishes, we can try out in his constituency, if there is mismanagement then there is the possibility of a fall-back support from the Government. But if the refuse collection service for the whole island is privatized, that fall-back support will no longer be available because Government's services and resources, as I have said, would have been wound down.

I shall ask my Senior Parliamentary Secretary to respond to his points about hawkers.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock: Mr Chairman, Sir, can I just comment on the Minister's reply to my request? The Minister has said that if the refuse collection service for the whole of Singapore is privatized, then the Ministry of the Environment will face a problem. Can I take it to mean that if the refuse collection service for three-quarters of Singapore is privatized and one-quarter is not privatized, then the Ministry can maintain the back-up service, the vehicles and whatever he thinks is necessary?

Dr Ahmad Mattar: Mr Chairman, Sir, the answer is simple. As long as we are providing the service to those areas which require it, we will have the back-up service to serve those areas where mismanagements in the service provided by private waste collectors have occured.

Dr Wong Kwei Cheong (Cairnhill): Thank you, Mr Chairman. I would just like to add to what my colleague, the Member for Jalan Kayu, has said on the demand for more hawker licences, especially for cooked food stalls. Invariably, during my meet-the-people sessions, we are faced with many such requests and when we make the request to the Environment Ministry, a negative answer is received.

There are many hawker centres where business for market produce stalls is rather poor. For example, at the hawker centre at Cuppage Centre, of the 298 market produce stalls, more than half are empty for quite a few years. I brought up this subject last year and the Senior Parliamentary Secretary suggested that I refer the matter to the Ministry of Communications because the problem is really due to the fact that the CBD boundary is just outside the Cuppage Centre. But the Minister for Communications and Information has indicated very clearly that the policy of his Ministry is to include the Cuppage Centre offices within the CBD and they will not change this ruling. So it is no help to the hawkers at the Cuppage Centre. However I would still like to appeal to the Environment Minister to see whether he could change some of the empty market produce stalls into cooked food stalls so as to help bring back business to the Cuppage Centre, just as one example.

The other point which I would like to take up is disposable utensils which has been raised by some of the Members and answered by the Senior Parliamentary Secretary. I know this matter has been debated before during the Questions for Oral Answer session. I would like again to emphasize the problem to the Senior Parliamentary Secretary. He has said that in the five pilot hawker centres, two are in my constituency, Cuppage and Newton Circus, the hawkers are not forced to use disposable utensils. But I hope he can visit these hawker centres to see whether or not they are forced. There are many Environment officers at the hawker centres issuing summonses quite liberally when the hawkers do not follow the urgings of his Ministry's officers.

I am sure the additional cost whether we like it or not would eventually be passed on to the consumers. A good example is the Handicraft Centre where hawkers use disposable utensils. If the Senior Parliamentary Secretary were to visit the Handicraft Centre, he will find that the prices there can be more than double the normal prices at other hawker centres. I am afraid if this practice is to be introduced to all the hawker centres in Singapore, then whether we like it or not, prices of hawker food will go up in Singapore.

Mr Eugene Yap Giau Cheng: Mr Chairman, Sir, can I just reply to the Member for Ayer Rajah first? I thought earlier on we have established that human beings cannot talk to cats. Now, I find that even human beings cannot talk to human beings, and this is a very, very sad state of affairs. When I first replied to the Member for Boon Teck, I thought I prefaced my reply by advising him that he should not see their geese as swans. What I mean is, do not see something terrible in Western developed countries as something beautiful. And then I went on to say that if it is a good idea, we will consider it. That is, we will consider the idea of these mobile vans provided they conform to our food regulations, and to traffic regulations and the regulations of all the other Ministries. But that is not to give the impression that we have so much red tape that we cannot bring in a van to sell hot dogs. No, it is not that. We have just got to be careful with whatever we do before we bring in something from a Western developed country into the Singapore environment. We just want to be careful. That is all.

The Member for Jalan Kayu lamented on the way hardship cases are made to go around looking for hawker stalls and eventually ending up with no hawker stall. And then put the blame on Government, I suppose, that we are not doing anything for them or that we should be doing something for them. I would just say that the Government has long ago decided not to build any more hawker centres, both the HDB and the Environment Ministry. So we would not be building any more hawker centres. One must realize that getting a hawker stall does not necessarily mean that after one month or one year we are going to end up driving a Mercedes Benz. No. Those people you see driving Mercedes Benzes and so on are the ones with culinary skills, whether or not we have given them a hawker stall. It so happens that they were poor and at the same time had culinary skills at the point of time when hawker stalls were available. You bring a hawker with culinary skills to one of those most unknown hawker stall or hawker centre, and he will build up his business for you to see. So there is no question of whether or not the hawker stalls are in remote, unpopular areas and so on and so forth. It is just that they have no culinary skills. I was told when the hawkers were to be resettled from Gluttons Corner they went on a mission to the temple to pray to their gods. They prayed that they would not be given Newton Hawker Centre. In those days Newton Hawker Centre was never popular. But when they went there, lo and behold, business came rushing in. I think I have to say, over and over again, that getting a hawker stall does not make one any better. It is your skill that counts. If you have the skill, you can even bid for a stall that cost $2,000 and yet make money. But let me remind Members that we are a small island with a small population and a small workforce. And we have vacancies in manufacturing firms, in the hotel sector, in the finance and business sector, the transport and communications sector, and so on and so forth and they require manpower. If a person is really a hardship case and still able-bodied, whether he is 30 years or 45 years old, I think that person should be encouraged to look for a job.

In as far as the point made by the Member for Cairnhill is concerned, can I just clarify one point with him. Is he talking about his hawker centre or his market?

Dr Wong Kwei Cheong: They are both at the Cuppage Centre. The market as well as the hawker centre.

Mr Eugene Yap Giau Cheng: You are also referring to the hawker centre. May I remind the Member that this hawker centre is teeming with business. There are no empty stalls at all in his hawker centre. All the stalls are filled to the brim and when there is a vacancy, my dear Friend, it is grabbed.

Dr Wong Kwei Cheong: Just a clarification. The food centre is full but the market produce centre which is just one floor below is half-empty.

Mr Eugene Yap Giau Cheng: All right, you are talking about the market centre then. So where the market is concerned, it still serves a purpose. There are some people who like to go there to buy their market produce. I believe the Member for Buona Vista does his marketing there and I would not be surprised if he goes to that market and he finds more interesting figures there. So I do not think we want to knock down any of those stalls there. Those that are empty, we will keep them it empty for a while. If any of the existing stalls that are there, any of the hawker finds that he wants to transfer to another more lucrative centre, then we will consider them. That is the way we help the people at the market.

Mr Heng Chiang Meng: Mr Chairman, may I have a point of clarification. I really do agree with the Senior Parliamentary Secretary on his lament that people do not listen to people. I thought he knew I was talking about hardship cases. His explanation is correct if we are not talking about hardship cases. An ordinary person must depend on his skills to survive. But unfortunately when you come to these hardship cases, Sir, they are not ordinary persons or else they would not be hardship cases. I am talking only about the hardship cases and I believe that some help should be given; such as in the form of at least giving them some stalls where there is already traffic generated by those with culinary skills so that they can at least benefit from those traffic. I am not talking about the ordinary cases or the ordinary applications or those who drive Mercedes Benzes. I am talking about the hardship cases!

Dr Wong Kwei Cheong: May I add in also. I do not also agree with the Senior Parliamentary Secretary. With 298 market produce stalls and more than half empty for so many years since 1983 when the CBD was introduced, I am not too sure how many other market centres also have such empty market stalls. My simple question is, why can't the Ministry convert some of these empty market stalls to cooked food stalls when there is a big demand for cooked food stalls?

Mr Eugene Yap Giau Cheng: The simple answer is that to do that kind of a service to the Cuppage Market Centre would require more than just conversion because you require a refreshment area, you require to build up your area for preparing your food and so on and so forth. So it is not a very simple thing to do and it costs money. The easier thing to do is if you have any hawker that is suffering because of poor business, then as I said, we are prepared to offer our assistance by allowing them to transfer stalls.

In response to the point brought up by the Member for Jalan Kayu, again he does not understand what I am trying to drive at. When I say "hardship cases", giving them hawker stalls is not the only way to help them. In fact, you are doing them a disservice. If they cannot cook, that means they do not have culinary skills. What you are doing is, if you give them a stall, they have to spend a little fortune to set up the stall and then they find that nobody wants to eat whatever he is selling, and then he loses that amount of money he has invested in the stall. So all I am saying is that sometimes you do them service by encouraging them to pick up a job. Okay, the salary may be small, maybe $400 or so, but at least he does not run at a loss. That is all I said.

Mr Heng Chiang Meng: All I can say is that this is where I think we have gone wrong. We tell the people what to do, what is good for them. All I am saying is that, please, give them a chance. Let them decide for themselves what is good for them. And they are just asking you to give them a chance.

Mr Eugene Yap Giau Cheng: We are not telling them what to do. All I am just saying is that it would be good if you can encourage them to pick up a job. All I am saying also is that by giving them a stall, it does not mean that we are doing them a favour. So we are not telling them what to do. In fact we are helping them. That is the crux. We have given them, but as I have told you, if the business is bad, and he does not know how to cook, he does not produce good food, nobody eats his food, you do them a disservice by causing them to invest money in the stall and end up poorer.

Dr Aline Wong: Thank you, Mr Chairman, for allowing me to speak before I would consider withdrawing my amendment.

Well, both the Minister and the Senior Parliamentary Secretary have observed that we in general do appreciate the work of the Ministry in keeping up the environmental standards in Singapore. But from the discussions, even in this very short session, I suppose both of them will understand that there are many areas still that have to be improved.

As for this question of privatization, Members of the GPC in general support the idea of trying out this scheme, whether it is 100%, 75%, 50%. It is now up to the Ministry, together with the Ministry of National Development as well the pilot projects in the town council, to work this out. I am extremely glad to hear that the Minister for the Environment has given his undertaking to give every support to the Ang Mo Kio Town Councils to try out this idea. Let this idea be tried out first and let us worry about whether this whole thing will be extended nation-wide at a later stage. Let us take one step at a time. So I am extremely glad to hear this assurance given by the Minister for the Environment.

Dr Ahmad Mattar: Permission is granted.

Dr Aline Wong: Permission is granted. So I understand, yes. I spent 10 minutes at the beginning of this session trying to dissect the hawker policy. I do not seem to be getting anywhere with the Senior Parliamentary Secretary and I indicated that for so many years Members of this House have been arguing with him and he does not seem to change his mind. So I spent 10 minutes in trying to sort out part by part this hawker policy hoping that we could come to some light at the end of the tunnel.

On the question of the poor, the Senior Parliamentary Secretary just said that they are helping them and in fact they are doing them a service if they encourage them to go into alternative employment. May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary if the kind of help he gives them is simply to refer them to the Employment Service Department of the Ministry of Labour? Is that the kind of help that he is giving to these poor hawkers who wait and wait and cannot get an allocation?

The second point I raised with regard to helping the poor is to upgrade the standard of service of some of the old hawker centres. His reply is that they have been spending $1.5 million in upgrading. My question is, is this amount enough? There are so many old hawker centres around that need upgrading and upgrading them will help to provide better services not just so that the hawkers make money, but so that the customers who go to these places will have a better, healthier and a more comfortable eating environment. But his answer is that if some of the older hawker centres are so old as to be unserviceable, well, demolish them!

With regard to the question of modernized hawking, I think it is not a question of geese or swans. He said that we cannot simply transplant other country's experience into our local environment, which I agree. But if we have come short of ideas, it is the responsibility of the Senior Parliamentary Secretary and not the responsibility of the Members here to come out with workable ideas for hawking. If the Senior Parliamentary Secretary cannot come out with innovative ideas, then as I have suggested in my speech, let the idea be thrown open to the public. Have a pilot scheme. Invite applications from members of the public who have enterprising ideas, innovative ideas. And that, I think, is the beginning for a breakthrough in our hawker policy which has encountered so much deadlock for so long. But if the attitude of the Ministry is so adamant, I really have very little to say anymore. So with this I would withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The following amendments stood on the Order Paper Supplement - Dr Ang Kok Peng: Administration (2) That the sum to be allocated for Head M be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead MA-01-1210 of the Main Estimates. Mr Ng Kah Ting: Environmental Health Division (3) That the sum to be allocated for Head M be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead MC-01-1210 of the Main Estimates. Mr S. Chandra Das: Solid Waste Management (4) That the sum to be allocated for Head M be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead MC-02-1210 of the Main Estimates. Dr Ho Tat Kin: Solid Waste Management (5) That the sum to be allocated for Head M be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead MC-02 of the Main Estimates. Mr Chew Heng Ching: Cleansing Services and Public Health Regulation (6) That the sum to be allocated for Head M be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead MC-03-1210 of the Main Estimates. Dr Ang Kok Peng: Dr Koh Lam Son: Mr Goh Chee Wee: Mr Ng Kah Ting: Food Control (7) That the sum to be allocated for Head M be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead MC-04-1210 of the Main Estimates.

The Chairman: Amendments (2) to (7). The respective Members have indicated they are not moving. Amendment (8)*, Dr Wong.

Dr Aline K. Wong: I am not moving.

The Chairman: Dr Wong and the other Members are not here.

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

The Chairman: No, you have not given notice of amendment. The following amendments stood on the Order Paper Supplement - Dr Ho Tat Kin: Hawker Control (9) That the sum to be allocated for Head M be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead MC-05 of the Main Estimates. Dr Koh Lam Son: Development of Refuse Disposal Sites (10) That the sum to be allocated for Head M be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead MC-02-8101 of the Development Estimates. Mr Ng Kah Ting: Purchase of Mechanical Sweepers (11) That the sum to be allocated for Head M be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead MC-03-8102 of the Development Estimates. Dr Koh Lam Son: Mr Ng Kah Ting: Development and Improvement to Market and Hawker Sites (12) That the sum to be allocated for Head M be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead MC-05-8101 of the Development Estimates. Mr Ng Kah Ting: Minor Improvement to Markets/Hawker Centres (13) That the sum to be allocated for Head M be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead MC-05-8102 of the Development Estimates. Mr Chew Heng Ching: Drainage Department (14) That the sum to be allocated for Head M be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead ME-01-1210 of the Main Estimates. Dr Ang Kok Peng: Water Pollution Control (15) That the sum to be allocated for Head M be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead MF-01-1210 of the Main Estimates.

The Chairman: Amendments (9) to (15). The respective Members have indicated they are not moving. The sum of $165,804,470 for Head M ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $293,607,000 for Head M ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.

Head I -

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

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

Sir, I wish to focus my attention here on the Asian Wall Street Journal and to state the views of the Government Parliamentary Committee for Communications and Information on this subject.

Sir, in this respect, I wish to inform the House that I have also written to the Asian Wall Street Journal on 20th February 1987 and followed up with another letter on 9th March 1987. To-date, I have not received any reply nor has the letter been published in the Asian Wall Street Journal. A copy of the letter is circulated for Members' information.

Shortly after the GPC on Communications and Information was formed, the Government gazetted the Asian Wall Street Journal and restricted its circulation in Singapore to 400 copies per issue. The details of this case have been widely publicized. My Committee and I have followed the progress of this case closely. It has astonished us that an international newspaper of some repute could indulge in such unscrupulous and malicious reporting with allegations that they are unable to substantiate. No wonder in the United States, the term "wordsmith" has been applied to some journalists. Like the blacksmith, they fire up their words to red heat, then beat, twist and turn these hot words to suit their purpose, as in the case of the Asian Wall Street Journal.

Having followed all the correspondence and reports by both the Government and AWSJ, we cannot but conclude that we are not only dealing with wordsmiths but word-eaters also, ie, people accomplished in the art of eating their own words. AWSJ has been shown up time and again to have to eat its own words, not once, not twice, not three times, but as many as seven times. Let me illustrate.

Firstly, AWSJ claimed that the article on Sesdaq was "true and accurate". The letters and reports published to-date clearly show that the article was biased and contained errors of fact.

Secondly, AWSJ claimed that "a company controlled by Temasek Holdings Pte Ltd, an investment arm of the Government, was ordered by Temasek to prepare for an immediate listing, even though the concern merchant banker recommended delaying as much as a year." No such company exists. Today, three months after being challenged to give the name of this company, the vast investigative resources of the WSJ and the AWSJ have failed to produce the name.

Thirdly, AWSJ claimed that Mr Koh Beng Seng's first letter was defamatory. Again, three months after being challenged, they are unable to state which portion of the letter was defamatory and how it was defamatory. The letter has now been published. AWSJ has not sued the Singapore Government nor the newspaper that carried the letter.

Fourthly, AWSJ claimed that it could not publish Mr Koh's letter because it was a letter "attacking a staff member for unprofessional conduct, of which the staffer wasn't guilty, and alleging errors of fact that didn't exist." Yet, on 3rd March 1987, AWSJ carried a letter by a Mr McCornac and a Mr Copeland replying to AWSJ's article of 18th February 1987, entitled "Tokyo Stuns Visitors with Soaring Prices." I quote two paragraphs from the letter attacking Mr Damon Darlin, AWSJ's correspondent:

'... he seriously misleads the uninformed reader with irresponsible reportage and a complete disregard for basic economic principles.'

Second quotation:

'... Mr Darlin's inability to understand relative prices reduces the credibility of his argument.'

So much for AWSJ's claim of not publishing such letters.

Fifthly, AWSJ took out a full-page advertisement in the Straits Times to profess that "many of Singapore's most important businesses are telling us that lack of access to the AWSJ is making their operations more difficult." It offered to distribute free copies to its existing subscribers. When the offer was accepted subject to the advertisements being removed from the paper, AWSJ backed down, pleading the lame excuse of "additional mechanical costs". This turned out to be US 7 cents per copy.

To prove the insincerity of AWSJ's concern for their subscribers, the Government offered to "share and bear half of the additional mechanical costs involved in producing a special edition" of the paper without advertisements. The AWSJ backed down yet again. It would seem that their concern for the "many Singapore businesses that depend on the AWSJ for reliable information from around the world and who are being greatly inconvenienced by lack of access to the newspaper" is nothing but a sham.

US 3 1/2 cents per copy is too high a price for AWSJ to pay in their desire to serve their subscribers and to uphold their position as the professed champion of the free flow of information. The truth, we all know, is plain and simple. Its "concern" is nothing but a cover for its desire to make money, to get back the advertising revenue severely eroded by the restriction in circulation.

Sixthly, the AWSJ claimed in a letter to Singapore subscribers dated 9th February 1987 that they were considering a legal challenge to the Government's action. However, in a letter to subscribers dated 20th February 1987, for which they paid some $11,000 to have it displayed in a full-page advertisement in the Straits Times on 24th February 1987, the AWSJ back-tracked. They claimed, and I quote from the letter:

'Reluctantly we have concluded that we cannot bring such a challenge. Our attorneys in Singapore and London advise us that although reasonable grounds exist for challenging the ban as well as the underlying law, such a challenge can be brought only by a Singapore citizen and not The Asian Wall Street Journal itself.'

The Attorney-General has confirmed that Singapore law makes no distinction between citizens and non-citizens in this respect. In Singapore, the right to sue or to defend oneself is not dependent on one's citizenship or nationality. In a letter to the AWSJ dated 25th February 1987, the Government invited the paper to "reconsider its decision not to take legal action". Again, absolute silence from the AWSJ. The AWSJ backed down yet again. Clearly, they could not sue the Government because they had no case. The entire threat of legal action against the Government was one big bluff.

Seventhly, Ambassador Tommy Koh in his letter to the Wall Street Journal and Asian Wall Street Journal pointed out all the falsehoods contained in the editorials of 12th February 1987. The WSJ and AWSJ have not replied to this. Again, on 4th March 1987, Ambassador Koh wrote back to the WSJ and AWSJ to ask, and I quote from his letter which was published in the Straits Times of 6th March 1987:

'You also did not respond to any of the substantive points in my letter. Do you not wish to dispute them?' Again, dead silence from WSJ and AWSJ.

Sir, I have gone into this in some detail to demonstrate clearly that in dealing with the AWSJ, we may be dealing with people with different values, different sense of responsibility, different sense of honour, and different sense of shame. These are people who have no respect for truth, who have no hesitation to distort and to malign. And they have the means; they have the mass media at their disposal to do so.

I would like to ask the Minister how his Ministry intends to monitor the situation and educate Singaporeans so that we can be better prepared for such assaults by the Western media and how we can educate our people to understand how the media can be used against us.

The Chairman: Mr Jek Yeun Thong and Mr Yeo Choo Kok are not here. Mr Chng Hee Kok.

Mr Chng Hee Kok: Mr Chairman, Sir, thank you for letting me join the debate. I cannot resist taking up the issue of the Asian Wall Street Journal. This morning the Minister for Communications and Information has already given a rather elaborate reply on this issue but I think an even more elaborate reply has been given by the Chairman of the Government Parliamentary Committee on Communications and Information.

Let me begin by saying that I am in full support of the stand taken by the Government. In this instance, the issue is very simple. Is there fair play being practised so that we can have the right to reply? Anyone with a sense of fair play and most Singaporeans do have a sense of fair play, I believe, must support the Government's stand and our reaction to the Asian Wall Street Journal's publication of that particular article on Sesdaq. This is a stand which Singaporeans must come forward to express support.

I have only one disagreement with what has happened in the whole debate. We started with a debate which we came out well. We scored good debating points. But in my opinion the debate degenerated into a kind of a brawl like a card game of poker where the stakes were raised progressively higher. I take strong objections mainly to the offer made by the Ministry on behalf of the Government to pay for half of the mechanical costs, ie, the additional cost of printing a Singapore edition of the Asian Wall Street Journal which will be distributed free of charge. According to the press report, this additional cost is less than S 15 per copy. This offer of subsidy raises many questions and issues.

Firstly, in case Members consider the subsidy to be small, I have worked it out and found that it is something close to about $84,000 for one year based on 5,000 copies, 20 days a month and a conservative subsidy of 7 cents per copy. Therefore, for the whole year the Government is expected to spend $84,000 to support the Asian Wall Street Journal and its subscribers if this matter carries on only for one year.

Secondly, the other issue is that if this matter is of sufficient importance, and I am sure we can all agree that it is important, should we not channel this money and play the same game in the way the paper has done? This morning during Question Time I asked the Minister if it will be appropriate to consider taking up the challenge and spend the money on full-page advertisements in international newspapers, particularly the Dow Street's Wall Street Journal in the US which is a parent company of the Asian Wall Street Journal. The Minister has already indicated in an earlier reply that quite naturally we have got very poor coverage in the international press. Naturally they are supportive of their own. The only way, instead of spending the $84,000 to subsidize the Asian Wall Street Journal, is to take up full-page advertisements and hit the Asian Wall Street Journal in the same manner, in the same way in which they have taken up full-page advertisements.

The last point I want to raise is that in view of our very strict stand we take on Government subsidies, this particular subsidy can never be explained nor can we ever rationalize why the Government should subsidize a foreign business, a foreign newspaper at that. And, at the same time, we take such a strict view on subsidies for local businesses.

Dr Yeo Ning Hong: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this morning the Member for Potong Pasir was slow in getting up to ask his supplementary questions. I see that he has got a cut on the Information Division. With your permission, I would ask if he would like to talk about the Asian Wall Street Journal and then I would reply altogether.

The Chairman: Are you talking on the same topic, Mr Chiam?

Mr Chiam See Tong: I do not think I will be speaking on the Asian Wall Street Journal.

The Chairman: All right.

Dr Yeo Ning Hong: Do you not wish to raise any more supplementary questions?

Mr Chiam See Tong: No.

Dr Yeo Ning Hong: Sir, since the Member for Potong Pasir has no more supplementary questions to ask, I will proceed to answer the questions raised by the two Members. I thank the Chairman of the GPC on Communications and Information and his Committee for having followed this subject very closely, having analysed it and having come out with their own points of view. The Member asked how do we best educate Singaporeans in order that they be better prepared and be able to understand the ways in which Western media can be used against us. Sir, I have given some of the points earlier this morning in my reply to two questions asked by the Member for Delta. I would just like to reiterate two very basic principles, two basic principles which the Government uphold in its dealings with the foreign press.

The first principle is this. We operate an open society. We welcome the free flow of information, of different points of views, of different ideas. We allow easy circulation of foreign publications in Singapore and to-date, there are some 3,700 publications in Singapore. Sir, I said this morning that foreigners have different points of view, different values, different perspective, and they are welcomed to air their different views of Singapore. We are quite happy to accept criticisms. We do not tell these foreign publications what they should publish, what they should not. They are completely free to print whatever they like within, of course, the ambits of our laws. I believe this is in the interest of Singapore. It is in the interest of Singaporeans too because it permits Singaporeans to have a much wider vista of different points of views from all over the world. It is also helpful for us because we want to develop as a major financial centre, as a major commercial centre, as well as a major communications centre. That is the first principle - an open approach.

Sir, the second important principle which I have mentioned earlier, which requires reiteration, is this. That while we allow them to report whatever they like, as and when there is serious misreporting, as and when there is false, unfounded, scurrilous allegations made against us, as a nation, or made against some of our major institutions, then it is incumbent on Government to uphold the right of reply. It is up to Government. It is incumbent on Government to defend the national interest and our national integrity. We have to refute these false allegations. And, of course, when we refute these allegations, we expect that any respectable newspaper would publish the different point of view that we hold. This, I believe, is eminently fair. This is something that we believe in. It is common-sensical that when we disagree with what they say, we should say so. Even the Foreign Correspondents Association in Singapore which is made up of foreign correspondents from outside of Singapore, upheld the principle of the right of reply.

Sir, I said a moment ago that these are our two basic principles and it is on these two principles that we operate and deal with the foreign newspapers. The foreign papers are free to accept this privilege that we extend to them to circulate in Singapore, or they are free not to accept. But if they accept this privilege that we extend to them, then similarly we expect that when we write to correct or to air a different point of view, that they give us space to publish that letter.

Sir, the Asian Wall Street Journal restriction is a good illustration, that even supposedly reputable newspapers can indulge in false, biased and unfounded allegations, that they do indulge in cover-ups, the refusal to publish alternative points of views that do not coincide with theirs, that they do suppress points of views that may show up the half-truths that are purveyed in their articles. Our approach is very simple. When allegations are made, we engage them in open debate. Our approach is to make public all the facts so that Singaporeans can decide for themselves who is and who is not telling the truth. Sir, that way foreigners living and working in Singapore - and there are large numbers of them -can also read for themselves and decide for themselves who is and who is not telling the truth. So that approach would be the way in which we would continue to educate Singaporeans.

Sir, the Member for Radin Mas asked why we were prepared to spend money in making it possible for the Asian Wall Street Journal to publish an advertisement-free edition of the newspapers. Members will recall that the Journal offered, in an advertisement in the Straits Times, to give free copies of the Journal. Sir, we saw through their intentions. Their purpose was very simple - to recover revenue lost as a result of the reduced circulation. And we made it possible for them, if they wanted to, to provide news to their subscribers free of charge - without advertisements. They came back with a very lame excuse that it was mechanical cost, that it was difficult. We checked with the printers. It is not true. So in order to prove their insincerity, we offered to bear half the cost. The rest is history. They are interested in being able to publish those advertisements which represent their lifeline. So it is not for purposes of subsidizing the Asian Wall Street Journal that that offer was made. The offer was made to demonstrate a point and the point has been well demonstrated and proven.

The Member asked earlier this morning as well as a moment ago: why not take up advertisement space in the Wall Street Journal and the Asian Wall Street Journal? My question to him is: why help support the Wall Street Journal and the Asian Wall Street Journal in their revenues?

Mr Chandra Das: Mr Chairman, Sir, I would like to congratulate the Minister for the stand he has taken in curtailing the circulation of TIME magazine and, recently, the Asian Wall Street Journal.

Sir, we may be a very small country but I think it is important to demonstrate our independence on matters affecting us and not let foreign newspapers dictate what we should do and what we should not do. Sir, I, for one, find it extremely difficult to understand why a respectable financial paper, like the Asian Wall Street Journal, is unwilling to correct an error, an error pointed out not only by the Government but also by a number of independent bodies.

Mr Chairman, Sir, the people in Singapore understand our position, and rightly so because our local newspapers have given adequate coverage to the Government's position as well as that of the Asian Wall Street Journal. However, Sir, internationally, people are only treated to the Asian Wall Street Journal version of the case. Last month I happened to be in Karachi for a business meeting and was surprised to find how well informed were some of the businessmen on the so-called Asian Wall Street Journal affair. Unfortunately, Sir, they were only treated to the Asian Wall Street Journal side of the story. The Singapore side of the story was totally missing, although my group was able to put across the Singapore side. Certainly one does not expect the Asian Wall Street Journal to put up the Singapore side of the story. Sir, in view of this, I am wondering whether the Minister in conjunction with his colleague, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, has any plan to get our side of the story across, not only on this issue but on various issues which affect Singapore, at least in the capitals where we have major business and political interests.

Sir, I used to remember in the early days most of our missions abroad used to have information officers. Maybe we can look at the possibility of reinstating them selectively at some of our missions abroad. Right now, Sir, just distributing Government publications is not sufficient. Also, one or two letters by our Ambassadors and Heads of Missions is also not sufficient. I am aware of manpower constraints, which is what the Minister would say. Nevertheless, I still feel some positive steps should be taken in this direction to protect our business and other political interests.

The Chairman: Dr Wang Kai Yuen.

Mr Chiam See Tong rose.

The Chairman: I thought you said you were not speaking when you were offered a chance.

Mr Chiam See Tong: But I just want ---

The Chairman: I have recognized Dr Wang Kai Yuen.

Mr Chiam See Tong: --- five minutes to speak on this Head.

The Chairman: Well, you said you were not speaking when I asked you earlier on.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Now it is with regard to the subject of Asian Wall Street Journal.

The Chairman: Dr Wang.

Dr Wang Kai Yuen: Mr Chairman, Sir, as I have an amendment No. (2) on this Head, may I be allowed 10 minutes to speak and join in the debate right now?

The Chairman: You have only 5 minutes.

Dr Wang Kai Yuen: I will take my 5 minutes.

Sir, in the Asian Wall Street Journal episode, we have found that editors and publishers are prepared to engage in false and irresponsible reporting to tarnish the reputation of the Singapore Government while knowing full well that, in so doing, the livelihood of every Singaporean would be affected ultimately if the falsehoods were perpetuated.

Singaporeans who have very little experience with the American and Western style of journalism may have been surprised and shocked at how Asian Wall Street Journal, an international paper of some repute, could publish such a malicious article with its obvious bias and unfounded allegations about the Singapore Government. However, if we were to look at the matter more closely, it is not difficult to understand why. We see that the American press has evolved under a clause in the US Constitution covering the freedom of press. There, under the concept of freedom of the press, journalists have developed a certain righteous arrogance since they can write practically anything they wanted. At one stage the so-called investigative reporting has descended, in fact, to garbage reporting. If Members could recall how Mr Kissinger's daily garbage was inspected thoroughly by the reporters.

Through its ability to influence public opinion, the newspaper can indeed make or break a Presidency. All we have to do is to look at how the Kennedy Presidency was glorified, Camelot, Man and the Moon, etc, while the Bay of Pigs fiasco was played down. On the other hand, we can look at how President Ford and President Carter who were presented in less than favourable circumstances by the press. I believe we all will remember how President Ford kept pumping his head into door frames, helicopter doors, and so on. To a large extent, I believe such reporting cost him the Presidency. That is the style of the Western reporters.

What do the ordinary Americans who are familiar with such journalism think of their press and how they would deal with the reporting in the papers? A survey published in TIME magazine dated 13th December 1983 showed that only 13.7% of the Americans, that is, only one person in seven, has a great deal of confidence in the press, the overwhelming majority does not. To quote the TIME magazine:

'The roster of complaints gainst the press is diverse, even contradictory. But there is an instructive consistency to the questions that the public ask most often. Are reporters accurate? Or will they shape a coat, ignore a fact or even concoct an anonymous source in order to make a point? Are they fair and objective?'

The article goes on:

'The most fundamental of this question is: can you believe what you read and see?'

A more recent survey was published by the US News and World Report in its 23rd February 1987 issue entitled "Lying in America". In the lead article, "A Nation of Liars", there is a portion which relates to the press. The survey shows that 20% of Americans, ie, 1 in 5, believe that the American press does not often tell the truth. In contrast, only 8%, ie, 1 in 12, believe that the press always tell them the truth. Thus in the American readership, they have built up a certain credibility filter when reading the newspapers.

In Singapore, the situation is quite different. Our journalists take their profession seriously and their job is to report the news factually and accurately. They are individuals with strong moral characteristics. In fact, some hon. Members of this House come from that profession.

The Chairman: Order. Your time is up, Dr Wang. Dr Lau Teik Soon.

Dr Lau Teik Soon (Serangoon Gardens): Thank you, Mr Chairman. Sir, the Asian Wall Street Journal issue is not a question of fair play or otherwise. In my view, it is a simple matter of a representative of a foreign value system attempting to impose on us.

The Asian Wall Street Journal being an American newspaper stands by what they mean by press freedom. And I would like to quote the aide memoire of the US Embassy in this regard. This is what they mean by press freedom and I quote:

'... the press is free to publish or not publish what it chooses, however irresponsible or biased its actions may seem to be.'

Hence, from their point of view, press freedom means not just the freedom to publish whatever they choose but also irresponsible and biased news. In Singapore, however, we view press freedom differently. As my colleague has just said, our Singapore newspapers are responsible. They report accurate information aimed at educating the public and presenting the news as they are.

Sir, if in Singapore we were to allow the foreign press circulating here to adopt their interpretation of press freedom, it can lead to disaster for us. In our society, there are various constraints, there are various sensitive issues relating to race, religion and language. How can we allow statements relating to those issues to be published if they are irresponsible statements, if they are biased statements? In the view of the American press, even if it is irresponsible or biased, they can be published. That is what they mean by press freedom. But not in our society where multi-racial harmony is vital to our national interest.

Take another example. It is vital that we have foreign investments, foreign technology, to sustain our economic growth. If a foreign press here were allowed to publish irresponsible or biased facts which undermine confidence in our economy, in our society, then clearly this would have an impact on foreign investments and we cannot allow that to happen.

Sir, I think the Government has been too patient with the Asian Wall Street Journal. All that amount of correspondence that has been going on, I agree with my colleague, the Member for Radin Mas, that the Government should not subsidize in any way the publication of the Asian Wall Street Journal in the form being suggested. In fact, I think we should take more effective measures, more decisive measures. When the amendment to the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act was being debated, there were reservations as to how this amendment would be effective in achieving its objective. And now we see a situation where a foreign newspaper has gone against our law and, in fact, is getting away with it in my view. We are allowing 400 copies of falsehood to still circulate in Singapore. I would suggest that we decide to take more stringent measures. I am wondering whether the Minister would consider withdrawing the licence to publish this newspaper.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Mr Chairman, I am not going to defend the Asian Wall Street Journal. I think the issue is perhaps one of press freedom. It would appear that there are different definitions of press freedom. The Americans have one definition and in Singapore we have another definition. But in the Asian Wall Street Journal affair, it would appear that the PAP Government is being hurt and so it reacts very violently. This is perhaps one of the few times that it has been hurt.

I am in the Opposition and we have been hurt almost every other day. I do not know what kind of press freedom we have in Singapore because whatever has been said in this House of the wrongdoings of the Asian Wall Street Journal can be applied to the Opposition. Whatever we say has been distorted, misrepresented and whatever little errors that we make are fully highlighted. Take the recent debates that we had here. I have been accused of not doing my homework. I have been accused of being bowled over for six, and I do not know what else. I have asked a question of the Minister and he says, "You go and look at the textbooks" and that has been published. But I got no answers from the Minister this morning. I wonder whether they will publish that.

I notice that in yesterday's paper, a whole chunk of my five-minute speech was completely left out.

An hon. Member: That is press freedom.

Mr Chiam See Tong: That is press freedom from the definition of the Americans. They are free to publish what- ever they like. That is the American definition of press freedom. But here in Singapore I really do not know what press freedom is. Press freedom here is just to highlight Government policies, Ministers' speeches. Whatever the Ministers say ---

The Minister for Home Affairs (Prof. S. Jayakumar): Sir, may I ask a question of the Member for Potong Pasir?

The Chairman: Are you giving way, Mr Chiam?

Mr Chiam See Tong: Yes, why not? All right. This is a free country.

Prof. Jayakumar: If the press in Singapore has misrepresented him or has not correctly reported him, has he written in to give his version of what he thinks ought to have been reported correctly?

The Prime Minister: Or what took place.

Prof. Jayakumar: Or what took place? Has he written to the press to give his side of the story?

Mr Chiam See Tong: I have personally not done so. But friends have written in and they have shown me the letters they have written. If you want, I could show them to you. But I have taken certain other steps though, but not write to the press.

Prof. Jayakumar: Sir, may we know what are the other steps he has taken to make sure that his viewpoint has been brought to the attention of the Singapore public?

Mr Chiam See Tong: Recently, I have made a complaint to the Privileges Committee on a wrong reporting. I thought it was wrong. And I think the Committee agreed with me because the reply was not really that convincing. But still the matter was not taken up. I was asked to move a motion in Parliament. I doubt I will get a seconder.

Prof. Jayakumar: Sir, may I know when was the complaint filed before the Privileges Committee? Because we have not seen a report.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Are you saying that I did not complain?

Prof. Jayakumar: I want to know when.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Please, you accept my word for it. Are you doubting that I have not filed a complaint? I think the Clerk here will bear me out. Please, do not say such things. I have done it, please.

As far as I know, the credibility of the press in Singapore is very much dented. The Member for Bukit Timah, I believe, said that some kind of statistics have been taken on the credibility of the press in America. I think it is a good idea if we have one such poll taken of our local press. Because as far as I know, amongst the people I have talked to, or at least in the last general elections, they preferred to attend Opposition rallies than to read in the press of what had been said. This is to show the credibility of the press.

As regards the Government radio, I think more people are now listening in to BBC, and I think the Government has done a really good thing in allowing the BBC to broadcast from Singapore. And I think if a poll is taken, you will find that more people are tuning in to the BBC than to our local radio.

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I asked two questions. Has he been misrepresented or denied any coverage of what he says in Parliament in SBC's nightly telecast? And, if so, has he written in to the SBC?

Mr Chiam See Tong: I have just mentioned that I have been completely cut out in yesterday's debates. We have only one Opposition here. And if a person were to watch TV or tune in to the radio last night, he would not have heard anything about the Opposition. And he would think that there is no Opposition in Singapore. [Interruptions]. Well, it reported only matters which did not, shall I say, reflect well of the Opposition. Please, you look at the headlines. The way the news is printed and how it is headlined, I think it is very important. But every time you look at the headlines in respect of the Opposition, it is never good. Tell me one where there is a good headline obout any opposition? Perhaps that is a good question to ask the Minister.

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I do not want to pre-empt my colleague, the Minister for Communications and Information, but I cannot resist this. Surely the newspapers will give headlines when what he said is worthy of a headline.

Some hon. Members: Yes.

Mr Chiam See Tong: I thought that the headline on Chiam being bowled over was not worthy of a headline. Really, I thought I was the one who bowled over the Second Defence Minister when I said that in Singapore, it is the Land of the Rising Son. I could see his face turn blue, green, yellow.

The other thing about the local papers is that their practice is similar to the Asian Wall Street Journal. They have every right not to print any letters that they receive. I have got complaints and letters were shown to me which say, "Look, Mr Chiam, I have sent this letter to the Straits Times and it was rejected and sent back to me." I think it is the privilege of the paper whether to print or not to print letters that are sent to it.

The Prime Minister: Sir, on a point of clarification. We on this side of the House undertake to support the Member for Potong Pasir in his right to have any misreporting of anything he has said or done published so that no misrepresentation of what he has said or done should be allowed to mislead his followers or neutrals. We support his right to have what he said, what he did, correctly reported.

Mr Chiam See Tong: I am really happy to hear the Prime Minister saying that because you can check with the Straits Times up to the very moment now I have not written one letter to the Straits Times because I did not bother. Because I know it will be edited. So if the Prime Minister is saying that whatever ---

The Prime Minister: Is he suggesting for one moment that SBC put words into his mouth? That it was his picture and somebody else's voice?

Mr Chiam See Tong: I think the question is really double standards we are talking about. The Government expects one standard for itself, another standard for others. For itself, whatever it writes to the foreign press, it must be published. Whatever it writes, of course, to the local press, they will publish obediently. In the case of the Opposition ---

The Prime Minister: The point I made is, I support his right. I am supporting his right to have his letter of correction published.

The Chairman: All right. Continue, please.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Have I the right to continue?

The Chairman: I have just asked you to continue.

Mr Chiam See Tong: I am much obliged, Sir.

I was just saying that in Singapore we have two standards, as far as the media is concerned. One standard for the Government, one standard for the Opposition. If I hear the Prime Minister says correctly, I think I am very happy to hear that because from now on I will be writing to the Straits Times --

Mr Chandra Das: Free tuition.

Mr Chiam See Tong: And I hope they will publish my letters as it has been written.

The Prime Minister: I ask the Member to hear me carefully.

The Chairman: Mr Prime Minister, the Member is not giving way.

The Prime Minister: He is misrepresenting what I said, Mr Chairman.

Mr Chiam See Tong: You will have your chance.

The Chairman: You will have a chance to correct later.

The Prime Minister: All right.

The Chairman: Continue, Mr Chiam.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Yes, I will do that from now on. I will make a point to correct them whenever ---

The Prime Minister: Ah, to correct them.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Yes, certainly. I will do that. Because I was not sure that whatever I write to them will be published. So it is no use going through that exercise. But now that the Prime Minister says so, I will certainly make a point.

An hon. Member: "It must be so".

Mr Chiam See Tong: Why not?

An hon. Member: It must be so.

Mr Chiam See Tong: No. I mean, we have just all heard. So why not? I will do that. I think Singapore people ---

The Chairman: Mr Chiam, your time is almost up. I have allowed for interruption time. Have you finished?

Mr Chiam See Tong: I was just finishing my last point.

The Chairman: All right.

Mr Chiam See Tong: I think there is no need for the Straits Times or any of our local press to highlight wrongly, put in a bigger print the bad points about the Opposition because the people of Singapore today, I believe, are mature and they can decide for themselves. And if the Straits Times wants credibility, I think they should be fair. I am not asking anything more. They should be fair to the Opposition.

The Chairman: Your time is up, Mr Chiam.

Dr Yeo Ning Hong: Sir, while we are on the subject of the Asian Wall Street Journal, let me just finish off the debate before we take up the points raised by the other Members.

Sir, it is interesting to note that the Member for Potong Pasir is complaining about the non-publication of non letters that were not written to the newspapers. If he did not write to the newspapers, if he did not write to the SBC, how could they possibly publish his non letter?

Sir, I would like to ask the Member a very specific question. I enunciated earlier on two basic principles the Government upholds in its dealing with the foreign newspapers. The first principle is the prin- ciple of having an open society permitting them to publish in Singapore what they so wish. The second principle is the principle that we uphold the right of reply. Can I ask the Member if he agrees with these two principles? Or if he does not?

Mr Chiam See Tong: Mr Chairman, certainly I agree with these two principles. We cannot fault these two principles at all. I hope the Government will get our local press to apply these two principles to the Opposition as well, please.

Dr Yeo Ning Hong: Sir, I am happy to note that the Member for Potong Pasir has upheld the principles which the Government has established, namely, the right to reply to malicious, unfounded allegations and false reporting. The Member would like our local press to apply that same principle to whatever he writes to them. I would ask the newspapers to take note of that. The newspapers would have to decide whether of all the many letters that they receive from a large number of individuals wanting to get their views published in the newspapers, the newspapers will have to decide which are profound, and which are trivial. They will have to decide if they wish to classify the Member for Potong Pasir's letter in the first category and if they wish to publish it. But the Member for Potong Pasir can very easily bring his letter to this House and read it for all to hear so that we will all know what he has written to the press and what it is that the press does not wish to publish for him.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Can I be allowed to ask a specific question of the Minister? There was a letter in the Straits Times, I think it was yesterday, and the headline says something about "Puzzling about whether there is a Potong Pasir across the causeway and Potong Pasir in Singapore". Have you read that letter, Mr Minister?

Dr Yeo Ning Hong: Yes.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Now, in your view, do you think that that letter is a trivial letter, a letter of the Straits Times of such prestige and high standing, do you think that that letter is really fit for publication in your view?

Dr Yeo Ning Hong: Sir, I mentioned a moment ago that it is up to the newspaper to decide ---

Mr Chiam See Tong: No, I am asking you. I am asking you whether you think that that letter is fit for publication?

The Chairman: Are you giving way?

Dr Yeo Ning Hong: No.

Mr Chiam See Tong resumed his seat.

Dr Yeo Ning Hong: Sir, I mentioned a moment ago that it is up to the newspapers to decide whether his views which, up until now, he has already told us he has not written in to the newspapers, whether his views are going to be profound or whether they are going to be trivial, or even whether they are going to border on the ridiculous.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Mr Chairman, I am asking the Minister a specific question. Firstly, I asked him whether he has read that letter, and he said yes. Now I am asking him whether or not he thinks that that letter is fit for publication in a newspaper like - don't look at the Prime Minister, please - do it on your own![Laughter].

Dr Yeo Ning Hong: Sir, I will be quite happy to continue this debate with the Member for Potong Pasir. It is not my business, it is not my job, it is not my responsibility, as Minister for Communications and Information ---

Mr Chiam See Tong: Answer my question.

Dr Yeo Ning Hong: Sir, if the Member for Potong Pasir will permit me to continue.

The Chairman: Continue, please.

Dr Yeo Ning Hong: It is not my responsibility as the Minister for Communications and Information to decide for the newspapers what they wish or they do not wish to print. If you will recall the very first principle which I enunciated earlier on ---

Mr Chiam See Tong: Answer my question.

Dr Yeo Ning Hong: Which I enunciated earlier on, namely, we permit newspapers to publish what they like. We do not tell them what they should publish and what they should not publish.

Mr Chiam See Tong: I am asking your view.

Dr Yeo Ning Hong: And that includes the local as well as the foreign newspapers. Sir, I do not wish to give my point of view on letters published in the newspapers. I have no doubt at all that some of the letters published in the newspapers are frivolous. There are some that are profound, but it is not my business to tell the Member for Potong Pasir if a particular letter in the newspaper is trivial or otherwise.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Mr Chairman, I am very dissatisfied with the answer. That is no answer at all. Does not the Minister have an opinion? Surely he must have one. Whether it is fit or not fit for publication?

The Prime Minister: Can I express one?

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Please, Mr Prime Minister, last time you said that you were asking me and not asking Mr Jeyaretnam. My turn now is, I am asking him and not asking you! [Laughter].

The Prime Minister: Are you Mr Jeyaretnam?

Dr Yeo Ning Hong: Sir, I have already stated my position. I have no intention whatsoever ---

Mr Chiam See Tong: Your opinion.

Dr Yeo Ning Hong: I have no intention whatsoever of passing comments on the newspapers.

The Chairman: Yes, Mr Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister: Can I clarify what I said just now? We accord the Member for Potong Pasir the right which we claim for ourselves, the right not to have what we said or what we have done misrepresented. If the Member for Potong Pasir feels that that letter has misrepresented what he said or what he has done and he will write a reply or a rebuttal to that letter, I will support his right to have that letter given publication.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Thank you.

The Prime Minister: But if I remember the letter rightly, I scanned it ever so briefly, it is part of my breakfast multi-facet operation, eating and reading ---

Mr Chiam See Tong: Bad for the health.

The Prime Minister: It is good for the digestion. It makes a painful point in a humorous way. And if the Member has a sense of humour, he would find his rebuttal accepted for publication because he could make a counterpoint with the same malicious touch.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Mr Prime Minister, I have already said I agreed with what the Minister has said. I believe in open society and the right of reply. I believe that. I said so. Since the Prime Minister has given me that assurance again, I will certainly reply to that letter. Thank you.

The Chairman: Dr Yeo, do you wish to continue?

Dr Yeo Ning Hong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I now come to the point raised by the Member for Chong Boon. Sir, the Member asked if there is any intention to have information officers in the foreign embassies to help with the dissemination of information about Singapore.

Sir, we are a small country. Our population is relatively small. So too is our talent pool. Unlike many other countries which have very large embassies, we are not able to afford it. Therefore it is incumbent upon our embassy staff to carry out as many of the various necessary functions as possible collectively. We cannot afford to have large numbers of specialists, each one dealing with a very narrow spectrum of activity. By and large, our embassy personnel have done their jobs well. They monitor the reports in other countries routinely. They bring back such information to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. With modern telecommunication available, it is very easy for these embassies to be kept in close touch with the Ministry. And they have done an excellent job by and large in ensuring that the points of views, the policies of the Singapore Government, have been properly explained to the key decision-makers in these countries. We have no difficulty at all in enabling our points of views to be made public in these other countries.

Sir, I would disagree with the Member for Chong Boon when he said that writing an occasional letter or two to the local newspapers is unable to help us get our point of view. Appropriate letters, well written and published, can convey our points of view across adequately.

Mr Chng Hee Kok: Mr Chairman, Sir, can I make a point in reply to what the Minister said earlier? I have no intention of supporting the Asian Wall Street Journal in improving their revenues. The point I made about full-page advertisement is well illustrated by the point just made by the Member for Chong Boon. That is precisely the problem. Readers of Wall Street Journal read only one side of the story. They do not know the Government's stand. The only way we can really take up our case is to buy advertising space. The same readers will then be able to judge for themselves if we take up advertising space to explain our position and to state our case. The point I made must be taken in the context of what I said earlier about spending $84,000. If we are going to spend $84,000 to subsidize a newspaper, why not find other ways of spending the money to improve it? I am suggesting that full-page advertisements will be more effective than trying to do it the other way round.

Dr Yeo Ning Hong: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I must disagree with the Member for Radin Mas on the appropriate approach to get our point of view across. As I said earlier, there is no intention to subsidize or to assist the Wall Street Journal and the Asian Wall Street Journal.

Sir, I come now to a point raised by the Member for Serangoon Gardens. He asked why not take more stringent measures against them and prevent them even from circulating in Singapore. That would not be acceptable to us because our first principle is to permit easy circulation of foreign publications in Singapore.

Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam: Sir, I thank the Minister for his reply. The Government Parliamentary Committee on Communications and Information supports him.

Sir, we are indeed fortunate to have a sensible and responsible local press corps. However, because of this very attitude of theirs, they have come under very severe criticisms. Members will remember the very sarcastic and caustic remarks made against the local press by the former Member for Anson. What was the reply of the press corps then? They considered it, and I discussed this with them, and their reaction was that they would not make any reply. Why did they choose not to reply? They felt that it was unprofessional of them to use their own columns to defend themselves. This is what I call professionalism.

The Member for Potong Pasir now has also joined in the criticism against the local press.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Why not?

Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam: He is offended that his five-minute speech has not been printed. What about us PAP Backbenchers? I am sure that percentage-wise, one out of 79, he has been over-reported. The fact that our local papers can choose who to report, what they want to report, how they want to report it, has much to say about press freedom in Singapore today. I encourage our local press to adhere to their present policy steadfastly regardless of all these criticisms.

More seriously, the Member for Potong Pasir has not made one criticism against the Asian Wall Street Journal but he has much to complain about the local newspapers.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Why not? Double standards.

Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam: I will discuss this matter with my colleagues in our Government Parliamentary Committee and also with the local journalists and I hope that the local journalists will then speak out. The Committee will then make a report.

Sir, when our Committee scouted around for journalists to sit in our resource panel, many journalists declined. Why did they decline? They very, very professionally pointed out to me that for them to sit on the resource panel would mean a loss of objectivity. Although it will be prestigious, it would be a loss of objectivity. And here they suggested that perhaps management staff of the papers could sit. And here we will take up their suggestion. This is what I call good, objective professionalism and I am proud of our local press corps.

Sir, our press corps must not be deterred. They must continue steadfastly in what they are doing for what they are doing is the right thing. They must not emulate the Western press, as has been pointed out by the Minister for Communications and Information. I beg to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Lai Tha Chai: Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocatd for Head I be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead IA-01 of the Main Estimates.*

Sir, after the lengthy discussion on the AWSJ issue, I would like to move to another topical issue, ie, the air services agreement.

Sir, I read in the newspapers that some Malaysians are calling for the termination of the air services agreement between Singapore and Malaysia. We all know that the Singapore and Malaysian economies are very closely intertwined. According to a Straits Times article on 24th of last month, the 1986 Malaysian Industrial Digest reported that "Singapore is KL's second largest investor." Sir, we are the second largest investor in Malaysia, investing about Malaysian Ringgit 90 million in some 60 projects. This investment will create some 8,000 new jobs in Malaysia. This level of investment is much higher than last year when about Malaysian Ringgit 45 million was invested and about 7,000 new jobs created.

Sir, cumulatively over the years, with the encouragement of our Government, Singaporean businessmen must have invested hundreds of millions of dollars in Malaysia, creating tens of thousands of jobs for Malaysians. Such investment confidence is only possible when relationships between our two countries are on an even keel. Termination of air services agreement must result in investors being discouraged from investing in Malaysia. For who would want to put his money in a place that is so difficult to get to?

Businessmen who put their money in projects or companies in Malaysia quite obviously would like to be able to visit these companies and supervise their operations regularly. If air travel is made difficult, inconvenient and time-consuming as a result of the termination of air services, this must obviously make Singaporean investors in Malaysia think twice about their investments. Furthermore, those already in Malaysia will have to re-do their calculations. They will have to decide if they wish to reduce or even cut their investments and withdraw their earlier commitments. For no businessmen - I know, Sir, you are a good businessman, a very successful businessman - can operate in today's fast changing economic climate without having easy access to supervise and manage their investments. The end result must mean a loss of investment for Malaysia and a loss of jobs and job opportunites for Malaysians.

Sir, Singapore is also reported to be Malaysia's second most important trading partner. The termination of air links will mean that transportation of exports from Malaysia into Singapore will be severely impeded as the flow of land traffic of all categories will be severely curtailed. Massive traffic jams at the Causeway will discourage any flow. This must quite obviously affect the economies of both countries. Singaporean businessmen must gear up for such an eventuality. They will have to look to other countries for their imports.

Sir, as we all know, large numbers of Singaporeans visit Malaysia for their holidays in addition to those who visit for business reasons. Without convenient air connections between Singapore and those holiday resorts in Malaysia, why should Singaporeans want to go through the massive jams at the Causeway, drive all the way down to Senai Airport, leave their cars unattended for days or even weeks, just to have a holiday either in Kuala Lumpur, Genting, Penang or the East Coast, when there are attractive holiday resorts nearby at competitive prices, such as Phuket, Lake Toba and Bali conveniently located, a flight away from Changi. The impact on the tourist industry of Malaysia can be expected to be immense. Singaporeans will then have to ask themselves whether all the hassle is worthwhile as far as taking a holiday in Malaysia is concerned. If I am not mistaken, Sir, about half a million Singaporeans go to Malaysia every year for their holidays. Besides, there are the many tourists who visit Singapore going to Malaysia for side trips. These trips will all dry up. The effect on the Malaysian tourist industry will be drastic.

Sir, in spite of these obvious disadvantages, there would be some who would benefit from the cut in air links, those with monopolies or special interests. They are the people who are prepared to risk the close trading ties and relationship between the two countries. That is why they are pressing for this termination. We in Singapore must be prepared for this and take the necessary action so that we can safeguard our national interest.

Sir, in this connection, I would like to ask the Minister, firstly, how many airlines fly into Singapore? What is the overall trend of air services agreements world wide? Is it towards an increase in more air links or is there an increase in protectionism? And, finally, Sir, has there been termination of air services before and, if so, what has been the end result?

The Chairman: Dr Wang is not here. Mr Chiam.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, there are only two minutes left. Can we carry this over ---

The Chairman: Make the best of it. Carry on.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, may I just comment on where we left off the last time. I was going to speak on something else but there are only two minutes. Basically, I was not attacking any of our journalists. Generally, I hold our local journalists with high esteem. There are one or two, of course, who are exceptions. But generally I am saying I do respect our local journalists. They are very talented and, in fact, they have been complimented on by none other than Mrs Graham herself. She is the owner and publisher of the Washington Post and also the owner of Newsweek. She said that our journalists are as good as any journalists in the world. They are alert. They are knowledgeable. But unfortunately, I think many of them are unable to write objectively under our present restraint.

I will give you an example. In the 1981 Anson by-election, this journalist who is experienced and has been covering political affairs for a long time must have known, being an experienced journalist, that there was a 50-50 chance ---

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.

Dr Yeo Ning Hong: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply has made further progress on the Main and Development Estimates for the financial year 1987/88, and ask leave to sit again on Monday, 23rd March, 1987.

Mr Deputy Speaker: So be it.