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

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

Head R -

Resumption of Debate on Question [23rd March, 1987],

"That the sum to be allocated for Head R be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead RA-01-1100 of the Main Estimates." - [Mr Lim Boon Heng].

Question again proposed.

11.17 am

Mr Goh Chee Wee (Boon Lay): Mr Chairman, Sir, when Parliament adjourned yesterday, I was commending the Government for introducing the incentive scheme for working women and I also expressed my hope that the private sector employers will follow suit. Of course, I can understand the reluctance of the employers to grant four years no-pay leave because private sector enterprises face greater uncertainty of the future than the Government as an employer. Nevertheless, I would like to see that as far as possible companies, particularly the larger ones, should keep the no- pay leave option open for the female employees.

As regards full-pay unrecorded leave and part-time employment, I feel that this is what the private sector employers can provide. It is within the employers ability to provide such employment terms. I would like to ask the Minister for Labour what plans does the Ministry have to encourage the private sector employers to provide special incentives to the female employees similar to the ones offered by the Government.

I would now like to turn to the question of part-time employment. While asking employers to provide part-time jobs, I would like the Minister to examine in greater depth the problem of part-time employment. Presently, there is no clear definition of what is part-time employment. The Employment Act makes no distinction between part-time and full-time employment. In other words, all the part-time and full-time employment is governed by the provisions of the Employment Act. But currently, many employers are not sure whether they are obliged to grant all the benefits stipulated in the Employment Act such as annual leave, rest day and maternity leave to the part-time workers. Some feel that certain benefits are not relevant to the part-time workers. Some treat the part-time workers as temporary workers. There are abuses and some avoid paying CPF. So there is a need for the Employment Act to define clearly what is part-time work, in particular, in terms of number of hours worked per week. We have to spell out the benefits which are relevant and payable to the part-time workers. We can also specify the terms which can be subjects of negotiation between the employers and the part-time employees. While we would like to accord flexibility to the employers to engage part-time workers and make it attractive for the workers to take up part-time jobs, we must at the same time build in sufficient safeguards to check abuses.

Sir, one of the main purposes of providing part-time job is to enable the married women who have a family commitment to take up gainful employment. It also enables people who need extra income to work part-time. But we should not relax the condition of part-time employment to the extent that the employers are induced to replace their full-time employees by part-time or temporary workers.

Another matter which is of concern is that many employers are still reluctant to employ workers who, in their view, are too old for the job. Take the electronic industries, for instance. A number of employers are still stipulating in their advertisement that the age limit for the job of production operators is 35 or 30. Some even stipulate 28 years as the age limit.

An hon. Member: 25 years.

Mr Goh Chee Wee: My colleague tells me 25 years. This is ridiculous. How can you consider a 25-year old person as too old? Two weeks ago, there was a photograph in the Straits Times which showed a factory assembly line in America. I think it was dated 11th March. I suggest that the Minister for Labour make photocopies and distribute it to all employers. If you look at the female workers in the assembly line in America, they are at least 40-50 years old. And here in Singapore our employers want young girls aged 25-28 years. Of course, they cannot find so many young Singapore workers and so they want Malaysian workers. And they complain about the foreign worker's levy. In the meantime, our able-bodied women are staying at home. I think we must change the attitude of the employers.

Sir, we are facing a shortage of workers in certain sectors of our economy. Our workforce is aging too. Increasingly, a larger proportion of our population are entering the age group of over 40 years old. The employers must be prepared to widen their choice and provide employment to these people. I hope the Ministry will make an effort to change the attitude of the employers and remove their bias against the older workers who, in the first place, should not be considered old.

While still on the issue of older workers, I would like to comment on the subject of the retirement age. Sir, with an aging population, it is necessary to encourage Singaporeans to remain in the workforce beyond the age of 55. In 1986, the Economic Committee recommended two measures to encourage employers to retain their older workers.

(1) Reduce CPF contribution rate for older workers. The Committee proposed that the CPF contribution rate be progressively reduced after the age of 45.

(2) Encourage employers to offer part-time employment to retired workers.

Sir, for the last 15 years, the trade unions in Singapore have been pushing hard for a raising of the retirement age. Let me give some comparative figures. The Ministry of Labour and the NTUC have made an analysis of the retirement age specified in the collective agreements signed between the employers and the unions during the period, 1972 to 1974, and for the period, 1982 to 1984. The figures have not been published but I will quote the findings.

In all the collective agreements signed between the employers and the unions during the three years, 1972 to 1974, a total of 11% of the collective agreements provided for retirement age of 60 years. Largely due to the effort of the trade unions, the percentage of the collective agreements specifying retirement age of 60 was increased to 21%. This is 10 years later in the period, 1982 to 1984. But unfortunately, there has hardly been any progress in the last two years, notwithstanding the active encouragement of the Government. Recently, the Singapore National Employers Federation (SNEF) published its Comparative Guide to Collective Agreements, 1987. Of the 121 collective agreements signed last year, only 14% specified retirement age of 60 years, which means that there is a drop from 21% to 14%. This indicates that instead of making progress, we are sliding backwards.

Sir, employers are unwilling to raise the retirement age. I think they are concerned about the cost of employing older workers. Perhaps they are waiting for the Government's incentives and schemes to encourage employment of older workers, such as reduction of CPF contribution rate.

Sir, while I do not believe that it is wise to reduce the CPF contribution rate from the age of 45, I would not hesitate to support reduction of CPF contribution rate after the age of 55 if this will encourage employers to retain their workers beyond this age. I would therefore suggest that the Government makes a decision soon to reduce the CPF contribution rate for workers beyond 55 years of age, so that the employers can be encouraged to raise the retirement age to 60.

Mr Chng Hee Kok (Radin Mas): Mr Chairman, Sir, I wish to bring up a number of points on the CPF with the Minister. First, it relates to the home protection insurance scheme. This scheme has worked smoothly in providing CPF contributors and for owners of flats a convenient and painless way to insure their property. The main beneficiaries are, of course, the families of the insured. Although this scheme has worked well, I perceive that there is a weakness which may result in increased premiums to all home owners if the scheme is abused. Presently, all home owners come automatically under this scheme irrespective of their medical condition. Therefore, it will be quite possible for someone who is suffering from a terminal illness to purchase a flat and get protection under this scheme. Therefore, some simple measures to regulate this potential loophole should be looked into. Otherwise, extensive abuse will affect other home owners in the way of expensive premiums.

The other matter I wish to bring up is the CPF minimum sum topping up scheme. The details on the tax deductions allowed for this scheme were announced by the Minister for Finance in his Budget statement. That the Government has agreed to share some of the burden of providing a nest egg for a person's aged parents is in a way a major concession and admission that the Government has a role to play in taking care of the aged. However, the scheme as it stands does not ensure that the monthly sum arising from the minimum sum scheme will, in fact, go to the beneficiaries. We can only hope that those who wish to take advantage of the tax deduction will do so in the interest of their parents. The Government can only promote filial piety but it cannot ensure that this will be so.

To emphasize this point, I suggest that in the event of premature death of a member, the balance of the minimum sum set aside under the topping up scheme should be subject to tax. It is tax free. The balance due to premature death should be subject to tax. I hope the Minister will review this argument with the Minister for Finance.

The last point I wish to bring up is the long term CPF contribution rate. In the days when the CPF contribution rate was increasing as fast as NWC wage recommendations, there were complaints from contributors that the Government was taking away, with the right hand, what it was giving to the employees with the left hand. I think during this period, employees chose to believe that the CPF was not their money. It was locked up by the Government. After being told repeatedly that CPF savings are, in fact, their money, I think they have come to accept this. They have also found a way to empty this untouc- hable pizza. The thinking is that since this money cannot be made available at will, one might as well commit it fully to a flat or a house. "Never mind whether or not a 3-room flat is sufficient for the family. Let us upgrade." Everybody wants to upgrade. That is the password. The HDB responded with a zeal. They built more and better homes. However, upgrading as we know has its cost. It over-commits a person and his family to one major investment. To my mind, there is no doubt that this over-commitment to house/mortgage repayments was a key factor in the resistance against the cut in CPF last year. Nothing generates a more defensive mechanism than a flat to family and home. In fact, the main point of the debate on the cut in CPF last year centred on housing.

Sir, now that we moved the CPF rate down, the Minister must use this opportunity to take a completely fresh and even radical look at what is termed as a long term rate of CPF. Having moved away last year from the old rate of 50% and maimed all contributors psychologically, I think it is not useful to speak of the long term rate of CPF as if there is such a rate, which is in fact sacrosanct.

Personally, the Minister would do well to dampen such an expectation. A long term rate is one which, in fact, is what the market can bear. If the market can bear, therefore, there is no such thing as a fixed and long term rate. The CPF rate must, in itself, not be too rigid. So far the rigidity is one way, that is, a reduction calls for much debate. It must be sufficiently flexible to allow for short term responses to the economic difficulties. At the same time, contributors must have some assurance that they will always have a sufficient level of contribution to meet their present needs on housing and their basic needs in the future.

To have both these features, I suggest there should be a fixed or base rate. At the same time there should be a flexible rate of CPF contribution. Conveniently, the fixed rate should be the present rate of 35%. Any upward adjustments made to the CPF should be considered as a flexible portion. The rate paid into this flexible portion can be changed or altered at will. By designating this as a flexible com- ponent enables two benefits. Firstly, the rate may be varied for different salary levels. This is not new or radical as there exists a ceiling on both the upper and lower ends at this time. There could be compelling reasons for this possibility in the event that the need to emphasize or de-emphasize certain economic activity arises. It may even be useful if you wish to achieve certain social objectives. Secondly, with this flexible component, we can respond more readily to meet any economic exigencies that may arise. The recession of 1985 is a good case in point. With this component not committed to housing, any reduction or suspension of this portion will generate less heat and debate. By keeping this flexible portion out of housing, as in the Special Account, I think this account should be re-activated. This account becomes the nest egg of last resort. It could be utilized for house mortgage repayments to tide over a period of prolonged unemployment of a member. Also, with the weaknesses in the world monetary system, one cannot rule out a major world recession, in which case this account will be most useful.

Sir, earlier I suggested that the Minister take a radical look at the CPF issue. With more than 80% of our people living in HDB flats and the majority owning their flats, a major rethink is timely. As the greatest portion of a CPF contributor's savings is already committed to housing, is our CPF scheme much over-used in this exercise of continuous house upgrading? Should it not have safeguards against an over-commitment of a person's CPF savings in this area? This and other questions should be answered soon. A long delay would not be helpful in our drive and effort to attract foreign investments. It is also unwise to keep employers on edge for too long.

The Minister for Labour (Mr Lee Yock Suan): Mr Chairman, Sir, I think there may be a few other Members who might want to comment on similar topics. I would prefer them to speak now so that I can answer them altogether.

The Chairman: In accordance with practice that we have been adopting, the procedure is for the Minister to reply first.

Mr Lee Yock Suan: Mr Chairman, Sir, I would like to thank all the Members for their valuable suggestions and comments. The various Members have ranged over a very wide area of my Ministry's responsibilities. I will try to answer all their queries.

I would like to start with the CPF because this is the issue that a lot of people are waiting to hear about from me. First, concerning the long-term rate of CPF. Various Members have spoken on this issue giving both the employers' as well as the employees' point of view, and they have also pointed out the economic implications. I would like to assure them that their views will be taken into consideration in determining the long-term CPF rate.

My Ministry has been making a careful study of this issue together with the Ministry of Trade and Industry and, where Medisave is concerned, also with the Ministry of Health. Certain parameters are already clear and I would like to inform Members. First, future increases in the CPF rate will have to come from affordable wage increases so as not to affect our international competitiveness. For example, in a particular year if the employers and the unions representing the workers agree on, say, 5% wage increase, then perhaps 1% or 2% could be kept away in the CPF account. So it is not going to be an add-on to the wage increase that is agreed upon, but it will form part of the agreed wage increase. This is the way to ensure that our wage costs are kept competitive.

Second, the restoration of the CPF rate will have to be done gradually after the economy has recovered. I think this is obvious. If we try and do it all in one go or too fast, then there is danger that we may stall the economic recovery. There is only so much that the economy can afford and we have to do it gradually.

Thirdly, the rate should be sufficient to provide for the basic objectives of the CPF scheme. These are housing, commensurate with the member's income; medisave and an acceptable level of retirement income related to the pre-retirement income of the member. This means that we should confine the CPF to its basic objectives and not allow ourselves to stray into extraneous areas. For example, education.

Fourthly, the total CPF rate should not be too high. Members are aware there is a moral commitment to restore the CPF rate. But I think Members as well as the public should realize that whatever increase in the CPF rate will come from future wage increases. So the higher the CPF rate, the lower will be the take-home pay. Therefore, it is advantageous for the worker if we do not try and push the CPF rate up too high, of course bearing in mind that members do have their housing commitments to fulfil.

Fifthly, it would be desirable to aim for a structure such that the employer's rate and the employee's rate are equal. I think the Member for Kebun Baru has mentioned this point and I fully agree with him. This is our basic aim. But Members may want to bear in mind the point that whether it is the employer's rate or the employee's rate, it is actually all part of the wage costs. So long as we remember this constraint, it will be possible to make the adjustments to make sure that the rates are as far as possible equal.

Sixthly, a lower CPF rate should apply to workers above age 55. Again this point has been touched on by various Members and I think it is a point that the Government has more or less already accepted. This is to encourage the employment of workers beyond age 55. This lower rate is possible for the older workers because most of them would have already paid off their housing loans. So with a lower CPF rate, it will be possible, in the event that the wage cost has to be reduced, to do it without affecting the take-home pay of the older workers.

Seventhly, part of the increase in the CPF rate should be channelled to the Special Account to avoid over commitment to housing by future home buyers. I agree fully with the Member for Radin Mas that we should take this opportunity, when we try to restore the CPF rate, to bring back the Special Account so that a certain amount of the increase will go into the Special Account. For those members who are already committed to housing, they should continue to be allowed to make use of their Special Accounts in the event they have exhausted their Ordinary Accounts. But for future home buyers, they should plan on the basis of the Ordinary Account. So the Special Account will be there to ensure that they have at least some cash when they retire. This account can also act as a buffer which can be adjusted in the event of an economic recession.

My Ministry has been carefully studying this issue and I expect to be able to announce our conclusions soon. At this point I would also like to mention, as the Member for Radin Mas has pointed out, that it may not be so appropriate for us to reduce the CPF rate for workers at age 40. We have considered this point, but there are two problems. One is that if we have a lower rate for those aged 40 or 45, this means that, in order to cover the basic objectives, we need to have a higher rate for younger workers. This will affect new investments and companies which employ new workers. The other consideration is that, as of now anyway, most of the older CPF members, in fact have lower CPF savings. So they need to have a higher rate for them to build up the nest egg for their old age. So whilst it is clear we should reduce the CPF rate from age 55 onwards, we are not so sure that it should be done from age 40 or 45.

Next, I would like to touch on CPF for education. Unfortunately the Member for Paya Lebar is not here. He raised this issue yet again yesterday. I think the Member has missed my main point. He suggested that we should classify the tertiary institutions into "trustee institutes of higher learning" and to assess whether education in these institutions is risky or not. This is not the main point. My main point is not whether university education is risky or not risky. My point is that in setting the long-term rate of CPF there is no provision for education as an additional objective besides the three I have mentioned, which are housing, medisave and the retirement income. If we decide to include education as an additional objective, it means that the CPF rate that we are now determining will have to be higher by a few percentage points. Since any increase in the CPF will have to come from future affordable wage increases, this means that the take-home pay of members will be lowered. The preferred approach, I think, is to allow members to keep this equivalent amount in their own savings as part of their own take-home pay. They can save it for their own needs, whatever it may be. Perhaps only 10% to 20% of members would require this saving for university education. So we should not compel everybody to save at this same high rate in order to provide for the few. This is basically a question of compulsory savings versus private savings. By confining the CPF to its basic objectives we will have less compulsory savings in CPF and more private savings by members for their individual needs.

We should realize that education is a very wide field, ranging from self-improvement courses which may cost $50 or a couple of $100 to overseas university education costing $50,000 to $100,000 or even more. Once CPF is allowed for education, I expect the pressure will mount for more and more of it to be used for education. For the self-improvement courses that I have mentioned, it will probably cost the CPF Board more to release the small sums involved than the actual fees themselves. As for local university education, the courses are highly subsidized and the fees are not high. The Government has already established a $100 million soft loan scheme to finance half the fees. The Minister for Education has also agreed to consider lowering the interest rate. This is the best arrangement for Singaporeans. The graduates should have no problem repaying the loans after they start work.

The other extreme of this spectrum is overseas tertiary education. For this, the cost is extremely high, maybe $100,000. Certainly the CPF scheme is not designed with such large expenses in mind. Those CPF members who can afford this cost are relatively well-off and I do not think they require support from the CPF. In any case, there is no provision in the CPF for this kind of expenditure. I suspect the people clamouring for the scheme are basically the small number of few members who see their CPF savings building up and they just want to get their hands at it, not realizing that they need the money really for their old-age requirements.

It is an error to think that there is excess fat in the CPF scheme. We are designing the scheme just for the basic needs. Members should avoid over-committing this amount to properties unless they think it is a good investment. If you calculate the amount needed for a member to live on for 20 years or more from age 55 years, it is really a big sum. Just do a simple calculation. For $400 per month, over 20 years, if you multiply the $400 by 20 years by 12 months, it will come up to almost $100,000, not considering interest cost and inflation. This is an indication of how much a person needs to be able to live on at a standard similar to what they were used to be before retirement.

Another argument that has been advanced on why we should allow CPF to be used for education is that since we allow it for shares and gold, so why not for education? The point here is a subtle one. When we allow it for shares or gold,these are basically investment schemes. All the returns have to go back to the CPF. They cannot be touched. The scheme is not to enable members to speculate on the stock market. That is not the purpose. The scheme is to enable them to make long-term, careful, considered investments in whatever form, with the intention of enhancing the value of their savings for old age. This is different from education where once you take out the money it is gone from the account, and then you have to depend on your child. It is not the same thing. One is investment, trying to enhance the value of the savings. The other is something else.

It is true that investment in shares can be quite risky. Those members who feel that it is too risky should leave their money with the CPF Board to earn a guaranteed return. There is no compulsion for them to invest in the stock market. In fact, as of now, only about 4% of the eligible members have used their money for shares and gold and the sum they have invested is only about 4% of the investible savings which are allowed. You can see that most Singaporeans are careful and the money is properly kept.

Members may wish to know, for example, what the returns are that have been recorded over the last 10 years for the different kinds of investments. I have some figures here. For the 10 years between 1975 and 1985, the average rate of return from investment in properties was 16%. Investment in shares, ie, the local stock market, 13%; investments in gold, 10%. If they have left their money with the CPF deposit, the return would have been 6.4%. What the returns will be over the next 10 years is anybody's guess but it is true that the higher the potential return, the higher the risk.

To wind up this point, I would like to come back to the basic point of my position, which is, that the CPF scheme is not designed for education. We should therefore confine it to the basic objectives in order that the rates will be kept low and there will be more savings for the individual to make use of.

Sir, I would like now to turn to the comments made by the Member for Radin Mas concerning the Home Protection Insurance Scheme (HPIS). As the Member has mentioned, the scheme has been operating well since it started in November 1981. It now provides insurance cover for about 350,000 CPF members who have bought HDB or HUDC flats. For a scheme of this size which does not require medical examination, some members are bound to try and take advantage of the scheme. A few members are suspected to have done so. They were suffering from terminal illnesses when they arranged the maximum cover for themselves under HPIS. If we allow this kind of abuse to go on, as the Member has said, this may eventually affect the premium which the other members have to pay. Therefore, to prevent such abuses in future, the CPF Board will require new members who join the Home Protection Insurance Scheme in future to sign a declaration that they are not suffering from terminal illness or permanent incapacity to work at the point when they take up the insurance. Subsequently, if we find that they have made a false declaration, for example, if they pass away and we check up and we find that there are medical records to show that they have been suffering from certain illnesses, then the claims will be disallowed.

On the positive side, in the light of the experience with the scheme, the CPF Board is also considering various improvements to the HPIS. For example, we will allow the insurance cover to commence from the signing of the housing loan agreement. At the moment, there is a one-month lag and this has affected some members. In future, we will do it faster. Upon signing, the cover will commence.

Another idea is to allow the insurance cover to be extended to both husband and wife, to both joint owners of the flat. There have been some cases where the CPF member is, in fact, not the one servicing the loan. For example, the husband may be a taxi-driver who has very low CPF. Our scheme at the moment covers the CPF member mainly based on the use of the CPF savings. When the non-CPF member dies, there is in fact no protection for the family. So my intention is to extend the scheme to cover both members in proportion to the amount of the loan they are servicing so that the total cover is still 100% of the housing loan. In addition, we intend to allow the CPF account of the member to be used to pay the premium for both members. This will be an improvement of the scheme. The CPF Board will make a fuller announcement of all the details. I think I have covered most of the points on CPF.

I would like now to move to the question of foreign workers' levy which has created some debate outside this House and also because some Members have mentioned it. I have already explained a few days ago, when debating the Budget policy statement, the rationale behind this scheme. Let me repeat some of these points and elaborate further. The levy is basically a scheme to regulate the inflow of foreign workers. Since we are going to allow this revolving pool of foreign workers to continue beyond 1992, we must have some kind of a mechanism to regulate the supply. The levy scheme applies only to new work-permit holders. Therefore, it does not immediately affect existing foreign workers, the cost of employing them nor the cost of local workers. It is for the purpose of facilitating the changeover to the new scheme and to minimize the cost impact that the Government has decided not to extend the levy to all the foreign workers immediately but to do it progressively to new workers.

The effect on the new work-permit holders depends on the take-home pay which is needed to attract them to work in Singapore. This should be determined by market forces and not by the salary of a Singaporean worker who has to save 25% of it in CPF. As I have explained before, and also further elaborated by the Member for Kebun Baru, the fixed levy in fact favours the employment of semi-skilled and skilled foreign workers. For those categories of workers, it may become cheaper to employ them in future with this scheme as compared to the CPF scheme. As I have said before, I am prepared to consider measures to discourage job-hopping by the existing foreign workers. The type of measures to be taken will have to be examined but, in principle, I am prepared to consider measures to discourage job-hopping, if necessary.

The Government will also monitor the labour situation and make adjustments, if necessary. Some employer groups have expressed concern about the possible impact of the levy scheme on wage costs and industrial relations. They may be hoping that the Government will change its mind. I have to clarify that the Government has decided on the scheme after careful consideration of all the factors involved. The extension of the levy scheme will be implemented from 1st April 1987 as announced. Employers should therefore proceed on this basis. They should have no objection to this basic concept of the levy if they accept that the revolving pool of foreign workers which will be available beyond 1992 has to be controlled.

The levy is basically a pricing mechanism to regulate the inflow of foreign workers. We have set the levy at $140 per month to start with. The appropriate level will have to be gauged from actual experience with the scheme. We are not sure how market forces will work out. So we have to see how the scheme works out in practice. If it turns out to be too high for companies to be viable, the Government will consider a downward adjustment. Conversely, if it turns out to be too low, for example, if we get a big flood of foreign workers coming in again, it will have to be adjusted upwards.

Some employers have expressed concern that the fact that we are having two schemes - one for Singaporeans and one for foreign workers - may give rise to industrial relations problems. My Ministry has consulted the NTUC to seek their cooperation to facilitate the smooth implementation of the scheme. As the Member for Kebun Baru has mentioned, and he is a trade unionist, the unionists accept the scheme and are prepared to explain the scheme to the Singaporean workers. So I hope with their cooperation there will be a minimum of industrial relation problems. We have to accept the fact that there will be two schemes. Employers should work out the detailed arrangements for this purpose, get on with the job and keep costs under control.

I would like now to turn to the questions by the Member for Leng Kee. He asked for the profile of the unemployed workers. May I ask the Clerk of Parliament to distribute a table showing the profile in June 1986 as well as December 1986. [Copies of document (Cols. 1021 - 1022) circulated to hon. Members.] Members can study the figures and draw their own conclusions from them. document - PROFILE OF UNEMPLOYED PERSONS AGED 15 YEARS AND OVER (Cols. 1021 - 1022)

I would just like to point out a few main observations which can be drawn from this Table. Firstly, the unemployment rate has gone down from 6.5% in June 1986 to 4.6% in December 1986. This was because of a pick-up in the manufacturing sector and also an increase in employment in some service sectors, although employment in the construction industry went down. This affected mainly foreign workers and most of the new jobs created have been taken up by Singaporeans. As a result, the number of unemployed has gone down from a total of about 79,000 in June 1986 to a total of 56,500 in December 1986. The unemployment rate is somewhat higher for males than for females. The pick-up has been mainly in the electronics and garment sectors which require mainly female workers. Nevertheless, a lot of the unemployed male workers have also found jobs, if you analyze the figures, especially the younger ones.

The Table also shows that there are more males unemployed than females, partly for the reason I have explained and partly because this also corresponds to our workforce which is male dominated. The male unemployed tend to be lower educated and older; their median age is about 32 years, as compared to the females whose median age is 25. As I have said, the younger workers find it easier to get jobs with economic recovery than older workers. This means older workers have to make greater adjustments to their job and salary expectations in order to be re-employed. I would also like to urge employers not to classify jobs as only suitable for younger workers. They should employ older workers if they can do the job.

Another interesting point to note from the Table is that as at December 1986, there were still quite a big pool of unemployed workers who were relatively young, below 19, below 25, below 30. Of those below 25, there were about 18,000 of them. Some of these might be "frictionally" unemployed, that means they were in-between jobs. But others may be waiting at home for their ideal jobs to come around. I hope they will adjust their job expectations early and accept the jobs which are available.

Some of the comments that I have made also relate to those points that the Member for Boon Lay has touched on. I share with him the concern that the older workers are finding it harder to get jobs. My Ministry has been in touch with the various Government departments to try and get them to employ older workers for cleaning jobs and so on. I hope the private sector will do the same and not classify jobs as suitable only for younger workers. But this is a problem that requires the cooperation of employers, employees and the Government to solve. Perhaps the main solution will come from economic recovery.

Moving now to the points made by the Member for Yuhua. Apart from commenting on the CPF rate which I have already answered, she commented on the wage restraint policy and how it should be applied this year. Basically she made two points. One is that there should be flexibility in wage restraint and how it is to be applied this year. For example, it should be in relation to company's performance. On that point I agree with her. I think this was also the way it was done last year. It was not a complete freeze. Companies which could afford did give out some pay increase. Companies which were losing money, of course, could not afford to pay. Now that we are on the way to recovery, wage restraint should continue but there should be some flexibility, as the Member has advocated. The second point she touched on is whether the low-income workers could be given some special consideration in this wage restraint policy. This is something which the National Wages Council will have to consider. The NWC has been meeting and deliberating on this issue. So I will leave it to them to examine this point and take into consideration the Member's views.

The Member for Radin Mas asked about the Minimum Sum Scheme and he is concerned about possible abuses of the tax benefit. As the scheme now stands, if a member makes cash contributions to the Minimum Sum accounts of their parents, he enjoys tax relief on his contributions up to the approved amounts. If the parent dies before the sum is used up, the money goes into the contributor's CPF account. So there is already a safety provision there, and I think it is adequate. The accounts that the members open for their parents will be in the names of the parents. So it is the parents who have access to the money. This is a point which members should bear in mind when they contribute to their parents' accounts, and I hope they do so with the genuine intention of supporting their parents.

The Member for Boon Lay raised a couple of other points, firstly, about part-time workers and, secondly, the question of support for working mothers, what the private sector can do in this area. Concerning part-time workers, as he rightly pointed out, the situation at the moment is a bit unclear in the Employment Act. In fact, ours is not the only case. Even the ILO has not come up with guidelines on this issue and the practice varies from country to country. My Ministry has been examining this point to see whether and how we should amend the Employment Act to facilitate the employment of part-time workers. There are a number of suggestions on how we can do this. One is, and this is only a suggestion, to exclude part-time workers from certain provisions of the Act concerning rest days, annual leave, sick leave, public holidays, and so on. On the other hand, to protect the workers, other provisions of the Act concerning notice of termination, unfair dismissals, payment of salary, and so on will have to remain in force. The rationale behind this suggestion is that if we make the system more flexible to allow greater flexibility on the part of both the employers and the employees to come to their own arrangement, this will facilitate the employment of part-time workers. For example, some part-time workers only work on weekends. So it does not make sense if they insist that they must have public holidays, they must have so many days annual leave, and so on. If we exempt the employers from those provisions, maybe they can offer a higher pay to attract the workers to compensate them for the loss of fringe benefits. Another suggestion would be to pro-rate the benefits according to the number of hours they work and either give them these pro-rated benefits or pay them a salary in lieu of these benefits. That is another way of doing it. But it is a bit less flexible than the first one. We will have to strike a balance between the various possibilities.

There may also be a need to draw a dividing line between what is considered part-time and what is considered full-time employment. At the moment there is no distinction in the Employment Act. So legally, if you employ a part-time worker even for a few hours, you have to give him the full benefits that a full-time worker is entitled to. Of course, my Ministry has been very practical in this area. We have not been strictly insisting on this. I think this is really a grey area and in some ways it is an anomaly. In terms of hours of work, the experience varies from country to country. In the US, the dividing line is 35 hours per week. Anything above that is considered as full-time work enjoying the full benefits under the Employment Act. In Ireland, it is also 35 hours per week. In UK, Denmark and France, it is 30 hours per week. In the Netherlands, it says 30 hours here, but I think it is 25. I have to check on this. So we are studying this issue to see what should be right for our situation.

We have done a survey of some companies employing part-time workers. Most of them are in the service sector - retail trade, fast food outlets, hotels. Some are in the manufacturing sector. In fact, a few manufacturing companies have been very successful in employing part-time workers, especially housewives from the neighbourhood. Most of the part-time workers are housewives and students. We have found that some of these employers surveyed do provide fringe benefits, such as off-days, annual leave and sick leave, but there are others that do not. Most of the companies do not provide maternity leave. The hourly wages are about the same, some are more, some are less for part-time workers, as compared to full-time workers. In some cases, the hourly wages may be higher because there are no fringe benefits. We are still studying this issue and I would welcome comments and suggestions on how we should go about doing this. By making these arrangements to facilitate part-time work, I hope they will also contribute towards greater employment opportunities for retirees and older workers.

The other question from the Member for Boon Lay is about working mothers and the private sector. As he rightly pointed out, the private sector employers cover a very wide range. Some are very big, employing thousands of workers, some only employ a handful of workers. So obviously whatever scheme they come up with must be in accordance with their own ability to pay and their own needs. What the Government has done is to set an example. Hopefully, some private sector employers will be encouraged to follow this. But I think it is difficult for us to enforce it and say, "You must do this." And whatever we do must also be in keeping with the general population policy of the Government. We can look into various areas. But the overriding factor must be: what is our long-term population objective? How do we intend to go about doing it? One way is perhaps, as the Member said, to be more flexible in allowing a restructuring of work to facilitate working mothers. Another way may be to allow compassionate leave, to allow leave to look after the sick children. But the employers, of course, are also concerned about how to run their companies and how to minimize costs. So there has to be a balance somewhere. I think for the moment we have to do it by example and by persuasion. But I do hope that, as responsible corporate citizens, our private sector employers will follow suit and support the national effort.

Sir, I think I have covered all the points raised.

Mr Eric Cheong Yuen Chee (Toa Payoh): Mr Chairman, Sir, the Government, as an employer, has announced additional measures to foster procreation among civil servants. The Government shows its appreciation of the problems faced by working mothers in bringing up their children, particularly before the children are of school-going age. Thus, civil service mothers with children under six years of age may enjoy up to four years' leave without pay and up to 15 days unrecorded leave with pay each year. Such civil service mothers may also be employed on a part-time basis.

Sir, I do not question the wisdom of all these proposals to help young Singaporeans including the civil servants to be more procreative. My objection is directed at a limited scope of these proposals. In an announcement of these proposals, the pious hope was expressed that employers in the private sector would follow the good example set by the Government. I have my doubts. A few exceptionally enlightened employers in the private sector may match or even outdo the Government's efforts to encourage procreation. The bulk of employers would more likely say apologetically that they have to answer to the boards of directors or head offices who do not share the Singapore Government's view on procreation. The claim of these employers would be that as the Employment Act only requires employers to provide maternity leave for the first two children, it would be difficult to justify the granting of paid maternity leave beyond two children, even more so the granting of no-pay leave for a long period or excessive compassionate leave with pay. If young working mothers in the private sector are to have a third child, they must do so at their own expense absolutely.

Sir, the restrictive provision of the Employment Act runs contrary to the current policy of the Government on procreation. Moreover, this restriction on paid maternity leave is reproduced in collective agreements which may have another one or two years to run after it has become the official Singapore Government's policy to promote procreation. If the Government considers the matter of procreation sufficiently critical to warrant governmental intervention in the form of tax reliefs or by the Government as an employer's benevolent gestures, the Government should remove statutory impediments to procreation in the private sector.

It is not a question of young working wives in the private sector being unable to afford a third child if they are not granted paid maternity leave and other expenses. It is more a question of being less inclined than their counterparts in the civil service sector to procreate more than two children. Apart from taking leave without pay for the third child, working mothers in the private sector have to pay ward charges and other expenses because that is how the Employment Act stands as at present.

Sir, I appreciate the desire of the Government for a consensual approach to the problem of procreation without a need for recourse to the Government's capacity to make laws. But the success of consensual approach requires employers to be sufficiently organized to be capable of a collective response to the Government's proposal on procreation. Unfortunately, there does not exist among the employers a central, disciplined, responsible and authoritative body like the NTUC in relation to workers which is capable of giving effective cooperation to the Government as in the matter of wage restraint and reform.

Sir, in the absence of one body to speak with one voice and act with one will on behalf of the employers, I do not think the Government can leave the matter of procreation to the goodwill and enlightenment of employers. If the Government wants more Singaporeans to make babies, then the Government must make laws to enable them to do so.

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Chin Harn Tong): Sir, there have been some discussions in this House on privatization, for instance, of the garbage collection by the newly introduced town councils. This seems to be the trend in Singapore as in other parts of the world. Sir, my concern with privatization is the likely effects of privatization on the workers concerned. The people who clamour loudly for more privatization are the entrepreneurs and investors who see profits to be made in taking over the work of some Government or public agencies. The impression may be created that privatization is wholly in aid of businessmen.

Sir, on the other hand, the natural anxiety of workers in industries under threats of privatization, and possibly, their trade unions, is that, ultimately, they, the workers, would have to find employment with the contractors engaged in the privatized industries. These contractors might offer terms of employment less favourable than what the workers are enjoying at present.

Sir, in commenting on this issue, I am not saying that our Government should stop this privatization trend. I am sure all the implications of privatization have been thoroughly considered before any activity is privatized. What the Ministry of Labour can and should do is to help workers to face up to the facts of privatization even before they are adversely affected by privatization. In this respect, the Government's promotion of wage reform serves to show the need for a flexible and realistic wage structure, which is tied to the produc- tivity of workers and not to the seniority of service. The terms and conditions of workers in a particular occupation should not be all that different, depending on whether they are employed by a Government agency or a private firm, as at present.

Sir, similarly, it should also be shown that our Government would not allow our workers to be exploited in Singapore. The imposition of a levy on foreign workers, while for other purposes, also helps to deter employers from importing excessive cheap labour into Singapore. In the long run, Singapore workers stand to benefit from privatization as taxpayers and consumers and also as workers.

Dr Wong Kwei Cheong (Cairnhill): Mr Chairman, I would like to comment on the points made by the Minister in relation to the $140 levy. Firstly, on job hopping. I am glad that the Minister recognizes the fact that the $140 levy will lead to more job hopping. This, of course, can be seen from the table circulated by the Member for Kebun Baru which shows that at the same wage cost to employers, the take-home pay of the worker on the levy scheme is certainly higher than that of the worker on the CPF scheme. The Minister has mentioned that he will consider suggestions to be made in order to curb this job hopping. I hope he will consider the suggestion of not providing work permits to these foreign workers who quit their present jobs to join another employer at a higher take-home pay based on the levy scheme.

The next point which I want to comment on is the cost increase. The Minister has mentioned that employers should practise restraint in wage increases. But in view of the fact that our economy is improving and the fact that there is a tremendous demand for labour as can be seen from the unemployment figures which was 6.5% in June last year and has really dropped to about 4.6% by the end of last year, this demand for additional workers will force many employers to increase their wages, even for the new foreign workers. And employers may maintain the same existing basic wage of, say, $500 when he employs a worker from the traditional sources and his cost will go up from $550 on the CPF scheme to $640 on the levy scheme, an increase of $90. The Minister has suggested that the employers under such conditions should practise wage restraint which I doubt that under existing conditions employers can do. What I would suggest is that the Minister should consider the possibility of allowing employers to take in workers from the non- traditional sources which are, of course, cheaper than workers from the traditional sources. This will not increase our pool of revolving workers which the Minister has suggested because in view of the downtrend of the construction industry, many non-traditional workers have already left Singapore to go back to their own home countries. And to help our employers in Singapore to maintain their competitive edge and especially in view of the fact that the Minister has already announced that he will implement this new scheme on 1st April, then by allowing our employers to have this additional option of getting workers from the non-traditional sources they will be able to maintain their competitive edge and help our economy to recover.

Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon (Yuhua): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to comment on the part-time work which has been mentioned by the Minister.

In the years ahead, part-time employment in Singapore is likely to increase. With a maturing population, there will be more retirees seeking employment. Also, with the recent policy of encouraging women to have more children, more women will seek part-time employment. In 1982, there were 12,000 female part-timers as compared to 16,000 in 1983. In 1986, there were 24,000 female part-timers out of a total of 41,000 part-timers. If we were to include the self-employed part-timers, such as tutors and domestic servants, the number will be even higher.

However, despite the increase in the number of part-time workers, employers still express difficulty in getting part-timers. I think employers should not depend or call upon the Government to amend the present legislation to exclude part-timers. Instead, employers should try harder to recruit part-time workers by providing more attractive terms and conditions.

We know that the Employment Act is working very well in providing a guideline for both employers and employees. We should therefore not sacrifice the principle of the Act to achieve one single objective. In considering what provision should apply to part-timers, the Ministry of Labour should maintain a balanced and objective view. Whilst the question of cost for employers is important, whatever terms provided must at the same time be fair and acceptable to workers.

At present, part-time work is covered under the Employment Act. This should continue and under no circumstances must part-time work be excluded. I would like to suggest that the maximum number of working hours for part-timers be set at 25 hours. This is slightly more than half the number of working hours of full-time workers which is 44 hours. This proposal will give greater flexibility to the employers.

What the Ministry could do is to improve on the present Act to define what is part-time work and to indicate clearly the number of working hours for the part-timers. Another area which we need to be clear about is the provision of benefits under Part IV of the Employment Act. Part-time workers should be given pro-rated benefits based on the number of hours worked. However, the Act should allow for flexibility in the granting of pro-rated benefits. This means that such benefits can be given either in kind or in monetary terms. For example, the Public Service Division incorporates all the pro-rated benefits into the salary of its part-time employees.

The proposed provisions are in my view fair and reasonable and should be given some thought by the Ministry.

Mr Lau Ping Sum (Yio Chu Kang): Mr Chairman, Sir, I would like to comment on the Work Permits Regulation. The rationale for restricting employment of foreign workers has been well accepted. Few would question the need to control the number of unskilled or semi-skilled workers and regulate the flow of these workers into the country. Apart from straining the social amenities, a large number of these workers would tend to create ---

The Chairman: Mr Lau, you are touching on Work Permits?

Mr Lau Ping Sum: Yes.

The Chairman: Could you wait till Amendment Nos. (9) and (10) when there is specific provision for discussion on this topic?

Mr Lau Ping Sum: All right.

Mr Goh Chee Wee: Sir, the Minister has not answered my question about the raising of retirement age from 55 to 60. I propose that the Government come to a decision very soon about reducing the CPF contribution rate for our workers beyond the age of 55. Currently we are facing the problem that the employers are very reluctant to raise the retirement age to 60 and I think a decision must be made soon.

On the question of part-time employment, I think the Minister has explained that the Ministry is looking into the various options. One point which I would like to stress, as I said it just now, is that whatever changes we are going to introduce and whatever flexibility we want to provide, we must build in safeguards to check for possible abuses. For instance, we should never exempt the part-time employment from CPF contribution because this can give rise to a lot of abuses.

Mr Lee Yock Suan: Mr Chairman, Sir, in my earlier comments I have, in fact, touched on or answered some of the points. I have taken note of the views expressed. For example, the point with regard to working mothers raised by the Member for Toa Payoh. As I have explained before, we will have to examine if there are any impediments and if anything should be done to remove them. For example, on this question of maternity leave, I do not know whether members of the public are aware that in the recent package of tax incentives this element has, in fact, been included indirectly. Apart from the five years' tax holiday up to a maximum of $20,000 tax rebate, there is also an additional element of 15% of the mother's earned income. This amount is, in fact, equivalent to two months' maternity leave. In other words, the woman can take two months unpaid leave and then claim back against tax later on. This is the way that it is being done indirectly. The intention is that in that situation the burden will be borne by the Government through tax rather than by the employer. Secondly, this will, of course, make sure that the people who benefit are mainly those who can afford to have more children.

Whatever is done to the Employment Act or other Acts will have to be guided by the overall population policy of the Government. So my Ministry will work together with the Ministry of Health and other Ministries and if there is a need we will take further action.

The Member for Aljunied has raised some concern about the job security of workers whose employers have been privatized. Privatization has various meanings. In one situation it merely means the Government selling more shares. For example, Sembawang Shipyard, the Government has already sold so many per cent of shares and will now sell more shares on the stock market. I do not think this will affect the employment of the workers in any way. In other situations the company may be sold off entirely as a going concern. Again the jobs would be there and the workers will have to continue working there. A third situation will be where certain activities are privatized. For example, garbage collection. In that situation instead of working for the Ministry of the Environment the workers will be working for the private sector contractors. We are short of workers in this area, and so long as the workers are productive, I think they need not fear that there will be no jobs available for them. Of course, if need be, my Ministry will come in and try and help the workers to adjust, help them find other jobs. But it is also the responsibility of the parent organization, the employers, to help the workers to adjust to the new situation. But I do not foresee that there will be big problems in this area.

The Member for Cairnhill has spoken out, I think mainly for employers, on this question of the extension of the foreign workers' levy. As I have explained earlier on, the Government is taking a flexible approach to this issue. We want to try it out with $140 and see from actual experience what should be the appropriate level of levy, and if need be, we will make adjustments. But the employers should not just throw everything back to the Government and say, "Look, you introduce this. You should control everything. You should make sure wage cost does not go up." It is their job to manage, to accept that there is going to be this new situation and arrange matters accordingly. Whether you need to offer the foreign workers the full salary as before, in other words, 25% more take-home pay than Singaporean workers, that remains to be seen. My own assessment is that workers are mainly interested in take-home pay and there is a very wide pool of foreign workers, not only in traditional sources but other sources, who I think will be keen to come and work in Singapoe. So it would be up to the employers to make a careful assessment of what is needed to attract the new foreign workers. The way we have arranged matters should already minimize the cost impact because we are not affecting Singaporean workers and we are not affecting existing foreign workers. It is only the new ones that they have to be concerned with. Of course, with the new ones being on a new scheme there could be repercussions. This has to be examined. But I think they should maybe get together within their own industry associations and decide how they want to proceed and do it in a controlled, orderly manner.

I am prepared to consider what measures should be taken further to discourage job hopping. I think it is a bit early perhaps to say what precisely these measures will be. We will monitor the situation. I have already mentioned one possibility, and that is, to allow the existing workers to opt into the new scheme if they want to. There could be other possibilities. I am prepared to consider them.

Another point that should be noted is that the objective of this exercise is not to enable employers to have cheaper foreign workers. That is not the intention. The intention is that they should have access to foreign workers, preferably the skilled and semi-skilled types who can contribute to the economy. On their part, they should automate and try and upgrade their activities to minimize their dependence on foreign workers. As I have explained before, it is not a tenable option for us to depend on more and more foreign workers in order to achieve economic growth. So the employers must accept this and live with the situation.

The Member for Yuhua has commented on part-time employment and made various suggestions and given her views. I agree with her that we need to strike a balance here, and I have said so in my earlier reply. I also agree that we need to have safeguards to make sure that the workers are not worse off or exploited. But we must not assume that once we exclude them, if we do decide to exclude them from certain provisions, that therefore they are necessarily worse off. Because what it means is that there is more flexibility for employers and workers to come to terms. The end result could be higher hourly wages. But anyway the position is still open and we are prepared to consider all options in consultation with the employers and the unions.

The Member for Boon Lay wanted further comments on the retirement age. Yes, the Government is concerned and wants to raise the retirement age to 60 progressively. This will have to be done through discussions between employers and workers and unions, not by legislation. We want to try and encourage both parties to move in that direction because Singaporeans are healthier and they live longer. So we should encourage them to work beyond 55. As I have explained, we have almost completed our review of the CPF scheme and it is almost certain that the CPF rate for workers beyond age 55 will be lower than before age 55. We may not be able to implement this transition all in one step. It may have to be over a number of years. But I expect that very soon I will be able to announce the full scheme and this will be one of the elements to encourage the employment of older workers. Some figures were quoted by the Member showing that the percen- tage of CAs which have provided for a retirement age of 60 seems to have gone down. I will have to examine those data closely. Data given by SNEF are only of a very small sample. So maybe we should not judge from that sample alone. But the basic point is that both the unions and the Government want to push up the retirement age and we should all work together to bring this about. If necessary, we will make various changes, for example to CPF, to facilitate this process.

The Chairman: I would like to remind hon. Members that there is less than one hour left for the debate on this Ministry and we are still on Amendment No. (1). So I suggest to Members to stick to the specified subjects and to keep their speeches short and sweet. Mr Lim, would you like to withdraw your amendment?

Mr Lim Boon Heng (Kebun Baru): Mr Chairman, before withdrawing, I would like to commend the Minister for standing firm on the implementation of the levy. I am glad that his Ministry is finalizing the long term rate of CPF with a view also to encouraging the employment of older workers. On that note, I would like to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman: Amendment No. (2). Dr Wang is not here. Mr Chiam.

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

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

Sir, the CPF originally was intended for savings for old age. But if we look at the CPF today it is no longer a savings just for old age. There was enough money to buy a house. I agree with that - CPF is both for security after a person has retired and also to purchase a house. Then what do we have after that? We have got all kinds of schemes implemented so that CPF could be used. We have insurance for the house purchased. Then we have got the Medisave scheme. We have got the Approved Residential Property scheme. This scheme allows the member to buy residential property above, of course, his own, ie, a second or maybe even a third house. I believe there is also a scheme whereby a member could purchase commercial property. So a CPF member is put into the land-owning class. He is no longer an employee. Then we have other schemes like approved investment schemes whereby the member is made an investor both in publicly-listed shares as well as gold and, I believe, also other precious metals. He has to get in touch with the bank and come to grips with all the intricacies of buying and selling of shares at the stock market. Anyone looking at the CPF today would not imagine that it was just money put aside for old age.

My point is that it is obvious that the rate of contribution has been above that which is required for savings for old age. We know that CPF comprised, before it was reduced, 50% of the worker's salary. My Party has always said that that was too high and I hope the Minister would not increase the CPF rate back to its last rate of 50%. I know that certain Members in this House, representing the unions, are calling for an increase in CPF rates. I do not know whether it is a wise move because, on the face of it, it would appear to be giving the worker more but, in fact, it will end up less because he will be jobless and our cost in Singapore may not be as competitive as the other NICs.

What is the effect of these massive compulsory savings? In fact, these compulsory savings do not go into productive use. It is mainly in property. And we have heard an economist in this House say that buildings are not productive. I agree with him. I said that before. Unless you have got a business, like the manufacturing and services, to prop up the use of the property, they are just like pyramids standing there without producing anything.

The other use of CPF is the buying of stocks and shares listed in our exchange. Are these also productive? Of course, for the laymen, they say, "Oh, I have invested so much money in certain stock." From the point of view of the country, is that an investment? That is really not an investment because it is just transferring money from one person to another person. So massive funds have been put aside in our country without really being made good use of. What is the point of having too high a rate for CPF? As I said, if you have it too high, our cost becomes uncompetitive and then we have these 110,000 unemployed repeated all over again. Then we have got to go through another cycle of having another Economic Committee to recommend cutting costs again. In fact, I think all economists - not necessarily even to be an economist - anyone with any common sense will know that if you put up costs, especially in the Singapore's context, because we have no indigenous manufacturing capabilities of our own, we are dependent on foreign investments, when the foreign investments are slow in coming, we find that our employment rate starts to rise.

I would urge that the Minister does not consider putting up the CPF rate to its former rate. Of course, from the point of view of the Government, they do not just keep the money. They invest the money and make use of the money. And as I have stated before, there might be a repayment problem in 25 years' time and that is within the life-time of most of our workers. That is why we have got all kinds of schemes either to lock in the money or to prevent them being paid out. Why do we need to have this minimum sum scheme? Why do we need it? Are you saying that a person on reaching 55 years is unable to take care of his own money? That is exactly what the Government is saying, "Look. We are not going to give you back all your savings at 55 years in case you just have one good spree and all will be lost." But I do not think so. There will be a few but the majority of Singaporeans are definitely hard-headed and I am sure they know what to do with their money when they reach the age of 55. I think it is an insult to our workers to have that point of view and say that they do not know what to do with their money when they reach 55.

The amount in the CPF is a big sum. I hear it has come to about something like $26 billion and I think this issue of CPF will always be with us because it is the employees' money and there is a massive amount of money. It is not millions but you are talking of billions. This issue of CPF should be included in the National Agenda because it concerns every employee and the workers have the right to discuss it and to ask the Minister what kind of safeguards they will have to make sure that at the end of 25 years, every dollar they have in the CPF will be returned to them when they reach the age of 55 years.

Mr Lee Yock Suan: Sir, it is a pity the Member was not here earlier when I explained the thinking on the long- term CPF rate. Many of the points that he raised have been covered already. I do not want to waste Members' time going over the same issues again. Perhaps I can explain to the Member outside the Chamber. Many of the issues that he has raised are not new. I do not know whether I should repeat my answers again.

Some hon. Members: No.

Mr Lee Yock Suan: The basic point he made is that we seem to be opening up the CPF to too many schemes. I do not know whether he is of the view that we should henceforth disallow CPF to be used for home protection, for Medisave, for residential properties, for shares and for gold. Is that his position?

Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, my point is that the CPF rate is definitely too high. That is why we have got all these kinds of uses. If these forced contributions were not locked in the CPF, they could have been diverted to the private sector and put into productive use. My point is that the CPF rate has been too high. That is the reason why employees with so much money sloshing around, could go into this scheme and that scheme. Does not the Minister agree with me that there is too much money in the CPF of an employee? He has the money for old-age. He has money to buy a house and, in addition to that, he has still excess money. That is the reason why you have got all these other schemes.

Mr Lee Yock Suan: Sir, I think it is better that we have our CPF scheme rather than be faced with a situation as in many developed countries where taxpayers have to be taxed so heavily in order to support the aged who are no longer able to work. With the CPF scheme, we are now able to ensure that our Singaporeans can look forward to retirement with financial security.

Let me just touch on a few points that he mentioned. I will keep them brief. Firstly, he said that we have strayed away from the provision for old-age. I think that is not correct. Basically, if you analyze all the schemes, it goes back to the same thing - savings for old age. The home is a form of saving for old age. It appreciates in time. It is a good asset to hold. If need be, you can downgrade and you can sell it. It is actually a form of investment for old age. Medisave is also for old age. Members are more likely to fall sick after 55 years old. They may be able to use the sum in the Medisave now but the intention is really to provide for their hospitalization needs after they retire. Again it is for old age. Of course, on top of that, you have some additional funds which are needed to ensure that he has a certain amount he can draw out every month to live on after age 55 years.

We are now doing this study on the scheme and we are confining the CPF basically to these objectives which boil down to one fundamental objective and, that is, savings for old age. All the schemes that he has mentioned are basically to enable the member to enhance the value of his savings so that he has more for old age.

He has made the point that he thinks 50% is too high. Maybe so. We are still looking into this question. The intention of the Government is to try and keep the rate so that it is not too high. Because if it goes up higher it means the workers will have less take-home pay. What we want is to allow the workers to have more take-home pay from which they can save up for their own needs. On that point, at least, we are in agreement, that is, we should not have too high a CPF rate.

He has again raised this question of ability of CPF to repay. In anticipation of this question, I have updated for him the data that I gave in March 1985. At that time, I gave him some figures on how much were in the CPF, the accumulated amount, and how much we had in national reserves and so on. The latest figures as at December 1986, total deposits of CPF members, $29.3 billion. On the assets side, our foreign reserves as at 31st December, $28.2 billion, almost equal. In addition, the Government also owns local assets. These are investments in various forms, loans to statutory boards and so on. We just take the loans to HDB and JTC alone; they amounted to $19 billion. If you add up the $28.2 billion foreign reserves and $19 billion local loans to these two statutory boards alone, it is $47.2 billion. It is more than 60% above the total CPF balances. Even if we go to the extreme of allowing everybody to withdraw the money now, the funds are there. The best long- term assurance that members can have that the money will be there is to vote PAP. Because when you have a prudent Government that has proven itself ---

Mr Chiam See Tong rose ---

Mr Lee Yock Suan: I am not giving way. I want to explain this. The best way is to ensure that the Government is prudent and invests the money wisely. The money is there. I do not understand why he takes so long to understand this point. Instead of wasting Members' time, I will explain this to him outside.

The Chairman: Order. It is 1.00 pm.

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

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

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

[Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair]

Debate in Committee of Supply resumed.

[Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair]

Head R (cont.) -

Dr Ang Kok Peng (Buona Vista): Mr Chairman, I would like to touch on the CPF.

The Chairman: Be brief, please.

Dr Ang Kok Peng: Yes. Under the Minimum Sum Scheme, a CPF member leaves behind a sum of $30,000 in the CPF or an approved institution. If he leaves it with the CPF, he will receive a monthly tax-free income of $230 per month. This sum is enough for living at subsistence level only. Since we are striving towards a nation of excellence, should we not encourage our people to plan for a standard of living higher than that of subsistence level? Would the Minister consider allowing a member to leave a bigger sum in the CPF so that a higher tax-free monthly income can be available to him to enable him to enjoy a standard of living above the subsistence level?

Mr Lee Yock Suan: Mr Chairman, Sir, I think it is a good suggestion. There is no problem at all. Members are free to leave as much of their money with the CPF as they want to and it will be tax-free in terms of interest and the amount they withdraw.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

Mr Lim Boon Heng: Mr Chairman, Sir, in view of the time constraint, I propose to skip Amendments (3) and (4)* and go on straight to No. (5)*. Sir I beg to move,

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

Sir, last year, on the wage restraint policy, full cooperation was given by the trade unions and we were able to achieve a near wage standstill for 1986. I think most enlightened employers acknowledge the contribution of the labour movement and the workers of Singapore. One would think that with such a record, the employers would welcome the formation of unions at their enterprises. However, that is not the case.

Another point which I want to make, Sir, is that if we want to carry out a policy of wage standstill in a company or even to effect a wage cut, then there ought to be equal sacrifice and it would be incumbent upon the management to ensure that there is equal sacrifice made. By and large, I think most employers follow that rule or principle. However, there are companies in Singapore that flout both the principle of equal sacrifice as well as adopt anti-union attitudes.

I wish to draw the attention of the Minister to one particular case. Last year, one company decided to reduce the salaries of its employees by 10%. This company was not unionized. The employees complained, firstly, to the Ministry of Labour who ordered the company to restore the salary cut. As a result of this experience, the workers in that company felt that it was rather cumbersome for them individually to seek redress to their problems with the Ministry of Labour. So they decided to form a union and, in fact, the union was formed. Whilst the union was being formed, some of the executives in the company told those workers that if a union was formed, then the company would close down. In other words, the strategy to be adopted by the company would be to close down the company just to avoid having a union in the company. I am told that 19 employees in this company have agreed to make statements on this point. Faced with this kind of action taken by employers, the Ministry of Labour must take a firm stand. In fact, it appears also that this particular company is taking steps to close down and in the process, to form other companies to take over the work that the company is currently performing. The partners of this private limited company have already interviewed some of their workers about the possible employment in the new companies to be set up, and word has gone around in this company that about one-third of the workers could be retrenched.

Sir, I bring this case up to demonstrate that, notwithstanding all the work that our unions in Singapore have done towards helping the employers, we still have employers of this nature. I would appreciate if the Ministry of Labour would take a firm stand on this particular case. The trade unions in Singapore do not really want to take strike action. But if the Ministry of Labour can resolve this to the satisfaction of every one concerned, then such a course of action would be prevented.

Encik Othman bin Haron Eusofe: Mr Chairman, Sir, I want to touch on the area of information sharing. We are now working towards a flexible wage payment system and also direct wage negotiations and I think that information sharing is a key factor in this move towards a flexible wage system. And indeed, direct wage negotiations can only be meaningfully conducted with effective information sharing. With more information, our workers will be able to get a timely and reliable picture about their companies' competitive position. Our employers must therefore be willing to let their employees know of their companies' current and future prospects and competitiveness. While there is general acceptance among employer groups and trade unions for greater information sharing, in practice there may be difficulties and differences in approach.

There are also managements who adopt a negative attitude and are reluctant to share information of their companies' performance and prospects with their unions and employees. This could therefore be an area of potential disagreement, particularly when discussions revolve around the area of profitability of the companies. I believe that the Ministry of Labour has a role to play here and should take the stand to strongly advise managements to be more positive in their relationship with unions and employees, particularly to give timely information on the companies' performance and prospects. I would therefore like the Minister to make his Ministry's stand clear on this issue.

Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon: Mr Chairman, Sir, I rise to speak on the Employment Act, section 47. Section 47 imposes a ceiling on the amount of annual wage supplement, commonly referred to as a frozen quantum, that a union can negotiate for. For companies that have not paid annual bonus or had paid a bonus less than one month's wages before 1st July 1972, the frozen quantum is a maximum of one month's wages. For companies that have paid annual bonuses of more than one month's wages before 15th July 1972, the frozen quantum is the average of the bonuses paid in the last three years before 1st July 1972 or the last bonus paid, whichever is higher.

The National Wages Council Wage Reform Sub-committee has recommended that wage increases be linked to productivity or profitability of a company. The labour movement supported this; so did the employers. Quite a number of companies and unions have also worked out some schemes together. In view of this move towards greater flexibility in our wage payment system, I think it is time the Government considered amending section 47 to remove the limit on the AWS. Flexibility should cover all aspects of our wage payment system and not only the annual wage increases. The limit on the AWS is, in my view, a rigidity which ought to be removed.

Mr Lee Yock Suan: Mr Chairman, Sir, as time is running out, I will try to be very brief in my response. Firstly, concerning the points raised by the Member for Kebun Baru. I agree with him fully that in order to facilitate wage restraint and wage reform, the principles should apply equally to both management personnel as well as workers. I think it is important that management show by example that they are prepared to also sacrifice for the welfare of the company to ensure job security.

Concerning the case that he mentioned, I think it is very unfortunate that this case has come about, and if the union were to bring this to my Ministry's attention, we will look into this matter.

Fortunately in Singapore most employers are enlightened. For example, from our records, last year out of 89 claims for recognition submitted by the unions, 82 were successful. The unions only lost in seven cases. Out of these 82 cases, 41 were gained through direct recognition by the employers without the need to go through a secret ballot. This is an indication that the employers are enlightened and they realize that if the workers want to have a union, they should allow it to be formed; and also that in the Singapore context, the unions are very responsible and they will, in fact, help the company to facilitate wage reform and so forth. On the part of the union too, I think they have to further educate their branch leaders and make them understand the importance of partnership in the company. Both management and the workers are really in the same boat. If the company prospers, then the employees will benefit. If the company flounders, jobs will be lost. So there has to be this spirit of cooperation.

There is adequate protection under the law against companies trying to take measures to prevent unionization. If the cases are taken up in court and proven in court, the employers could be imprisoned for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine not exceeding $2,000, or to both such imprisonment and fine. So I think there is adequate protection under the law.

Coming to the point mentioned by the Member for Geylang Serai. Basically, he is appealing for greater information sharing by employers. I agree with him fully that in order to facilitate our flexible wage system and yearly wage negotiations, it is important for the employers to make available to their employees and unions the information concerning the state of the company and the future prospects. Much of this information will in fact be available eventually to the public. They have to be lodged with the Registrar of Companies. So this information should be made available to the unions.

On their part, I think the unions have to educate their own branch leaders on how to read the various accounts. It is important that they understand the various elements that go into the accounts. And, of course, where information is confidential, then they should respect confidentiality of the information.

The Member for Yuhua requested that the Ministry look into amending section 47 of the Employment Act to facilitate wage reform. This is something that we are already doing. And we will welcome views on how we can go about doing this. The way this section has been drafted, I think it is rather complex. Various elements have been grafted on over the years and it is very difficult for the public to understand the section. So we are wondering whether to repeal the whole section and redo it, which means we must not leave out any particular combination of CAs or we might have to allow certain new sections to be added in to provide for this variable wage component under wage reform.

Mr Lim Boon Heng: Mr Chairman, Sir, with the record that the trade union movement has in Singapore these past few years, one would have thought that out of 89 cases of claiming for recognition, there ought to have been 89 cases without a contest rather than only 41. Nevertheless, I hope that with the Minister's support and advice to the employers, the situation will improve. And I assure the Minister that a letter will be coming his way this afternoon or tomorrow morning regarding the case I have just mentioned. I hope that if the management is proven to be anti-union in its attitude and activities, that if it goes to court, that this be made an example so as to administer the message to the employers who may have this kind of attitude.

On that note, I wish to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman: Amendment (6)*, Mr Lim.

Mr Lim Boon Heng: I am not moving, Sir.

The Chairman: Amendment (7), Encik Abbas.

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

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

Under this amendment on industrial health, I would like to confine myself to three points only, owing to time constraint. They are safety committees, noise induced deafness (NID) and, lastly, visual display units (VDU) safety.

Safety committees. The Factories Safety Regulations stipulate the composition of safety committeesand also on the duties of this committee, such as inspection of factory, investigation in accidents or dangerous occurrences, to assist in organizing activities to promote safe conduct of work in factories. With the introduction of the Factories Safety Regulations in 1975, safety and health at work places became self-regulated. This is a positive step in the right direction. However, I understand there are still a number of companies which have not formed safety committees. I would like to know what steps the Ministry is taking to ensure that all companies comply with these regulations.

Safety committees which are formed merely to satisfy the law should also be checked. Could the Ministry take stringent measures to ensure that safety committees are formed in accordance with the requirements under the regulations?

Sir, we should not compromise on the safety and health of our workers. On the other hand, it may be worth while for the Ministry to consider recognizing the good efforts made by successful safety committees in line with that accorded to QC circles. Companies which engage less than 50 workers but have voluntarily formed effective safety committees should also be given due recognition.

I would now like to touch on noise induced deafness (NID). Noise in the work place is a health hazard and noise induced deafness is a leading occupational disease in Singapore. The number of confirmed cases of NID has increased from 90 in 1983 to 606 in 1984 and 1,423 in 1985. The Ministry of Labour introduced the Factories (Medical Examination) Regulations in May 1985. The regulations made it compulsory for employers to arrange for pre-employment and periodical medical examination for their workers who are exposed to a wide range of health hazards including noise. More than 27,000 workers were medically screened for NID in 1985. Out of this group, more than 1,400 are new cases of NID. I also understand that 50% of these NID cases come from the metal working industries.

It is noted that there is no cure for noise induced deafness, either medical or surgical. Loss of hearing in whatever degree cannot be recovered. Therefore, it is important that all practical and feasible measures must be taken to combat NID. Workers must be made aware of such disease.

In this regard, I would like to know what initiative does the Ministry take to encourage such awareness among the employers as well as the workers. Is there an overall improvement in the situation since the introduction of the Factories Medical Examination Regulations in 1985?

Sir, my last point is on the VDUs or visual display units safety. The development in technology in the field of microelectronics and information processing has given rise to rapid growth in office automation in most areas of industrial activities and VDUs have been widely used at the work places. This has given rise to the problems of maintaining the health of the VDU operators. It is reported that some people have suffered such symptoms as headaches and tired eyes. And this has led to anxiety about the possible long-term effects of VDUs, especially radiation. In order to prevent any misconception of the ill effects of working with VDUs, it is necessary for the Ministry to circulate guidelines suitable to local application. This would be useful to allay the fear of some employees working with VDUs.

Sir, I understand that a number of countries like Japan, the United Kingdom and Denmark, have already formulated their own guidelines. It would be useful for the guidelines to emphasize on the following:

(1) Is the radiation from VDUs harmful to health?

(2) Does a worker need any protective devices such as spectacles, screens, aprons or any form of devices against the radiation from a VDU?

(3) Would the eyesight of an employee be affected by working long hours with a VDU?

(4) Could the radiation from a VDU harm an unborn child of a pregnant woman working with a VDU?

There are many other questions that I would like to raise. Perhaps I would like clarification from the Minister.

Mr Lee Yock Suan: Mr Chairman, Sir, concerning safety committees, there are already over 600 factories which have formed safety committees. My Ministry goes round regularly to check on how the committees are functioning and also to give guidance to the new committees which have been formed. Their assessment is that over 90% of these committees are discharging their responsibilities effectively.

One of the most important areas is really to provide training to these safety committees. And so far, over 1,500 committee members have been trained. The question is whether we should extend this requirement to factories employing less than 50 workers. There are certain problems here. Factories of a small size do not have the same resources. Also, being smaller, the channels of communication are much easier within their organizations. So the thinking of my Ministry at the moment is not to invoke this regulation as a form of compulsion but to do it by way of encouragement. We will monitor the situation and see how to proceed from here.

The suggestion made by the Member regarding recognition for safety committees is a good one and I have noted it for my Ministry's consideration.

Concerning noise induced deafness, it is true that this is the most common form of health hazard in factories in terms of numbers. The recent increase in the number of cases has arisen mainly because of the requirement of compulsory medical examinations. As a result, more cases have come to light.

In 1986, there were about 1,700 NID cases out of a total of 2,100 cases of occupational diseases. Fortunately, only 9 cases of noise induced deafness were severe enough to be entitled to workmen's compensation. Most of the other cases were at a very early stage affecting their hearing in the non-audio range. Normally they do not realize that they are slightly deaf until they are tested.

There are two ways of safeguarding workers here. One way, of course, is to try and cut down on the noise level in the machines but this is very expensive. The other way is to encourage the wearing of ear plugs and to make sure that when they are issued with ear plugs, they know how to use them properly and they do use them properly.

My Ministry has been going round to the factories to conduct workshops. In 1986, workshops were conducted in 50 factories to teach the workers how to protect their hearing. We have also organized seminars on this problem and published various pamphlets to inform the workers and the management. We will be intensifying our efforts in this area and we will be requiring the companies to assign officers who will be responsible for this particular aspect to make sure that the workers do wear the protective devices.

This incidentally also extends to the Ministry of Defence when they do their firing practices.

The last area concerns the use of video display units. I think this is a problem that has been raised quite a few times during budget debates. I think we should not unduly alarm the workers in this area. The studies in the US, Europe and elsewhere and also in Singapore have not produced evidence to show that, in fact, there is danger in the areas mentioned by the Member. For example, in the area of radiation levels, studies in the US, England and also in Singapore by our Ministry of Health have shown that the radiation levels are within safe limits.

The common problems faced by workers who have to sit for long hours in front of their video display units are not unlike those of other desk-bound jobs. It is a question of the physical strain of having to sit there for long hours; a matter of posture, matter of rest between certain intervals of work. And of course, they feel tired having to look at the screen for so long. My Ministry has issued guidelines in 1981 concerning the various aspects of the VDUs, how they should be arranged, what kind of controls they should have to reduce glare, what kind of seats they should have to provide proper support for the person, regular check-up of the eye, and lighting, and so on, covering the whole range. Recently we checked this with the guidelines issued by the International Trade Union and found that our guidelines are very similar.

There has also been concern raised about the possible linkage of the use of VDUs with abortions. Again, there is no conclusive evidence here. The studies have not shown a clear and conclusive correlation. It is possible that these clusters of pregnancies in certain cases amongst VDU operators could have arisen from chance occurrences. So there is no clear evidence here. Similarly there is no evidence to show that the use of VDUs will result in facial rashes. So I think the workers can be reassured that there is really no long-term hazard so far detected or proven. My Ministry will, of course, continue to monitor the developments, and if there is clear evidence of problems, we will take action to minimize the hazards involved. I think it is important we do not alarm the workers unnecessarily.

Encik Abbas Abu Amin: Sir, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The following amendments stood on the Order Paper Supplement - Mr S. Chandra Das: Employment Services (8) That the sum to be allocated for Head R be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead RJ-01 of the Main Estimates. Mr Lim Boon Heng: Dr Wong Kwei Cheong: Mr Goh Chee Wee: Mr Lau Ping Sum: Work Permits Regulation (9) That the sum to be allocated for Head R be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead RK-01-1210 of the Main Estimates.

The Chairman: Amendment No. 8. Mr Chandra Das.

Mr Chandra Das: Not moving, Sir.

The Chairman: Amendment No. 9. Mr Lim.

Mr Lim Boon Heng: Not moving, Sir.

The Chairman: Dr Wong is not here. Mr Goh is not here. Mr Lau Ping Sum. You might want to allow time for a brief reply.

Mr Lau Ping Sum: Certainly. Sir, I beg to move,

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

Sir, I would like the Minister to explain the basis for the issue of work permits. Whilst we accept the rationale for the control and restriction of the employment of foreign workers, there are certain occupations which for various reasons Singapore workers are not willing to take up. For example, grass cutting, emergency repairs on utility pipes. Another example would be hairdressing saloon and coffee shop assistants. These jobs are important, if not crucial. Automation and mechanization may be the long term answer and it is conceivable in the long term that robots will be used. But for the present some flexibility is necessary to ensure continuity of service at reasonable cost and to remove a source of worry and frustration for the owners of these establishments.

Mr Lee Yock Suan: The Member can file a Question for Oral Answer and I will explain fully on this point.

Basically there are four areas where foreign workers can be employed - in manufacturing, hotels, construction, and domestic services. Non-traditional source workers are only confined to construction and domestic service. Outside these sectors, for example, for the retail trade, the thinking is that, since they are mainly domestic orientated and not facing international competition, they should not have to depend so much on foreign workers. However, we may be able to consider them on a case-by-case basis. Also, we do not want the employers to be too dependent on foreign workers. For example, there are firms that exceed 50% dependence on foreign workers. The question is whether there is an economic justification for them to locate in Singapore if they need to have that high level of dependence on foreign workers. I do not have time to speak further. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The time allotted for Head R having expired, the following amendments were not proceeded with: Mr S. Chandra Das: Work Permits Regulation (10) That the sum to be allocated for Head R be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead RK-01 of the Main Estimates. Mr Eric Cheong Yuen Chee: Ministry of Labour (11) That the total sum to be allocated for Head R of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100. The sum of $19,980,280 for Head R ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $46,384,400 for Head R ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.

Head J -

The Chairman: Amendment No. 1. Mr Jek is not here. Mr Goh.

Mr Goh Chee Wee: Sir, I beg to move,

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

Sir, in moving this amendment, I would like to talk about the respect and concessions for the senior citizens. Sir, our population is aging. More and more of our citizens are entering the age group of above 55 or 60. We have tried to instill in the minds of our young people the sense of filial piety and respect for the elderly. It is certainly not enough just talking about care and respect of our senior citizens. We have to prove it by action. We have to encourage such social behaviour among our population that the care and consideration for the elderly becomes a way of life in the society. I believe more should be done to encourage such desirable social behaviour.

Let us look at some of the behaviour of Singaporeans. When we rush for the lift, for instance, do we give way to the elderly persons? When we board a bus, do we give special consideration to the aged? The answer to these questions is generally no. We do hear of our gentlemen saying, "Ladies first", as an expression of civilized and gentlemanly behaviour. But we have never heard anyone saying, "Senior Citizens first". Sir, I think we really need to launch a Senior Citizens First campaign and our children too need to be taught all the little acts and behaviour which help to demonstrate our care and consideration for our senior citizens. What else can we do? I say let us make it a norm that all the senior citizens should enjoy special concession for admissions to all places of interest, including cinemas and theatres and for taking public transport like the MRT. And for certain places like the Chinese Garden and Japanese Garden, I think they should be open free of charge to all those aged 60 and above. In fact, why should we charge the old men and women for taking a stroll in the gardens?

Sir, I understand that a number of establishments in Singapore are already offering concessions to senior citizens, but it is not widely publicized. Very few people know about it and I believe more can be done. Sir, I would like to suggest to the Ministry of Community Development that the Ministry makes a special effort to:

(1) Encourage social behaviour among the population to show care and concern for the senior citizens; and

(2) Encourage more establishments to offer concessions to senior citizens and to publicize all the schemes designed for the senior citizens.

The Minister for Community Development (Mr Wong Kan Seng): Sir, the Member for Boon Lay's call for our senior citizens to be given the right, correct, and appropriate respect by the young is indeed what the Government is also doing. In fact, this is one of the things that the Ministry has been propagating all along. Since 1979, there has been this "Senior Citizens' Week" organized by the People's Association, by SAGE, and from this year onwards the Ministry will take the lead in organizing the "Senior Citizens' Week". I will certainly ask my officers to take into account the themes suggested by the Member that "Senior Citizens' First" as one of the main themes for this year's "Senior Citizens' Week".

Sir, in the school curriculum, our young, our students have been encouraged to show respect for the elders, to show respect for authority, and at the same time not only just to show respect but also to take concrete steps where such care and concern can be shown.

I know of many examples in many schools where children visit old folks homes and they also invite these senior citizens to their school functions whenever the occasion arises. So these students have, in very practical ways, learnt how to show respect for the elders.

As regards the concession for senior citizens, the Member has mentioned a few concessions currently enjoyed by them. But I would like to just sound a bit of caution in the granting of concessions. If we give free access to cinemas, to parks, and so on, we may not realize that by the year 2030 a quarter of our population will enjoy free this and free that.

But there are already quite a number of concessions being granted. For example, senior citizens who continue to work after the age of 55 are given higher tax relief; they are given concessions in outpatient charges if they are over 65 when they attend polyclinics; they are given concession in bus fares if they travel during the off-peak periods; they enjoy two-thirds discount if they take courses run by the Extra-Mural Studies Department, and they enjoy discounts when they visit the Bird Park, Zoological Garden, the Singapore Garden and so on. Maybe the Member is right that these concessions have not been fully publicized. I will encourage all these organizations, which are currently giving concessions, to fully publicize them so that our senior citizens will know about these concessions and make full use of them.

Mr Abdullah Tarmugi (Siglap): Sir, as Chairman of the GPC for the Ministry of Community Development, I would like, at this point, to only comment on broad principles and general directions of the Ministry and leave the debate on specific issues to other members of my GPC.

Sir, I foresee the work of the Ministry assuming a higher profile and indeed growing in scope and importance, judging by the trend of development in our society. Let me explain. By the end of this century, Sir, our aim is, among others, to evolve a society that is caring, highly cultured, integrated and with a higher standard of living. By all indications, Sir, there will be, to my mind, more intense competitions in Singapore.

Now, if we super-impose this scenario on to our present situation, we can see the area that would have to be covered before we achieve our stated goals.

Sir, ours is not a welfare state and we should not be one, if we wish to avoid the dilemma and problems of countries which have taken this route. Besides, we simply cannot afford it. My GPC therefore has no quarrel with and indeed accept the concept of a self-reliant society as has been enunciated by the Ministry of Community Development. This is a good way of building a resilient society, a more participative society, a society with caring members, all, Sir, very laudable aims. But, having said all this, Sir, and notwithstanding all this, we contend that there need to be a higher commitment by Government in providing the lead, coordination and direct assistance to the activities and programmes within the purview of the Ministry of Community Development. I say this, Sir, because there appears to be a heavy dependence on the work of voluntary organizations and private sector's responses to supply the manpower and finance for the various community relations, welfare, sports and cultural activities on the ground.

While this, Sir, may help in developing a sense of responsibility, a sense of care and self-reliance among our people, we should also be mindful of the limitations of such a heavy dependence quite apart from strapping the Ministry with having to manage, to administer and to distribute the various funds we have. I believe, Sir, the Minister will agree with me that this is one problem, for example, in the organization of cultural activities that there is a lack of sponsors. We want to organize more really but we are unable simply because we do not get enough sponsors to finance the activities.

Sir, as our society progresses and as expectations rise further, there will be increasing pressure on the Government to provide more direct assistance to the less fortunate and programmes at national level. But more important, Sir, there will certainly be more arguments, and very compelling ones too, for Government to do this as the proportion of the aged increases and, with it, the dependency ratio as the need for better infrastructure and facilities grows and as the effect of intense and increased competition takes their toll on the mental and social health of our nation. Right now, Government commitment is small. For instance, its commitment to social welfare is minimal amounting to hardly half a percent, 0.08% to be exact, of the total FY 87/88 estimates according to functional classification.

Sir, increased commitment does not necessarily mean a departure from the principle of self-reliance. For the injection of Government resources could be utilized for projects which would enable organizations and individuals, be they giver or recipient, to help themselves and to help others. My GPC, Sir, is willing to work towards this objective. Incidentally, one of my members, in fact, has some ideas for a comprehensive community-based care system, albeit with increased Ministry involvement. When we have mulled over this sufficiently and when the ideas are more concrete and crystallized, Sir, we will certainly submit a report to the Ministry for its consideration.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, in response to the Member for Siglap, let me just state generally the philosophy of the Government with regard to community services and community development.

The Government has a choice of providing everything that the people want. Of course, to do this then it needs to find the money. And to do this means it needs to increase taxes or to find some ways of getting the money from the people. Alternatively, the Government can leave the money in the people's hands and then let them decide as to how they want to spend the money, whether to promote sports, to support cultural activities or to help charities.

Of course, there needs to be a balance in this. We do not want to completely leave the individuals to decide how they want to spend. On the other hand, neither do we want a situation where the Government provides for everything. We have to strike a balance. That is why, all in all, in the activities organized by the Ministry of Community Development, there need to be three parties involved - the Government, the community organizations and the people, be they the individual or the family. In the area of culture, it is the same thing. We need the corporate citizens, the companies, that are doing well to help support cultural activities because when they do so they will liven up the atmosphere, the environment and provide opportunities for people to express themselves culturally and if they are foreign companies it is also a good place for the expatriates to live and work in.

Similarly, in the area of sports, the community organizations and companies can also do their part in helping to promote a robust and rugged society. In the area of welfare, there are many community organizations, social service clubs and so on willing and able to give the dedicated manpower and the finances to support all these welfare activities. So the Government's role in this area will be to help them, facilitate them in finding buildings, in easing Government rules and regulations so that they can make use of these buildings. Therefore, there need to be this tripartite relationship between the Government, the people and the community organizations.

The Ministry would welcome any suggestions from any Member with any ideas to help to improve these services for the people. I have taken note of the Member's comments that there is a lack of sponsors and the increasing pressure on the Government to provide more direct services. But knowing that we are going to have an increasingly aging population and an increasingly demanding population, we should really leave the people to decide what they want to do and make them more self-reliant and, in this sense, I do not think the Ministry should get too involved in providing direct services.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock (Ayer Rajah): Allow me to say a few words, Sir. I felt rather uncomfortable when the Member for Boon Lay mentioned the need for a campaign to look after our senior citizens. I think we should not over-react. We should treat our senior citizens not as something odd that we need a campaign to remind our Singapore citizens to look after them. We should treat them as normal people. They have their pride. They are not unusual people. They are just old. So why should we have a campaign to remind all of us to look after our senior citizens? What will the outside world think of Singapore if we have a campaign to look after our old? We are brought up in an Asian society in which we should be looking after our old. I will be the first to object to conducting such a campaign.

Mr Goh Chee Wee: Sir, I would like to thank the Minister for supporting my suggestion to have a senior citizens' campaign. There is an objective. By keeping on telling our people to show care and concern for our senior citizens, we try to instil a sense of filial piety. I think all this is necessary. It cannot develop just by itself. The Government has been launching a lot of campaigns. Singapore will not be as clean today if not for the real extra effort made to keep Singapore clean, and all these are the results of the campaign.

With that note, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, I beg to move,

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

Sir, may I be allowed to say something on the People's Association. In the early days, the historical purpose of the People's Association in setting up community centres was it was meant to be the eyes and ears of the Government. But I believe since that time the role of the community centres has changed drastically. It is now a social, educational and cultural centre of the community.

I have to say again - that a beautiful community centre at Sennett Estate, which is within my constituency, has been taken away for office purposes. It was built as a new generation community centre and we have written for this to be reconverted back to a community centre. But I believe the reply was negative. I have also asked questions in this House and the answer was that there were monies donated by the residents of the constituency and at the time when the money was donated it was for one purpose and, that is, to build a community centre. If there is going to be a change of use, I believe there is a breach of trust.

Again, I believe the planning approval given was for a community centre and it was built, planned and designed with a view to using it as a community centre where rooms for cultural, social and sporting activities would also be available. I do not know how there was a change of use - to that of an office. There was a demand for this community centre although there is another new community centre at Potong Pasir Estate itself. There is a demand for this one. There is no excuse to say that there was no need for it. Of course, business people around there also suffer because less people visit that area. I hope the Minister will reconsider to converting this beautiful community centre back to its old use.

The purpose of a community centre must be tied to community development and nation building. I do not think we can achieve this end if one section of the community is cut away from the community centre. I am speaking as an Opposition but when I am at Potong Pasir I do not go there as a Party member. I go there as an elected representative of the people at Potong Pasir. So I am an elected representative and it is very strange that an elected representative is denied the use and facilities of the community centre there. We have asked for the use of the hall. We were refused and I believe that those groups that are supportive of the ruling party are allowed to hold dinner there. It was also reported to me that the PAP member who had lost the election at Potong Pasir went there as one of its invited guests during a dinner. I am not complaining but I think this kind of attitude taken is wrong for nation building. The Government should show some respect for the elected representative of the people at Potong Pasir. After all, I was returned with close to 60% of the votes and it is not a fluke. So it has proven that the people do want me as their elected representative and I am sure the feelings of the people are hurt when their own elected representative is denied the use of the community facilities of the community centre.

We cannot have two worlds in Singapore - one who is supportive of the ruling party and the other who appears not to be supportive. But we are all Singaporeans. For community development, for nation building, there should not be a distinction. There should never be a separation of different political thinking. The ultimate aim of course is that we want to develop the nation for the good of all. If we have this premise from the start that, "Oh, you are not from the right party you cannot use the facilities which are contributed by the residents there." Of course, the Government has given the land. The building is normally paid partly by Government and the majority of which is donation from members of the public. [Interruption]. Or whatever it is. There is public participation in building the community centre. There is a social element there. It is not exclusively Government facilities.

What will happen if in the future there are more opposition members, which is a very likely possibility. The difference will be greater. Then a bigger section who will be denied the use of these facilities will be enhanced and the problem that goes with it is certainly not good for the nation. At this particular point of time, when the problem has really not arisen, I think it is better for the Government to have its policies corrected and say, "Well, you are one of the elected members of the community, by all means, see what you can do for the community." That should be the correct policy unless of course the purpose of the community centre is in fact used just as propaganda centres for the Government. I hope not. But what I heard is that the PA has got various projects. They organize many things and these projects take place in various community centres and everything is prepared, whether it be a campaign or whether it be a project ---

The Chairman: Your time is up, Mr Chiam.

Mr Lee Yock Suan: Mr Chairman, Sir, allow me to reply in my capacity as Deputy Chairman of the People's Association.

Whilst listening to the Member, I was wondering what big new issue he is going to raise. Apparently, it is the same two old topics that have been discussed last year and fully explained by the Minister of State for Community Development. I wonder how many more years we are going to hear this same story repeated.

As regards the Sennett Community Centre, it has already been explained. The fact that we have closed down the CC and put it to other use is nothing new. It is happening all over Singapore in the other constituencies as well. For example, in my own Constituency, Cheng San, when my modern CC is completed, I will be closing down my temporary centre and moving into the new one. This is part of the progress that we are making in Singapore, that when we come to a certain stage, we get the residents to donate, we build a centre that is adequate for the purpose ---

Mr Chiam See Tong rose.

Mr Lee Yock Suan: May I explain first?

Mr Chiam See Tong resumed his seat.

Mr Lee Yock Suan: We raise the money to foster community development. The donors realize that this is for a good project. Subsequently, we raise more funds; Government puts in more money and builds a better centre which is within walking distance of the previous centre. It is not possible for us to have several centres in every constituency. Of course, most Members will want to have this but it is just not feasible. Within our resource constraints, we can only have so much and we must upgrade the facilities. I do not have the actual number of CCs closed over the years, but I can tell him that they number something like 30 to 40 over the last two years alone. This is part of the on-going process of upgrading. No doubt the community has donated money to this project, but they were fully aware that we were going to upgrade the facilities. They have not been deprived of the use of a community centre. They have been given a better centre to use.

His second point is: why is he not allowed to use the centre in Potong Pasir for carrying out his own dialogue sessions, forums, and so on? And he claims that we are denying a section of the population from using the CC. This is not true. Anybody can go to the centre, for example, to play squash, tennis, and to take part in other activities. The main point is that the PA is a statutory board established by the Government for a purpose, which is to promote community development. So the PA has its own programme of activities. The Member cannot just walk into any school, for example, and insist on using the school hall for his purpose. The PA already has its own programme of activities to achieve its purpose. Within those rules and regulations, we have to make the best use of the facilities.

He has been arguing this point that we are trying to segregate the people from one party versus others. I think he is missing the point. The point is that the PA is a Government agency. It is the nature of this democratic process that whoever is in charge of the Government has full control over all the agencies with the objective of promoting the Government's policies, and one of these policies is, of course, community development. The PA has its own programme of activities. There is no reason why we should open this up and allow any Opposition party who wants it to come in and use the facilities.

As regards the invitation to the former candidate for Potong Pasir to the dinner, I think this is nothing unusual.

It is up to the Government to decide whom they want to appoint as advisors to the various grassroots organizations. Obviously we appoint people who are like- minded, people who will help us to carry out our objectives. There is nothing in the Constitution or anywhere else that requires the Government to appoint somebody from an Opposition party, just because he has been elected by the people in that area, to be advisors to our agencies and grassroots organizations.

So I hope the Member will understand the situation and not bring up this issue year in and year out. There must be more important issues to be discussed.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Point of clarification. I think the Minister has brought up a very important point. He says that this PA is a Government agency. But are Government agencies not, in fact, supported by public funds? When you say "Government agency", it is not something exclusive to the Party in power. "Government agency" means actually an agency belonging to the people because it is paid by taxpayers and, therefore, if it is paid by taxpayers, then it should be freely used by whoever wants to use it. You cannot exclude one section or one organization from using the PA. He said that when I asked to use it, I was not allowed. I said that I was not allowed to use it, and you say it is not true. I can cite you an example. One of our residents there wanted to hold a Cultural Nite there and he was to invite me as a guest. He was not allowed to hold the Cultural Nite there. What is wrong with that - Indian, Chinese, Malay cultural dances? He was not allowed, although we went to check on the board that that particular date was free and then we wrote and said, "All right, if that date is not free, give us any dates that are free." We were denied that. You can check that out.

Again, you said that your community centre at Cheng San has been taken away. But is it of the same class, a new generation CC? This CC at Sennett Estate is really a first-class Community Centre. To close it down is a real shame. I think it is a real shame to convert it from a specialized use, which it is built for, into office use. I think it is a waste of our resources. Again, you said that I went there as an Opposition party, but I have already said when I am in Potong Pasir, I go there as an elected MP. I do not go down there and say, "Look, I am from the Opposition Party." I said, "I am your MP." There is a distinction. You must bear that distinction in mind. I do not go there as a political person; I go there as an elected representative of the Constituency. So there is a distinction there. If an elected MP is not given the use of the CC and the Government says, "We have the privilege of choosing whoever we like to be advisor to the CCC or CCMC", then he is not actually a representative of the people. They are representatives of the Government. Again, there is a distinction. So the people want somebody but the Government says, "No. We want to shave somebody else down your throat". Is that right in principle? I do not think it is right. This is certainly not democracy. Democracy means the will of the majority. But the Government is just using the will of the minority in this particular case. Please correct me if I am wrong. I think if we want to get our nation on the right path, we must start on the right road, otherwise time will certainly be not on our side.

Mr Lee Yock Suan: Mr Chairman, Sir, firstly, concerning the Sennett Community Centre. Granted it is a rather big building but it is nothing unusual. There are other centres of similar type that we closed down. The important thing is that we have replaced them with better CCs which are better equipped for the benefit of the residents. The Member is purely looking at the building itself, the structure, and saying, "What a waste!" He is forgetting that it costs a lot of money to run a centre. You have to have people there, you have to pay for the utilities and so on. So as a matter of policy, the PA can only allow one modern CC in each constituency as far as possible.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Why don't you let the residents run it?

Mr Lee Yock Suan: I think that is beside the point. So I think there is no point crying over this issue year in, year out. A decision has been made. It is going to be used as an office, and well-used, I would say. The population are not worse off. There are better facilities now. So they should make proper use of the facilities. The idea is to concentrate the activities in the modern centre rather than disperse the resources over several centres.

Turning to the other point, he said, "Isn't the PA funded by public funds, taxpayers' funds?" You can extend the principle all the way through the Government machinery. Everything is paid for by public funds. Does that mean the Opposition party should have the same access to all these facilities as the Government? Surely not. Do they want to, for example, get involved in running the Army too, and to be able to march into the schools and insisting on using their facilities? The nature of this system that we have in Singapore is that whoever has the mandate of the people - and we have the mandate (we have 77 out of 79 seats); he has only Potong Pasir and he is saying he has got everything - has the mandate to run this government in the best way we can and that means, using all the resources at our control, to promote the policies that have been endorsed by the people. If we fail to do that, we will be failing in our duties. If the people feel that we are not doing our duties, they can throw us out and elect another Government. That new Government will have access to all the controls. This is the nature of our system here. So what he is saying is just that he is feeling let-down, that he is not enjoying the same facilities as the Government. You cannot have the same access to the Government facilities. It is not the way it is done in UK, not the way it is done in any system that is similar to ours, the system that we are practising in Singapore.

This question of the Cultural Nite. I think the PA has got its own activities. There is no reason why we should allow anybody who just makes a request to come in and have their activities. We organize activities with a purpose in mind, and that is, to achieve the objectives of the PA. So it is entirely within our prerogative to decide who can use the CC and who cannot. As far as, say, games are concerned, there is no distinction. Anybody can walk in and pay a fee and play badminton, squash and so forth. But for the other more significant activities, the PA has its own programme and we will decide what activities should go on in the CC.

The Minister for National Development (Mr S. Dhanabalan): Mr Chairman, Sir, may I just say a few words. As my colleague has said, the People's Association is a statutory body and it is there to advance Government objectives, Government policies. Of course, the community centre is used for many purposes - people go there to play squash, badminton, participate in cultural classes, cooking classes, and so on. But there are also special events, forums, seminars, discussions, cultural shows where the advisor plays a role. The question is: who should be the advisor to the community centre? Since the PA is a statutory body advancing Government interest, Government policy, it must follow that the Government will appoint people the Government trusts as being able to help advance Government objectives and Government policies. The fact that it is PAP MPs who in most instances are appointed as advisers, I would say, is incidental. The PAP MP obviously is one who is trusted by the Government. It must be so. Otherwise he would not be fielded as a candidate. But if any PAP MP fails to perform his functions properly and does not help to advance the policies, the objectives, of the Government, then he has to pay a very big price. The first price he will pay, of course, is to be removed as an adviser of the community centre.

The point that I want to register is that the adviser who is invited to the major and significant events in the community centre is one who is clearly identified as being able to advance the policies and objectives of the Government. If the Member for Potong Pasir is prepared to state that, I am sure my colleague will be prepared to consider him as an adviser. Is he prepared to say that he is prepared to commit himself to advancing the objectives and the policies of the Government? Then he will be an eligible candidate as an adviser to the community centre.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Mr Chairman, things are getting clearer to me now. It is more and more revealing as we get deeper and deeper into this subject of People's Association. Now I hear that community centres are places where Government use it to advance its objectives and to advance its own purpose and policies. That is the position. Where is the element of community development in the community centres?

Mr Dhanabalan: That is the Government objective.

Mr Chiam See Tong: When people get to know that these places are, in fact, places to advance Government policies and inevitably, of course, it is PAP policies. When you go there to attend folk dancing or when you go there to learn your computer, they must always bear in mind that it is Government policy that you are there. In other words, there is an implication that probably when people go there, they have got some kind of an obligation towards the Government which should not be. Because these community centres belong to the people. The community centre must merge with the community. You cannot wholly separate and say, "Well, this is a place where we advance Government policies." I think it is wrong. We want to get it integrated into the community, make it part of the residence of that community. Then you can really build up, not just a housing estate, but a well integrated, cohesive, community. I think that should be it. I think that is the important aspect of community centres. At one time, of course, it was the eyes and ears of the people. Now you are saying that it is an outpost of the Government to advance Government policies. I think this is wrong.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Point of clarification. May I ask the Member for Potong Pasir when was it that the PA was the eyes and ears of the Government? Can you please show us the chapter and verse or the publications or the newspaper reports where you read of this instance that the PA is the eyes and ears of the Government, rather than just generalizing? Maybe just give us examples.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Mr Chairman, I am going back to history. Perhaps the Minister was too young to know what the original community centres were for. At one time, I think I do not have to tell him the political history of Singapore. I think any of the old guards will tell him that.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Maybe the Member can take his time, go back and research documents and give them to me.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Are you denying the fact that the community centres in the early days were set up by the PAP to be the eyes and ears - win the hearts and minds of the people?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Oh, that is different.

Mr Chiam See Tong: The eyes and ears and also to win the hearts and minds of the people. In any event, it was part of the eyes and ears of the Government. Are you denying that? Perhaps some of the old guards can say that I am wrong. But if you are saying so, I really cannot accept that.

Mr Lee Yock Suan: Mr Chairman, Sir, I think it is true that in the early days when the PA was set up, it was meant to be the eyes and ears of the Government, not the people but the Government. It was meant to combat Communist influence and infiltration. The idea was to reach out to the people, to galvanize them for nation building.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Correct.

Mr Lee Yock Suan: It was basically a Government objective to counter the influence of the Communists. So do not get it wrong. It is not the eyes and ears of the people. It is the eyes and ears of the Government in reaching out to the people for nation building. And that is what we are still doing in the PA. If you look up the objectives of the PA under the People's Association Act, you will find that the basic objective is to promote nation building through various means, through sports, through social education, through classes and so on. So all this is going on all the while. It is not for the PAP that we are doing this. It is for the country, for community development and nation building. We try and get the people from the different races, for example, to take part in activities which are common to everybody. Of late, the PA has been trying to reach out more and more to the Malays, for example. This is an example of how we are carrying out Government's policies, policies which have been endorsed by the people.

So it is not true to say that whoever goes to the PA or the CCs must declare his political affiliation. There is no such thing. The facilities are there for them to take part in the classes, in the discos, in whatever. But the PA reserves to itself the right to decide what activities should go on. And when we organize forums, of course, it is to explain Government policies. There is no reason why we should open up the facilities to Opposition Parties so that they can promote their own ideas.

The Chairman: Can I remind Members that we have 21 more amendments to take before guillotine time at 5.30 pm? Mr Chiam, would you like to withdraw your amendment?

Mr Chiam See Tong: I am still not very happy with what the Government has said in regard to the purposes of the community centres. As I said, if you take the wrong steps now, in fact, there will be greater divergence between the peoples of Singapore at a later date.

On that note, I will withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

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

Sir, since the establishment of the Syariah Court in 1959, to date it has experienced two relocations. First, the Court was shifted from Canning Rise to Pearls Hill where there was no necessity to share space and facilities with the Registry of Muslim Marriages. Now the Syariah Court will be moved to a more modern and spacious area in the Ministry of Community Development at Thomson Road.

I certainly welcome the move to relocate the Syariah Court in a more modern and comfortable location. However, it appears that the physical upgrading of the Court is not in tandem with the upgrading of its officers. I observe that the effort to recruit additional Social Case Workers came to fruition only last year, from two to three. I am wondering whether the Ministry has given consideration to the need of appointing a Vice-President of the Syariah Court. In my view, the time has come for the Court to have a Vice-President. Firstly, with the appointment of a Vice- President, divorce cases and other matters related thereto can be handled more expeditiously. People who are involved in such cases need not wait for months or, in fact, years before they can know the outcome of their cases. Secondly, with the additional officer, the Court will have the time and manpower to publish a more qualitative and in-depth annual report concerning divorce cases and marriages, instead of just publishing divorce statistics year in and year out. Thirdly, with the appointment of a Vice- President, the question of leave can be arranged more smoothly between the President and his Vice-President without affecting the daily activities of the Court. I think the appointment of a Vice-President for the Syariah Court should be given serious consideration by the Minister in charge.

The Minister for the Environment (Dr Ahmad Mattar): Mr Chairman, Sir, I am replying in my capacity as the Minister in charge of Muslim affairs.

The Member for Kampong Ubi has suggested that in order to clear the backlog of cases in the Syariah Court, it should have a Vice-President. First of all, Sir, section 35 of the Administration of Muslim Law Act (AMLA) provides only for the appointment of a President of Syariah Court. It does not provide for the appointment of a Vice-President. But this is not the problem. We can always amend the Act if there is real need for the Court to have a Vice-President. The question is: do we really need a Vice-President? Sir, any proposal to amend AMLA to include the appointment of a Vice-President should be viewed against the long-term needs of the Court. Sir, it is not sufficient to ask for a post of Vice-President to be created solely to clear the backlog of cases faced by the Court. The post will become redundant as soon as the backlog is cleared. Sir, the solution really is to stem the increase in the number of couples with marital disputes who go to the Syariah Court for counselling or to be divorced if they feel that a reconciliation is not the solution to their problems. In this regard, Sir, the Syariah Court and the Registry of Muslim Marriages together with the Mosque Management Committees of the new generation mosques and the number of Muslim organizations are providing more systematic and comprehensive marriage preparation courses as well as Religious Knowledge classes to couples intending to get married. It is generally observed, Sir, that couples who are well prepared for marriage are normally able to tackle their problems more effectively. This, in turn, would reduce the number of marital dispute cases referred to the Syariah Court.

Sir, with the appointment of a third Muslim Social Case worker, as the Member for Kampong Ubi mentioned just now, the counsellors are now able to attend to more marital dispute cases and also spend more time, where necessary, to help them resolve their problems. Only cases which cannot be reconciled are referred to the Court for adjudication.

Encik Wan Hussin bin Hj Zoohri: ( In Malay): Sir, I do not know on what grounds the Minister said that there is no need for a Vice-President in the Syariah Court. But if that is his decision, that the appointment of a Vice- President is not necessary at the moment, could the Minister consider the appointment of a Registrar instead so that he could assist in the daily running of these cases.

Dr Ahmad Mattar: Sir, the Member for Kampong Ubi has suggested that if it is not possible to have a Vice-President for the Syariah Court, then he would like me to consider the possibility of appointing a Registrar.

Sir, Section 35 of AMLA does not provide for the appointment of a Registrar. But we will certainly look into his suggestion, and as and when the need arises we will consider.

Encik Wan Hussin bin Hj Zoohri: ( In Malay): Sir, I am very disappointed that this suggestion could not be considered.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Chng Hee Kok (Radin Mas): Sir, I beg to move,

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

Sir, last year in this House I raised the issue of abuse of children in this House and the limited protection of children under the Children and Young Persons Act. Despite the Minister's reply, I was hopeful that in the one year he might have changed his mind. But, alas, this is not the case and I feel compelled to bring this matter up again.

Last year I drew the attention of the Minister and the House to the abuse and protection accorded to children under this Act. The relevant section is section 4 and this calls for a punishment or penalty of a fine up to $1,000 or imprisonment of not more than two years.

Sir, going back to the records, the Children and Young Persons Act was an Act that was first passed by the First Legislative Council. At that time Singapore was still a British colony. This Act was passed in 1949. Section 4 has not changed substantially in any form whatsoever since then.In other words, the penalty of $1,000 and two years' imprisonment was relevant or considered a deterrent way back in 1949. So in today's terms, I think the Minister must agree that this is manifestly inadequate.

Sir, it is not too difficult to look for instances of child abuse. Last year in the Debate in the Committee of Supply on his Ministry, it was very convenient for me because there was a case which happened just a couple of days before that - a little baby, 20 months old, was battered to death and the mother was given a three months' jail term. This year, just in the last two weeks, you will have read in the papers about children being abused. So it is really not too difficult to look for cases of child abuse or abuse of children in Singapore. In his reply last year, the Minister said, and I quote from Hansard, "data kept by his Ministry showed that the number of reported child abuse cases has not gone up or fluctuated greatly."

As far as I can see, what is important is that we must find ways and means to make sure that child abuse cases do decline. It is not important that it remains the same. My question to the Minister really is, what do we consider to be important? Or how many battered children would he like to see before he will consider making revisions to the Children and Young Persons Act?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, last year in reply to the question from the hon. Member, I said that there were sufficient provisions in the Children and Young Persons Act and the Penal Code to deal with offences of child abuse.

Sir, the first thing we have to take into account when penalizing the parent or an adult for abusing the child is the welfare of the child. That is of primary importance. It is no use committing the parent to six months' imprisonment and then find that there is no one at home to look after the child. I think in that case the child will suffer even more.

Sir, last year I said that the figures of child abuse had not increased substantially. When I look at the data again this year, there has been some increase between 1985 and 1986. But in analyzing the data I found that about a quarter of these cases of complaints of child abuse were without any basis. In other words, there is not much truth in the complaints. About 72% of the cases reported actually came from families with problems, in other words, there were already difficulties or problems among the different members of the family, ie, the husband, the wife and the children and so on. So the problems actually stem from the poor relationship among the family rather than behaviourial problems of the child.

Of the few cases that we saw, about 3%, these were reported to the Police and the Police were investigating them. So it can therefore be seen that a large majority of the cases that were reported to us really concern families with family-related problems. But in the extreme case where there is clear evidence of a child being abused by the parents, then definitely we would urge the Police and the Courts to take a very extreme view in punishing the offender and that they should be brought to book.

For the information of the Member, the Ministry has already implemented two programmes to educate parents on how to manage their children. One is the parent education programme and the other is the supervision programme. The parent education programme tries to educate parents on how to look after the children and how to manage the family relationship. The supervision programme is for children with difficult behaviour. Where necessary, all these reported cases of child abuse will be put under the supervision of the Ministry for a period of time. The ultimate objective is to bring the family together rather than to punish the parent severely causing a break-up in the family relationship. But let me assure the Member that when there is clear evidence of extreme cases of child abuse, we will bring them to book.

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

Mr Chng Hee Kok: For the sake of expediency, Sir, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The following amendment stood on the Order Paper Supplement - Mr Goh Chee Wee: Child Care Services (5) That the sum to be allocated for Head J be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead JD-03-1210 of the Main Estimates.

The Chairman: Amendment No. 5. Mr Goh is not here. Amendment No. 6, Dr Vasoo.

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

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

Sir, if you listen to the cries of the latchkey children, you will then understand the need to establish more affordable child care centres. Sir, we can anticipate that there will be an increasing number of latchkey children in the near future. This increase will be influenced by a number of factors. Firstly, the increasing divorce rate may lead to an increasing need for care and protection of children. Secondly, single-parenthood, which is on the increase as a result of death of either parent. Thirdly, more married women in the lower income group are looking for jobs in order to meet their economic necessities. Fourthly, the lack of affordable child care facilities or arrangements in the neighbourhood.

Sir, the latchkey child, if unattended, can become a social cost to our society. In fact, problematic behaviour, delinquency and other related problems will result if the child is left unattended. Sir, the Ministry's effort to promote child care centres is a positive step. Many more centres should be encouraged to be established, particularly in housing estates where there are more light industries. Sir, it is in these estates that more affordable child care centres should be set up. These centres will in the longer term help the development of our children who otherwise will face problems if they are left unattended. Some of us must have read in the papers that children who were left unattended get into various problems endangering their life and limb.

Sir, the working class parents are concerned whether the Government will reduce its effort to promote affordable child care centres. Would the working parents with a joint income of less than $1,000 be required to pay more than $90 in the near future? Sir, if charges for affordable child care centres would not be accessible to this group of parents, then I think there will be more latchkey children's problems that we need to face.

The Chairman: Dr Wang is not here. Mr Wong Kan Seng.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, let me assure the Member for Bo Wen that the Government intends to continue to help operators establish child care centres and, where necessary and appropriate and when the demand is there, affordable child care centres will also be encouraged. I think by "affordable child care centre" the Member meant child care centres charging a fee of up to $190. Sir, with the announcement recently that the Government intends to encourage more women to have children and at the same time to work, the Government is subsidizing a flat rate of $100 for all women who place their children in child care centres, up to a maximum of three children. With this subsidy there are enough opportunities, I think, for women to place their children in the child care centre.

There are now two approved centres charging a fee of $190 and I am glad to say that by the end of the next fiscal year there will be three or four more such centres and these centres have the flexibility of charging between $90 and $120 depending on the circumstances of the family. But the Government will subsidize $100 just as it did subsidize the child-care centres charging a fee of $250.

The Member also showed concern for the latchkey children, that means children who after school do not know where to go. But I would like to inform the Member that at present there are already 48 child-care centres providing services for latchkey children, ie for children to go to the centre before they go to school or after they finish school. But, unfortunately, Sir, the utilization by parents of this particular service has not been very encouraging. Maybe it is due to the lack of information or lack of publicity but we will try to give it more publicity so that parents are aware of the availability of this service and we will encourage them to use it.

Dr Vasoo: Sir, in view of the assurance from the Minister that child-care centres will be made affordable, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Dr Wan Soon Bee (West Coast): Sir, I beg to move,

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

Sir, the aging population of Singapore in the longer-term is a very serious problem for a small country like ours. In 1985, the total number was 7.8% but this is going to rise to about 25% in the year 2030 and this demographic configuration will certainly have very serious implications on the care of our elderly in the future.

I would like to classify the aged population into three categories: (1) the aged sick; (2) the destitutes; and (3) the able-bodied senior citizens. Of course, here when I mention "senior citizen", my definition is different from that of the People's Association which classifies everybody above 50 years old to be senior citizens. I thought the age of 50 is a little bit too young to be considered senior citizens. I think we have a tendency to concentrate our problems on the aged sick and the destitutes. But I personally feel that the problems of these two categories of people are more easily resolved than those of the able-bodied senior citizens and if this large group of able-bodied senior citizens is not properly handled, I am afraid, many of them will eventually end up to become aged sick and destitutes. If this were to happen it will certainly affect our economy, the quality of life and social cohesion of our country.

The question of the aged population was studied by a Committee for the Aged just two or three years ago and there were a lot of excellent recommendations in this Report. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us a report on what has been done so far for the aged population or at least what are we doing to prepare ourselves to handle these problems in the future.

Currently, the care of the elderly is mainly undertaken by our voluntary welfare organizations. Since the first commu- nity home was established in an HDB estate in 1974, more have been established to shelter and care for the able-bodied aged citizens. While the community homes allow our elderly to remain within the community instead of being isolated in large institutions, we should nevertheless, and I think this is very important, continue to cultivate in our young the responsibility of caring for the aged parents within their families. However, the realities cannot be avoided. With the anticipated increase in the number of aged in our population and the probability that they will be more vulnerable to various disabilities, the need for supportive assistance and institutional care for the aged sick is also a very real one. This need is made more acute by the increasing number of nuclear family households and the shrinking size of family units.

These families may lack the necessary skill and physical capacity to provide continuous nursing care. Others may face the financial and emotional strain with having to balance between the demands of care-giving and other responsibilities relating to other family members and work. The Ministry of Community Development has already initiated several worthy programmes in the area of care of the elderly, including the establishment of day-care centres, Befriender scheme and various public education programmes. But I believe more should be done to further help the aged sick and his family to help them continue to live in their own homes with their families.

Where illness is long-term and the family begins to experience the physical strain, short stays away from the home for the patients should be made available. Such short respite care gives the family a chance to recharge themselves and give attention to other family members. Moreover, the provision of respite care, if in nursing homes, can free hospital beds and prevent frequent re- admissions to hospital. The Government could therefore consider either expanding this specialized area of care of the elderly or providing financial assistance to voluntary welfare organizations for establishing them.

However, as I mentioned earlier, the problem of care of the elderly is not confined solely to the aged sick. In fact, the more serious problem is how to look after our able-bodied senior citizens. I believe there could be a few solutions to it. At the moment, most of the activities are concentrated in providing social and recreational activities for the able-bodied senior citizens. This is only a very small part of the problems that we are solving. I would suggest that, first of all, we should create an environment favourable for these older citizens to continue to work and that is important because if the senior citizens are active they are able to remain more healthy mentally and physically. The senior citizens should be encouraged to remain in their jobs for as long as they can. I am sad to say that in many instances, as soon as they reach the customary retirement age of 50 or 55 years, most of them have been asked to leave their jobs and this is also true with the statutory boards and civil service. I would urge the Minister to look into this problem and help to find a solution for the senior citizens to be able to continue to work longer in their jobs.

Secondly, I think we should not just organize acitivities for social and recreational activities for them. We should get them involved and be active in organizing their own activities and in fact they can even contribute to the community by taking a lead in the various activities that are being organized for the residents in the various constituencies. This is a problem which will surface in the future and I think it is time that we really looked into it very seriously to see how we can prepare ourselves to face these challenges of the future.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, let me state at the outset that a great majority of our senior citizens, about 97%-98% of them are healthy. They are fit, they are able to live with their families and they do not require institutionalization. Only a very small minority, 2% or 3%, will require institutionalization either because they are destitute or they are the aged sick and their children cannot adequately look after them and have no expertise and knowledge at all in taking care of them.

With that remark, Sir, my thinking is that our senior citizens should continue to work for as long as they can. In that regard, the Ministry of Labour will try to encourage employers to continue to employ these people even when they reach 55 or 60 years old. That, I believe, is the best safeguard to ensure that a person, even when he reaches 60 years old or 65 years old, will remain physically and mentally alert and active. Of course, when a person retires then we would not want him to idle at home and, as a result of inactivity, suffer an atrophy of the mind and physical disabilities and eventually become aged sick or senile. For these people who have retired, we would prefer them to continue to be active in the community, in performing social services for their own senior citizens or doing things for themselves and, at the same time, take part in physical exercises and in recreational activities which they find joy in.

We would create an environment for these old people to participate in these activities and I am glad to say that there is already a senior citizens club in almost every community centre. If not, then in the next two or three years I am sure that all community centres will have senior citizens clubs.

As regards the aged sick which the Member mentioned, there are already a number of schemes or services which the Ministry is promoting to help the aged sick even to remain in their homes and remain with the community rather than to be institutionalized. Let me just name a few. The Home Nursing Foundation has got the home nursing service. My Ministry has started a home-help service, a meal delivery service although from surveys we found that this meal delivery service is not very popular. We have also started a Befriender Service for the last few years and by the end of this decade we would have a Befriender Service in practically all the constituencies if there is a need for it.

The Member also mentioned that for the aged sick who may be a problem to their children who may want to take time-off for holidays and so on but were unable to do so because of the need to look after the aged sick. There are already seven welfare organizations providing respite care service. In other words, they can put the aged in the home for a short period of two to three months or a maximum of maybe six months so that they can take time-off to do something which they would like to do. In this regard, Sir, maybe we would publicize more about this respite care service so that the users know about them and are able to make full use of them.

The Member's suggestion that we should get the senior citizens involved in the activities would be taken note of and we will definitely try to encourage them to do so in the senior citizens' clubs.

Dr Wan Soon Bee: Sir, in view of the reply of the Minister which in a way he realizes the seriousness of the aged population, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Abdullah Tarmugi: Sir, I beg to move,

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

Sir, in my earlier speech, I alluded to the need for Government to do more for the less fortunate among us. Before I misconstrue, and I think the Minister has misconstrued me earlier, we are certainly not expecting the Government to provide all that is needed for the community. My speech indeed categorically rejected the welfare state concept and my point was precisely the need for us to nurture and develop a sense of self-reliance among the people that we think the Government could do more to encourage, to persuade and even motivate the people to develop this attribute. It is in this context, Sir, that we are asking for more direct assistance from Government. Certainly, Sir, it should be a tripartite effort. But the Government, to my mind, Sir, should act as the catalyst.

Coming back to the disabled, Sir, there are so many areas that we should pay attention to: rehabilitation, recognition and acceptance by society of their plight, providing them with the skills and means to enable them to take care of themselves and to be part of society, thus giving them the pride and dignity which I am sure they would like to have despite their misfortunes and disabilities. I hope the Ministry could look deeper and more comprehensively into the ways in which we could prepare the disabled for jobs and vocations.

The recent controversy on some blind people going around selling tissue paper comes to my mind, Sir. So is the difficulty of a blind father recently featured in the newspapers in his attempts to eke out a decent living for his family. I am not about to go into the rights or wrongs of the issue. These are, to my mind, Sir, but symptoms of the problems. What is more relevant and crucial is for us to dwell into the causes which drive these individuals to do what they do and to be in a specific situation which they are in, not only for the blinds but also for people with other kinds of disabilities.

The questions, Sir, which we need to ask: Are the disabled provided with adequate education and training? Provide them the means is my point. Are there adequate opportunities for them to secure education and employment? Is the Ministry satisfied with the programmes which exist to achieve these goals? What is the attitude of society and employers towards the disabled? Do they need changing? And if so, what plans does the Ministry have to change them?

Sir, our argument has always been that we are doing what we can for the disabled, and that our attention really should be to develop the resources, be it people, be it material which can make a higher contribution to the country. Admittedly, Sir, there is logic to this argument. But I doubt if we can extend it to our efforts at helping the disabled. Frankly, there is no way that investment in our disabled can be commensurate with the contribution that they can give. But it is not intended to be either. The arguments for giving more help to the disabled go beyond cost-benefit considerations, go beyond cost-benefit impera- tives. They have to do with our willingness to help as a value in itself; our commitment to charity as a virtue to be instilled and the need to care for others which, Sir, is no less a component of our vision for the future.

Dr Koh Lam Son (Telok Blangah): Mr Chairman, Sir, I would like to take this opportunity to focus attention on the problems of those disabled senior citizens who are unable to find admission into Government homes for the aged or for the aged sick and who cannot afford to go to the private nursing homes. What is, in fact, the number of such people in our community? I know that the problem is a growing one. Judging from the number of private nursing homes that have sprung up, perhaps this is not that small a number.

Sir, in considering the problems of the disabled senior citizens living in their own homes, we can broadly classify them into two groups: those who are completely disabled, bedridden and incontinent of both bladder and bowel functions who need to be nursed round the clock. The burden on this family is tremendous. Fortunately, Singaporeans are still, by and large, filial to their elders and they accept it as their duty to look after their aged sick in their home. However, we cannot ignore the stress that the burden of an aged sick imposes on his or her family. Not too infrequently this has resulted in quarrels, friction and conflict in the family. In my view, the proper place for this group of aged sick is in the home for the aged sick and not in the homes of their children. So I hope the Minister will continue to do his best to try and alleviate this problem of the aged sick perhaps by creating more beds in the home for the aged sick or subsidizing beds in private nursing homes.

The second group, which is the bigger one, are those who are semi-ambulant and frail, for example, old people who suffer from stroke, heart diseases or cancer. They can look after their basic needs but are unable to cope with an independent life. They cannot cook their meals or do household chores and the biggest problem is immobility and loneliness. Left at home on their own most of the time, they lack both physical and mental stimulation. They soon become senile and infirm.

Sir, the Committee on the Problems of the Aged has recommended the various services to reach out to the aged sick in the community and we have just heard from the Minister that some of these schemes have already been implemented. From what he has said, it does not sound that it has been successful. But I would just like to mention the schemes that have been recommended - domiciliary nursing services, home-help services, meal delivery services, day care centres, respite services and the befriender scheme. Sir, will the Ministry implement all these recommended schemes? How would the Ministry assess the need for these services? If the Committee on the Problems of the Aged had recommended them, is there not a feedback that such services are required?

As all these services require both high cost and manpower, may I make a suggestion to the Minister - that these schemes be decentralized and coordination centres set up at the constituency or neighbourhood level. This coodination centre can also act as the senior citizen services centre. The centre should provide all the facilities needed for the social, recreational and health needs of the senior citizens. It can include a day care centre where both ambulant and non-ambulant or semi-ambulant aged sick can meet, exercise, have their mid-day meals and engage in a more meaningful day while their family members are out at work. The senior citizen health centre, which is now being implemented by the Home Nursing Foundation, can be incorporated in the centre; so can the senior citizens' clubs for social and recreational functions. Voluntary helpers can be more easily recruited from among the residents to help out in these centres and voluntary social welfare organizations can also help out with financial and social support. And, Sir, with this centre acting as a headquarters, domiciliary services such as home-help, befriender scheme, can be more effectively organized.

I hope the Minister will consider this suggestion.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: First of all, the Member for Siglap was talking about the assistance given to disabled people. Let me assure him, Sir, that like all the other services that we provide, we do our best in giving them the services that they need, together with the voluntary organizations, the community and their family members. Maybe I will just elaborate on some of the things that we do.

I believe we can and we should do more for the disabled people to help them to be as economically and socially independent as possible, that means, this philosophy of self-reliance should also be inculcated among the disabled. So where assistance is needed, we will provide. But we must also recognize that there are limitations to what we can do. The limitations are, first of all, constrained by the disabilities of the disabled themselves and, secondly, by the resources that we can muster.

As to the limitations, firstly, some of the disabled, because of the severity of their disability may not be able to take full advantage of theopportunities that we provide. Secondly, the general prejudice of employers and society is also an obstacle to the disabled people being employed. So I would also like the Member to urge the employers and the society to remove these prejudices.

The main areas of concern of the Government in helping the disabled are in special education, vocational training, employment and accessibility. In the area of special education, there was a question on this the other day. Let me just reiterate the assistance that we give. The Government has decided to grant voluntary organizations providing special education to disabled children the per capita cost of educating a primary school student. In other words, the Government will treat disabled children no differently from the normal school child who is studying in a primary school. At the same time, the Government will renovate and provide buildings to these voluntary welfare organizations to run the schools for the disabled, and the rental charge will be very nominal. There are about seven such organizations running special education schools for the disabled children.

In the area of vocational training, Sir, the Government is already providing instructors to the Singapore Association for the Deaf and the Society For Aid To The Paralysed to set up vocational training centres to help the disabled people to acquire a skill. For example, in the Society For Aid To The Paralysed, a training centre was set up to provide training courses in pre-press offset printing, bookbinding and pottery. And gradually the Society will move towards introducing accredited training courses by the VITB. The Government has also helped the Handicaps Welfare Association to provide BEST training for the disabled children.

In the area of employment, in 1986, 182 disabled people were placed in employment and the Ministry of Labour has also helped 42 disabled people and six voluntary welfare organizations found employment for the remaining 140 people. In October last year the Ministry worked together with the Environment Ministry to consider giving hawker licences to some disabled people. Presently, there are two schemes to help to place disabled people in the job market, one is run by the Labour Ministry called the Disabled Resettlement Scheme and the other is managed by the Ministry with funds from the Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce.

So you see, Sir, in all these areas, Government has provided adequate opportunities for education, for vocational training to help these people find employment in the appropriate jobs or skills which they are able to cope.

As regards the Member for Telok Blangah's point about the aged sick, let me assure him, Sir, the schemes that I mentioned earlier on were not failures. In fact, we were quite successful in a number of schemes. Maybe I will just elaborate on a few of them to give the Member an idea as to where we are in these various schemes.

The Befriender Service, for example, Sir, there are now 821 senior citizens on this programme and these 821 senior citizens are helped by 250 volunteers in 18 constituencies. As I said earlier on, this service will be extended to all constituencies where there is a felt need by the year 1990. We hope to increase the Befriender Service to 12 to 13 constituencies each year.

In the area of domiciliary nursing service run by the Home Nursing Foundation, this scheme is to provide nursing care to both the non-ambulant aged sick as well as the disabled in their own homes. I believe that this scheme is quite successfully carried out in a number of constituencies. But in addition to this domiciliary nursing scheme, the Home Nursing Foundation has already set up two senior citizens health care centres to provide rehabilitative care for people who are discharged from hospital or people who require attention or treatment after they received a stroke. These centres will conduct programmes on health education, health promotion and training of volunteers and the two centres are now in Kuo Chuan and in Kampong Ubi. And the Home Nursing Foundation intends to set up eight more such centres before the end of this decade.

There are a number of day care centres also. These day care centres provide domiciliary services to frail elderly persons at centralized locations. The services provided are basic nursing and simple physiotherapy for senior citizens who require follow-up after rehabilitative care. There are now eight day care centres of which five have rehabilitative programmes while the remaining three focus on social activities.

I also mentioned earlier on that there are seven community organizations' welfare homes providing respite care services to families who may want to put their aged or aged sick into the homes for short periods so that they can take a break elsewhere.

As regards the home-help service, this again is another service recommended in the Howe Yoon Chong Report. There are now 68 home-help users and 18 matches have been made. And the Ministry is promoting this home help service again this year.

I mentioned one service which I said was not quite successful, and that is, the meal delivery service. From the surveys that we conducted in 1985 and 1986, we found that very few senior citizens want to make use of this service for a number of reasons. They prefer to take their meals at their own time. They prefer to cook on their own and they prefer to go to hawker centres and so on. So we found that for this particular service, there was not enough of a demand to justify our continuation of this service.

Sir, on the recommendations of the Howe Yoon Chong Report, I have made two progress reports to this House during the last one or two years and I will be pleased to give an update on the progress of this Report if the Member asks for it. But let me assure him that we are progressing and we are paying full attention to implementation of the recommendations of the Howe Yoon Chong Report.

Mr Abdullah Tarmugi: Sir, as time is short, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Dr S. Vasoo: Mr Chairman, Sir, I shall be fairly precise because of constraint of time. I cannot but agree with the Member for Siglap who spoke on the rehabilitation programmes for the disabled. But I would like to concentrate specifically on the enhancement of employment for the disabled, an area which I feel that the Ministry could do more. The Ministry has claimed that it would do its best. I wonder what the best is.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock: Sir, may I interrupt? The Member has not moved his amendment.

The Chairman: He can move after his speech. Dr Tan, you are out of order. Please sit down. Please continue, Dr Vasoo.

Dr Vasoo: Mr Chairman, Sir, I beg to move,

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

Sir, I was just trying to point out that the Ministry feels that it will do its best in enhancing the employment for the disabled. I am wondering what is the best that it will do in terms of moral support, in terms of facilities, in terms of seed money or all of these. I feel that disabled people not only have to be content with their disability but also with their physical environment. To be disabled is itself a problem. To be disabled and unemployed is a double disadvantage, Sir. There is no reason why the community under-estimates the ability of the disabled to live economically and socially useful lives. What is the Ministry's long-term solution to promote the employability of disabled persons?

Sir, many studies and surveys have been conducted by the Ministry but some tangible solutions have emerged. I feel that a more comprehensive programme could be organized to enhance their employability. One effective solution to their employment problem would be the establishment of cooperative sheltered workshops or cooperative work centres. Cooperative workshops and work centres with the financial participation of families, participating companies and Government can be set up. These cooperatives cited in or near industrial estates can organize various work programmes for the disabled. Such cooperatives given some initial seed money can be the pacesetter for the creation of employment for the disabled. I feel that we have not fully exploited and explored the possibilities of establishing cooperative workshops for the disabled. And this is an area where I feel that the Government could provide the initial capital and the seed money for the promotion of such a programme.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, the three matters mentioned by the Member as a measure of the Government's sincerity and interest in doing its best, providing moral support, helping to get facilities and providing seed money, indeed are the things that we are doing. But let me caution the Member that we should not assume that all disabled people are employable. Many of them, because of their severe disabilities, are just unemployable and that is the sad part of it. There is really nothing very much we can do for these people. What we could do perhaps would be to help them to be able to take care of their daily living needs rather than provide them with employment opportunities.

For those who can find jobs outside in the open market, in the factories, in the offices and so on, I think they should be encouraged to do so. It is better that they work in the factories, in the office environ- ment and to be with the other people that they will get a sense of dignity and sense of self-worth. And I think we should encourage all disabled people who can find open employment to get jobs in the offices and the factories.

But not all of them are suitable for open employment even if they want to work. For these people, Sir, I know that there are now five voluntary organizations providing sheltered employment for about 440 disabled people. We conducted a survey recently and we found that among the 4,385 disabled people within the age group of 16-55, about 480 of them are suitable for sheltered employment. We are trying to find ways of providing them with the opportunity for sheltered employment and we are working closely with the Singapore Council of Social Services to do this. We have identified a place which is near an industrial area and we hope that when this place is set up, it will provide sheltered employment for about 50 disabled people. But we are still negotiating the terms with the Ministry of Law. We hope to get this matter sorted out before the middle of this year.

There is no need to worry about seed money, Sir, because there is a charity foundation which has given us a significant amount of money which we have used for providing workshops and hostel homes for the disabled run by the Council and by the Red Cross Society. And we have enough money to set up one or two more of these sheltered workshops. The question is finding adequate manpower, adequate volunteers, to manage these places. And once we get these people, let me assure the Member that we will set up the homes with the money that we have.

Dr Vasoo: Sir, despite what the Minister has said, I think there is a need for more support.

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The following amendment in the name of Mr Chai Chong Yii stood on the Order Paper Supplement:

Public Assistance

(10) That the sum to be allocated for Head J be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead JE-03-1210 of the Main Estimates.

The Chairman: Amendment (10), Mr Chai Chong Yii is not here. Amendment (11), Dr Wan Soon Bee.

Dr Wan Soon Bee: Mr Chairman, Sir, I beg to move,

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

Sir, the public assistance scheme was introduced to provide financial relief to those who are destitute and without any means of support. It is financial aid given to those who are in financial distress due to illness, old age, physical or mental disability. Over the years, stringent qualifying criteria based on the means test have ensured that only the really deserving cases qualify for public assistance. This is to discourage those who are still able and capable to seek public assistance rather than other alternative means of financial support, like employment. The aged, disabled and chronic sick are the main recipients of public assistance. Public assistance, therefore, aims only to afford the recipients and their dependants a subsistence standard of living. The amount of relief under the public assistance scheme has been reviewed on five occasions since 1970. It was increased from $21 a month for a single person household up to $60 a month for a four-person household in 1970 to $90 a month and a maximum of $220 respectively in 1984. The Ministry must be commended for this periodic review of the rates. However, since 1984, there has been no revision. This is rather unfortunate as the cost of living has increased since 1984. If the Ministry is not already contemplating to review the current rates, I hope and I think it should do so now.

We appreciate the fact that public assistance must remain only to provide its recipients with a subsistence standard of living. But surely $90 a month for a single person household and a maximum of $220 a month for a four-person household is not enough to afford a subsistence standard of living by even the most conservative yardstick. Was it not only in August last year that the Ministry of Labour announced that $230 a month was the estimated minimum income a person needs to live at a subsistence level? I am not advocating that we should increase the public assistance relief to that level but any relief must enable its recipients to meet at least the basic living needs. We must not deprive the destitute, aged, disabled and chronic sick of whatever sense of human dignity they have left when we give them financial relief. True, we cannot be too generous but at least we can be charitable.

Families on public assistance are really needy cases. Most public assistance recipients are no longer able to work due to old age, illness or disability, or other family members have to suffer much hardship. But they have in their own ways, big or small, contributed to Singapore's development and growth. Yes, they are poor but not by choice rather because of circumstances. They are our responsibility now and we have a moral obligation to see that they live out their lives in as dignified a manner as possible.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, the Member made two points, one is that the public assistance rate is low and, secondly, the public assistance rate should be reviewed periodically. The Member showed a good understanding of the reasons why we need to have a low rate of public assistance. Public assistance really is not a substitute for unemployment or disability or retirement income. It is meant to help people if they are able bodied to get on their feet again, to go out and get a job. And for those who really cannot get a job and those who are really disabled, those who are really old and unable to work, then the public assistance is meant to help them pass through the day with some assistance from the Government.

There are many other schemes in addition to the public assistance that the Government gives and these schemes are also managed by the Ministry. Whenever the need arises, whenever it is necessary, we will be generous in considering requests for additional assistance. Perhaps, let me just give a few examples of the kind of assistance that the PA recipients receive in addition to the public assistance from the Government.

Of the 3,000-odd cases of public assistance recipients we have last year, about 1,200 of them received additional help from the Ministry or from the voluntary welfare funds managed by the Ministry, and that is about 39%. About 33% of the others, about 1,018 of them, are living in welfare or community homes. In other words, they are also supported by voluntary welfare organizations, in addition to receiving the $90 from the Government. The remaining 28% of PA recipients have odd jobs or have part-time work or are receiving assistance from their family members, or relatives or friends. So we see that there are adequate avenues where additional funds can be provided to these people who are in receipt of public assistance and if there is a need to do more, definitely my Ministry will consider them favourably.

As regards rates, a review of the rate was made in early 1985 based on the minimum household expenditure survey of November/December 1984. We found that between the time when we revised the rate in 1983 or 1982 there was not a lot of changes in the minimum household expenditure. We found that the minimum household expenditure only increased by about 1.6% between 1982 and 1984. As a result, we found it very difficult to justify a revision of the 1984 rate. But let me assure the Member, Sir, that in early 1988 we will do another review and when the need arises we will revise the rate.

Mr Chiam See Tong: I have two questions for the Minister. The first is, can the Minister please tell the House what is the criteria used by his Ministry for a person to qualify for this public assistance aid? The other question is, how much money has been paid out by the end of last year through this public assistance scheme?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, the criteria we use is the means test, and the means test was established sometime ago. I do not have the actual formula that I can quote for the Member. But if the Member were to submit a question, I will definitely give that to him.

As regards the amount of money paid out, again I do not have the actual dollars and cents. I do not carry all these figures in my head and I do not have a data bank in me. But I will be pleased to give the answer to the Member if he were to submit a question.

Dr Wan Soon Bee: Sir, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman: Amendment No. 12, Mr Lau.

Mr Lau Ping Sum: Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head J be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead JF-01-2610 of the Main Estimates.

Sir, the objective of making arts accessible to the people and promoting the development of a national cultural identity is a noble one. As we strive for excellence, seeking new ways of increasing productivity and keeping up with the rapid changes in technology and in the international economy, we may sometimes forget how to enjoy the simple delights of music, dance and drama. Worse, we may lose sight of our cultural identity and come to believe that the fads and fancies of the West are the norm to be immediately adopted as our own. The risk of becoming a deculturalized population will increase as English becomes the dominant language in Singapore.

The Prime Minister in 1979 pointed out that with English go the cultural values, the philosophy of individualism and personal liberty of America and the West. It is true that the Government by itself cannot create and develop a national cultural identity. But the Government can certainly provide the resources, facilities and the organization to promote cultural activities.

I note that the amount spent on the promotion of cultural matters and exhibition has declined from $1.16 million two years ago to $775,000 in financial year 1986. This year the provision is $770,000. I hope this is not indicative of declining support for the promotion of cultural matters.

Sir, the Festival of Arts has expanded in scope and added greater variety to the items presented over the last few years. It is a commendable development. More and more Singaporeans attend the performances each year. However, the Singapore Festival of Arts should be more Asian in character, otherwise it will be no different from that in Adelaide or Edinburgh. Whilst we wish to introduce our people to the top performances from the West, there should be more items from the rich cultural heritage of Asia. Local items should be encouraged and not dismissed outright, as some critics did last year. There are not many people in Singapore who are prepared to devote all the time, effort and energy to the pursuit and promotion of cultural activities. They deserve all the support and encouragement they need.

I would like to find out more about the plans to improve the Festival of Arts, and what steps will be taken to encompass more local items and performances from Asia.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, the expenditure on the promotion of cultural activities is not the only yardstick to measure the level of cultural activities in Singapore. I think, as Members would be aware, the level of cultural activities over the last two, three years, has actually increased substantially. And if we just look at last year's Festival of Arts, we spent almost $3(r) million on the Festival of Arts and we had a record number of performances as well as a record number of attendance by our people. Of course, we would like to have as many local items as possible and as many Asian cultural performances as possible, but it is not as easy as the Member thinks to get these items put up by our local groups, or even to get some of the Asian cultural items from the surrounding region. It is easier to get a foreign item because many of the foreign groups have got touring plans and when they are touring to other parts of Asia we manage to get on to them and say, "Please come to Singapore on your way to Tokyo or on your way to Hong Kong or to Australia." In this sense we are able to get more of the western cultural groups. Be that as it may, Sir, in 1986, last year, out of the 197 cultural shows that were performed in Singapore, 68% of them were by our own cultural groups. So you see, Sir, most of the shows that we put up last year were Asian shows.

As regards improving the Festival of Arts and plans to improve the Festival of Arts, my Ministry has already set up a Committee last year, immediately after the 1986 Festival of Arts, to look into new shows and new performances for our people in 1988. But I will certainly take the Member's suggestion that we should try to encourage as many local groups as possible, provided of course our audience will also support their shows. But, sad to say, Sir, from our experience in last year's Festival of Arts, the overseas shows, the foreign shows, happened to be more popular than the local shows. We would like, of course, to find ways of improving the attendance of local shows. But if our people do not want to attend the shows, even though the price is very low and very affordable, there is very little that we can do about it.

Mr Lau Ping Sum: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The following amendment stood on the Order Paper Supplement - Mr Leong Horn Kee: Promotion of Cultural Organizations (13) That the sum to be allocated for Head J be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead JF-01-3000 of the Main Estimates.

The Chairman: Amendment No. 13. Mr Leong is not here. Amendment No. 14, Mr Lau.

Mr Lau Ping Sum: Mr Chairman, Sir, I beg to move,

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

Sir, although repeated requests have been made to the Ministry to open the National Library and the branches on Sundays, we have yet to receive a favourable answer.

I understand that a trial was conducted at the Marine Parade Branch last year. The Library was opened on Sunday instead of Saturday. And as the number of people who made use of the Library on Sunday was not greater than that on Saturday, it was therefore concluded that there was no justification that the library should be opened on Sunday.

Sir, the trial was on the wrong basis. The Library should be opened on Sunday afternoon and perhaps closed on a weekday, Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday. We do not need a trial to know that more parents are free on Sunday than on a weekday. If the Library is opened on Sunday, it will encourage some parents to take their children there instead of a shopping centre. Experts tell us that the reading habit should be cultivated from young. We have excellent libraries with a good range of facilities, books and periodicals. But no one is able to use them on Sunday. Shopping centres are crowded on Saturdays and Sundays. Are we becoming a nation of window shoppers?

If we wish to promote reading among our citizens and having spent enormous amounts of money on books, periodicals and other facilites, we must do everything possible to promote the use of libraries. By not opening the libraries on Sundays, are we not moving away from the national objective?

The argument of cost effectiveness is not convincing. Getting more people to read is a long term, intangible benefit. Opening the libraries on Sundays is merely one of the several measures by which this long term objective may be realized.

I understand that manpower is the main constraint. Surely, getting a few librarians and library assistants to work on Sundays and take a rest on a week-day is a small price to pay in getting our population to be more widely read and better informed. I wish the Minister would give this question a favourable answer.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, it is because of the repeated requests of the Member for Yio Chu Kang that we conducted an experiment to try and find out whether there is a large number of people using the library on Sundays or not. And we decided to choose one library because the other libraries were either under renovation or were not suitable or they were too new. We chose the Marine Parade Library to conduct this experiment.

During the six-month trial period, we found that there were actually fewer books loaned compared to the time when we did not open on a Sunday. But that alone (maybe the Member is right) is not adequate to say that we should not open on a Sunday. But we also asked the people who came to the library on Sunday, whether they would prefer the library to be opened on a Saturday evening or to be opened on a Sunday. The answer is a wash, like the Americans say. 49% of them stated they preferred Saturday evenings and 51% said that they preferred Sunday afternoons. So the result again is not very conclusive. We also asked them a further question, and 44% of them said that they used the library infrequently or not at all on a Sunday. That means we do have a large number of members who are not interested at all in using the library even on a Sunday. Of the 63% of them who said they would use the library on a Sunday, said they would use it in addition to the other times that they visit the library.

Sir, all these statistics, of course, may not sound convincing to the Member, but this is the problem. We do have members who are either not interested or who feel that coming to the library on a Sunday is just one of the additional activities. But a more important constraint is really the manpower, or the womanpower constraint, in the library. Our library service is actually staffed by a large number of female staff and many of them do have families. Of course, it is easy for us to say why not change the rest day from a Sunday to a week day but then they feel that they need the Sunday to be with the family and, as a result, it is not easy to convince a large number of female employees to work on Sunday. In addition to that, of course, is the Finance Ministry's review of the library services and they have also cut the number of people available for the library. With the reduced manpower and a large number of womanpower, it is very difficult to ask the library to open on Sundays.

Mr Bernard Chen (Clementi): Sir, I find the argument that we cannot deploy our women workers from week day to a Sun- day rather unconvincing. We do that in the industries every day and I do not see why it cannot be applied to civil servants.

Mr Lau Ping Sum: Sir, as we implore our Singapore workers to work three shifts, overnight, Saturdays and Sundays, I do not see the difficulty in changing a rest day from a Sunday to a week day. However, in view of time, I would like to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

(15) That the sum to be allocated for Head J be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead JG-01 of the Main Estimates.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, I am not moving.

Mr Chng Hee Kok: Sir, I beg to move,

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

Sir, last year I had the privilege of officiating at the Historical Postcards Exhibition organized by the Archives and Oral History Department. I found the exhibition to be mentally stimulating and fascinating. There were several scenes on postcards which arouse much nostalgia. This sense of nostalgia was heightened by the knowledge that progressively more of our old places will pass into history with nothing more than just pictures and photographs as reminders.

Presently, the Archives and Oral History Department is doing an important job of collecting and cataloguing our past. They can perhaps do more in the area of exhibitions. The exhibition which I referred to and also the recent historical photographs exhibition were organized in a small and rather limited manner. These exhibitions could be improved with audio-visual aids which tend to be more effective than just static displays. I am certain that the Archives and Oral History Department does not lack ideas. What they lack is funds and money to be spent to improve the exhibitions. With more interesting and captivating displays at such exhibitions, I am sure they can draw a much larger public response. It will also be useful to extend these exhibitions and invite more school children and younger Singaporeans to be exposed to these exhibitions.

In moving this amendment, Sir, I wish to compliment the work done by the Archives and Oral History Department. At the same time, I hope they will have more creative plans to expose more of our past to the people. I am sure the Minister will have the support of most Members of this House if he seeks an increased budget for the Archives and Oral History Department to enable them to do their job more effectively.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, I must thank the Member for complimenting the Archives and Oral History Unit and I would urge him also at the next Committee of Supply debate to ask the Finance Minister to consider increasing the grant to the Archives and Oral History Department.

But, Sir, the primary role of the Archives and Oral History Department really is to document and preserve historical records and to interview people and keep records of their experiences in the Oral History Unit. But of course keeping and storing such records would be of no purpose unless the information can also be distilled and can be disseminated to the people for their information, for their education and for increasing their understanding of our national heritage. Towards this end, Sir, the Archives and Oral History Department therefore has organized a number of exhibitions to show our cultural heritage and I am pleased that the Member for Radin Mas has been invited to officiate at one of these functions.

We will definitely do more of this. For the information of Members, in the year 1985-86, 10 such exhibitions were held. At the same time, the department also provided supporting catalogues for these exhibitions on the appreciation of our history and culture, especially among our young. There were also mobile exhibitions on the life and times of local communities and these exhibitions were held in our community centres. The Oral History Department has also produced two audio-visual shows and three audio-packages on aspects of our recent history. With more funds from the Finance Ministry and with more manpower, we will certainly be able to do more of these things. All these activities were in fact intensively publicized in our local media.

If Members have other ideas on how we could extract information from the Archives and Oral History Department, I would be pleased to receive their suggestions and I would pass them to my staff.

Mr Chng Hee Kok: Sir, I mentioned about the static displays of the historical postcards at the exhibition I attended. That could be improved, for example, by comparing a scenery today in Singapore with one from the same angle that was depicted in the postcard, or even put up with a scaled model or an audio-visual display of the same scene at the same period. There are many ways to make the exhibition more captivating. That is what I meant. But I fully support what the Minister has just said, and I will be very happy to beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Lau Ping Sum: ( In Mandarin): Sir, I beg to move,

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

I would like to praise the Residents' Committees' staff and the volunteers for their hard work and contributions to the community and for sacrificing their weekends and evening hours to render various good work in the service of the people. They organized the Residents' Committees which have been promoting good neighbourliness, motivating the residents to help one another, encouraging them to understand one another better and cooperate to look after the neighbourhood, thus enhancing the spirit of self- help and mutual help in the community. So far, there are more than 4,000 residents who have come forward to serve the community, forming a cohesive and strong grassroots organization. But there are still some cynical people who disrespect the dedication and spirit of RC members and regard them as rubbish collectors and runners for MPs. This shows that it is difficult to do good deeds and there are in our society some people with ulterior motives.

Through various activities, the residents have expanded their circle of contact and come to know more neighbours. If the RCs had not organized thousands of activities annually, then our housing estates would not have this prevailing spirit of vitality and activity. All the projects, such as neighbourhood watch groups, civil defence, crime prevention, etc. are mainly promoted or organized by RCs which help to promote public safety and social cohesion. But under the present circumstances, many people, because of busy work and other commitments, after coming back to their homes still have to supervise their children's homework, are tired and therefore could not take part in these activities.

It was announced last year that there was a target for the membership of RCs to be doubled. I do not know what is the progress so far and whether there is any difficulty in various constituencies. Other than the number of members, the quality of the leadership will also affect the effectiveness of a RC. The character and behaviour of the RC leadership and the manner and attitude they perform their public service will set an example and have an influence over the community. If all RC communications were conducted in English then it is not ideal for the purpose of better communication with all walks of people. Under the RCs, various sub-groups or clubs, such as ladies' clubs, youth committees and vehicle watch schemes could expand their activities and extend the network by attracting more residents to take part in the activities.

With the setting up of Town Council, there are the RC Chairmen and members who have been appointed Councillors and participate in its activities reflecting the views of residents in estate management. Last year, the Ministry of Community Development gave five RC Merit Awards, but the number was small. I do not know whether there are other awards which could be given to dedicated and meritorious community leaders.

Owing to the arduous effort of the RC Secretariat staff, the work of RCs has been successfully carried out. In the course of their duty, RC Secretariat staff sacrifice their weekends and evenings to take part in various RC meetings and activities and to provide guidance to the RCs. They deserve full credit for the success of the RCs. We should pay them the highest commendation for their contributions.

The Minister of State for Community Development (Mr Ch'ng Jit Koon): ( In Mandarin): Sir, the liaison staff in the Residents' Committees are all Estates Officers seconded from the Housing and Development Board. They are expected to work in the RCs for a minimum period of three years. They can choose to remain in the RCs or opt for return to the service of HDB at the end of their three-year secondment term. I am glad that the Member for Yio Chu Kang appreciates the good work done by the liaison staff, especially during the weekends and evening hours.

The interests and welfare of the liaison staff are well taken care of by both the Ministry and the HDB. As far as their career development is concerned, the liaison staff are given a wider choice compared with their colleagues in the HDB because of the option open to them at the end of their secondment term. However, to encourage them to continue their service in the RCs, they are assured that they would not lose out to their colleagues in the HDB should they choose to extend their secondment term with the RC Secretariat. In other words, they will continue to enjoy the same benefits under the HDB's terms and conditions of service. In addition, they have the opportunities for career advancement not only within HDB but also in the Community Relations Division of the Ministry.

More importantly, the liaison staff must understand that they are performing an important role in community development and nation building. Their work can be very challenging and satisfying as they have ample opportunities to exercise their imagination, creativity and initiative while working closely with the RCs and their advisers on various programmes and activities to meet the needs of the community. I believe that it is this sense of job satisfaction and public service that motivates them to stay with the RCs.

I also wish to thank the Member for Yio Chu Kang for the encouragement he has given to the RC members and other residents who volunteer their service in the RCs. Without the personal sacrifice and wholehearted support of these RC members and volunteers, it would not be possible for us to carry out the various tasks of community development and nation building. In fact, this encouragement should also be extended to all our grassroots leaders and volunteers in the CCCs, CCMCs and many other community organizations. Over the years, they have played a crucial role together with the RCs in the promotion of racial harmony, social cohesion and national unity in our multi-racial, multi-religious and multi-cultural society.

The Chairman: Order. It is guillotine time.

Mr Lau Ping Sum: Sir, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The time allotted for Head J having expired, the following amendments were not proceeded with: Dr Aline K. Wong: Feedback Services (18) That the sum to be allocated for Head J be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead JJ-03-1210 of the Main Estimates. Mr Chiam See Tong: Financing of the People's Association (19) That the sum to be allocated for Head J be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead JK-01 of the Main Estimates. Dr S. Vasoo: People's Association (20) That the sum to be allocated for Head J be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead JK-00 of the Main Estimates. Encik Ibrahim Othman: Encik Abbas Abu Amin: Financing of the Singapore Sports Council (21) That the sum to be allocated for Head J be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead JL-01 of the Main Estimates. Encik Wan Hussin bin Hj Zoohri: Encik Ibrahim Othman: Encik Abbas Abu Amin: Encik Yatiman Yusof: Encik Sidek bin Saniff: Financing of the Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura (22) That the sum to be allocated for Head J be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead JM-01 of the Main Estimates. Mr Abdullah Tarmugi: Ministry of Community Development (23) That the total sum to be allocated for Head J of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100. The sum of $96,532,130 for Head J ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $34,769,800 for Head J 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 Wong Kan Seng: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply has made further progress on the Main and Development Estimates for the financial year 1987/88, and ask leave to sit again tomorrow.

Mr Deputy Speaker: So be it.