ESTIMATES OF EXPENDITURE FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1ST APRIL, 1993 TO 31ST MARCH, 1994

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

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

12.52 pm

The Chairman: Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 1st April 1993 to 31st March 1994, contained in Paper Cmd. 5 of 1993. I shall take the totals for each head of expenditure in the Main Estimates and Development Estimates as they appear in the last columns of the Main Estimates Outlays and Development Estimates Outlays for FY 93 by Heads of Expenditure appearing on pages 41 and 42 respectively of Paper Cmd. 5 of 1993.

Members have received a schedule of the "guillotine" times which I have fixed under Standing Order 89(7)(a) for the heads of expenditure in the Estimates. In addition, I have, under Standing Order 89(7)(b), allotted the time that will be allowed for the discussion of each amendment to the Estimates. I shall announce these times as we go along. Members are reminded that the time for each amendment is the time for the Members moving the amendment and for the Front Bench to give the reply.

There are a total of 344 notices of amendments on the Order Paper Supplement. This is much more than the numbers received in previous years. Even with the extension of the sitting time of this Committee by half an hour a day, we shall be working on a very tight time schedule. As at the last occasion, I shall endeavour to keep the proceedings moving at a brisk pace. I would urge Members on both sides of the House to keep their speeches short and sweet so that we can complete our business expeditiously. Brevity of speech is a virtue that will be highly appreciated.

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

Head V -

Mr Chia Shi Teck: Sir, I beg to move,

That the total sum to be allocated for Head V of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100.

Sir, Singapore is well known for being a corrupt free society. Our civil service is almost corrupt free. And we have earned this reputation through the hard work of the Government which is supported by the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau. The question is: over these years, how many investigations were undertaken per year? Has the number of investigations been greatly reduced? Is there such a term as "success rate", ie, those investigated prove to be corrupt officials?

I am sad to read occasionally of people under investigation taking their lives, ie, suicide cases. Now that we have more sophisticated methods, can this be prevented? And those who have been cleared after the investigations and who are innocent, how do we deal with them? Because in such a small society as ours, there is this question of stigma. I think the budget allocated to the CPIB of over $7 million is well worth spending.

Dr Kanwaljit Soin (Nominated Member): Sir, first, on the role of the ethnic-based self-help groups and education. We have academic under-achievers in all the three ethnic groups. This is therefore a national problem. This could be a class problem, an economic problem or an educational problem. But we are treating the symptoms of this national problem by an ethnic-based approach by giving tuition under an ethnic umbrella. Does the teaching of Mathematics or Science differ if the child is Indian, Chinese, Malay or Eurasian? Also the fact that SINDA and the Eurasians have joined hands together in their tuition programmes, it debunks the ethnic basis of division of giving tuition.

Also, the Ministry of Education has a very comprehensive programme with remedial classes for under-achievers. So why are the self-help groups duplicating the work of the schools and MOE? It is also the school teachers who are best qualified to assess the students' needs and not the tutors of the self-help groups. Lastly, the parents and children are confused by the duplicated efforts of the MOE and the self-help groups.

The other point is about the political participation of women. On 15th November last year, the Prime Minister said that his most urgent mission was to find men and women of ministerial calibre to renew the ranks of the Cabinet. The women of Singapore were very happy to hear this.

To implement the increased political participation of women, I offer a plan and this consists of utilizing two existing mechanisms that are already in place. One is the Group Representation Constituencies (GRC) scheme and the other is the Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP) scheme. For the GRC scheme, we could make an amendment that at least one of the four members of a GRC shall be a female. The other stipulations of the GRC can be retained. So the spirit of the GRC will be still there.

The second suggestion is the NMP scheme. This could also be used for nominating more females, at least three females and three males. A data bank with details of females likely to be suitable and willing to be appointed can be compiled by women's organisations and other bodies.

At the present time, there are only three women MPs and this gives us a participation rate of 3.4%. The other day there was an interesting tally about how many MPs were from ACS, RI and St. Joseph's, but nobody ever counts how many women MPs there are compared to the male MPs. The women of Singapore are looking forward to seeing more commitment from the Prime Minister and his Cabinet in taking active steps to bring more women into Parliament.

The Prime Minister (Mr Goh Chok Tong): Mr Speaker, Sir, Mr Chia Shi Teck asked whether the number of corrupt cases in the public service has gone down and how many cases were investigated and so on. I do not have the statistics with me. If Mr Chia wants to know more precisely the trend of corrupt cases in public office, I would suggest he ask a Question and I can give him a specific answer.

I would, however, want to reiterate a very important point, a very basic point, ie, I intend to uphold the highest standard of honesty and integrity in Singapore. When the Senior Minister took over the Government in 1959, he inherited from the colonial government a corrupt society. The civil service was corrupt. I understand that at that time if you wanted to apply for a SIT flat, you had to pay for it. SIT was the Singapore Improvement Trust, the forerunner of today's HDB. And if you wanted to get a driving licence when you could not drive properly, you could also buy what was called a "kopi" licence. If you installed electrical wiring in your home and you wanted to have it passed, again you had to pay for it.

I am very fortunate. I inherited from Mr Lee Kuan Yew a corrupt free society and I have every intention to make sure that Singapore remains corrupt free. I will not let standards drop. And everybody should know that corruption in any form will not be tolerated. I expect all Ministers, all MPs and all public officers to set good examples for others to follow. All PAP MPs declare to me their family assets and all Ministers, including the Prime Minister, declare to the President their family assets. This is for their protection. If there is any allegation against any MP or Minister of assets wrongfully or corruptly gained, the CPIB will investigate. If the MP concerned is unable to explain how he had acquired these assets, or why he had not declared them, he will be charged for corruption. 1.00 pm

As for Mr Chia's remarks on the CPIB showing more compassion, it is a matter which CPIB has got to judge for itself how it can handle its investigation. I understand that the CPIB is, in fact, quite compassionate in the way it handles cases. The Director of CPIB assured me that, wherever he could, he would allow, for example, appointments which the person might have made to be carried out so that they would not clash with the interview required of him by CPIB. If he has to see a doctor he would be permitted to do so. So there is a soft touch in handling this. But, nevertheless, a firm hand must be there. Because if you show too much compassion and people think that we have a very soft CPIB, then, of course, corruption will again rear its ugly head.

The CPIB has got to be very discreet. It is discreet in its inquiry. Sometimes, people are inquired into and nothing is found against them. Mr Chia's point is that that particular person may suffer a stigma. If that person thinks that he has not done anything wrong, he can apply to the Director of CPIB, who may consider, on request, writing to this particular person who has been investigated, informing him of the result of the investigation. That is provided that CPIB is sure that the man is in the clear. But very often the CPIB cannot issue such a letter because whilst a person cannot be charged in court because evidence is lacking, nevertheless, there could be reasons for that. Witnesses might not have been cooperative and maybe there was insufficient evidence to prosecute him in court, or witnesses might not be available for interview, or there could be other reasons. In other words, CPIB is not satisfied that the man is in the clear totally. So it cannot issue a letter. It is unfortunate that the man suffers a stigma. But the best way not to suffer a stigma is not to be corrupt. It is as simple as that.

As for Dr Soin's question on ethnic-based tuition classes, first, let me say that the three self-help organisations are not conducting tuition classes on the basis of ethnicity. They came about in a very natural and practical way. The Malay community wanted to help members of their own community, and the way for them to do so is to reach out to their members emotionally, which means the Malay leaders must do what they could to help the Malay under-performers. So we started off with MENDAKI. MENDAKI has proven to be successful and, of course, the Indian community wanted to follow. Surely, we cannot say that the Indian community should not follow. For the same reason that MENDAKI has succeeded, SINDA is succeeding. The Indian leaders are able to reach out emotionally to the Indian under-performers. They are now conducting classes successfully. People are enroling.

Once we have the Indian and the Malay communities doing tuition classes for their own communities, surely, the Chinese under-class would expect the Chinese leaders in the community to do likewise. So they also started to form their own self-help organisation, CDAC. These are organised, therefore, along community lines, but they are not ethnic-based organisations in the sense of promoting other interests related to the ethnic group. It is a way to reach out to people who need help in a most practical and efficient manner.

I support this approach. I think it is the right approach. The results show that this approach is correct. Yes, they duplicate the MOE's remedial classes. Because schools, too, conduct remedial classes for their students. In fact, that is the best place to do so. I agree with Dr Soin on that. But despite that, many parents still send their children for tuition classes. These private tuition classes can be very expensive. If we do not organise these tuition classes outside the school for the poorer parents, I think the poorer parents will lose out. Because on their own too, they are looking for ways to advance the interest of their children, sending them to classes organised by RCs, or even engaging tutors and paying them quite a hefty sum. These community self-help organisations, therefore, play a role in supplementing the effort by the Ministry of Education and by the schools in conducting remedial classes for students who require further assistance.

On women in politics and more women in Parliament, personally I would like to see at least eight women in Parliament. Why eight? That is a convenient 10% of Parliament. If we can do more than that, I would be very happy. Dr Soin has suggested two ways for us to bring in more women into Parliament. One is to modify the GRC scheme. Have a requirement that the GRC must include a woman. I do not think that is a very good idea because we want people of quality in Parliament. I do not think we want them to be in just because they are women. In you insist on tagging a woman to the GRC, it could well be that if you cannot find the right person to contest, you just have to grab any woman to be in the GRC because without a woman, the other candidates cannot contest in the GRC. That is one point.

I think a more important point is that there should be no discrimination against anyone coming into Parliament. He or she will have to fight for his or her place in Parliament, based on excellence and competence, on the strength of character, commitment, dedication, his or her willingness to serve the community. That is the approach which I would take.

NMP, yes, we can use that as a device to bring in more women. But again we must locate the right person, and that person will have to get her friends to nominate her into Parliament. Then it is up to Parliament to decide whether that person is of sufficient quality to be appointed by Parliament. For NMP, we can control the quality. I will not support the suggestion that we bring in women through requiring GRCs to have a woman as a candidate.

The Chairman: I am afraid we are running out of time. Mr Chia, would you like to withdraw your amendment?

Mr Chia Shi Teck: Thank you, Mr Prime Minister, for the good answers. Sir, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Encik Harun bin A. Ghani (Hong Kah GRC): ( In Malay): Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head V of the Main Estimates be reduced by $10 in respect of Code VA 1500.

The Prime Minister's initiative in setting up the Service Improvement Unit (SIU) is indeed welcome. SIU reflects the country's emphasis on productivity and serving the customer. Its setting up, I am sure, will not be an impediment to administrative efficiency and, on the contrary, will give it a further boost. I would like to know what has been the public's response to SIU and what suggestions they have offered the Unit. In addition, I think PMO or SIU itself should publicise what it has achieved ever since its establishment. What are the examples of improvements made and how effective they have been in raising efficiency, productivity and financial and manpower savings in the civil service? What about the attitudes of civil servants in performing their duties in response to suggestions for service improvement from SIU? Have they been positive or otherwise to the suggestions? I think this is important because without a positive attitude, the desired objectives will not be achieved.

Finally, I would like to know whether SIU has met with any hindrances from civil servants, the private sector and the general public in achieving its objectives.

The Minister for Labour (Dr Lee Boon Yang): Sir, the Service Improvement Unit (SIU) was set up in April 1991 under the Prime Minister's Office to help raise the standard of service provided by Government agencies to the public. The SIU has institutionalised the concept of service quality in all Government Ministries and Departments. All Ministries and statutory boards have appointed Quality Service Managers and Quality Steering Committees to ensure commitment and constant effort to improve service quality.

Sir, the level of awareness of service quality is being raised throughout the public sector. Civil servants are more conscious of the need to satisfy the service expectation of the public. This has been achieved through a combination of staff training, setting of targets for quality service, streamlining systems and procedures and close monitoring of both performance and public feedback by the departments and statutory boards. Ministries and statutory boards have made many improvements in their services and facilities for the benefit of the public.

Let me quickly highlight some examples of this improvement. HDB has revamped operation at its branch offices to provide faster and more effective services to the members of the public. The Registry of Vehicles has set up multi-transaction counters so that members of the public can carry out all their transactions at a single counter instead of shuttling from one counter to another. The Work Permit and Employment Department has introduced the electronic work permit application system, known as EASY, to enable employers to apply for work permit from their offices using personal computers. This service is being extended to more and more companies. Employers save labour and time in not having to send staff to the Work Permit Office to apply for work permit. The CPF Board has introduced a service called CPF Line for employers to pay their employee CPF contribution by electronic means. Employers are able to carry out the transaction in a matter of minutes from the convenience of their offices with minimal effort. The Immigration Department has introduced a toll-free Immi-link phone enquiry service which provides round the clock information on procedural requirement for passport, entry permit and other immigration permits. Similarly, the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore, the Labour Relations Department of the Ministry of Labour and MINDEF have also introduced auto-response telephone system to provide more comprehensive service to the public beyond office hours.

Other measures initiated by the SIU include review of forms, rules and regulations and GIRO promotion. Ministries and statutory boards were asked to review and stop the practice of having multiple copies of forms that require the public to fill and sign. They were also asked to review all rules and regulations and to remove those found to be unnecessarily stifling or obtrusive or obsolete. To raise productivity and reduce unfruitful labour, Ministries and statutory boards have made many improvements to their GIRO procedures to encourage the public to pay their bills by GIRO. With more people joining the GIRO system, long queues to pay bills will be a thing of the past.

Sir, the public has supported SIU's request for feedback and suggestions on improving Government service. Quality Service Managers received a total of 12,766 calls and letters from the public in the period from inception in April 1991 up till November 1992. Over 2,051 suggestions were received, of which many were found feasible and implemented. Service improvement must be a continuing effort, Sir. The Civil Service cannot afford to be complacent despite improvements that have been made. We must not let the momentum tail off. I would like to urge people who use the public service, our customers, in effect, to help us to further improve the service quality by sending us suggestions and comments. This will support SIU and the Quality Service Managers' effort to review procedures so as to provide more timely and responsive service to the people. 1.15 pm

Encik Harun bin A. Ghani: Sir, I am happy with the Minister's answer. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman: Amendment No. (3), Mr Chiam. ``Guillotine'' time is at 1.20 pm.

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

That the sum to be allocated for Head V of the Main Estimates be reduced by $10 in respect of Code VB 1500.

I will take both my cuts together. As regards elections regulations, I have taken part in five general elections and one by-election and I am of the view that certain rules could be changed. One is that the election agents should be allowed to go on board the buses that carry the ballot boxes prior to the ballot boxes being loaded onto the buses. The Police now refuse that. And, secondly, the Police have also refused official representatives of candidates to go on board the bus to be with the ballot boxes all the way to the counting stations.

So these are the two points: (1) allow election agents to check and see that there is nothing wrong, or everything is in order, in regard to the bus, before the loading of the ballot boxes; and, (2) to direct the Police to allow election agents to be in the bus to follow the ballot boxes to the counting stations.

The other amendment is in regard to rally sites. Now the rules appear to have changed. Only designated rally sites are given. In the past, the candidates could apply for any rally sites in the constituency, provided they get the permission from the relevant authorities in charge of the land. But now only a limited number of rally sites are allowed. The other point in regard to ---

The Chairman: Mr Chiam, would you like to give time for the Prime Minister to reply? I suggest that for the other point you could submit a question for another sitting.

Mr Chiam See Tong: All right. Thank you.

The Prime Minister: Sir, there is no problem whatsoever, if we can have a practical solution. As far as I know, I do not think there is any allegation of fraudulent practices. There is a practical problem, because if you have a GRC with four candidates on one side, another four candidates on the other side, altogether there will be eight candidates, and eight election agents may have to follow in the bus for each GRC contested. But, in principle, there should be no objection. If you want to check, we have no worry whatsoever, because we run a clean system. I would put this to the Elections Office to see whether they can accommodate Mr Chiam's request.

But I would suggest that we study the amendment to the Presidential Elections Act where, for the coming Presidential election, we intend to decentralise the counting of votes. When counting is decentralised, the practical problem, which I thought there may be, would not arise.

As for rally sites, the matter is determined by the Police. They have to take into account the safety of the people and candidates attending the rallies. If you have rallies in car parks near HDB estates, projectiles and missiles may be thrown from upstairs down at the speakers at the rally site. And also there may be traffic problems and other inconveniences caused to residents.

In fact, the Police is quite concerned over the behaviour of certain parties in the last two or three elections. The crowd was boisterous, cars were banged and vans were being rocked by some opposition supporters. I understand that the Police is, in fact, considering that, in future elections, rallies should be held in areas which are further away from housing sites, for example, in athletic centres and in open fields so that inconveniences will not be caused to residents.

Mr Chiam See Tong: I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $21,691,150 for Head V ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates.

The sum of $2,078,000 for Head V ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.

Head H -

The Chairman: Head H - Public Service Commission. Mr Heng Chiang Meng.

Mr Heng Chiang Meng (Cheng San GRC): Sir, I beg to move,

That the total sum to be allocated for Head H of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100.

Sir, every year the majority of our top students are sent by the Government and related bodies to foreign universities on scholarships, especially the creme de la creme - the President's Scholars. I hope that the Public Service Commission (PSC) and the other bodies will review this policy of sending "A" level school leavers overseas, instead of to our own local universities, especially the NUS.

Sir, this current practice gives rise to a number of undesirable results. They are:

(1) Our local universities, except for medicine at NUS, are deprived of the best students every year. If we want our universities to be centres of excellence, can we afford to deprive them year after year? Or do we not want them to be centres of excellence?

(2) This practice perpetuates the myth that the selected foreign universities are better than our own local universities, giving rise to the perception that our local graduates are not as good as those from these foreign universities concerned. Is this true? Even if it is so now, can we ever catch up? How can we hope to catch up if our top students do not stay home at our own local universities?

(3) More likely than not, these scholars will probably become our future leaders, our top administrators and our decision-makers. It is important for them to have a network with their future colleagues. Such a network would be easier formed if they were to be undergraduates in our own local universities.

Sir, I am aware that, despite all this, one of the main difficulties may be getting the top scholars to accept our local universities, even NUS. True, but, Sir, we have to start somewhere. Somehow, I think, PSC has to come up with a scheme to encourage top scholars to have their undergraduate studies and education in Singapore.

I would like to help with two suggestions:

(1) The locally tenured undergraduate scholarships could be awarded together with a post-graduate scholarship to be taken by the scholar within a certain period, say, five years after graduation at a foreign university of his choice. This means that the post-graduate scholarship is an automatic follow through. To make it more attractive, the period of bondage for the post-graduate scholarship could be reduced or even waived. One desirable impact or effect is that networking in the foreign universities will be at a more mature age. This is more meaningful than at the undergraduate level.

(2) The monetary value of the local scholarship could be kept at the same level as the foreign scholarship. Since local cost would be much lower, the difference could be credited to the scholar's CPF account. Of course, in such an event the bondage would be that for the foreign scholarship and not a local scholarship.

I am very sure that if the PSC puts its mind to the task, it can think of more ways.

The Minister for Education (Mr Lee Yock Suan): Sir, the Prime Minister has asked me to answer this question which concerns the PSC.

I agree, in principle, with the Member's comments that more scholarship holders should study in our local universities. In fact, to a certain extent, this is already happening. In 1991 and 1992, out of 250 PSC scholarships awarded, 95 or 38% are tenable in NUS and NTU.

Over the past 10 years, out of the 51 President's scholarships awarded, 13 or 25% were for Medicine at NUS. The remaining 38 or 75% were for study in Engineering, Arts, Science and other first degree courses at world-renowned universities overseas, mainly in the US and UK. I shall suggest to the PSC to persuade more President's Scholars to study at the NUS and NTU. This would be a boost to our local universities, in recognition of their academic standing.

Sir, there are pros and cons of sending our top scholars to local or overseas universities. The Member has mentioned some advantages of studying locally. As against these, those who qualify for top universities overseas get to compete and build links with top students overseas and to benefit from the best education available in the chosen fields. By studying abroad, they also broaden their outlook and learn to be more self-confident and independent.

We therefore need to strike a balance and also take into consideration the preferences of the scholars and their parents. We are building up the international standing and reputation of our two local universities. For medical courses, NUS is already recognised as the best in the region. I believe we are not far behind in engineering. In time to come, I hope more Singaporean scholars will choose our local universities as a matter of course. The Member has come up with various suggestions on how to persuade our scholars to remain in local universities. I shall ask PSC to consider his suggestions.

Mr Heng Chiang Meng: Sir, in view of the Minister's reply and the fact that this is a trend that is already happening, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $29,157,880 for Head H ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates.

Head W -

The Chairman: Head W - Ministry of Trade and Industry. Amendment No. (1), we have 80 minutes. Dr Ow Chin Hock.

Dr Ow Chin Hock (Leng Kee): Sir, I beg to move,

That the total sum to be allocated for Head W of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100.

Sir, the Economic Development Board, Trade Development Board and other statutory boards under the Ministry of Trade and Industry have various schemes to assist local enterprises. In 1992, the total amount of loans approved was $348.6 million, and the total amount of grants given was only $61.5 million. The average loan per approval was about $223,000, and the average grant per approval was $4,700. So I submit that the financial assistance given by EDB and TDB to the local enterprises was indeed very small.

Sir, to venture overseas, local companies require much greater assistance from the Government, particularly in the areas of finance, information and manpower. The Government can and should help them. EDB and TDB have announced their schemes to promote the regionalisation drive of our local enterprises. For example, EDB's Local Enterprise Finance Scheme will be extended to cover low cost financing for overseas investment, and TDB's Market Development Assistance Scheme will include investment development activities. I wish to find out from the Minister how much more resources will be devoted to these extended schemes of EDB and TDB.

Sir, from the discussions and dialogues with local entrepreneurs and businessmen, I sense that there are three problem areas relating to these schemes:

(a) Understanding - despite the efforts of the Enterprise Promotion Centre, many local companies are still not clear about these schemes with regard to their criteria and the procedures of applications.

(b) Implementation - other participants have observed that the schemes are too conservative and restrictive, for example, EDB's loan schemes require local collateral, and the assistance schemes are confined to procurement of machinery and equipment, but not services; and

(c) Coordination - the observation is that there is some overlapping in the functions of EDB and TDB. One example is application for shipping loan. Another example is application for consultancy grant.

May I have the Minister's comments on these problem areas?

Finally, may I ask the Minister to consider two specific suggestions:

(a) To establish an overseas network connecting our embassies, TDB, EDB and SIA offices. The main functions of the network are to collate and disseminate information on market conditions, investment opportunities, social practices, local personalities and other relevant information; and

(b) To ask JTC, EDB, TDB, together with other statutory boards such as PSA, to jointly develop industrial estates and commercial towns overseas. These estates and towns may serve as bases for local enterprises, GLCs and other ASEAN enterprises.

Mr Leong Horn Kee (Thomson GRC): Sir, in the previous two days of Budget debate, there has been much talk and suggestions as to how we can improve the overseas effort of local companies.

I would like to take this occasion to give two further suggestions to the Minister. First, as Dr Ow has said earlier, how do we organise Singapore as a Singapore Inc. to target our overseas markets. Here I would like to propose that, perhaps, the Government encourages, not forces, local private companies and the GLCs to form a small number of bigger groupings, for example, the concept of Japanese Zaibatsu, whereby they can be stronger as a force to go overseas and target different markets. Here, I would suggest that, instead of having big numbers of Zaibatsus, maybe three, or at the most four, would be sufficient as the few major groupings for Singapore, each one being led by a major GLC as well as one or two major local companies. We can learn from the Japanese because they have done this very well, as they have in the early days carved out the world for their own Zaibatsus to compete in. 1.30 pm

The second proposal is with regard to the formation of a new agency or focal point for our overseas promotion. Dr Tan Cheng Bock has mentioned this yesterday and Dr Ow has mentioned it just now. I would like to weigh the differences between, say, EDB and TDB and see which is a better agency for us to incorporate this overseas mission rather than to form a new agency. To my mind, the EDB has been very successful in promoting investments into Singapore. It has a very established network of overseas offices and has a very dynamic team of officers. Its shortcoming is mainly that its overseas offices are actually located in the developed countries, eg, US, Europe, other Western countries, and Japan. They are less organised, perhaps, in the target countries for us to go and venture into, such as China, Vietnam, or the surrounding ASEAN countries.

On the other hand, the TDB has in fact more offices, I believe in places like China and Vietnam. It also has a more outward orientation mentality. So although EDB has a bigger strength in terms of manpower, I would propose that the TDB be beefed up or reorganised to turn it into an overseas promotion arm of the Government. This can be called the Overseas Trade and Investment Promotion Board and give it a special mission to spearhead our country's drive for local companies to venture abroad. These are two ideas that have been voiced before, but I would like the Minister to consider them.

Mr Chay Wai Chuen (Brickworks GRC): Sir, in the 1993 Budget proposals under discussion, various tax incentives have been announced to promote the development of an external economy. Naturally, businessmen look forward to such incentives, whether they are unilateral tax credits, double tax deductions for approved expenses, foreign capital losses set-off against domestic income. One such provision in the Budget is the overseas enterprise incentive under which companies which venture abroad on its own can have exemption from tax for approved investments on a project-by-project basis.

Sir, approved investments imply a certain degree of uncertainty from having projects approved. In order to minimise bureaucratic problems, many business people think that it is better to have the basis transparent and applicable to all so that any business enterprise moving overseas can immediately see its tax exempt status, rather than requiring approval on a case-by-case or project-by-project basis. Business people are naturally very wary of case-by-case or project-by-project rules, especially for entrepreneurial businesses, where quick decisions are sometimes needed. The fear of the danger of hollowing out, as expressed, of the local industries and of round-tripping for tax avoidance is hard to defend. Does it mean, for example, that the approved cases on a project-by-project basis will not have the avenues of round-tripping, or that such systems of control which apply against them cannot be done so for the others? And how does the Minister intend to justify to the entrepreneurial businesses who is hollowing out and who is not?

Mr Robert Chua Teck Chew (Nominated Member): Sir, may I have your permission to circulate Table 3 on the main problems faced by Singapore companies venturing overseas? [Copies of Table distributed to hon. Members].

Table 3 is contained in a survey by SMA on the globalisation and regionalisation of Singapore manufacturing companies in September 1992. I would like to suggest that the Government consider setting up a market intelligence gathering mechanism together with the private sector to help the problem of lack of good market research and information. Of course, the excellent agencies, like EDB and TDB, could contribute towards such an agency or committee. I would like also to propose that more joint councils or committees be formed between the Government and the private sector here and the Government and private sector of the target host countries where we would like to encourage our investors to go to, especially in the region. We have found, from experience, that such joint councils or committees are very useful for overcoming some of these problems faced by our companies venturing overseas, especially in providing information, linkages, as well as in locating suitable partners in the host countries.

I would like to propose also that the Government and private sector in Singapore consider setting up programmes to train foreign managers from our host countries where our investors are going to so that we can strengthen long-term ties with the decision-makers and bureaucrats in those countries. Such programmes will enable our managers and investors to form strong links which will facilitate their investments over there.

Sir, the private sector would like to see more missions led by Ministers to the region because we have found from experience that such missions are very effective in opening doors for our investors and businessmen.

Dr Ow Chin Hock: Sir, let me now move on to the topic of business costs. There are two basic factors determining our competitiveness: (1) business costs, and, (2) productivity growth.

Let me first deal with business costs. Business costs have been increasing. The unit business cost (UBC) index in the manufacturing sector reached 119.2 last year. This is higher than its peak (114.2) in 1984. The major component of business costs is labour costs. In fact, the manufacturing unit labour cost (ULC) has increased faster than UBC since 1988. The ULC index reached 127.2 last year, 6.2% higher than its peak in 1988.

Apart from labour costs, rentals constitute another major cost item in some sectors, particularly, the service sector. The URA's rental indices showed that average office rentals in 1992 were 43% higher than their 1985 levels, and average retail rentals were 19% higher. The question concerning businessmen and investors is whether this trend of increasing costs will continue. As our economy is expected to perform better this year than last year, the labour market will be tighter, and further increase in labour costs is expected. How do we contain these cost increases?

Mr Robert Chua Teck Chew: Sir, may I ask that Tables 1 and 2 be distributed to Members? [Copies of Tables distributed to hon. Members]. As can be seen from the Tables, the concerns of the manufacturers in the survey are factors affecting the cost of doing business in Singapore.

Manufacturers are concerned that wages will continue to rise faster than productivity. And the rising RULC is also eroding our international competitiveness. Manufacturers are also concerned that the restoration to 20% of the employers' contribution for CPF would further erode their competitiveness. The increases in industrial land rental and premises are also of major concern.

Following the implementation of the second-tier foreign workers levy, manufacturers are starting to feel the pinch of it. We are hoping that with the shedding of 13,100 jobs in the manufacturing sector last year, the Government will review this second-tier levy, either by reducing it or increasing the dependency ratio so that we can be allowed to employ foreign workers without paying the second-tier too early.

The Chairman: Dr Ow, can you take the next two topics together?

Dr Ow Chin Hock: Thank you, Sir. Let me take these two topics together. I will confine myself to the question of inflation. I will not talk about profiteering because many of my colleagues have raised this point in the last two days.

Just now, I raised the question of increasing business costs. The more serious question is to what extent these cost increases will lead to increases in the general price level. The more inelastic the demand, the higher will be the price increase. The price increase may lead people into believing that inflation is induced by GST. While GST itself is not inflationary, price expectations will be inflationary.

Let me now turn to a point made by Dr Wang Kai Yuen two days ago. Dr Wang observed that "if the price increases go beyond 5% per household, all the gains from the GST offsets and income tax reduction will be wiped out". I would like to point out that inflation erodes all payments in monetary terms (in dollars and cents) whether they are wages or salaries, rentals or interests, taxes or subsidies, not just GST rebates. Take the example he quoted about a the household living in a 1-room rental flat, with $500 monthly income. Even without GST and the offset package, the household's real income or purchasing power in real terms will be reduced from $6,000 to $5,714 per annum if the inflation rate is 5%. With GST and the offset package, the household's net gain is still positive, that is, $203 in real terms, after discounting 5% inflation rate. In other words, the real income of this 1-room rental flat household will be reduced to $5,917 instead of $5,714 per annum. So we should not mix the two issues - inflationary effect and the GST package.

Sir, let me move on to productivity growth and wage increase. One way to contain price increases is to promote productivity growth. If productivity growth is faster than the increase in real wage, unit labour cost can be stabilised. However, in the last five years, productivity growth has lagged behind increases in real wage. Last year, the productivity growth rate was 3.1%, higher than the 1.5% in 1991. At the same time, real wage increase slowed down from 6.6% to 5.5% between 1991 and 1992. The narrower gap between productivity growth and real wage increase helped to ease the upward pressure on unit labour cost in 1992.

1.45 pm

I notice, Sir, that among all the sectors, the construction sector showed the highest productivity growth rate of 10%. It is a quantum jump from 1.4% in 1990 and 2.8% in 1991. May I ask the Minister what are the factors contributing to this volatile productivity performance of the construction sector? Is it because construction demand itself is unstable and fluctuating? Or is it because the sector's capital/labour ratio has increased in the last two years?

Similarly, I believe that the new investment of $3.5 billion in the manufacturing sector will raise the capital/labour ratio and also raise the sector's labour productivity. But this increase in labour productivity in the manufacturing sector has nothing to do with improvement in labour training, labour skills or work attitudes. Rather, it is because workers have more capital to work with. So this leads me to ask two questions:

(1) Should the Department of Statistics also construct "total factor productivity", not just labour productivity? and

(2) Have we really misused capital as observed by Prof. Alwyn Young in his study of "A Tale of Two Cities"?

The Chairman: Mr Koo Tsai Kee is not here. Dr Soin.

Dr Kanwaljit Soin (Nominated Member): Sir, the impact of new technology upon women workers is of specific relevance as women are largely concentrated in many low-skilled occupations and industries. 62% of our women workers earn less than $1,000 per month and 30% earn less than $600 per month.

There are more than 200,000 women who are in the category of production and related workers. 30% of these women have no schooling or only primary education. If we look at one of the unions, the United Workers of Eletronics and Electrical Industries, the majority of workers belonging to this union are lowly-educated and low-skilled women. The Minister has quoted figures from one NPB survey that showed slightly more women than men participated in job training. This is encouraging. But my concern is about the training programmes of these lowly-educated and low-skilled women.

Secondly, there is another category of women that needs to be trained, ie, the female clerical force. There are 170,000 female clerical workers and to upgrade their skills, they need the COSEC training. But in 1991, only 15,000 training places were set aside for COSEC.

Thirdly, the other group is the potential entrants into the labour force. These constitute 25,000 females as compared to 7,000 males. 80% of these females had previous work experience and 60% had at least primary or secondary education. This is a large group of potential and trainable talent. Unfortunately, you cannot use the Skills Development Fund to train these women. What I would like to know from the Minister is whether he could tell us his plans for the training of these specific target groups.

Mr Chay Wai Chuen: Sir, thank you for allowing me to chip in.

Sir, in this budget, the Government proposes to raise the employer's CPF contribution by another half per cent. One of the problems faced by the employers is to raise productivity in the workforce, as mentioned by my two colleagues. We hear of various quality control circles, measures and so on being undertaken by companies to practise and raise productivity. In our present kind of labour market situation, it is quite common, for example, to find workers hopping from one job to another for a raise in their salary. Companies spend a lot of money on their own for the training of these workers, even though skill training grants may be available partially. A new labour market entrant to a corporation or a team is not likely to make the same amount of contribution to the team in terms of productivity. Yet, the employer paying for this new entrant is paying for the same share of his CPF contribution, just like the other members. Worse, the new staff, the new entrant I am referring to particularly, after a short while of training, may even leave the organisation, especially in our labour market situation today.

At a time now when manufacturers and businesses are so concerned with wage cost and productivity, can the Government not consider setting a reduced CPF employer's contribution rate for such new entrants for a period of, say, 2-3 years? Then the worker will not get his take-home pay reduced but his employer's burden will be reduced correspondingly to match the reduced productivity of new entrants. For people who have been working in the labour market for some time, it is not reasonable at this stage to effect a reduced CPF rate contribution. But for the new entrants to the labour market, say, in the 18-21 age group - I am just giving a suggestion - it may be worth our consideration to reflect their lesser productivity contribution by a reduced employer's CPF contribution rate.

Already we have a reduced rate of contribution for the older workers. Do not the new entrants to the labour market have the same reason for a lower rate of employer's contribution? This will lighten the employer's burden considerably.

The Chairman: Mr Robert Chua, you can take your three topics together.

Mr Robert Chua Teck Chew: Thank you, Sir. First, on Government and private sector cooperation in business development. Much has been said in the last few days concerning what can be done. I would like to propose that on top of what has been said, the Government could consider assisting our companies which have already invested abroad to look at the skills training of their workers in those countries or economies. I am glad to read that, for example, Johor is going to ask the Singapore Government for help to set up a skills training centre in Johor. We are probably the largest investor in that state. And one of the major problems faced by our investors is the lack of skilled workes of a higher level and I hope that the Singapore Government would cooperate with the private sector here to train workers employed by our companies in such places so that their investment will have a better chance of success. Again, I would like to stress the importance of setting up joint information centres as well as joint committees.

Moving on to the future of the manufacturing sector, my speech yesterday has been publicised. I would like to ask the Minister for his response on what is being done or will be done to ensure that the manufacturing sector will not shrink and become insignificant in the growing economy of Singapore. I believe that it should continue to be a mainstay or pillar of our economy right into the next century.

I would like to propose that a council on international competitiveness comprising Government and private sector participants be set up to monitor our international competitiveness so that we will remain viable as a manufacturing centre for a long time to come. I would like to give out Table 4, with your permission, Sir. [Copies of Table distributed to hon. Members.] This is the result of a survey of the top 10 manufacturers in 1992 and perhaps this will help the Minister in addressing the issues faced by manufacturers so that the manufacturing sector can remain viable and continue to grow, not at a slow rate or half the rate of the economy but be leading or be above the GDP of our nation.

On the issue of pricing of Government industrial land and premises, I have already said something about it yesterday and we hope that the Government will consider that land used for industrial purposes generate long-term returns and should not be allowed to be determined just by market forces. Otherwise the cost of industrial land and premises will be so high that nobody could afford to invest here and use them.

I would like to suggest also that the Government look into the issue of the notice to be given for leases which are due to expire. For example, we are told that JTC would not inform or discuss the new leases until it is about three years before the expiry of the lease. We are asking for a longer period, say, five years before the lease expires for negotiations to start between JTC and the lessees so that they can plan ahead and they would know what to do with the premises or leases that they have Three years is a bit too short for them. We hope that the Minister will consider this issue.

The Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr S. Dhanabalan): Mr Speaker, Sir, I will try and take the items in the order in which they were raised, except where they are very closely connected I will take them together.

Dr Ow made the point that the schemes to assist local enterprises appear to be insufficient and that the average amount of loans and grants is rather low. Actually the loan scheme has a fairly high limit. For the smaller companies, the limit is $6 million. If the average is small, it just indicates that perhaps the applications were for small amounts or that the applicant was not able to justify a high amount. Although both the loan scheme and the grant scheme are meant to assist the local enterprises, certain normal financial criteria must be applied in considering loans and they must be related to the type of project, the cash flow expected, the security available and so on. And the last thing we want is to have a scheme that just throws money away and hope that results will come out. If Dr Ow can give me further details where there were deserving cases for large loans and were not given, I will take them up.

There are no limits to the resources that we are prepared to put into encouraging local companies to invest overseas. All the schemes that we have in mind, although they may have annual budgetary limits, can be increased if the demand is there. So I do not think that it is shortage of resources that is the problem, but it is a question of finding sufficient viable, bankable projects.

Dr Ow made the point that the problems that he has encountered in his feedback are that the programmes available for local companies are not clear. I think they can approach the Local Enterprise Promotion Centre. They publish a book. I will give each Member a copy of this book. It lists all the types of development assistance programmes that are available in Singapore and most of them are, in fact, aimed at the smaller local enterprises. If somebody does not know the type of assistance available, it is very easy for him. He can just call the EDB or the Enterprise Promotion Centre and they will be able to assist. I think ignorance here is really not much of an excuse. If people need help, they should know where to go for it. They can ask their MPs. They can go to EDB. And if they say they do not even know how to go to the MP or the EDB, then I think they are not very good businessmen.

Whether the programmes are too conservative, of course, people will always like to have more than what they are given. Here again, if I can be given specific examples of good projects which were not sufficiently supported, I will be prepared to take them up. 2.00 pm

Regarding the question of coordination between the Trade Development Board and the Economic Development Board, yes, perhaps there has been some confusion because both organisations are very involved, especially in this new subject of regionalisation and promoting investment overseas. I think the point was made that perhaps TDB is in a better position to help investment overseas. That really depends. We have not decided yet whether to set up a new organisation. Most probably not, because both the EDB and the TDB, as presently constituted, are more than able to support local enterprises going overseas. The EDB has also many strengths in trying to support local enterprises going overseas because they know the nature and the type of manufacturing operations in Singapore and how overseas investments can be tied up with the operation in Singapore.

What we want to do, as far as possible, is that when Singapore companies invest overseas they do not entirely transfer their operations from Singapore to an overseas location but that there will still be a connection between the overseas investment and the Singapore investment, perhaps with the more labour intensive type of operations being done elsewhere and the more technical or knowledge and technology intensive operations being done here. EDB, in fact, is in a much better position to assess how to help local industries to go overseas and still maintain this contact with the Singapore operation.

On the other hand, the Trade Development Board, which is responsible for the promotion of export of goods and services, also can help. Very often, when they take missions overseas to explore new markets for Singapore products and services, the businessmen who go in the TDB mission do identify investment opportunities. And if they do, TDB, together with EDB, will try and help these firms to bring their investment into fruition.

In the overseas centres where we have perhaps EDB, TDB and the embassies operating, yes, I think they should work together. A suggestion was made that all these Government agencies and embassies should contribute to build up knowledge of the overseas markets not only in terms of the markets for the Singapore products, but also in terms of investment for Singapore investors. This is already being done and, in fact, the Trade Development Board does collate information from many, many sources, not only the embassies and other Singapore agencies, but also from other commercial agencies as well as sources of the Government of the other country. They collate this information into guides which are used by Singapore exporters and I am sure they will also be useful for potential investors from Singapore. We will let both the TDB and EDB continue to deal with this matter and in the light of experience see whether changes need to be made so that there is no overlapping or duplication of work.

On the suggestion of the Singapore Government agencies jointly developing industrial estates and towns overseas which can be the place where Singapore and ASEAN investors can invest, I am not so sure whether this is a good idea. JTC has invested in Thailand and elsewhere, but not primarily for Singapore investors. I am not sure whether it is a good idea for all Singapore investors to go into one particular industrial estate developed by a Singapore agency. They should be all over the place to make use of the various advantages that different places offer. But all the same, I will give this idea further thought.

A suggestion was made by Mr Leong Horn Kee that we should encourage local companies and GLCs to form groups to go overseas. I will ask them to take note. But one of the reasons why the GLCs in Singapore have been far more successful than Government-owned operations elsewhere is that we just leave the GLC management to get on with their work without too much interference from the Government. They must be able to assess for themselves what kind of partnerships to enter into and what will be to their advantage. So while we can make general statements, we must allow the management of each Government-linked company to decide for itself what is best in the interest of the operation. I will pass on the suggestion and leave it to them to decide.

Mr Chay said that approval of various incentives to invest overseas or explore opportunities overseas should not be done on a case-by-case basis, but on a transparent across-the-board basis. Certainly, we can make the criteria transparent, and I think we should. But it does not follow, therefore, that it should apply automatically. I think it is very important that when we come to fiscal incentives we look at each case. We do not want to create a situation where we give so many incentives and so easily for investment overseas that it becomes more attractive to invest in other places than to invest in Singapore. That will be very counter-productive. So at least in the initial phases the Finance Ministry is quite right in insisting that they would approach this on a case-by-case basis. Whether the cases that are approved are less susceptible to hollowing out or round tripping, that would be assessed. There may be no guarantees, but certainly this is an aspect that will be looked into before a particular project or investment is approved. So I would say that for the present moment it would be wiser to stick to the case-by-case approach.

Mr Robert Chua has circulated the findings of a survey by the SMA. I will look at them, but I can make comments on some of the points he has raised regarding, for example, training of local managers and local workers for projects overseas. We already have a programme to train foreign workers in the Singapore operation so that when the Singapore investor invests overseas he can use these trained workers in the overseas operation. We have given incentives such as grants to offset the foreign workers levy up to six months. This scheme has been in operation for Batam. It can be extended to others. To train managers, this has already been done. But, at present, each company will have to pay for the cost of training such managers. Again, I would like to sound a note of warning. We must not become so over-enthusiastic about investing overseas that we throw all our resources in such a way that those who go overseas get much more than those who invest in Singapore. We should never bring about such a situation.

I would like to come to a more important subject, that of business cost and inflation as a whole. Dr Ow has quite rightly pointed out that our unit business cost has been going up and that our competitive position vis-a-vis the other NIEs is being reduced. He pointed out that the major component is the labour cost, and Mr Chua also pointed out the cost of land. As long as we are developing, and as long as the international economy is developing, we must expect that there will be some firms that are doing well now which will find difficulty and some may even have to close down. This is a changing situation. It is not static. Firms find new opportunities and firms find that areas in which they were strong at one time have ceased to be areas where they can continue to operate. I think this is something that we cannot stop.

Secondly, we can never expect that our cost of labour and our cost of land will be the same as that in countries where they have more land and many more people. We have to be careful. As we track our competitive position it is not just merely the cost of labour or land per se but our overall competitive position, which is a function of many, many variables. Labour is one element. Of course, land and the other elements such as the efficiency, adequacy and quality of the infrastructure, the political climate, and the consistency of Government policies. All these are very important factors.

In spite of our higher labour cost and higher land cost, Members will know that in the 1992 world competitiveness report, we were still ranked No. 1 among 14 NIEs. The fact that we are still competitive is also reflected in that the US manufacturing firms enjoyed an average return in Singapore much, much higher than what they enjoyed in other countries. In Singapore, the average return on their investments was 38% compared to 13% from the investment in all foreign countries. Last year, as Members know, we had a record commitment of $3.5 billion of investment in the manufacturing sector. All these will demonstrate that we are still competitive. Nevertheless, we cannot be complacent. We must pay close attention to cost and ensure that our total environment continues to be very competitive and attractive. We cannot afford to adopt a carefree attitude. But the answer to increasing cost is not to try and artificially keep down labour cost or land cost or the cost of resources.

If you want to continue to enjoy increasing incomes and higher standards of living, people must earn more. The way that they can justify earning more is, of course, to be more productive. The answer then is to put our resources to the best use possible, whether it is labour or land, or any other resource. We must, in order to ensure that it is put to the best use possible, subject it to the market test. For example, land cost. I know that many Members have pointed out that JTC has increased its rent and, in some cases, it has increased maybe as much as 50%. I would urge Members to look at the actual absolute figures. Where the percentage increase is very large, you will invariably find that the old rents were very low. They were completely out of line with the market rents. Of course, the investor who has been used to very low rentals for many years is bound to be very unhappy when rentals are raised. That is quite natural. But I think they have to look at the total cost of doing business.

In the case of manufacturing, for example, our survey two or three years ago to assess the input and output factors in manufacturing showed that, in fact, land cost was only about 2% of the total manufacturer's cost. Of course, land cost in the business increases to much higher levels in the service and other industries. But for manufacturing, it was relatively low. When JTC adjusts the land price, it adjusts it according to what, in fact, people are paying in the latest leases. This is a willing landlord and willing tenant kind of relationship, and they pay what they think they can afford. If we do not do that, we will not be putting land to the best use. But I concede that this process of adjustment is a painful process. But we have always had industries in Singapore that found it not viable to carry on any more and they had to close down. I think it was, in the longer term, for the good of Singapore.

I can remember the time when we first started our textile industry. There were many investors producing just gray cloth, no bleaching or dyeing or anything like that, but they just weaved gray cloth and sold it. Land was cheap and labour was cheap. All of them are now out of business. If at that time they had come to us and said, "Look, do not increase the land price. Labour costs are going up. Try and do something about it", we will still be making gray cloth. It was a painful process for them to make the adjustment, but in the longer term it was for the good of the Singapore economy. This process is going on all the time. I think we must accept that. If we accept it and do all that is necessary to put our resources to best use, then our people will earn the kind of income that will bring us to the level that we desire.

Labour cost will only be cheap if we have unemployment, and we do not want that. The shortage of labour means everybody is employed. Therefore, we should put the labour to better use. So while the process of adjustment is painful, I think we must look for other ways of adjusting rather than to try and artificially keep the price of our resources down. We will continue to monitor the prices of all the inputs that go into our various businesses and we will do everything possible to remove all the supply side constraints so that we do not artificially push up the prices of our resources. But we cannot, for example, remove the supply side constraint on labour by allowing a large number of foreign workers to come into Singapore. If we do that, we will depress the wages of our semi-skilled and lower-skilled people, or even our skilled workers. I do not think that is fair, apart from all the social and other problems that we will face, if we allow large numbers of foreign workers to come in.

We will also continue to ensure that we have adequate and efficient infrastructure that meets the needs of our industries. We must also ensure that our taxes are low and we must make sure that investors are always given value for the money that they invest here. I do not think there is any danger of our manufacturing industry being hollowed out because of higher cost. If you look at Japan and Germany, their costs are much, much higher. Yet they are the leading manufacturers in the world, because they are highly productive in the way they use their resources. So all the other requests, like reduction of the second-tier on foreign workers levy must be seen in the light of what I have just said. 2.15 pm

Inflation and GST, and cost of living have been mentioned by Dr Ow and also in yesterday's debate. Yes, our costs have been going up. But, as was pointed out yesterday by one of the speakers, all the evidence so far in most of the countries that have introduced GST is that GST itself does not contribute to an inflationary spiral, but it is how we react to the GST. If after all the offsets that we have announced, there is demand for increased wages to meet the GST, then I think we are on a dangerous track. And I hope we never enter into such a spiralling arrangement.

But a lot of the complaints about increase in cost of living arise because people always only remember price increases. And people always have a rather romantic, idealistic idea of the past. They always talk about the times when you could have your hair cut for 70 cents, a bowl of kuay teow for 20 cents. Never, of course, focusing on the fact that they earn much more now than they used to earn. But the fact is, as the economy develops, as we progress, as we become more affluent and as the middle income group grows, costs of certain services will go up. The trouble is that everybody wants to have an increase in his own wages and have all his costs stagnant or static, which is not possible. In any growing economy, costs will increase. For example, I think there is an impression that food costs, ie, cooked food costs, have gone up tremendously over the years. But actually, according to our index - this index is not just something that some officers sit in the office and manufacture, we have thousands of points, literally thousands of points, where field officers go and check prices and collate prices in order to prepare these indices - over the last 12 years, the index for hawker food rose by an average of only about 1.9% per year, whereas in the same period the nominal wage growth was 8.9% per annum. If workers get more wages, surely you must concede that hawkers and others, hairdressers and other service providers, must also earn more, and part of that would be of course an increased cost of services.

I think that there is a rather unrealistic expectation that people can have increased incomes with costs remaining stagnant. I remember being told by Herman Kahn once (he is dead, and he used to be in Hudson Institute), "there is no fun being rich in a rich country because everything is so expensive". I suppose we can paraphrase that by saying that there is no fun being employed in a country which has full employment. If you have a job in a country where most people are unemployed, you can get a lot of cheap services. But is that what we want?

So we must be realistic, make sure that increases are backed by productivity, that the increases are not artificially fuelled by shortages, that whether we impose GST or do not impose GST, that markets remain open, that we import what we require from the cheapest source and keep the supply lines free. That way, we can keep costs down. And that is what we will do for GST. We will make sure that supplies are adequate, and, if necessary, increase the supplies. I do not think that there is any real danger of profiteering as a result of GST. Profiteering is only possible when there is a shortage. I think older Members here may remember the very high price increases in 1973 and 1974 as a result of the oil shock. But that was not due just to the oil price increases. It was due to a shortage of many primary commodities, many food products. Rice, for example, was in great shortage and, I think, older Members will remember the "Eat More Wheat" campaign to try and get people to switch from rice to wheat.

But the situation today is quite different. Commodities are plentiful, they are cheap, and we can get them from many, many sources. Thailand is not the only source for rice. Vietnam now is the third largest exporter of rice in the world. So there are many new sources. And we will make sure that there are sufficient supplies and we will continue to monitor prices. We will perhaps ensure that people price-tag their products. We will encourage the formation of consumer interest groups. As the Minister for Finance has already said, if necessary, we are prepared to support CASE to track price movements and all these measures, I am sure, will be more than adequate to ensure that there is no profiteering as a result of GST.

The items on productivity and skills development, I will ask my Senior Minister of State to answer them.

The Senior Minister of State for Trade and Industry (Mr Lim Boon Heng): Sir, most Singaporeans recognise that raising our productivity growth is the key to achieving a higher standard of living. So far, we have done quite well.

Our productivity growth averaged 4.3% in the 1970s and 4.7% in the 1980s. Although the growth fell to only 1.5% in 1991, it has since recovered to 3.1% in 1992. We should not be overly concerned with this year-to-year fluctuation in productivity performance as it reflects cyclical factors related to the slowdown in our economy and sluggish external conditions.

Similarly, the 10% productivity growth, mentioned by Dr Ow, in the construction industry last year reflects the buoyant construction cycle rather than an increase in usage of capital. Because during the last construction boom in 1983/1984, construction productivity also grew by 9% to 10%.

Some Members are concerned that real wage growth has outstripped productivity growth, thus, pushing up unit labour cost. Real wages have indeed risen faster than productivity since 1989, though the gap, as mentioned by Dr Ow, has narrowed from 5.5 percentage points in 1991 to 3.4 percentage points in 1992, and this is reflected in Chart 1 (Cols. 949 - 950) which was earlier circulated. Chart 1 - CHANGES IN REAL AVERAGE MONTHLY EARNINGS AND PRODUCTIVITY (Cols. 949 - 950)

The gap also shows the rising wage share in total GDP (again in Chart 2 (Cols. 951 - 952) circulated earlier). The gap between real wage growth and productivity growth is one factor in the continued deterioration in our relative competitiveness, as measured by the relative unit labour cost index, vis-a-vis the other Asian NIEs. In the other NIEs, real wage increase has been equal to, or even below, productivity increase in recent years and that is shown in Table 1 (Cols. 955 - 956). This, I think, is a matter of concern which we should all take note of -- that whilst the other NIEs are keeping their wage growth in line with productivity growth, ours has been outstripping productivity growth. Chart 2 & Table 1 - WAGE SHARE OF NOMINAL GDP 1980-92, PRODUCTIVITY-WAGE GAP IN NIEs (Cols. 951 - 956)

But in a tight labour market, strong upward pressure on wages is inevitable. High real wage increases benefit our workers and allow them to enjoy the fruits of strong economic growth. However, we could be careful, and we should be careful, that wage growth does not exceed our productivity growth year after year, or we will find that our competitive position will be continuously eroded. And Singapore is facing competition not only from the NIEs but also from other Asian countries around us which have significantly lower labour cost. But at the same time, we still have a long way to catch up with the developed countries in terms of productivity level. Our productivity level is only about 40% to 50% of the developed countries.

The Government will do its best to promote productivity so that we can continue to have high real wage growth. Since our people are the most important resource, developing our human resources would be a key strategy. We are doing this through our education system, our skills training programmes and import of talent from overseas.

Skills upgrading would be especially important for the older and less educated workers. 55% of our workers in the 40 to 49 age group have below secondary education. And the proportion rises to 71% for the 50 to 59 age group, and 87% for those workers 60 years and above.

The Government has already set up various programmes to help workers acquire skills and upgrade themselves, for example, BEST, MOST and WISE programmes. To help our working adults to learn at their own pace, new programmes like Fast Forward and TIME have also been started.

It is equally important, if not more important, to increase productivity through better and smarter ways of doing things. We should not have the mistaken impression that it is only workers' productivity which is a factor in raising productivity. So we should find ways of doing things smarter and therefore to make better use of capital. One example is NPB's franchising schemes for small local retailers, which help our small retailers to come together, upgrade their operations and raise their productivity. Retailers participating in these schemes are able to benefit from the management expertise and systems of the franchiser. Some of these shops have since reported year-on-year sales increases of 50% to 100%, whilst others have been able to attract new and younger customers to buy from them.

Other examples include automation, computerisation, just-in-time production, lean production, and also the relocation of some operations overseas to take advantage of cheaper labour and land cost. Then we should strive to produce higher value-added goods and services. And this can be done through R&D and attracting new investments. For example, the investments that are currently being attracted into Singapore in the manufacturing sector have value added per worker of 240,000 workers compared to $60,000 per worker currently.

Dr Ow also mentioned about the importance of Total Factor Productivity (TFP), doing things smarter, that is, raising our TFP performance. He asked that the Department of Statistics collate data on TFP. This is already done by NPB and published in the annual productivity statement.

Mr Chay Wai Chuen mentioned about CPF contributions for younger workers to take into account the lower productivity level. Currently, we have a seniority-based wage system, which already reflects the productivity level of workers. Therefore, I think that the system already takes care of the contributions based on productivity performance.

Dr Soin asked about women and training. Although the number of places of COSEC is only 15,000 per year, already 118,000 workers from all sectors have undergone the COSEC programme, and slightly more than half are female workers. But if the pace is still too slow, we can always increase it by farming out the programme through private training institutions. Female workers are not only enroled in these softer-type service related courses, but also in technical programmes such as computer training, industrial automation, and electronics. And most courses are open to all workers, and not only to male workers.

We did a spot check on training in the electronics industry. And since 1989 the Electronics Industry Training Centre data show that 51% of the trainees are female workers. And 38% of those who take NTC and apprenticeship courses are females.

Mr Dhanabalan: Sir, can I just answer two or three points that were raised by Mr Robert Chua which I did not answer just now? First of all, he suggested that we have more ministerial-led missions overseas. We will certainly look into that. But Ithink Ministers should not be overtaxed. They have to stay home and do work and not be all the time on the move overseas. But certainly, we will try to do all that is possible.

He also made the point that Government and private sector should cooperate more, especially in the area of investing overseas. I agree with him entirely. Over the years, Government departments and statutory boards have built up a lot of experience and we are well-known in certain areas of operations, for example, traffic management, port operation, airport operation, garbage disposal, and so on. We have actually invested billions of dollars in these operations over the years and we have, within the public sector, a lot of expertise in design, in drawing up specifications, in contract supervision and in the actual operation of these types of activities. The weakness, of course, in the public sector is that, by its very nature, it is not good at identifying good deals, or in making a commercial risk assessment, or actually negotiating a commercial deal. But this weakness of the public sector is where the private sector can make a contribution because it is precisely in these areas that they are strong.

I think there is a lot of scope for the private and public sectors to get together. We are looking into specific areas of programmes where they can work together. We have to try and systematize it. But, of course, there are some problems to overcome. One is the deep-set suspicion of the public sector against the private sector and vice versa. And until we actually begin to work together in concrete projects and meet the difficulties that will arise in working together, we will really not be able to even identify what are the problems. But there is a deep mindset problem now and I have talked to the heads of quite a few technical departments as well as the Chief Executive Officers of these statutory boards to get them to come up with specific ideas on how they can work with the local enterprises.

Many of them, over the years, have had experience working with local sub-contractors, suppliers, fabricators, and so on. I am sure that there must be quite a few of these local operations that, with the help of the Government, can go overseas to bid for jobs and with the backing of the Government organisation have the credibility to win the contracts. So they will be looking into this and we hope that we will be able to set in train at least some demonstration projects, maybe not big projects that can change the picture overnight, but at least something that will get the process started.

Mr Chua also suggested that we should consider a council for international competitiveness. I will be prepared to give this consideration. We are, of course, all the time tracking our international competitive position. But whether a formal council together with the businessmen in Singapore and academicians will help, I do not know. But, certainly, I think it is an idea worth exploring further.

He also asked whether the notices for leases before they are expired could be extended from three to five years. I thought three years is quite reasonable. But if he wants five years, maybe I can ask JTC to look at it. But he must realise that to give five years' notice means also committing yourself to a new rental. A lot of things can happen in five years. So I think this needs to be looked into in some detail before I can give a specific response.

Mr Robert Chua Teck Chew: Sir, I thank the Minister for his response. I have just two suggestions. I met some top civil servants who have actually moved from the civil service to the private sector. He was heading one of the largest Government departments. And he said that after the stint in the private sector, if he were to go back to the Government department, he would run it differently. So there is a suggestion to maybe second some of the top people to work in the private sector for a short while. That would be one way of letting them learn the ropes of the private sector.

The other point is the council on international competitiveness. I hope the Minister will look into that because it would be useful for us to work together and make sure that the manufacturing sector will not go down.

Dr Ow Chin Hock: Sir, allow me to make one brief observation before I withdraw my amendment. I remember last year, SDP MPs failed to move any cut in the Committee of Supply. This year, I have checked through the Order Paper Supplement, and I observe Mr Ling How Doong has filed only one amendment, and yet he is absent. So I wonder whether he has taken his Parliamentary duties seriously.

Sir, I thank the Minister and his Senior Minister of State for their replies. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman: Amendment No. (2), Mr Chew Heng Ching.

Mr Chew Heng Ching (Eunos GRC): Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head W of the Main Estimates be reduced by $10 in respect of Code WA 1500.

Sir, since the Minister has actually touched on the subject of inflation and profiteering to some extent in his earlier reply, I shall make my comments very short. The Minister for Finance in his reply to the House on the Budget Statement yesterday stated, and the Minister for Trade and Industry has just restated a moment ago, that the Government will implement various measures to combat profiteering and inflation. Government will monitor prices closely, give a greater grant to CASE, step up consumer education, encourage formation of consumer groups, encourage RCs and CCCs to report on shops that profiteer and, through the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore, take enforcement actions against profiteering and cheating, and, through NTUC Fairprice, widen the sources of supply of essential food items to keep prices stable.

Sir, there is nothing wrong with this multi-agency approach, so to say, to solve the problem. What I feel is needed is somebody, some committee or some person to coordinate all the activities of these various agencies. May I propose that the Government form a committee headed by perhaps a Permanent Secretary to steer, supervise and coordinate the activities of all these different agencies to ensure that they all pull in the same direction? And since the Minister responsible for the economy is the Minister for Trade and Industry, I would propose that the committee be headed by perhaps the Permanent Secretary (Trade and Industry). Would the Minister consider this suggestion?

Mr Dhanabalan: Sir, there is, in fact, already a Committee on Inflation and Profiteering. It was set up in 1973 during the height of the oil shock and the very high increase in commodity prices. We will resurface this Committee. Yes, the Permanent Secretary of MTI is a member of the Committee. When it was set up, there was no Ministry of Trade and Industry. But I suppose today, the responsibility will fall within the Ministry of Trade and Industry. The Ministry at least will track all the various measures to ensure that they are coordinated and that everybody is pulling in the same direction.

Mr Chew Heng Ching: Sir, I had the impression that the Committee on Profiteering and Inflation was actually dissolved because inflation had been kept low in the last decade. But anyway, I am happy with the Minister's reply. I withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman: Order. I propose to take the break now.

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

Mr Speaker: Order. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 3.05 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 2.42 pm until 3.05 pm Sitting resumed at 3.05 pm

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate in Committee of Supply resumed.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Head W (cont.) -

The Chairman: Amendment No. (3). Dr Wong.

Dr Wong Kwei Cheong (Kampong Glam GRC): Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head W of the Main Estimates be reduced by $10 in respect of Code WE 3100.

Sir, the local enterprise sector continues to contribute significantly to the national economy. According to the 1992 Economic Survey of Singapore, the value added of local small and medium sized enterprises in the manufacturing sector grew at an annual rate of 15%, from $2.7 billion in 1987 to $4.8 billion in 1991. In 1990, local enterprises in the manufacturing, commerce and services sectors contributed 53% to the total value added and employed 65% of the workforce in the three sectors.

The Government has played a major role in helping to improve the performance of the local enterprise sector. I would like to ask the Minister for a progress report of the programmes set up to promote the local enterprise sector such as the (a) Local Enterprise Finance Scheme; (b) Local Industry Upgrading Programme; and (c) Local Enterprise Finance Scheme for Overseas Development.

Since the emphasis in this year's Budget Statement by the Finance Minister is to promote an external economy, I would also like to ask the Minister whether the Government has any other programmes to help local entrepreneurs expand their business activities overseas.

Mr Chia Shi Teck: Sir, as a businessman, I appreciate all the Government schemes offered to help local enterprise develop. As the Minister for Trade and Industry pointed out earlier, there is a book which shows the whole shopping list of schemes. But the more important thing is because we are a small market and we are an open economy with no restrictions, competition has become very very keen. The market is so small. MNCs and even the GLCs, the big boys that come to Singapore, have many many big advantages and not a fault of their own. They are known names when they come to Singapore and they have a headstart. They can open doors easily, acquiring premises, and shops, talking to Ministers, and things like this. They have more financial muscles, they borrow easily, they borrow cheaply. They have track records to carry them on. They have markets back home, market access. They have technology. They have the connections. They are even given better incentives when they come to Singapore. Those that we want, we give them pioneer status. They have huge advertising and promotional muscles. They can attract better staff too because of their name and they can pay better.

The question is: how do we equalise this so that the local businessmen can be starters? Otherwise they are non-starters. It is just like our National University of Singapore where we provide training and education for our people. They must first qualify to get in and then qualify to come out and after which they can be in competition. So we may have to think of schemes where we can provide this shelter, not protection, but a shelter to train and give them a chance to become starters.

Unlike the 70s when I personally first started, the market was huge and booming. Start-up capital was very small. We could simply pass our hats around. Today, the situation is totally different and we may have to think of ways to reproduce this environment where we can attract more and more people into business. Talking about going overseas is simple, but people who can go overseas must surely be people who have succeeded. Unlike our neighbouring countries, (1) they are very protected; (2) they are huge, at least, they are all talking about double digits and in terms of millions of people, good home market. So by the time they are ready to venture overseas, they do have some form of economies of scale, some form of muscles.

The local enterprises here actually need not have more of these schemes but rather if we can concentrate on two things. One, give them more business. How do we give our people more business? How do we give them more track records, especially for those who provide professional services? Many a time, professionals lament and say they could not get jobs overseas simply because they do not have a track record back home. So how could we do that? An example is the HDB's programme when the then Minister for National Development introduced the scheme to give 10% of the public housing projects to private architects. I think these are very good ideas. Could we think more of this? Could we ask all the Government-linked companies in non-essential businesses to privatise quickly, today, tomorrow, if possible? So that the Government becomes a big customer and not a big competitor to the small businesses.

When we provide our artists, designers, and our local talents with premises, we should consider this as infrastructure expenditure. I think this is one mindset that we can think of where the Minister said earlier that we have to put all these limited resources to best use. But take the conservation or preservation, for instance. You have the bodies but you do not have the souls. We cannot get the kind of crafts, the kind of arts, the kind of trades that we want into the Tanjong Pagar preservation area, for instance, if you simply go by market rentals. And yet these crafts, and businesses, can over time grow into good businesses and they can also be part of our tourist attraction programme. Not everybody can start big. When we talk about overseas ventures and joining up with GLCs and things like this, it must be for those businesses which are pretty off the ground. But what about continuously having our young Singaporeans wanting to get into business? I think that is the challenge.

Future business is not going to be undertaken by people who are drop-outs from school or people who have not made it into the system. The niche, the product, the competition are no more the same. And unless we can draw the better-educated into business, I do not see how the future crop of businessmen can be the same as in the past.

I think many Singaporeans do not lack ideas. Probably we could have a new ideas fund, not just venture capital as it is now because most venture capital companies are basically mezzanine financing companies. What about those who take risks with new ideas? What about the advertising and promotion aspect? McDonald's is big when it comes here. Levis is big. It is already known. The people who want to start a Singapore version of the hamburger got to have assistance and help. Probably we could have a dollar-for-dollar grant for advertising and promotion, or at least a double tax deduction. 3.15 pm

There is also this government-to-government assistance. There are barriers from other countries whereas we, in Singapore, are totally open to them. Could our Government also help and arrange bilateral entries? We, for instance, cannot get into, say, London or Los Angeles to start a shop because of the restrictions. We cannot even bring our goods in because of other restrictions, whereas they can just come into Singapore and by tomorrow they are off the ground.

What about helping our local industries, local businessmen, group together into business alliances with incentives, and helping our trade bodies? Assistance is different from rules and regulations. When the Government imposes rules and regulations, you have no choice but to conform. But if the Government comes out with assistance schemes, it is up to the individuals if they so wish to choose. So it is a different thing. Small companies do not have cash flow.

The Minister for Finance has rejected the idea of a double tax system, the two-tier tax system, for the small companies. But how about taxing these small companies only upon distribution of the profits, that is, during dividend payment time? Very often, small companies make money in their book, only on paper, the profit and loss accounts. They have the stocks, a lot of credits and their debtors' list. So you do not have cash flow. But tax is paid in cash. So probably we could alleviate their problem by taxing them only upon their distribution of the profits.

Earlier on, mention was made about a reverse EDB smelling out business for us. I think it is a very important matter. What about the big brother piggy-back the bigger companies can do for Singapore? I remember years ago when Liang Court was first started in River Valley Road, Daimaru came in and became the anchor tenant. Along with Daimaru came a lot of small specialist stores out of Japan. Today, many of those stores are all around Singapore because of Daimaru's big brother approach. So, maybe we have to look into that and encourage the big boys to actually piggy-back our smaller companies.

As for the future of Singapore, I think we have to move away from a servant's mentality to a master's mentality. That means, instead of simply being manufacturers we should become big multi-nationals. We have to think of selling our own products, selling our own Singapore names and labels. The "Make in Singapore" tag must be promoted and it must be made to carry a premium for Singapore products. We should do everything to help those businesses that are actually marketing the Singapore brand. I think that is important, otherwise we will continue to be servants to the multi-nationals.

With that, I hope the Minister will take them into consideration.

Mr Robert Chua Teck Chew: Sir, on top of all the incentives that are already in place for promoting local enterprises, I would like to propose a few items for the Minister's consideration.

One of the areas that we want to help local enterprises succeed in is in skills upgrading and training because low productivity is a problem there. Let us try and see if we can do what the Swiss and Germans have been doing to help their local enterprises to set up training centres in-house or jointly for industry groups. They provide grants or tax incentives for the training facilities as well as for the operating and manpower costs. Local enterprises, especially the small and medium-size enterprises, usually are unable to set up training centres on their own. So we should try and encourage them to set up, say, within industry groups. But to do so, they require a lot of technical help as well as financial assistance. But this is an important area for us to consider because we want to upgrade the skills of our workers so that they can command higher wages without losing our international competitiveness.

We should also look at providing more liberal financial incentives to help local enterprises come together under the fusion scheme which is being carried out by EDB. Let us help them to fund and bring in more fusion consultants from abroad. These consultants are usually retired top engineers who have worked in big Japanese or other companies and who are able to help our small companies develop jointly end-products so that they are not just dependent on MNCs as they are sub-contractors and parts suppliers. I think this will be very, very useful in the long term.

We should also help local companies to build track records in the domestic markets so that when they go abroad, they can get into different projects in other countries, taking on new contracts. Maybe, we should consider giving them a margin of preference for getting Government projects so that they have a track record to go out of Singapore.

I would also like to propose that we should study ways of lowering the start-up costs for new ventures, look at where they are unduly penalised by maybe high Government fees to start up new ventures.

We should also explore the possibility of setting up an insurance scheme to prevent bankruptcy similar to the one that is administered by the Japan Small Business Corporation. This is very useful if we want to help the smaller firms to succeed and to promote entrepreneurship.

Mr Dhanabalan: Sir, let me first take up the query by Dr Wong on the progress of the various schemes to help local industries. First of all, the Local Enterprise Finance Scheme. So far, under this scheme, which was started in 1976, more than $2.5 billion has been extended in the form of loans to about 11,600 projects. Last year, 1992, 1,539 projects were approved for a total sum of $339 million. So this is a fairly successful scheme. This scheme has been extended to local companies which venture overseas. This new feature to the scheme was introduced only in November last year. So it has just got going and I am informed that so far only one project has been approved for $1 million. But I am sure this will also pick up steam as more and more local firms venture overseas.

The other important scheme is the Local Industry Upgrading Programme. This is related also to the position of MNCs in Singapore. I think sometimes we tend to look at the MNCs as taking away something from local industries, or sometimes there is a tendency to think that because MNCs are so well represented in Singapore, they have somehow retarded the growth of local enterprises. I think that is not at all true. In fact, the type of products that MNCs make and the markets to which they sell are such that I do not think that local companies would have been able to break into so easily. But the presence of MNCs has opened up a whole host of opportunities for local companies, because the MNCs do buy both products, parts and services, from local companies. In 1991 alone, local sourcing by MNCs amounted to over $10 billion. Of course, we also have foreign companies which have their international purchasing organisations in Singapore. They have their office here, sourcing the products from Singapore and from the region, and they bought about $6 billion worth of products. So the MNCs have opened up, whether they are manufacturing here or just merely purchasing here, a lot of opportunities. But we have tried to go beyond just MNCs buying local products. We have tried to see how the presence and operation of MNCs in Singapore can be used to leverage and help local industries.

We have introduced the Local Industry Upgrading Scheme. Under this scheme, EDB, together with MNCs, helps local industries to improve their overall efficiency, production planning, inventory control and all the other aspects of manufacturing that go to make up a successful, efficient manufacturer. In the second phase, we will introduce and transfer technology, whether it is new products or processes, from the MNCs to the local companies. In the third phase, to actually jointly produce products with the MNC partners. It is a fairly ambitious scheme and I am very encouraged by the response from the various MNCs. So far, we have 30 MNCs participating in the programme and more than 140 local companies that are part of this Local Industry Upgrading Scheme. Some of them have already progressed to the third phase, which is actually jointly producing products with the MNCs, by a transfer of technology from the MNCs to the local companies. I think there is much more scope in this area which we shall continue to explore and take advantage of.

Similarly, there are MNCs who are going to invest in countries around the region because some of their more labour-intensive operations are not viable in Singapore any more. As they go to Batam or Johor or anywhere else, we are encouraging them to take along with them the Singapore suppliers of parts and services that they are familiar with and suppliers who know the quality and the standards and specifications required by the MNCs. So this again will offer another area of growth for local companies.

I think this would partly answer the question of how to equalise the local enterprise with MNCs. But I do not think the Government can really equalise the position in the sense that MNCs come here with their own markets and with their own technology. For the Government to try and enter this field and to try and help local industries to capture the same kind of market or to have access to the same kind of technology will not be easy. But where we can use the MNCs to help the local companies to latch themselves on to the operations of MNCs, of course, we will do so. To the extent possible, we are already doing.

Mr Chia asked whether we could give various types of preferences to local companies. I think if he has got specific ideas, we are prepared to explore them. But at the end of the day, we must be quite clear about certain things. An operation must be viable with some technical and other assistance. We cannot make an operation that is basically not viable into a viable one by trying to prop it up with all kinds of subsidized services and funds. That is not a proper use of public funds and resources and will not pay us in the long term.

He has also made a suggestion that perhaps tax for small companies should be on dividends and not on profits. It is a rather new idea. I do not think this would be acceptable to my colleague because, as we know, the dividend cover of most companies is quite large and if we tax only their dividends, I think we will have to make up for the loss of taxes by raising GST, and that is something that perhaps people would not welcome. But there are other ways of helping local companies which EDB has already put in place. If they can be made more relevant and more helpful, I am always open to suggestions from any Member in this House.

Mr Chua talked about skills upgrading and in-house training schemes. We have such schemes and my colleague later will also elaborate. The National Productivity Board, in fact, wants to encourage, through the use of Skills Development Fund, in-house training schemes because these schemes are most effective and relevant to the needs of the particular industry. This has always been our approach to training. All the other list of requests - more liberal financial terms, margin of preference and lower start-up costs - I think there is no end to the kind of things that can be requested. We already have a whole list of things. I do not want to dampen the enthusiasm of those who champion the cause of local industries but I think we must be realistic. We are doing a lot. A lot of money is being poured into helping local industries. I think there is a very wrong impression that EDB only concentrates on attracting MNCs. I would say that that was probably the case in the initial years, but for at least more than 10 years EDB has been paying increasing attention to local companies and local businesses. And if there are specific good ideas where we can help them, certainly we are prepared to look at them, for example, access to consultants and grants to use consultants. We already have such schemes, both under the National Science and Technology Board as well as SISIR. If there are specific aspects that can be improved, I am open to suggestions. 3.30 pm

Dr Wong Kwei Cheong: Sir, I withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman: Amendment No. (4), Mrs Yu-Foo.

Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon (Yuhua): Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head W of the Main Estimates be reduced by $10 in respect of Code WF 3100.

Sir, I wish to speak on the topic of training for mature workers. Singapore is entering a new phase of economic development. Increasingly, the emphasis is on high value-added industries. This is a logical step. Unfortunately, our workforce is still not adequately equipped to support the rapid move up the technological ladder. Last year, BERI ranked Singapore 15th in terms of technical skills. It is true that 12 of the 14 countries that ranked ahead of Singapore were advanced European nations with many years of industrial development. Among Asian countries, we rank behind only Japan and Taiwan. Yet, it is the skills level of advanced European countries which we must aim for if we hope to join the super league of nations, and move away from the low wage and low skills industries.

We have made rapid progress in our education system. By the year 2000, 60% of each intake of our school children should have received tertiary education. But, it will take a whole generation to catch up with the advanced nations if we depend only on new entrants to the workforce to upgrade the overall skills level. We must spare no effort in upgrading the skills level of the existing workforce.

My main concern is with mature workers over 40. Today, workers above the age of 40 constitute 32.1% of the Singapore workforce. By the end of the 1990s, nearly 43% of the workforce will be above 40 years old. With the proposed legislation to raise the retirement age to 60, workers above the age of 40 will have at least 20 years of useful remaining service. Singapore cannot afford to let this pool of labour resource go to waste. No country can. Yet, we find most difficulty encouraging this pool of workers to undergo training.

In 1992, about 30,000 of the 400,000 training places, or 7.2%, supported by SDF funding, were for workers aged 40 and above. This is a significant improvement over the figure of 6.2% of places for mature workers in 1990. However, it is still an under-representation of the proportion of mature workers in the Singapore workforce.

Sir, having training places for workers is one thing. Getting enough mature employees to take up these courses is another. In 1991, we started a programme for workers over the age of 40, called Training Initiative for Mature Employees, or TIME in short. There are more than 520,000 workers above the age of 40. However, so far, only 800 such workers have taken up TIME courses.

I think we should have more ways to help our mature workers. I have two suggestions.

First, our incentive scheme should recognise the special problems faced by mature employees. Employers are generally reluctant to send older workers for training because they are generally perceived to be less adaptable and more resistant to change. Older workers generally have heavier family responsibilities, which make it doubly difficult for them to spare time to attend upgrading courses. Many workers depend a great deal on overtime pay to support their family. Some have to take up more than one job. Hence, the sacrifices involved in attending training after office hours are generally greater.

The incentives for workers above the age of 40 to upgrade themselves should be more favourable compared to those of other age groups. One way is to give a higher SDF subsidy for workers above the age of 40 to attend SDF-supported courses. This will make it less painful, from the view of both employer and employee, to attend training courses.

Second, we should create greater awareness among mature workers of the various upgrading course available, and stimulate their interest in attending these courses. Perhaps, ITE or NPB should launch a concerted publicity stint to sell its courses to the public. In short, besides providing the hardware and the software, we must also try to change peoples' attitudes.

Finally, I would like to ask the Minister for Trade and Industry what are the plans that Government has to further improve the training and skills upgrading of mature workers in Singapore.

Mr Lim Boon Heng: Sir, Mdm Foo has brought up a very important subject. The training of older workers will be one of the key areas of concern of the SDF and the NPB in the years ahead. And she has rightly pointed out that up to now, the training of older workers is under-represented.

To encourage the training of older workers who are also lower paid, the SDF will, first of all, make fuller use of the existing training schemes such as the TIME programme, and to encourage the employers to train the workers during working hours.

At the present moment, it is not only 800 workers who have gone through this programme. We have already 6,000 workers who have undergone this programme. And as far as the subsidy level is concerned, the SDF provides 100% funding of the training course fees to the employers to encourage them to do more in this area.

Whether the problem of overtime pay and others could be overcome or not, I think that is something which perhaps employers would want to consider if they want to give incentives to their employees for sacrificing the overtime. This is something which they could do. But at the same time, I think we must remind our workers that the training which they receive will stand them in good stead. Because it would make their skills relevant to changing technology and make them employable in the longer term and, therefore, they will benefit from it, and some short-term sacrifices would be necessary.

To take into account the problem of time, the NPB has developed Fast Forward programmes. These are video-based programmes which would allow the worker to view the video tapes at a time convenient to him or her, and this should overcome some of the problems of release from work to take up these courses.

At the same time, the NPB and the SDF are looking at stepping up support for on-the-job training. And, here, I would take up the point brought up by Mr Robert Chua about the German and Swiss system of apprenticeship. We should not discount the importance of training received at work, even if it is non-formal. For example, if we visit some of our electronics factories, especially those which have been set up longer here in Singapore, you will find that the workers who were employed, say, 15 or 20 years ago, to do simple assembly operations, today are manning the up-to-date automated production lines. So because of the training which they receive whilst at work, even if it is small and incremental from year to year, it has resulted in their ability to adjust to high technology production processes.

So the NPB would be looking at how to help employers to formalise this kind of training programmes, because it is the most effective way of providing a skill to the worker. As a comparison, if we send a person for off-the-job training for NTC-3 course qualification, the cost to the employer varies between $6,000 and $10,000 per worker. And that, I think, for the smaller employers it would be a lot of money to invest in one employee. The problem would be compounded if the employee should decide to change job and go to another factory, and the skills in the process could be lost.

For on-the-job training to succeed, it is also important for our workers to realise that staying with the employer on a longer term basis makes it possible and, in the end, would be beneficial to the worker as well as to the company. The subject of on-the-job training is now being actively pursued by the NPB and the SDF.

As far as the awareness of training is concerned, this is something which we will ask the NPB to look at. Every year we are trying to promote productivity and, of course, training is one of the critical areas and certainly something more can be done in this area.

Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon: I thank the Senior Minister of State for his answer. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman: Amendment No. (5), Mr Koo. We have 5 minutes for this amendment.

Mr Koo Tsai Kee (Tanjong Pagar GRC): Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head W of the Main Estimates be reduced by $10 in respect of Code WH 3100.

Sir, Singapore is now gripped by an entrepreneurship fever. Are entrepreneurs born or are they made, or both? The debate continues. While it is true that the problem of entrepreneurship does not lend itself to an engineered solution, I think it is wrong to say that entrepreneurship exists in a vacuum. The kind of entrepreneur Singapore needs most, I would say, is the technological entrepreneur. This type cannot be born, unless there is an environment of research and development (R&D).

Not so long ago, Sir, the way to fabulous riches is through banking, property or trading, at least in Singapore or the rest of Asia. But in the last 10 years, the heroes of the rich and famous belong to people not just with guts but mostly with brains as well. These are the technological entrepreneurs exemplified by Bill Gates of Microsoft in the USA, Stan Shih of Acer in Taiwan, and our home grown Sim Wong Hoo of Creative Technology.

Unlike other kinds of entrepreneurs, these people must have technical background, and lots of it. True, Sim and Bill Gates did not receive formal R&D training, but Stan Shih did. In fact, he went through a very conventional path of university study and formal R&D training finishing his Masters at Taiwan's Chengong ( ) University, the MIT of Taiwan. Therefore, contrary to common belief, the technological entrepreneur can be made or is made.

In fact, many of the technological entrepreneurs in Taiwan today, including many in Silicon Valley, have excellent academic and scholastic track records. In Taiwan, this has come about because of its gruelling and competitive school system. These are the ones powering Taiwan into the rank of the OECD countries. The Taiwan model destroys the argument put forward by Ho Kwon Ping that, because of our competitive school system, we have a dearth of entrepreneurs. In fact, by comparison, our school system is not even as competitive as Taiwan's or Hong Kong's. But in Hong Kong and Taiwan, they have no dearth of entrepreneurs.

Sir, R&D holds the key to a nation's future wealth. If the expenditure on R&D is one indicator of how serious an effort is made to create future wealth, then Singapore appears dead serious. In 1991, we spent about 1.1% of our GDP, or $756 million, on R&D. This trend is moving up to 2%, putting us roughly at the same proportion as Japan and Germany.

Sir, if we compare this amount, it is quite a lot. But if we compare it to the amounts spent by, let us say, IBM, in 1991 alone, IBM spent US$6 billion. So our R&D expenditure appears to be a drop in the ocean. The example of General Motors is also instructive. GM has long outspent anybody on this planet on R&D, yet much of the money appears to have gone down the drain. So my message is that GM and IBM R&D experts have a message for us, that is, R&D in Singapore must never be done for its own glorification. People who do R&D cannot be totally oblivious to the market needs. 3.45 pm

We must have an auditing system on public R&D expenditures to ensure that R&D does not become an end in itself. Public R&D expenditures are presently performed mostly in the tertiary institutions - the polytechnics and universities. In these places, there is a natural tendency for R&D to become a vehicle for generating publications to secure tenureship and promotions. Sir, there is nothing wrong in this, except that this must be moderated.

I would like to ask the Minister whether R&D programme or at least public R&D programme in Singapore is audited.

Mr Dhanabalan: Yes, Sir, R&D programme is audited. I entirely agree with Mr Koo that this is an activity that can swallow up a lot of money and that huge amounts of money can disappear without a trace, if we do not closely audit. Since much of the R&D funding by the National Science and Technology Board (NSTB) is through the public sector research institutes, we must have an auditing system. An Institute has to draw up a clear and deliverable programme before it gets the necessary funds. And NSTB ensures that the research programmes are relevant to the needs of the industries concerned. There are a number of committees that look at the programmes put forward for research assistance. There are expert committees with people from industries represented on the committees. There is also a panel of international advisors and this panel regularly reviews the Institute's plans and progress and the budget is periodically adjusted to ensure that the research is practical, applied and related to industrial needs.

Of course, NSTB also funds private sector research. There, the auditing is a little simpler because the grants are only up to 50% of the requirements and the companies concerned have to foot the other 50%. That itself will ensure, in many cases, that the research activities are relevant to market needs. So both for public and private sectors, we do have auditing systems and I suppose, over time, we need to improve these auditing systems. We will be looking at this all the time to ensure that the funds are used properly.

Mr Koo Tsai Kee: I thank the Minister for his reply. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman: Amendment No. (6). Mr Chew is not here. Mr Tong, you have all the time until 3.55 pm.

Mr Tong Kok Yeo (Nominated Member): Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head W of the Main Estimates be reduced by $10 in respect of Code WI 3100.

Sir, since the establishment of the Skills Development Fund in 1979, many companies, large and small, have benefited from this incentive grant. Recognising the difficulties and problems small and medium companies have on training, SDF has made it easier for them to access SDF funds through many arrangements, such as the Training Voucher Scheme. SDF incentive grants are awarded only for employer-based training. It has in a way funded individuals selectively through NTUC by treating NTUC as a surrogate employer. However, these fundings are confined to courses, such as BEST, WISE, MOST and COSEC courses. A large number of workers have benefited from them. There are a large number of workers who possess 'O' levels or 'A' levels, or even Polytechnic diplomas who wish to upgrade themselves through advanced courses on a part-time basis conducted by the polytechnics, or other private institutions, such as the Singapore Institute of Management. Some of these courses are SDF-AIT courses.

Sir, in this highly competitive world and to make Singapore more competitive, the need to upgrade workers' skills is never that more pressing. Therefore, I would like to ask the Minister to consider extending the SDF incentive grants to individuals on a selective basis, for SDF-AIT courses, if not in its totality, at least on a co-sharing basis.

Mr Lim Boon Heng: Sir, as the Nominated Member rightly pointed out, individuals can benefit from SDF in two ways. Firstly, through sponsorships by the NTUC for a range of general courses and, secondly, individuals can enrol for FAST FORWARD, BEST and WISE programmes. On the second area, these are basic upgrading programmes and useful to a wide spectrum of workers. So the SDF subsidises up to 90% of their cost development and operating cost. The fees for these programmes are, therefore, net of SDF subsidies and are generally affordable to most workers, because the fees range from $15 to $160 per module. And this method of subsidy front-end through the trainer reduces the administration work involved for catering to individuals who take up these courses. But for the more specialised courses, employers should organise and sponsor the training. The employer should be involved in sponsoring this training because he is in the best position to determine what kind of training the employee needs and whether the employee would be able to complete the course successfully. This is particularly important for the higher level courses that Mr Tong mentions. But if an individual wants to take up, say, for example, a polytechnic course, we must not forget there is already a very heavy front-end subsidy from the state because the polytechnic courses are already subsidised through the grants which are received by the polytechnics. And encouragement has already been given to the employee in tax relief that he may claim in his annual income tax return.

I would also take the opportunity to inform Members that the SDF has got to make the most effective use of its money. And contrary to public belief, the SDF does not have a lot of funds. It is currently collecting about $15 million a year and spending about $65 million. It has $264 million of uncommitted funds. So in two or three years' time, at this rate, the SDF funds would be exhausted. So a review would be necessary.

Mr Tong Kok Yeo: I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $104,723,790 for Head W ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates.

The sum of $822,570,800 for Head W ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.

Head M -

The Chairman: Head M, Ministry of the Environment. Amendment No. (1), Dr John Chen. 20 minutes.

Dr John Chen Seow Phun (Hong Kah GRC): Sir, I beg to move,

That the total sum to be allocated for Head M of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100.

Sir, the Singapore Green Plan aims to develop Singapore into a model Green City with a high environmental standard and an environmentally conscious people. Following its publication in May last year, six work groups targeting at six distinct areas were formed to formulate action plans. They have recently unveiled their recommendations for public comments. I must say that the work groups have done a good job and these proposed action plans are, indeed, comprehensive. However, to ensure best results, we must obtain the views of a wide range of people - industrialists, businessmen, professionals, media organisations, social organisations and the general public, etc. - before finalising the plans. May the Minister tell us how this is being carried out?

Indeed, once the plans are finalised, participation and support of all Singaporeans from all quarters are vital to ensure success of the Singapore Green Plan. I am, therefore, pleased to see that one of the areas of the Plan is to step up environmental education. And for this purpose, six target groups, namely, the general public, schools, tertiary institutions, SAF personnel, workers and social and community groups, have been identified.

Sir, the Government has been taking the lead and playing a dominant role of promoting environmentalism in Singapore. This is because, unlike the people in the developed countries, Singaporeans are less environmentally conscious and are not pro-active in promoting environmental programmes. If the Green Plan is to succeed, there must be a shift towards a balanced phenomenon whereby the Government and an environmentally pro-active people become partners in furthering the environmental cause. When this happens, we should see an increasing number of organisations, groups or individuals translating their awareness into lively activities or substantive actions that will contribute positively to our environmental goals.

In this regard, I believe the National Council on Environment (NCE) should now take on a bigger role and a higher profile in environmental education and promoting environmentalism. Its role should be similar to that of the National Arts Council in promoting the development of culture and the arts. Would the Minister consider beefing up the NCE so that it will have enough financial and manpower resources to perform this important task?

Another important area in the Green Plan is resource conservation. While this is a worldwide concern, it is especially important to Singapore as almost all the resources we consume are imported. A big question in resource conservation is: how do we promote national energy efficiency? Energy consumption leads to emission of carbon dioxide which is threatening the world with the greenhouse effect. It, therefore, makes a lot of environmental and economic sense to make sure that we consume energy as efficiently as possible.

Japan has the greatest energy efficiency among the developed countries. According to the data published by the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific, Japan's energy consumption per dollar GDP is about half that of Singapore's. The Japanese Government gives tax incentives and depreciation allowances for companies to install energy-efficient equipment. It also requires companies with poor energy management to carry out energy audit and improve on their efficiency. These are very good examples for us to follow. Will the Minister consider adopting them?

Finally, Sir, an area which will also benefit us environmentally and economically is the promotion of Environmental Technology (ET). A strong domestic ET industry will not only help us to solve our environmental problems more effectively, it will also help Singapore to be a hub and emporium for environmental engineering and services. Does the Minister have any plans to nurture our local companies and help them to venture out on environmental engineering projects? What are the supports the Government and, in particular, the Environment Ministry can provide? 4.00 pm

Encik Ibrahim bin Othman (Thomson GRC): Sir, one of the six strategic thrusts proposed in the Green Plan is to educate the people to be environmentally conscious. The Ministry intends to reach out to the people to promote environmentalism and green consumerism. However, the process of educating the population to be environmentally conscious is a long and arduous one. It will require a change in attitudes and habits. It is a long and difficult task which I am glad that the Ministry has persevered. I hope that the people of Singapore will realise the good work which the Ministry is trying its best to do and give it our every support and cooperation.

Sir, it seems to me that in the long term, the best course to take would be to concentrate our efforts on our children in schools. I would like to ask the Minister what his Ministry is going to do to educate the population, particularly school children to be pro-green. And would the Ministry also consider making school environmental clubs or associations as one of the recognised extracurricular activity option?

Mr Koo Tsai Kee: Sir, as Singapore becomes more developed, we become more conscious that the quality of life is shaped by our environment. The price many countries had to pay to transform itself from a developing country to a NIE is pollution and environmental degradation. Taiwan and South Korea are two countries which have paid heavily for the neglect of their environment. Fortunately, Singapore went "green" long before the colour became a cry for environmental protection. Singapore's effort at preserving our air, water and parks deserves commendation.

Clearly, our existing environmental policies have served us well. As I understand it, the existing policies are regulatory in nature. I think in the jargon, it is known as the command-and-control method. The Ministry sets standards and then you mobilise your resources to ensure compliance of those standards. This method has been effective but it comes at a price. The regulatory method, or the command-and-control method, tends to force all businesses to adopt the same measures and practices for pollution control. Usually they fall into two categories: either technology-based or performance-based. These policies are rigid because it gives no incentives for businesses to exceed their control targets and both types contain a bias against experimentation with new technologies.

I would like to suggest a gradual switch from the command-and-control policies to some market-based policies. These policies are already well documented in environmental economics. Essentially, in market-based policies, the Government establishes financial incentives, like the incentives mentioned by Dr Chen in the use of energy in Japanese buildings. The idea is to encourage businesses to experiment with new technology to find ways to meet these environmental targets. Some of these policies are well known including pollution charges and tradeable permits to price and control pollution. I think part of it is implemented in Singapore, the CFC quotas. Others include the retail disposal charges to account for the different costs of waste disposal and some others like the deposit refund system for efficient promotion of hazardous waste disposal, which I think has yet to be implemented. Could the Minister advise if these, or at least some of these, market-based environmental policies are on his Ministry's future environmental blueprint?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Abdullah Tarmugi) in the Chair]

4.05 pm

The Chairman: Dr Wang, you have approximately two minutes.

Dr Wang Kai Yuen (Bukit Timah): Sir, since I have not much time, let me go straight to the point.

The Chairman: Please do.

Dr Wang Kai Yuen: Sir, there are many HDB estates with canals and rivers running through them and these minor waterways are bordered by reserve land on both sides and this reserve land tends to be narrow and long. And being adjacent to HDB estates, this land is readily accessible by the public. The jogging track along the Ulu Pandan canal in Ghim Moh is an excellent example. However, these lands are under the management of the Ministry of the Environment and trying to make use of this land for recreational purposes can be a bureaucratic nightmare.

I read about the new URA guidelines for allowing new property development all the way to the water edge. Would it not be wonderful if a town council which wants to provide a better living environment to its residents can plan for an integrated approach for the usage of these narrow pieces of land? However, these lands are not easily available from the Ministry although the Ministry has done an outstanding job in cleaning up the waterways. If it were to be given to the town council, a jogging track can be constructed, benches can be placed, palm trees can be planted and barbecue pits can be sited at strategic locations. All in all, a scenic setting for a gracious living.

Sir, I think it is time for the Ministry to take on a greater responsibility. Instead of just maintaining these waterways, I would like to urge the Minister to take on the leadership to utilise these reserve lands along the waterways for recreational use. I am confident that as more and more Singaporeans gain access to these recreational facilities, the standard of living in Singapore will be so much more gracious. Of course, if the Minister thinks that it is beyond his Ministry's charter, perhaps he can consider issuing TOLs to town councils together with grants that would cover the normal upkeep of these lands. I am confident the town councils will be happy to participate in this venture, particularly the Jurong East Town Council.

The Minister for the Environment (Dr Ahmad Mattar): Mr Chairman, Sir, as we all know, the Singapore Green Plan which was published in May last year outlines my Ministry's vision to develop Singapore into a model Green City by the year 2000.

Sir, the thrusts of the plan have already been made known. I will not be discussing them here. As mentioned by Dr John Chen, in support of the Green Plan, six inter-Ministry workgroups were formed to formulate Action Plans in the following areas: environmental education, environmental technology, resource conservation, clean technologies, nature conservation and noise. And again, as mentioned by Dr Chen, the six workgroups have already submitted their recommendations and my Ministry is currently seeking public feedback on these recommendations before we finalise them around the middle of this year.

Coming back to the issues raised by Dr Chen, several of these workgroups have recommended economic instruments to be used in order to achieve the objectives of the Green Plan. These include providing incentives to promote resource and energy conservation as well as to promote the growth of companies in the field of environmental technology.

One proposal, in particular, calls for the existing investment incentives and financial assistance schemes administered by the EDB to be extended to companies in the field of environmental technology. We will certainly consider this proposal.

I fully agree with the Member for Thomson GRC that the process of educating the population to be more aware of the need to protect the environment and environmental public health is one that takes a lot of stamina and perseverance. The same could also be said of any effort that is aimed at attitudinal change. Encik Ibrahim Othman is also correct in suggesting that we ought to focus our attention, our energy and our efforts on our young who are more amenable to change.

Sir, my Ministry's environmental education programmes are aimed at four main target audiences: the students, the general public, the business community, and the social and community groups.

For the students, we have on-going programmes aimed at: (i) making them more aware of the need to reduce waste; (ii) helping them to learn to appreciate the tremendous efforts that went into the cleaning of our rivers; and, of course, (iii) making them aware of the need to keep our rivers clean.

My Ministry also works very closely with Principals and Environmental Education Advisors of schools and we help them to conduct talks and organise exhibitions on environmental subjects.

For the information of this House, my Ministry has also set up an Environmental Resource Centre which houses more than 10,000 publications and about 200 video tapes with easy access to students and members of the public. Sir, I must at this point mention that the Ministry of Education is our partner in spreading the Green Message. Subjects of the environment have been incorporated into the school curricula. Principals and teachers have formed environmental clubs and a lot of efforts are being put into organising environmental education projects.

We are also reaching out to members of the public through grassroots organisations. My Ministry supports these organisations by providing educational materials and speakers to them. We also mount exhibitions at community centres or at sites selected by the grassroots leaders themselves. Sir, may Ministry also publishes a special bi-monthly newsletter called Our Environment for these grassroots organisations.

The media too plays an important role in educating Singaporeans to be pro-green. I am happy to say that the media have given supportive coverage of the green movement in Singapore. And I see the media as an invaluable partner in keeping the green issues on our national agenda.

Sir, Mr Koo Tsai Kee basically wants to know whether the Ministry of the Environment will consider the use of economic instruments for pollution control and environmental management. In fact, economic instruments have been used in the past by the Government for pollution control and environmental management. For example, the bidding system used to control the import of ozone-depleting CFCs and halons is one example. Under this bidding system, limits are placed on the quantities of the chemicals to be imported into Singapore each year and companies have to bid for their right to import these chemicals.

If you recall, Sir, some time in 1991, tax adjustments were introduced to make unleaded petrol cheaper than leaded petrol. This is yet another example where economic instrument had been used to promote the use of unleaded petrol in Singapore.

Sir, the six inter-Ministry workgroups, formed to formulate Action Plans under the Green Plan, have proposed economic instruments to be used in order to achieve the objectives of the Plan. And the workgroups on resource conservation and clean technologies, for example, have indeed recommended that we use financial incentives and assistance schemes to promote energy efficiency, waste minimisation and clean technologies. We are seeking public feedback on these recommendations before finalising them around the middle of this year.

With regard to Mr Koo's suggestions on refundable deposits, I will certainly forward them to the various workgroups for their consideration. 4.15 pm

Now, I come to some of the queries raised by Dr Wang Kai Yuen. Sir, my Ministry has always allowed drainage reserves along canals to be better made use of apart from their normal function as an access for the maintenance of the canals. Sir, the Parks and Recreation Department built a park connector, comprising jogging-cum-cycling track along the Kallang River between Bishan Park and Braddell Road. In fact, the Parks and Recreation Department has also planned to build similar connectors along Geylang River, Sungei Tampines, Kallang River and Ulu Pandan Canal.

Sir, the designs of park connectors are carried out in close consultation with my Ministry to ensure that the provision of park facilities such as jogging and cycling tracks within the park connectors also cater for the maintenance needs of the canals. Furthermore, the designs of these park connectors are carefully scrutinised by an inter-Ministry panel to ensure that they are tastefully and aesthetically integrated with the surrounding environment.

The Chairman: Dr John Chen, would you like to withdraw your amendment?

Dr John Chen: The Minister has not replied to my question on the role of NCE, ie, whether he will agree to beefing up the NCE to take on the role like that of the National Arts Council.

Dr Ahmad Mattar: I must apologise to Dr Chen, Sir. I note his suggestion and certainly will discuss the matter further.

The Chairman: Would you like to withdraw your amendment, Dr Chen?

Dr John Chen Seow Phun: Sir, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Dr John Chen Seow Phun: Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head M of the Main Estimates be reduced by $10 in respect of Code MC 1500.

Sir, the Environment Ministry and the HDB currently manage more than 50 hawker centres and wet markets. There have been concerns that the Government might want to privatise these hawker centres and markets.

Sir, while I agree that the Environment Ministry should concentrate on the enforcement of public health and not the management of hawker centres and markets, I am concerned about the impact privatisation has on the existing stallholders and consumers.

What prices will the stallholders pay when they buy over the stalls from the Government? Can they sublet or sell their stalls? Can they opt to continue paying the present rentals? Are there any other conditions that they must fulfil when the food centres and markets are privatised?

Sir, what is important at the end of the privatisation exercise is that costs for the stallholders must not go up. Otherwise, it may end up with the higher costs being passed on to the consumers.

Sir, may I have the Minister's response to those questions.

Mr Chin Harn Tong (Aljunied GRC): Sir, the Ministry's proposal to privatise hawker centres seems reasonable. The privatisation of hawker centres enables the Ministry to decentralise the administration of hawker centres. The privatisation scheme also enables the hawkers to own their stalls. The stallholders will also be responsible for the upkeep and management of their centres.

Sir, the Ministry is obviously giving itself a good deal. Whether the hawkers think they are getting a fair deal, I am not so sure. But there is one group of people the Ministry has omitted from all the consideration in the scheme, ie, the consumers. What should consumers do if they feel they are not getting a fair deal at a privatised hawker centre? Boycotting the centre might not be convenient if travel time and cost to the next nearest centre outweigh the satisfaction from boycotting. Complaints to the management corporation may be useless if the complaint is against the most successful hawker in the centre with tough employees to back him up. After all, in the Government's own experience, even societies of highly educated professional persons are not able to discipline themselves satisfactorily without some prodding from the Government.

Sir, I should therefore like to know how far ahead is the Ministry's plan to privatise hawker centres. I should also like to know whether privatisation will result in the increase of prices at hawker centres to the detriment of consumers.

Encik Ibrahim bin Othman: Sir, the Minister has announced in this House that the Government would privatise hawker centres. Since then, we have not had any news on the progress made on the Government's proposal. In the light of the recent tender exercise for market stalls in several markets, many stallholders in hawker centres are anxious to know how the Government's plan may affect them. I would like to ask the Minister to give an update on the privatisation programme for hawker centres. The Ministry has also tendered out vacant stalls in hawker centres. Is this part of the privatisation programme announced by the Minister? Some incumbent stallholders in hawker centres are concerned that they may be required to tender for stalls presently operated by them. Sir, I would like to ask the Minister whether existing stallholders would have to tender for their present stalls. I agree with my colleague, Mr Chin, that with this privatisation programme, will it lead to an increase in price, which ultimately the consumers have to pay?

Mr Peh Chin Hua (Jalan Besar GRC): ( In Mandarin): Sir, we have successfully implemented the "Home Ownership" scheme, and are now actively implementing the "Shop Ownership" scheme. However, we have yet to settle the problem of hawkers stalls for a large group of hawkers who are depending on their stalls for their livelihood. Hawkers too have contributed towards the economic and social development of Singapore during the last few decades. Perhaps, the Ministry of the Environment should consider implementing a "Hawker Stall Ownership" Scheme so that this large group of citizens who have contributed to our nation and society can also enjoy a share in the fruits of our economic success.

Under the present rental system, the hawkers do not own their stalls. In my view, the "Hawker Stall Ownership" scheme has the following advantages:

1. As the present stalls are rented, once the licence holder retires or passes away, the stall will have to be returned to the authority. Thus, the family which relies on the earnings from the stall will lose its means of livelihood, and the whole family is gravely affected! If we have a "Hawker Stall Ownership" scheme, then, if necessary, the hawker or his family can decide whether to transfer the stall to the children or relatives, or to resell it to others to tide over the hardship of the family.

2. Under the "Hawker Stall Ownership" scheme, the hawkers of cooked food will further improve their culinary skills to attract more customers and hence enhance their market value. This will indirectly help to attract more tourists to Singapore to taste the delicacies of Singapore.

3. With the "Hawker Stall Ownership" scheme, a hawker centre or market can form its own management corporation to jointly manage and maintain the hawker centre or market, with the assistance of the Town Council and the Housing and Development Board. Thus, the hawker centre and market will be kept cleaner and more hygienic.

I understand that many hawkers are hoping to own a stall which they can call their own. This can be deemed to be the Government's reward to them for their past contributions to our nation building. However, when the stalls are offered for sale, they should be sold at reasonable prices, as in the case of the "Shop Ownership" scheme, so that they will remain affordable to all the hawkers who intend to purchase them.

I do not think the hawkers will jack up their prices once they own their own stalls. From our experience in the shop ownership scheme, the shop owners who bought over their own shops have not raised their prices. I feel that the "Hawker Stall Ownership" scheme is workable and can be implemented successfully.

Mr Chew Heng Ching: Sir, I shall be brief. Manpower is a scarce resource in Singapore. As our economy progresses and the standard of living improves, more and more Singaporeans will shy away from certain jobs. Collecting refuse is certainly one of such jobs. Indeed, we may have to resort to foreign labour to do our daily refuse collection. Even this pool of foreign labour may one day dry up as our neighbouring economy improves. My concern is that a day will come when we may not be able to collect our refuse on a daily basis. This has wide-ranging implications since most of our refuse bin collection centres at the older HDB estates do not have facilities or the capacity to store refuse for more than a day.

I understand the Ministry, in trying to solve the shortage of labour problem, tried out a pilot scheme in some private estates last year to get residents to voluntarily dump their refuse onto the moving trucks. I wonder how successful was this pilot project. Could the Minister enlighten the House on the magnitude of this shortage of labour problem for refuse collection and how his Ministry plans to overcome this problem in the short term, in the medium term, and in the longer term?

Mr Charles Chong (Eunos GRC): Sir, the main objective of the introduction of centralised refuse chutes for garbage disposal in the more recently constructed HDB apartments must surely be for improved efficiency and higher productivity of refuse collection by the Ministry of the Environment. However, my observation of refuse collection at some blocks in Pasir Ris and Tampines, where centralised refuse chutes are being used, reveals that refuse collection is somewhat below expectation. Apparently, refuse collection by the Ministry of the Environment did not take place in some areas for several days at a time. This was especially so during the festive periods in December last year and in January this year. Fortunately, contract cleaners from the Town Council in charge of that area were able to remove and dispose of accumulated refuse so that the inconvenience to the residents was minimised.

I would be grateful if the Minister could comment on the cause of this apparent lack of regular refuse removal during the periods mentioned and on the measures his Ministry intends to take to alleviate this problem.

Mr Goh Choon Kang (Braddell Heights): Sir, starting with the two stalls at the Newton Hawker Centre last year, the Ministry of the Environment recently put up more vacant stalls in existing wet markets and hawker centres for tendering. There are worries that the tender system may have an adverse long-term effect on consumer prices. Can the Minister, therefore, tell us how many such stalls will be tendered out eventually? I understand that the tender system will also be applied to all new hawker centres and wet markets being built or being planned. Can the Minister confirm this and explain why?

Dr John Chen Seow Phun: Sir, when the Environmental Public Health (Amendment) Bill was passed in September last year, many Singaporeans supported the Corrective Work Order (CWO) because they believe in stricter and more effective anti-littering laws. The punishment to clean up public places itself is reformative and causes the offenders to feel shameful about their indiscriminate act. It is therefore thought to be an effective deterrent against littering. At the same time, as the punishment is also considered as serious, many Singaporeans feel that it should only be applied to those recalcitrant and serious offenders.

However, when the CWO was carried out the first time on Sunday, 27th February, at the East Coast Beach, many Singaporeans were outraged at the way it was implemented. Firstly, some of the offences such as leaving behind a paper cup on a bench should not be considered as serious. Everyone of us can be forgetful sometimes. We leave behind umbrellas, pens, handbags, briefcases, paper bags, bunch of keys and even money. Check with MRTC, bus and taxi operators, and you will find out how many things are left behind every day. 4.30 pm

A group of people I know was barbecuing one evening at the West Coast Park. Before they left, they cleared everything, except one black plastic bag which they overlooked. When they were about to leave, a warden suddenly appeared and booked them. They were fined for littering. But that was before the CWO legislation.

Sir, my point is that people do leave behind things unintentionally, including litter. How do we ensure that such people, who indeed can be quite civic-minded, will not have the CWO slapped on them? At most, they should only be made to pay a fine for their carelessness.

Secondly, the way the first batch of offenders was humiliated was out of proportion to their crime. Many Singaporeans thought so. As Chairman of the GPC for the Environment, I have received feedback and letters of complaint on this. Sir, if we continue to go overboard and do not put a stop to such humiliation, I am afraid the strong support that Singaporeans originally gave to the CWO legislation may disappear. I hope the Minister would seriously consider the two points that I have made and take steps to restore the respect that people had on the CWO legislation.

Mr Chin Harn Tong: Sir, in the debate on the Environmental Public Health (Amendment) Bill on 14th September 1992, I had my reservation about the public punishment of litterbugs because I was concerned that their punishment might turn into their humiliation. It seems the concern was not groundless.

Sir, the first batch of ten offenders who served their sentence at East Coast Park on 21st February this year had to run the gauntlet of the media and curiosity seekers. The event also attracted journalists from Malaysia and Reuters.

Sir, the offenders were conspicuous in their green vests bearing at their back the legend "Corrective Work Order". There was no escape from the unwelcomed publicity focused on them, even if some tried to avoid identification by wearing dark sun glasses. One woman had to use her long tress of hair to cover her face from the prying cameras. Sir, in future, offenders may have to wear face masks. With so many cameras on the scene that day, the passers-by might have thought that the SBC was filming one of the serials.

I urge the Ministry to have a re-look at the matter. There is no sense of proportion in the punishment of litterbugs. Serious criminals such as murderers and drunken drivers are spared similar public humiliation in serving their sentences. I should have thought that the aim of the Corrective Work Order is to make litterbugs understand the anti-social nature of their offence. After their ordeal of public humiliation, I do not think many of them appreciate the anti-social nature of littering. It is more likely they would appreciate the importance of not getting caught when littering.

I wish, therefore, to ask the Minister whether it is necessary for the convicted litterbugs to wear the vests with the words "Corrective Work Order".

Mr Teo Chong Tee (Changi): Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in the debate on the recently introduced Corrective Work Order (CWO). That the CWO is meant to instill some civic sense into the recalcitrant litterbugs by requiring them to clean up the public places, and to serve as a deterrent to would-be litterbugs, certainly has the support of all right thinking Singaporeans. Singapore must continue to live up to its good reputation of a clean and green city.

However, Sir, many Singaporeans, including myself, were shocked by the way the first 10 CWO offenders had been publicly treated. What Singaporeans saw on TV and in the newspapers vividly brought to mind how the so-called counter revolutionaries during the Cultural Revolution in China were ridiculed and humiliated, that is, paraded as dunces in the streets to the amusement, boos and jeers of the on-lookers. The wearing of the coloured vest of shame with the words "Corrective Work Order" boldly inscribed on it, indeed, reminded us of the so-called enemies of the people in Mao's China when the Red Guards reigned. Sir, now, in a democratic and humane Singapore, even rapists and hardcore criminals are not made to suffer such shame and indignity. Quite obviously, the Ministry of the Environment had gone overboard in meting out the punishment in this instance. The implementation of the CWO is totally out of proportion to the offence committed. For one offence, the offenders were punished more than once -first, in the court, second, in public places and, third, adverse publicity in the local and foreign media.

Sir, a means must be able to achieve its end. I very much doubt that by publicly shaming and humiliating the CWO offenders will achieve the purported end of the CWO. In fact, it may have the opposite effect. It does not need a trained psychologist to tell us that a man with an injured ego will become spiteful, vindictive and revengeful. So instead of learning a lesson from his CWO stint, the litterbug may graduate into super-litterbug. Worse still, we may even turn him into a vandalist, damaging public properties out of spite and to make his money worth, so to speak.

Sir, I would therefore like to urge the Ministry of the Environment to be more humane in their enforcement of the CWO on future offenders. The purpose of the CWO is meant to be educational and not punishment. I therefore would like to propose that the CWO be modified so that it will serve its original intended purpose.

Encik Ibrahim bin Othman: Sir, I join my colleagues in speaking about the CWO. The introduction of the Corrective Work Order was intended to deter habitual and irresponsible people from continuing to litter. Although it was designed to have an element of shame which the Government hopes to act as a deterrence, I cannot help but feel that the media coverage had been excessive and overly pervasive.

I would like to ask the Minister whether he has considered allowing the CWO to be served in less public places. Sir, it is also possible that a person may have forgotten to take his litter with him when he leaves and, as a result, was apprehended and served with a CWO for littering. Would the Ministry consider this possibility and excuse a person from prosecution?

I would like to suggest that, perhaps, the Ministry should be more mindful of possible embarrassment to littering offenders when they perform the CWO. Will the Minister consider a modification of the existing arrangement?

Mr Ho Peng Kee (Sembawang GRC): Sir, the CWO is a welcomed addition to the range of punishments available to the courts. But I feel that it is necessary to determine its basic underlying philosophy. Is it retribution - to exact a price for a wrong? Or, is it deterrence - to deter the offender and other like-minded offenders from committing the offence? Or, is it rehabilitation - to help the offender overcome his anti-social behaviour? Or, is it a mix of all three, and if so, in what proportions? In most countries, the main thrust of a CWO is to rehabilitate the offender.

The Minister's response to MPs' comments on the Bill at the Second Reading stage provides a clue, and I quote him:

"Dr John Chen mentioned that the Bill is designed to shame the offender, and he is right in that. Sir, the aim of the CWO is to reform or rehabilitate the offender so that, hopefully, he will not in future litter again, which otherwise would cause problems to the environment and environmental public health. The form of punishment prescribed in the Bill will serve as a deterrent against littering." [Hansard, 14 September 1992, col. 212].

What do the Minister's words suggest? First, as it is a serious offence, we want to punish him accordingly. Imposing a fine or counselling, suitable only for minor offences, is inadequate. They do not fit the crime. A heavier penalty should be meted out. Recalcitrant litterbugs and those who commit serious littering offences should therefore be publicly shamed (retribution). Secondly, we make him pick up litter, so that he will realise the consequences of his anti-social act - that it costs effort, inconvenience and money to clean up after him. Hopefully, he will feel remorseful and turn over a new leaf (rehabilitation). Thirdly, we expose him to public view and the media so that it will deter him and other like-minded litterbugs from committing similar offences (deterrence). In short, all three effects are intended.

But what is the main effect intended? Is it to punish, rehabilitate or deter? I think this is not a moot point but an important one. As previous speakers have shown, there is some uncertainty here. Why is it important? It is important because our reaction to how the first batch of CWO subjects were treated depends, to a large extent, on our understanding of what the CWO seeks to do. If it is primarily to achieve a deterrent effect, the focus shifts away from the feelings of the offenders. A close reading of the Minister's speech indicates that the main thrust of our CWO is deterrence. Can the Minister confirm this? If it is so, then, indeed, due publicity should be given to the punishment.

Some Members in this House and other Singaporeans are unhappy with the treatment received by the first batch of CWO subjects. But we must not blow this unhappiness out of proportion. Their unhappiness is really directed at the manner in which the media covered the event - the lack of sensitivity; the bend towards sensationalism - in short, the creation of a public spectacle. The real culprit, therefore, is not the CWO, nor is it the Ministry of the Environment, but the media. I would therefore urge the media to cover subsequent clean-ups more tastefully and in a less sensational manner. With such an approach, the three-fold effects of a CWO would still be achieved.

Briefly, on another point. Another point of unhappiness, as brought up by previous speakers, is the nature of some of the offences on which the CWO was based. Should a person who leaves behind paper bags or plastic boxes after a picnic at the beach be impeached? Would it make a difference if he says that he had no intention to litter, but had out of forgetfulness or carelessness left the litter behind? I know that this is a difficult situation. If we take a lenient view, and say that "forgetfulness" or "carelessness" is an exculpatory factor, then everyone will plead that in defence. The beach will still be littered, inconvenience and discomfort will still be caused to other users and much effort and money will still be expended to clean up the litter. It is therefore little comfort to say that he did not intend to litter.

The message is very clear to all Singaporeans. We must be vigilant when we have litter with us, be they paper bags, plastic cups, pieces of loose papers or coupon tabs. As Government is resolved to overcome this negative social phenomenon, society as a whole must also take heed. The media too should be more sensitive, and not jeopardise the development of what, in my view, is a new punishment which has great potential in Singapore. Sir, I would appreciate the Minister's views.

Mr Choo Wee Khiang (Jalan Besar GRC): ( In Mandarin): Sir, February was a very interesting and newsworthy month because in that month, litterbugs in Singapore were ordered to do corrective work. On March 6, a journalist from Lianhe Zaobao, Mdm Low Pooi Fong wrote an article on litterbugs entitled: "Rebuild a Heart? Humiliate a Heart?" After reading the article, I was deeply touched. I can understand the feelings and sentiments of Mdm Low. I also sympathise with those litterbugs who were given undue publicity and humiliated in public. In the article, she mentioned a fundamental but crucial issue. She wrote, "In fact, nobody would question the intent of CWO. Neither would I. We all know the intent of this law and that is to maintain public hygiene and cleanliness in our environment in a most comprehensive and effective way. Despite the three to four decades of public education and year after year of "Keep Singapore Clean Campaign", the problem of littering in public places does not seem to have improved." I think this is the key issue.

I absolutely believe that the vast majority of Singaporeans like to have a clean, healthy and hygienic environment. They all appreciate the importance of a clean and hygienic environment. Only a small minority ignore the need for a clean and hygienic environment. So, in principle, I would agree with the CWO because I feel that basically CWO will have some kind of deterrent effect. But from the various reactions and feedback on the recent incident, I believe that Singaporean litterbugs, people who like to throw things around, will pay more attention to the consequences of littering. They will be more careful and will not litter. In the long run, this Act will achieve a very good deterrent effect.

I personally find it very strange that more than 20 journalists from Singapore and the international media would come to the very place to cover the event. I believe, perhaps, as pointed out by Mdm Low, that this form of public punishment under the CWO is unprecedented, and hence has a lot of news value in it. I believe nobody has ever expected such extensive news coverage, and this coverage could generate so much response from the public and such extra effect. I look at the caption: "Rebuild a Heart? Humiliate a Heart?" Put me in the shoes of these litterbugs, then I will certainly feel very humiliated and embarrassed. Basically, this is the mentality of the oriental. This involves dignity and self-respect. They really care about their face. I can understand their feelings.

If you say: "Do not do to others what you do not want done on to you" then you should look at the matter from another perspective. First, if you do not want to see others littering indiscriminately and dirtying our country, then we must punish those people who do it. So we have this CWO because people have dirtied our country first and then we have to give them this kind of punishment. Therefore, I feel that he must look at the CWO and the lesson we have learnt from this event in two different perspectives. I hope that the Minister for the Environment will give us his views on this event and whether he has any long-term plans to make Singapore clean and hygienic in order to help our Town Councils.

Dr Ahmad Mattar: Mr Chairman, Sir, since a number of MPs have raised the issue of CWO, I beg your indulgence to allow me to reply.

Mr Chairman, Sir, if you recall, the law on CWO requires a littering offender to perform unpaid work in relation to the cleaning of any premises, with a view to his or her reformation, for the protection of the environment and the environmental public health. Sir, a littering offender is defined here as any person who has deposited, placed, dropped, left behind or thrown away any refuse, bag, food container, etc, etc, in a public place.

Again I would like to emphasise here that the intent of the law is to reform the offender so that we can protect the environment and the environmental public health of the majority of the population against the irresponsible actions of the minority few.

To realise the intent of the law, it is necessary to bring the littering offender to a place where there is litter for him or for her to clean up. The CWO, therefore, has the following ingredients: (a) a lesson to be learnt - this is the reformative aspect of the law, Sir; (b) the offender feeling a sense of shame; and (c) public interests, since the CWO has to be done in a public place.

So, if one accepts the CWO, then one must also recognise and accept its ingredients. It is not possible to accept the CWO and yet cannot come to terms with the offender feeling a sense of shame. Doing the CWO in the privacy of an old folks' home, for example, will not achieve the intent of the law, which is to reform the offender; to make him understand the damage that can be caused to the environment because of littering; and to make him realise the efforts needed to remove the litter.

Sir, my Ministry is administering the law in a balanced and rational way. Not every littering offender will be charged in court and punished with a CWO. Only those who litter with fairly large objects, like food containers, bags, bottles, and repeat offenders, will be liable to the CWO. This means that only about 10% to 15% of littering offenders will be liable to CWO.

Since the CWOs must necessarily be held in a public place, it is inevitable that future CWO exercises will continue to attract attention from the public and the media.

Sir, littering is something which concerns all of us because all of us want to live in a clean environment. Therefore, public interest in the matter is to be expected. Media coverage will serve to remind the public of the consequences of littering. And judging from the reports that I have received from my Public Health Officers and as highlighted by the Straits Times on Monday, 8th March, the deterrent effect of CWO is beginning to be effective.

Sir, I would like to assure this House that it is not my Ministry's intention, nor is it its desire to taunt or embarrass the littering offenders unnecessarily. The very act itself is an embarrassment to the offender. That is inevitable. There is only one way to avoid being in that situation: DO NOT LITTER.

Sir, being forgetful and leaving behind litter in public places is a very poor excuse for a lack of care and consideration for other people and for the environment. This we cannot accept. Because if we do, then everybody will be using that as an excuse whenever they are apprehended for littering.

Sir, it only takes that bit of effort not to litter and the CWO, hopefully, will serve to heighten awareness and make people more conscious of their role in protecting the environment and the environmental public health.

Sir, Mr Chin Harn Tong wants to know whether it is necessary to make CWO offenders wear a vest with the words, "CORRECTIVE WORK ORDER" emblazoned on the back of the vest. Sir, my Ministry's view is that we need to identify the CWO offenders to protect the innocent. Our workers and workers from the Parks and Recreation Department who are assigned to pick litter in parks and beaches must not be mistaken for CWO offenders. There are also many occasions when school children and voluntary workers from clubs, etc, who go down to parks and beaches to clean up the place as part of their community service. These people too must not be mistaken for CWO offenders. Therefore, I say that it is necessary for CWO offenders to wear the vest with the words "CORRECTIVE WORK ORDER" at the back of the vest.

The Chairman: Mr Teo Chong Tee, you have got approximately 1 1/2 minutes.

Mr Teo Chong Tee: Sir, on the subject of vector control, I would just like to ask the Minister whether the dengue fever cases are on the rise in Singapore, which areas in Singapore are more prone to having the outbreak of this sickness, and what measures are being taken to educate the public to help keep this disease under control.

Encik Ibrahim bin Othman: Sir, I would like to ask the Minister to brief the House on the current status with regard to dengue fever and with the stepped-up enforcement against householders, has the action helped to bring down the number of dengue cases. Will the Minister also tell us how many households have been fined or charged in court and what more can the Ministry do to help bring down the number of cases?

The Chairman: Order. It is 5.00 o'clock. Moment of interruption.

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

Dr Ahmad Mattar: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply has made progress on the Estimates for the financial year 1993/1994, and ask leave to sit again tomorrow.

Mr Deputy Speaker: So be it.