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

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Order read for consideration in Committee of Supply [3rd Allotted Day].

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Head L (cont.) -

Resumption of debate on Question [11th March, 1993],

"That the total sum to be allocated for Head L of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100." - [Mr Lew Syn Pau].

Question again proposed.

The Minister for Education (Mr Lee Yock Suan): Sir, I would like to respond to Dr Ow Chin Hock who was advocating yesterday before we adjourned that there should be better cost control over the two universities. I agree with the Member that NUS and NTU need to exercise good cost control. The question is how to derive further value for money without sacrificing quality. As you know, universities are very expensive institutions and we must make sure that their funds are well spent. At the same time, we want to build up the international standing and reputation of our two universities whilst expanding their total capacity to cater to increasing demand for university places.

NUS and NTU are taking steps to implement management accounting systems which will help them to exercise better cost control. Performance indicators will be useful to measure the cost per student and the performance of the various faculties, departments and cost centres. I will ask the universities to look more closely into their cost control measures. Through better cost control I hope it will be possible to minimise university fee increases in future. However, small annual fee adjustments are unavoidable as tertiary education is highly manpower-intensive and salaries will rise over the years. It is better to have small annual fee adjustments rather than infrequent but hefty increases. University students constitute about 5% of our student population but consume about 20% of our Education budget. They can expect better salaries when they graduate. It is therefore fair that they pay a share of the cost of their education which is targeted at 25% eventually.

Sir, next, I would like to turn to the points made by Mr Abdullah Tarmugi. I share with him the concern that our teachers should not be overloaded with non-teaching duties although a certain amount is unavoidable. It is sometimes difficult to separate professional duties from administrative duties. Many teachers have highlighted the need for support staff to allow them more time for professional duties. They have suggested that their duties such as collection of fees, typing of examination papers and so forth should be handled by support staff instead of by teachers.

My Ministry is to set aside a sum of $2 million for allocation to schools to enable them to buy services of support staff directly from employment agencies or even to hire part-time staff on their own during peak periods. Hopefully, this will help to ease the administrative workload of teachers. Funds will be made available but I am afraid it will still be difficult to recruit full-time clerical staff because of our tight labour market. Of the Edusave grants averaging $100,000 to each secondary Government and aided school, up to 20% would be allowed for buying of support services. So there will be these two avenues - the $2 million budget, as a start, and also the 20% of Edusave grant.

Next, I wish to respond to the questions from Mr Chew Heng Ching concerning the schools for the disabled. The Government has accepted the recommendations of the Advisory Council on the Disabled that the voluntary welfare organisations continue to manage special education schools with financial assistance and professional and infrastructural support from the Government. Funding for the special schools is up to four times the per capita amount for normal schools with the Government and Community Chest sharing on a 50-50 basis. The situation is much better now than before this acceptance by the Government of the recommendations of the Advisory Council. However, I understand the situation of the parents. They naturally want the best for their children. In life, money is never enough. My own assessment is that the situation is much better now and many of the special schools are in fact quite well run. The Ministry provides them, for example, old schools for their use besides funding support. So I think it is better for the Government to leave the running of the special schools to voluntary welfare organisations since they are doing a good job. It is better to leave the handling of special children to people with the dedication, concern and care. That is the best way to achieve results and it is also in keeping with the "many helping hands" concept.

As for the training of staff, the National Institute of Education (NIE) has been providing various training courses for teachers to teach these children who need special help. For example, there is the Certificate in Special Education Course. There is also a Diploma in Special Education Course. Last year, 37 teachers were trained under the Certificate in Special Needs Education course. To-date, 169 teachers have received training and 69 teachers are currently undergoing either the Diploma Course or the Certificate Course. The Ministry seconds a total of 33 trained teachers to teach in the various special education schools at the request of the voluntary welfare organisations. In-services courses are also organised to upgrade the teachers.

The Member has asked whether the Edusave scheme could be extended to the special schools. The Government has made clear that it will assist the children in the special schools through the different arrangement of the special schools where the funding support is already up to four times the cost in normal schools. Edusave is meant to improve the education system in our normal schools. That is the reason why we are excluding all the other schools, whether it is private school or special school. I think it is a consistent line that we would take but if the children in special schools need special help, then the Ministry will try to provide whatever help it can.

Next, concerning the points made by Mr Robert Chua, I would like to thank him for his support of the change towards post-secondary training at the Institute of Technical Education (ITE). The experience has been that when we send these children after primary education to the ITE many of them drop out from the ITE, and even if they finish the course their market value is not high. Based on feedback from employers their assessment is that it is better to keep the children and let them master English and Mathematics, if possible, through a 10-year training programme. Hopefully, they will be able to benefit from the ITE training.

The Member has requested for various tax incentives and other support from the Government. I would like to request him to put up his specific proposals. I think he will find that the Ministry and my colleague, Dr Tay Eng Soon, who is in charge of the ITE, to be very supportive. But where it concerns tax incentives and financing then, of course, we have to refer to the Ministries of Trade and Industry and Finance for decision.

Concerning the points raised about the Chinese Language Review Committee, I will ask my colleague, Dr Ker Sin Tze, to respond as he is the Chairman of the Committee that is supervising the implementation of the recommendations.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, can I have one clarification from the Minister? Would there be any capping on fees that autonomous schools can charge?

Mr Lee Yock Suan: As I explained yesterday, the fees of autonomous schools will be up to $32. It is some sort of cap. The idea is that instead of the normal $12-$14 charged by the normal secondary schools, as a base case they will have to pay $3 more. This $3 is equivalent to 1% of the per capita cost. The Government, on its part, will pay 10%. So there will be 10% plus 1% additional amount for the school to spend in addition to the Edusave grant. But the schools, if they want to and have a need for more money, can raise the miscellaneous fees by another $15 which is equivalent to 5% of the per capita cost. The Government will also match by 5%. The maximum will be an additional 21% of the per capita cost and the fees will then range between $15 and $32 per month, $15 being the base case. And only if they need more money, then they can raise up to $32 per month.

Mr Lew Syn Pau (Tanglin): Sir, I must confess I do not quite follow the argument the Minister put forward that Edusave should not be given for the fourth or subsequent child because our current population policy is to have three or more, if you can afford it. Edusave has never been linked to affordability or income level of the parents, which is why Edusave scholarships will be given out to students based entirely on their results, and not on the background of the family they come from. So I would like to ask the Minister to confirm that the fourth child in a family will not be given any Edusave scholarship to go to an independent school even though he may be in the top 25% based on PSLE results and even though some of his friends getting the Edusave scholarships may be from more well-off families. Does the Minister consider this equitable from the child's point of view? Would it not leave an impression with the child that he is being discriminated against or being unwanted by society?

Dr Ow Chin Hock (Leng Kee): Sir, a point of clarification. May I know when would Dr Ker, his Minister of State, reply to the question on Chinese Language. Would it be under Amendment No. (4)?

Mr Lee Yock Suan: First, to answer Dr Ow Chin Hock, I did not realise that Dr Ker is not here yet. He is supposed to answer this question. I hope he will arrive in a few minutes.

I will first answer the question from Mr Lew about the Edusave scholarships. There is no restriction on the Edusave scholarships. So long as the child qualifies as one of the top 25% of the cohort applying to independent schools based on the PSLE results, he will be given the scholarship.

Mr Lew Syn Pau: Even though he is the fourth child?

Mr Lee Yock Suan: Even though he is the fourth or fifth child or whatever order. But when we come to the Edusave fund, we have to limit to three children per mother. Because the amount given to the child will eventually amount, at a steady state, to about $4,000 per child over a 10-year period. It is not a small amount. So we do not want this amount to cause parents, who cannot afford, to have more than, say, three children. That is why it is important to have this consistency with the population policy, that is, you give it to the children but make sure that it does not act as an incentive for parents to have more children than they can afford.

The same is not true of scholarships because it is meant for encouraging performance. 12.45 pm

Mr Lew Syn Pau: Sir, I thank the Minister for his reply. I am glad to note that for scholarships, the fourth child in a family will not be discriminated against. With that, I withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman: Amendment No. (2), Mr Lew.

Mr Lew Syn Pau: Sir, I beg to move,

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

Today, school principals do more than just ensure that our children can read, write and count. For example, the Ministry of the Environment wants them to check for mosquitoes in the school compounds. The Ministry of Health wants teachers to check for obesity and faulty eyesight in pupils. But the Ministry of Education is not giving them enough manpower support, especially administrative staff, to get the job done.

Currently, I am told that there is no provision for an Executive Officer (EO) to assist the principal in his administrative duties of running the school. At the moment, I believe there are 10 schools, one of which is a primary school, which have EOs on a pilot project basis to run the administration for them. I am told that these schools have found them very useful. Would the Minister tell us the results of this pilot project? I would like to suggest that the Ministry consider providing more schools with administrative executives, especially for schools with larger enrolments.

Next, I would like to touch on the subject of junior non-teaching staff, such as clerks and office attendants. Their recruitment is presently centralised at the Education Service Commission. As a result, many schools go without such staff for long periods of time as the Education Service Commission finds difficulty recruiting them at such low salaries. This further aggravates the manpower shortage of schools, especially during peak periods such as opening of the school term. Would the Minister consider devolving the responsibility of recruitment of non-teaching junior staff to the schools? Give them a budget to work with. I believe the principals know their own schools' needs best and would be in a better position to meet those needs if greater autonomy is given.

Dr Toh Keng Kiat (Nominated Member): Sir, the estimates on manpower for FY 93 in the Ministry of Education reveal that there will be a reduction of 477 posts in the Government and Government-aided schools for this year. The estimates also indicate that for FY 92, out of 16,513 vacancies only 15,013 were filled. The budget for this year is the same as last year. But following the present trend, I am sure that the same shortfall of 10% will also be seen again. As these are all substantive posts in the Education Service, the decision to reduce the number of teachers and to cut back on manpower is incomprehensible. The reason that has been given is that there is a decrease in student intake. This roller-coaster kind of approach to curing the hiccups in our manpower needs in the Education Ministry is at best expedient and will not be adequate to solve the big burps that are to come.

Sir, a look at the demographic figures will perhaps be best to illustrate what I mean. I have here a table of births from 1931 to 1991 given by the Registrar of Births and Deaths. If we concentrate on the last decade, we find that in 1986, at 38,379 births, that was the lowest for the whole of the last 10 years. That was the year of birth of the present cohort of students in primary 1. If we move further to 1988, we find that births had risen by leaps and bounds to 52,957 and has remained at about that level in the last few years.

Sir, in a very short time, the Ministry of Education will be faced with an acute shortage of teachers. We have already heard from Mr Abdullah Tarmugi yesterday the banes and the problems of teachers and also the difficulty in recruiting them. I am just wondering what kind of long-term planning policy the Ministry has on manpower development in education, in particular, in certain areas since we are going to embark on a new school system, the autonomous schools. Are we going to have only graduate teachers in the secondary schools and, if so, how has the progress of the Bachelor of Education programme been? Secondly, on the shortfall in the number of teachers, is it due to attrition from resignations, retirement or lack of replacement? Thirdly, what plans have been proposed to accelerate and to bring about a more effective recruitment programme?

Sir, I want now to touch on another topic on manpower, ie, on the newly established school psychological scheme. 12 posts have been created for this. Are they all for the engagement of psychologists and, if so, what is their role and function? Are they going to be part of the pastoral care team or will they be mainly in the Gifted Education Programme? If they are to be in this programme, then will they also be engaged in identifying the intelligent under-achievers and how receptive is the Ministry to a flexible system of education to be tailored according to the individual needs of these children? Sir, people are not gifted equally in all fields. There are some who may be good in numeracy and others in literary skills. Some of these children may not fit into the normal school with a structured syllabus.

Encik Umar Abdul Hamid (Ang Mo Kio GRC): ( In Malay): Sir, in recent years, the Ministry of Education has carried out a number of efforts to draw more people to become teachers. I would like to ask the Minister for Education whether we are facing a shortage of teachers in schools. If the answer is yes, is the Ministry having any measures to overcome the problem? I understand that not many people want to be involved in teaching, especially our young people. Parents today no longer give encouragement to their children to be teachers. What is more saddening is that many of our teachers themselves do not encourage their children to become teachers.

My concern is that when teaching becomes no longer an attractive vocation, we will not be able to attract capable teachers. The shortage of teachers is an important problem which all of us must give our attention to. Singapore will not be able to attain the desired economic achievement if future generations do not gain proper education. Without qualified teachers, this will affect our teaching system in future. A good teaching system will be jeopardised if teachers in schools are unable to perform their job well. I would like to urge the Ministry of Education to continue its efforts to improve the image of teachers in schools. Educating the parents should also be done so that parents will encourage their children to go into teaching. Measures should also be taken to draw more young people to appreciate the teaching profession.

Mr Tong Kok Yeo (Nominated Member): Sir, over the years, much has been done to our education system to ensure that the system brings out the best in our students. Going by the performance of our schools over the years, our education system is on track. To build on what has been achieved so far, it is important that we must ensure that we have an adequate number of teachers in schools, especially the Government schools. Sir, the question I would like to ask the Minister has already been addressed by Mr Umar. I would like to add that the recent recruitment of retired teachers gives one the impression that there is a serious shortage of teachers in our schools and the Ministry has to resort to such action. If there is indeed a shortage, what measures will be taken to relieve the already heavy workload of our teachers who have to double up and, at the same time, to ensure that our students' learning is not impeded by way of grouping two classes into one?

Mr Lew Syn Pau: Sir, I would like to thank the Ministry for its decision to aircondition common rooms such as libraries, audio-visual rooms, music rooms, offices, staff rooms and lounges in all primary and secondary schools. This good news was welcomed by all schools as it would enable our teachers and students to work in greater comfort.

The bad news, however, is that some schools may not see these airconditioners until three years later. I understand that this is because the Ministry is getting the PWD to put out tenders for the schools' airconditioners zone by zone. I would like to suggest that the Ministry consider giving the schools a budget to buy and install their own airconditioners so that they can all do it within a year. Surely, if we can trust the principals with the education of our children, we can trust them with the task of sourcing and installing their own airconditioners.

Encik Umar Abdul Hamid: Sir, last year, the Minister announced that the Open University will be conducting their courses this year. The courses conducted will be in English language, Literature, Mathematics and Computer Science. May I ask the Minister what is the enrolment for the respective courses?

Every year, there will be more than 10,000 technologists graduating from the polytechnics. Four out of 10 in the cohort aspire to further their studies. For the past two years, NTU accepts less than 30% of the cohort, which leaves behind 10% to look for alternative means to upgrade themselves. They could not opt for overseas education because it is very costly. Hence, there is a demand for the Open University to conduct Engineering Degree courses. May I ask the Minister if there are plans to introduce Engineering Degree courses in the Open University? If yes, when will it be? And if not, why not?

May I also take this opportunity to suggest to the Minister that the Open University may work closely with the Institute of Engineers Singapore to organise Engineering Degree courses. The facilities and the equipment in the polytechnics could be optimised to help run these courses.

The Chairman: Dr John Chen is not here. Mr Chiam.

1.00 pm

Mr Chiam See Tong (Potong Pasir): Sir, Singapore needs a third University. Presently, Singapore has two universities which are really not enough to cater for the great number of our students passing their GCE 'A' level examination each year. Many of these 'A' level students who can qualify to enter our local universities cannot gain admission because there are just not enough university places. Those children whose parents can afford it are sent overseas but those whose parents are not that well-off have to stay in Singapore. They get frustrated because they are not trained for any particular work. Many end up getting jobs with starting salaries similar to GCE 'O' level holders, although they have spent an additional two years in school.

Meanwhile, those of our students who are studying in tertiary institutions abroad are paying hefty university tuition and boarding fees. The average student, who is studying overseas, depending on which country that he is studying in, is paying between $20,000 and $50,000 a year. At any one time, we have about 12,500 students studying overseas. The loss in foreign exchange is quite substantial. My estimate is that foreign exchange lost through our students studying abroad is about $400 million.

Last year, the total expenditure of NUS and NTU were $346 million and $221 million respectively, making a grand total of $568 million. When you compare the two figures, the foreign exchange lost by our students studying abroad is about 70% of our Government's expenditure on those two universities. Surely, the high proportion of our money spent abroad should make out a case for the Government to open another university in Singapore. I must say that not all the parents who have sent their children overseas are particularly rich. I believe that a great number of parents are making great sacrifices to send their children to tertiary education overseas

Australia and New Zealand have about one university to every 500,000 population. England has about that ratio. In the case of America, the ratio of university to population is about 1:100,000. If we take the Australian and New Zealand figures, Singapore should have five universities, since our population is about 2.62 million. I am not advocating at the moment that we should emulate Australia and New Zealand in regard to the number of universities we should have. By comparing with Western countries, it does highlight that Singapore has a long way to go in regard to providing university places to our local students. Singapore is presently rich enough and should put its priority in building another university, now that the original proposal to start the Open University by the Government has been shelved.

The Singapore Government is very ambitious. It wants Singapore to reach the Swiss standard of living by 1997. It wants Singapore to be the brain centre of the region and it wants Singapore to build an external economy, ultimately reaching about 30% of its GNP. I say that we can reach all these goals if we have more Singaporeans who are highly trained and you can only do that by having enough universities. Two universities are not enough. The Government should forthwith build another one.

Dr John Chen Seow Phun (Hong Kah GRC): Sir, can I speak on the same amendment?

The Chairman: I am sorry, Dr Chen, you have missed your turn. If there is time after Mr Lee's reply, then you can speak.

Mr Lee Yock Suan: Sir, several Members have expressed concern over the manpower situation in our schools. I would like to clarify the situation.

Overall, the teaching staff situation in our schools is satisfactory. However, we will have a shortage of secondary school teachers next year because of changes in the education system to provide every child with at least 10 years of schooling.

My Ministry is doing its best to recruit more teachers, both locally and overseas, to fill the shortfall. The attrition rate is a problem but it is still manageable at present. Last year, about 2% of our teachers resigned and 1.9% retired. Out of about 22,000 teachers, 837 resigned or retired. In comparison, the output from the NIE last year was 933 teachers, or about 100 more than the attrition rate. So we are just managing to keep our heads above the water, so to speak.

The retirement age is rising, as the work force ages. This is especially so for the primary schools as they have older teachers. On the other hand, the number of 'A' level holders available to go into teaching is diminishing as more of them join the universities and more 'O' level holders join the polytechnics. In future, we will have to recruit more graduates for primary schools and try out polytechnic graduates for teaching, if there are takers.

For the next two or three years, the staffing situation in primary schools will remain relatively comfortable. This is because of two reasons. Firstly, the pre-primary or Preparatory Year Programme has been phased out this year. This involved some 32 schools. The decision was taken last year to phase this out because the private sector was already doing a good job, and there is no need for the Government to be in this field. Secondly, under the new education system there will be no more Primary 7 and Primary 8 pupils next year. All pupils will proceed to secondary schools after the modified PSLE. Some will go into the new Normal (Technical) stream. As a result, the total number of pupils in primary schools has fallen from 271,000 last year to 261,000 this year. It will decline to 245,000 next year, a drop of 26,000 pupils from 1992. This means about 1,000 less teachers are required as compared to 1992. Even in 1995, when Dragon Year babies born in 1988 join primary one, the primary pupil enrolment will be 255,000, which is still lower than this year's total of 261,000 pupils. So we are not too concerned about the primary school situation, except over the long term, of course, as I have said, there will be problems of higher retirement and so on.

As for secondary schools, the opposite situation will appear in the secondary schools. Total enrolment of secondary and pre-university students will rise from 178,000 this year to 199,000 next year and 204,000 in 1995. Secondary schools will have about 21,000 more pupils next year as all existing and potential Primary 7 and Primary 8 pupils move on to secondary schools. Secondary schools will require about 800 more teachers. The shortfall will mainly be for English language and Mathematics teachers.

To cope with the increase in teacher requirement, my Ministry has therefore stepped up its local recruitment efforts. We have introduced two NIE selection exercises per year instead of one. We are also conducting recruitment exercises for trained teachers on a quarterly basis. We are re-employing retired teachers under the Associate Teachers Scheme. The retired teachers may be re-employed on a yearly or daily relief basis, depending on our needs and the preference of the retirees. My Ministry has successfully recruited about 20 retired teachers on a one-year basis and about 100 on a daily relief basis.

Given the comfortable starting position in primary schools, my Ministry has also invited primary school teachers, who are qualified, to consider re-deployment to secondary schools, because we are shifting some of the pupils from primary to secondary schools. So far, there are 65 applications. I hope more will be forthcoming, because there will be a surplus situation in the primary schools and shortage in secondary schools.

However, given the tight labour market locally, we do not expect to be able to meet our needs through local recruitment alone. We are, therefore, attempting to interest Singaporean and other Asian students studying overseas to consider teaching in Singapore. We are also conducting exercises to recruit expatriate teachers from the UK, Australia and New Zealand to teach the English language and Mathematics teachers from India. So we are mounting some kind of a crash effort this year to meet the problem next year.

Mr Lew asked some questions about non-teaching staff. I think I have already explained that we have some provision to allow schools to hire staff, basically part- time staff, on a contract basis. I think this will also provide the schools with some flexibility, and instead of centralising all recruitment under the Education Service Commission (ESC) which is rather cumbersome, this may be one way of overcoming the problem.

Dr Toh also asked about the School Psychological Service. I believe the 12 posts are for psychologists, social workers and people like that. The intention is to build up this School Psychological Service as a unit within the Ministry which will service the different schools. There will eventually be one teacher counsellor per primary school who will be guided by this Psychological Unit. The unit will conduct psychological tests and deal with children who have a special learning difficulty arising from social or psychological reasons. This Psychological Service came about as a result of one of the recommendations of the Advisory Council on the Disabled. So my Ministry is now in the process of implementing this scheme.

In the process, I suppose they will also identify some of the children who have learning difficulties but who are actually quite bright. I think it is important that we rescue this kind of people who have learning difficulties and try and help them achieve their potential. Quite separate from this scheme, there is also an under-achievers' scheme in about 100 primary schools, where the teachers, on their own, try and find out who are the ones who are under-achieving and conduct special remedial lessons for them outside the school hours. So far, I think it has produced good results and my Ministry will be extending this to more primary schools.

Mr Umar has asked about the Open University. The Open University degree programme is being set up at the Singapore Institute of Management and it will be launching three degree programmes from January next year. I do not know whether Mr Umar mentioned this year, but actually it is next year. The proposed intake will be about 500 students to start with in these three courses. Applications will be opened sometime in July and SIM will be announcing the details before then.

Mr Umar asked whether there will be Engineering courses provided under the Open University programme. The answer is no. Initially, the SIM will not be providing Engineering courses, mainly because Engineering courses are difficult to conduct in an Open University mode. They require workshops, laboratories and so on. In fact, the UK Open University which we are working with does not have this kind of programme for Engineering courses. But we realise that there is a need for this, for example, to enable Polytechnic graduates to upgrade themselves and this is something which we will consider in due course. But we will have to find out which are the best overseas institutions which will be able to work with us in this area. I agree with him that we should work together with the polytechnics and make use of their facilities. In fact, in the new Open University, SIM's facilities will be right next to Ngee Ann Polytechnic, and it will start by using one of the blocks within Ngee Ann Polytechnic to conduct these courses.

So contrary to what Mr Chiam claimed again, the Government has not given up the Open University programme. It has just changed the mode of implementation. In fact, the Government is fully behind the programme. We are providing $38 million as an upfront grant to pay for the development of courses, collaboration with the Open University of UK and also to build the buildings and provide computer facilities and so on. So I hope Mr Chiam will stop repeating this point that the Open University has been dropped. It has not been dropped. The vehicle has been changed. That is all. Basically, because the SIM has been doing a good job in conducting these distance learning courses, part-time courses, we feel it is better to ride on them and make use of their expertise. 1.15 pm

Mr Chiam has advocated that we set up a third university. Let me explain the Ministry's thinking on this important subject.

In the planning of tertiary education in Singapore, the Government is guided by the following principles. Firstly, academic standards must be maintained. This is crucial. We do not want to set up universities for the sake of having more universities. Secondly, the expansion of tertiary education should be in accordance with the economic and social needs of Singapore. So these are the two requirements - maintenance of standards and in accordance with the needs.

The target is to have about 20% of each cohort of students in the universities, 40% in the polytechnics, and 25% in the technical institutes. This will eventually leave only about 15% of our cohort who will not have some form of post-secondary education or training before they join the employment market and are trained on the job. With the achievement of these targets, we will have, over time, a highly educated and trained population well able to earn our living in the world market.

With a cohort of about 45,000 children a year (the number is increasing, but this is the figure we are dealing with right now) a target of 20% going to universities means that we would need about 9,000 places a year. Some degree programmes take three years while others four or five years. If we take an average of three-and-a-half years, this means a total undergraduate enrolment of about 30,000 students. As you know, the NTU is still expanding its capacity rapidly. Eventually, NUS and NTU will have a total capacity of about 30,000 undergraduate places. Therefore, this appears adequate to meet our needs. Of course, the two universities also have to cater for an increasing number of post-graduate students as we try and do more R&D and so forth.

In addition, the Government has initiated the setting up of the Open University degree programme to be run by the Singapore Institute of Management. It will enable working Singaporeans to pursue a university degree through part-time self-study.

In planning for a university education, we should also take into consideration that some Singaporean parents, who can afford it, prefer to send their children to foreign universities. On the other hand, as Mr Chiam has mentioned, we will also need more trained manpower as we try to develop our external economy, and graduates are also needed for our R&D efforts.

The NUS and NTU are taking in as many local students as are able to make the grade and benefit from a tertiary education. Quite contrary to what Mr Chiam claimed, I do not think any students who qualify have been turned away, unless, of course, they prefer courses for which there are not enough places, for example, in medicine. So it is not true that if they qualify and meet the criteria they are turned away. I would like him to give me some examples if he has them.

More polytechnic graduates are also being admitted. I think the target would be some 600 or so a year. However, we should not lower the standards to take in more students. Otherwise, more students will fail to complete the course. It will do the students and Singapore no good to have third rate university programmes. For those who are less academically inclined, the polytechnics provide a more direct route to worthwhile careers through a more practice-oriented and job- related education and training. And if they are good and they want to upgrade themselves, there will be possibilities to upgrade through the university or through the Open University learning programme.

We should learn from the experience of countries which have over-produced university graduates who end up unemployed or under-employed. More of them will migrate. During the 1985 recession, for example, some of our university and polytechnic graduates had to work in low-level jobs. Fortunately, the recession was short-lived.

In time to come, as our education standard rises and the economy reaches a higher level, we may need a third university. So it is not ruled out. However, we should study the situation very carefully to assess the need.

Mr Chiam mentioned some figures about the number of universities in Australia, New Zealand, and so on. But I think it is important to find out also what is the capacity of the universities and what kind of courses they are offering. For example, in the UK, they are converting many of their polytechnics to universities. So in time to come, we will have to assess the UK degrees, not based on whether it is a degree but where the students are from, and what is the quality of the person.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Can I get a clarification from the Minister? From my feedback, there is a great pressure on our present universities. Many "A" level students are, in fact, unable to get in, and many of them, through big sacrifices of their parents, have to go abroad. So what provisions does the Minister intend to have for these many students who are qualified but they cannot get into the university?

Mr Lew Syn Pau: Sir, the Minister has not replied to the question of air-conditioning of schools.

The Minister of State for Education (Encik Sidek bin Saniff): Mr Lew Syn Pau asked about the air-conditioning of schools. The Ministry is working closely with the PWD to expedite the implementation of the project. Schools which are in the process of being upgraded or constructed will have their air-conditioning works incorporated into their building projects.

To expedite implementation for the existing schools, the PWD will be farming out projects to private consultants. PWD has already proceeded with 56 schools with no power loading problems for the first phase of the implementation. It is now looking into farming out the works for the remaining schools to its panel of private consultants. The Ministry and the PWD have chosen to expedite the project through the farming-out process, instead of decentralising it to schools, so that principals need not be burdened with supervising their air-conditioning projects. There are, however, schools like Jaya Primary School, Pei Chun Public School, St. Margaret's Secondary School, CHIJ (Toa Payoh), Broadrick, and Bedok Town Primary School, which have previously air-conditioned most of their approved areas. These schools will be proceeding with the air-conditioning of the remaining approved areas on their own, as the project can be easily handled by them.

Mr Lee Yock Suan: I am responding to Mr Chiam's question. Last year, out of about 11,500 students who sat for the "A" levels, about 83%, or 9,470 to be exact, obtained two 'A' and two 'O' level passes, including General Paper. So there were about 9,000 students. This is comparable to my figure of about 20% of the cohort. So there is some kind of matching here. But Mr Chiam has mentioned a figure of about 12,500 people studying overseas. They could be in a wide range of courses. I believe a lot of parents send their children to the United States to do "O" levels. So some of these could be in this figure. They could also be doing Ph.D, advanced courses, and so forth. And I know a lot are doing medicine and law. We may be over-producing people in these professions in years to come. In general, I think those who are able to make the grade, will be able to get a place in Singapore.

Mr Lew Syn Pau: I thank the Minister for his reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman: Amendment No. (3). Mr Lew.

Mr Lew Syn Pau: Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head L of the Main Estimates be reduced by $10 in respect of Code LA 2300.

The Chinese Language Review Committee's report had recommended that, I quote:

"the Ministry of Education should look into raising the morale and enhancing the career development of Chinese teachers. Special attention should be given to upgrading Chinese teachers professionally through courses conducted locally and abroad."

A survey on Chinese language teachers by the Singapore Chinese Teachers' Union was conducted in October 1992. It showed that 45.7% of the graduates and 27.9% of the non-graduate Chinese teachers are interested in degree courses or courses that can be recognised as credits leading to a degree. The three most popular courses were "The Methods of Teaching Chinese", "Chinese Literature" and "Chinese Culture". Most teachers prefer Chinese to be the language of instruction. They felt that there are already enough courses in the market using English as the medium of instruction.

The majority of these teachers want to upgrade themselves in order to be better teachers and to inject more professionalism into their teaching.

I would like to ask the Ministry on the measures taken so far to upgrade our Chinese language teachers in response to the said report and survey.

Mr Peh Chin Hua (Jalan Besar GRC): ( In Mandarin): Sir, the Minister for Education announced yesterday that he had intention to make four schools autonomous schools next year, and I hope that he will keep his promise that the fees for the autonomous schools will not be too high. I hope that the Ministry of Education could also give greater attention to the neighbourhood schools in terms of physical facilities, so that they could be as good as those accorded to independent schools.

I do not object to better school buildings and facilities being given to independent schools so that our outstanding students could constantly improve themselves while studying in better environment. This would also help to cultivate a pool of talented people for our society. However, in this process, could we also improve the facilities of our neighbourhood schools, so that there would not be too much of a difference between the neighbourhood schools and the independent schools? Those neighbourhood schools with good examination results should be given better school facilities, so that they could be a model for other neighbourhood schools to emulate. This will encourage more neighbourhood schools to excel in performance, resulting in the increase in the number of good schools which are capable of producing good students.

Neighbourhood schools are pillars in our educational system. Their performance will greatly reflect the success or failure in our educational system as the majority of our student population are attending such schools. Like the independent schools, neighbourhood schools also contribute to the training of talented people for Singapore. So long as we could provide the appropriate financial and educational assistance to them, I believe the neighbourhood schools would also obtain good results, as good as those of the independent schools.

I hope the Ministry would provide better facilities to at least one good neighbourhood school in each constituency, so that their students would have a better learning environment and improve the school's performance. 1.30 pm

The Minister of State for Education (Dr Ker Sin Tze): ( In Mandarin): The Ministry of Education attaches great importance to the Report of the Chinese Language Review Committee. As pointed out by the Minister just now, the Ministry also considers the results of the survey concerning our teachers' desire for further study and training seriously. The survey conducted by the Singapore Teachers' Union reveals that many teachers are interested in undergoing further training in the teaching of Chinese-related subjects so as to enhance their professional standard. The Ministry of Education will, in response to the desire of these teachers, provide all the necessary assistance possible to enable them to undertake further study and training. Under the present arrangement, our teachers may go to NUS or NTU for further study leading to a degree. In future, we may arrange for teachers to go overseas for further study and obtain a degree to enhance their professional standard. Apart from this, we have also some short-term courses. In 1993, the Curriculum Development Institute of the Ministry of Education provided eight different short courses for our teachers.

The Report of the Chinese Language Review Committee has made a number of recommendations and the Ministry of Education accepts these recommendations and takes them seriously. We are now actively and positively looking into the implementation of these recommendations and we believe this will help raise the Chinese standard and boost the morale of our teachers.

Briefly, I would like to give Members a brief summary of what we have done in the implementation of these recommendations. First, CL1 has been renamed as Higher Chinese. CL2 is now known as Chinese and CL3 is Basic Chinese.

In terms of teaching materials, we have also been actively revising the secondary and primary school textbooks and teaching materials. As for supplementary reading materials, the Federation of Clans Associations in Singapore has set up a special committee to encourage private publishers to publish more supplementary reading materials for our students.

As for Hanyu Pinyin, with effect from 1993, Primary Two students will start to learn Pinyin from the second term onwards, and Primary Three students will start to learn Pinyin from the first term.

On the use of Chinese dictionary, the Report recommended that students be allowed to use the dictionary during the Chinese essay-writing paper of the GCE 'O' level examination. The Ministry of Education has considered this recommendation very seriously and has decided to implement it. Of course, there are differing views on this recommendation. I read in the newspaper today that an Opposition Member of Parliament had remarked that once the students were allowed to use the dictionary during their examination, their language proficiency could not be accurately assessed, particularly in essay-writing. I think this is not quite correct because the dictionary is only a tool. If I were to buy a Japanese dictionary and gave it to this Opposition Member, I do not think he would be able to write Japanese immediately. Therefore, the dictionary is only a tool.

As regards the other matters, for example, the list of Chinese characters, we have retained the existing word list, that is, 3,000 to 3,500 characters for secondary school students. In the revised textbooks and teaching materials, we will try to incorporate the words in this list and it will not result in losing the beauty of original articles written by famous writers. These 3,000 to 3,500 Chinese characters are words frequently used, and the number is adequate for a secondary school student to use in writing.

The Federation of Clans Associations is also actively examining and determining which types of reading materials should be extensively promoted. This will take some time. That is why there has not been any publication of such reading materials as yet. I believe some supplementary reading materials will be published, in the near future, for the use of our students.

In summing up, I wish to say that the Ministry of Education has placed adequate emphasis on the boosting of morale of our teachers. The Ministry is seriously and actively implementing the various recommendations in the Report of the Chinese Language Review Committee.

Mr Lee Yock Suan: I just want to respond briefly to Mr Peh Chin Hua who commented on the level of support for neighbourhood schools. First, I would like to thank him for his support for the autonomous schools scheme which I announced yesterday. I agree with him fully that we should give our full support to the neighbourhood schools. Indeed, it is the mission of the Ministry to make every school a good school. For example, over the next five years, my Ministry will be spending some $900 million to build new single session secondary schools and to upgrade secondary schools to single session standards. This comprises 34 new schools at a cost of $700 million and 17 schools are being upgraded at a cost of $173 million. The standards for the new single session schools are much better than for the schools which are now in place. If Members would like to go and visit the schools, they can see for themselves. You can see that we are not neglecting our neighbourhood schools. We should support all the neighbourhood schools and raise the general level of education of our children.

Mr Lew Syn Pau: Sir, I thank the Minister and the Minister of State for their replies and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman: Amendment No. (4), Mr Lew.

Mr Lew Syn Pau: Sir, I beg to move,

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

Presently, parents with children entering Primary 5 are given the option of placing their children in EM1, EM2 or EM3. They can choose to accept or reject the school's recommendation. However, the stream a pupil is placed in when entering Primary 6 is decided by the schools.

I am told that teachers face some problems in their teaching because a substantial number of parents choose to place their children in a stream more demanding than that recommended by the schools. Many of the students who should be in EM3 are in EM2 because of their parents' decisions. Most of them are very weak and have genuine problems coping in EM2. To help them stay on in EM2 when they enter Primary 6, teachers have to intensify their efforts and conduct extra remedial classes. However, due to the limited number of teachers, this takes away the time and attention which should be given to other weaker students who are in EM2 upon the schools' recommendation.

Sir, there is a great difference between a pupil who scores 50 marks and a pupil who scores 0. However, all students who score less than 50 marks, I am told, are lumped together under Band 4. This does not make any distinction between the weak and the very weak pupils.

Principals and teachers recommend that parents be allowed to decide only for borderline cases. For example, parents can choose the stream their children should be placed in only if they score between 40 and 50 marks marginal cases. And pupils who score less than 40 marks should be streamed into EM3 automatically. This will be similar to the current practice of streaming students into Express or Normal classes in secondary schools.

Will the Minister consider the recommendation to allow parents to decide only for marginal cases?

Mr Peh Chin Hua: ( In Mandarin): Sir, I was once the Chairman of one of the sub-committees under the Chinese Language Review Committee. I am of the view that Mr Low Thia Khiang has not fully studied the Report of the Chinese Language Review Committee. I hope that the Minister of State would give him a copy of this Report so that he can spend more time studying it.

Sir, the objective of ME3 and EM3 courses, as proposed by the Chinese Language Review Committee, is to allow those students who have difficulty in mastering the languages to concentrate on one language so that they could at least master one language. However, the response from parents is not satisfactory. The main reason is that many parents do not fully understand the system. They even misunderstood the intention behind it, and thus adopted a repulsive attitude towards it.

The Ministry of Education should study the reasons why parents are not accepting the ME3 and EM3 courses for their children. At the same time, based on the streaming results, the Ministry of Education should only allow students in borderline cases to exercise the choice of courses. Students who do not make the necessary grade must be streamed to ME3 or EM3 courses so that they could at least master one language. This system is quite similar to the PSLE examinations at Primary 6 in which the pupils are channelled to the Special, Express or Normal streams in secondary schools, based on their PSLE results.

The Ministry of Education should also try to convince the parents of students who are proficient in the Chinese Language but are weak in the English Language to go to the ME3 stream.

Sir, rapid economic development in the Asia-Pacific region and the economic reform and open door policy in China have greatly elevated the status of the Chinese language, and will provide our ME3 students with plenty of employment opportunities. Being proficient in their mother tongue, they will have a clear advantage over others in this area, and every opportunity to excel themselves. This is certainly more meaningful than bracing themselves to struggle in the EM2 stream beyond their learning capacity, which could well result in their failing to make the grade in both languages. Thus, this kind of counselling service is necessary to prevent parents, who do not realise the importance of making the correct choice, from forcing their children to take up studies which are beyond their learning capacity.

Sir, the Chinese Language Review Committee has spent a lot of time in reviewing the method of teaching the Chinese language. The main purpose is to enable our teachers to teach the students in accordance with their aptitude and thereby maximising our limited human resources and preventing wastage of such resources. I think the Ministry of Education should provide more counselling on the choice for ME3 and EM3 courses so that this recommendation of our Chinese Language Review Committee will not end up as a mere academic one. This will also help in making our education system a better one.

Encik Umar Abdul Hamid: Sir, with your permission, I would like to take the three cuts together. Sir, the number of troubled pupils in schools is not insignificant. Presently, the problem is left to the school's principal and staff to tackle, because the pupils use the school as an escape from the problems that they face at home. More often than not, they manifest their frustration and pressures by being the ill-disciplined lot. The school's available actions are only limited to counselling and parents' interview. If matters get worse, that is the only choice that teachers and principals have. Therefore, the solutions call for more than that. 1.45 pm

I am very happy to note that the Ministry is planning to hire six psychologists. And I would like to take this opportunity to offer my suggestion that an action-based unit comprising trained counsellors and professionals should be set up to address this problem and they should be made available to the schools when required. Because a more professional diagnosis would guide the schools and interested parties on how best to deal with these pupils. Furthermore, there is an assurance of a follow-up on a case-by-case basis. Since teachers may not be assigned to the same class throughout the primary and secondary education of a child, there is discontinuity in addressing their problems. The next teacher in charge may not be aware or may not have the benefit of knowing the probable cause and the extent of the problem.

Now, I will speak on discipline in schools. Sir, if we are to ask teachers on what is the most serious discontentment in school, we expect the answer to be the maintenance of pupils' discipline in schools. Since discipline is said to be the pre-requisite to education, then it is a matter of great importance in classroom and school management. The expectation of the parents and the Ministry is high on the teachers and the results of the school's performance. But little is realised that without the mechanism of enforcing discipline, not much can be achieved. Figuratively speaking, a skilled craftsman cannot produce a piece of polished work with his hands tied.

At present, only principals or specially assigned teachers are given the authority to recommend corporal punishment. It means that pupils in class will have little respect for the classroom teachers, knowing that he or she cannot do much except to be patient and counsel. We are being idealistic if we are to believe that all pupils are little angels.

No doubt, in the past, there have been instances of teachers abusing their powers. But let us not forget that there are as many cases where teachers are exhausted in handling problematic pupils and some even experience physical threat and harm in the execution of their duties to do something worthwhile with their life.

The laws in Singapore against offenders and criminals alike are strict. But does the society prepare young people for the law that governs them when they are adults? Respect for law and order is only theoretical, propagated by textbooks. In practice, pupils are not taught that an unlawful or malicious conduct will be met with some form of punishment. The issue here is: are we giving the correct signal to the young about the reality of life beyond the walls of their schools?

In a nutshell, Sir, classroom teachers should be provided with the means to decide when to give the carrot and when to give the cane to the pupils. The growing respect for teachers would only enhance their morale and create a much more conducive teaching-learning environment.

Sir, on streaming of primary school pupils, since the implementation of the streaming policy, principals and teachers are facing problems of accommodating requests from the pupils' parents over which stream to choose. As most parents are undoubtedly concerned with the labelling of their child's ability and non-ability, it is only natural that the outcome would be for them to sub-consciously opt for EM1 or EM2, though knowingly or they would have reasonably known that EM2 or EM3 would be safer and a better choice for their children.

The academic performance of a pupil is, more often than not, for the school to decide. But for Primary 4 streaming, the parents have the ultimate say over the choice, and the school will only have theirs when it comes to Primary 5. Comparatively, accuracy of judging a child's performance should be attached more to the schools than the parents concerned. If a wrong or miscalculated choice is made, then there is a waste of one year of the pupil's time and effort, as well as Government resources. It is uncalled for that the parents should have the final say over and above the school's recommendation. The school's recommendation is based on a fair system of adjudicating the pupil's ability through examination and in and out of class performance and thus not clouded with love and prejudice that would be inherent in most parents when exercising a choice for their children. In short, such decision should be left to the professional opinion of the principals with the aid of the teacher's recommendation. The entire policy should have been the reverse, one in which the parents would recommend or appeal and for the school to consult and decide.

The Chairman: Encik Maidin is not here. Mr Ho.

Mr Ho Peng Kee (Sembawang GRC): Sir, may I take my two cuts together?

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr Ho Peng Kee: Sir, I am a supporter of uniform youth organisations (UYOs). In my view, they can play a special role today as Singapore seeks to build up a sense of adventure and entrepreneurship in all Singaporeans, particularly our young. Just as UYOs played a special role in the 50s and 60s to instil nationhood and promotion of national service, today, they can likewise play a special role.

Currently, there are eight UYOs in secondary schools with a total enrolment of about 50,000 students. This amounts to about 33% of the total student enrolment, quite a big figure. It is likely that many Members in this House have benefited from being in a UYO.

As the Government seeks to develop a derring-do mindset in Singaporeans, I hope more can be done for the UYOs. I have chaired the Council of the National Police Cadet Corps (NPCC) for the past five years, and can testify to the benefits of NPCC training on our young. Rugged outdoor camps, local and overseas adventurous hikes, mountain climbing and canoeing expeditions, revolver and rifle training, these toughen young bodies and sharpen young minds.

I know of some schools where supportive principals actively encourage their secondary 1 students to join a UYO. The UYOs are then organised to achieve other school objectives such as enforcing discipline, instilling school identity and sense of belonging, and transmitting moral values.

I wish to ask the Minister whether the MOE sees UYOs as playing a special role in our current national effort to create a stronger adventurous and entrepreneurial spirit amongst Singaporeans, and if so, what can be done to give greater support. In particular, can the contribution of teachers involved in UYOs as a school ECA be better recognised? I know many of them feel that they are carrying a heavier load than their colleagues who are undertaking other ECAs.

Sir, my second cut is on the Gifted Education Programme. The Gifted Education Programme (GEP) is 10 years old. Some parents and principals are still uncomfortable with certain aspects of the programme. I would like to ask the Minister for his evaluation of the GEP. For example, are there statistics to show how well GEP students have generally fared at 'O' or 'A' level examinations? Do we have GEP students who have done well in science, writing, poetry and drama competitions requiring creativity and flair?

I support the programme as its underlying philosophy is to bring out the best in every child, something we cannot argue with. In any case, parents have a choice. However, implementation is also important. I am happy to note that much thought and effort are expended to ensure that all parties concerned - principals, teachers, students and parents - are tuned into the goals of the GEP. My assessment is that the programme is well run.

However, I have two concerns. The first concern is that whilst the programme stretches the academic abilities of each child - and that is good - it may unwittingly develop an unhealthy individualistic streak in the child. Individual excellence and achievement may be emphasised to the detriment of cultivating a caring outlook. In an ordinary class setting, there are weaker students to help. In a GEP class, there is danger of "every student for himself or herself" mentality developing. In my view, it is critical that we develop in these top students a spirit of care and concern. After all, this is a key element of Singapore Inc's corporate culture as embodied in the "Many Helping Hands" concept, where the able gives a helping hand to the less able. I urge the Minister to ensure that moral and civic responsibility to society and teamwork be emphasised in the GEP.

My second concern, Sir, focuses on the ability of some parents to handle their gifted children. To many parents, their child's selection for the programme is akin to discovering a pot of gold, and why not? This is understandable. After all, they themselves never had such a golden opportunity. But it is important, especially for GEP students, that the basic elements of respect for and obedience to parents be maintained. Parents must remain in control in handling their bright children. Otherwise, we are collectively cultivating a generation of top students who are arrogant, individualistic and self-centred.

In addition, some parents fear loss of face should their children be asked to leave the gifted programme. They therefore push their children hard, sometimes overly hard. Ultimately, I think all of us will agree that it is the parents who bear the responsibility for the upbringing of their children. However, at the macro level, parental handling of children in general and parental handling of bright children, in particular, is a national concern which deserves some attention from Government. Why? Because there are social implications. Brattish children may grow into difficult self-centred adults. This issue was recently highlighted in the press in the case of a school dropout with a high IQ. I would appreciate the Minister's comments.

Mr Choo Wee Khiang (Jalan Besar GRC): Sir, extracurricular activity is one important aspect of our educational system. In order to get admittance into junior colleges and tertiary institutions, students are required not only to have good academic results but also good ECA records. In fact, ECA records are also taken into consideration in determining scholarships and other awards. Participation in sports is part of ECA. However, it is only recognised if it involves participation within the school. National athletes, including trainees, who are undergoing structured centralised training would not earn any points for their ECA records. This may not be fair. If such training is considered as part of the ECA, there would be less pressure on the student's time. They can then concentrate in the centralised training conducted by the national sports associations (NSAs), instead of the present situation where these students are also required to turn up in their respective schools for the officially recognised ECA.

Sir, I would like the Minister to consider directing his Ministry to consider centralised training conducted by the national sports associations which is structured, properly supervised and attendance authenticated be recognised as a major part of the ECA. And if we want to perform well internationally, we must start our athletes from young. Would the Minister therefore direct his officials to communicate with the NSAs to map out long-term training schedules and strategies? 2.00 pm

Dr Ker Sin Tze: ( In Mandarin): Sir, on the question of streaming, two MPs have spoken and they do not seem to share the same view.

The main objective of streaming in education is to make sure that students can give full play to their potential. However, the potential and ability of the students vary, their family backgrounds vary and, therefore, their academic performance must also vary. It is, therefore, necessary for us to teach them according to their abilities, as suggested by Mr Peh. This is the reason why we use the streaming process to ensure that the various students go into the right stream according to their ability to learn the language at the best possible pace.

In the Primary Four streaming exercise, we allow parents to make the final choice. In 1992, based on the PSLE results, 4,278 pupils were streamed to EM1, 3,234 pupils to EM2, and 5,029 to EM3. However, after the parents had exercised their choices, the final figures were 6,288 for EM1, 3,172 for EM2, and 3,167 for EM3. It can thus be seen that parents, based on their own judgement, prefer their children to go to EM1 or EM2 courses. But at the same time the number of those who remain in EM3 still exceeds more than half of the actual figure. This goes to show that many of the parents were able to assess the ability of their own children objectively.

This kind of flexible system allows some students to change the courses they were streamed to, bearing in mind that some students may not have done well in that particular examination for some reasons, or because they are late developers. So, we allow them such changes at the Primary Four stage.

However, in the case of students going from Primary Five to Primary Six, a further choice by parents is not necessary. If we also allow the parents to have such a choice, it will most probably lead to a lot of confusion. The reason is that for EM2 students in Primary Five, they need to obtain 50% in only any two of the four subjects, namely, English, Chinese, Mathematics and Science in order to remain in EM2. If they have better results, then they can go into EM1. Those who score less than 50% will be streamed into EM3. We take into consideration the students' learning capacity and make this arrangement in their interest.

The Ministry of Education, therefore, feels that in Primary Five, we should not allow parents to exercise the choice of streams for their children or to switch from one stream to another. Mr Peh's view is slightly different. He feels that if a student is not so good in his performance in EM3, then, as far as possible, we should allow only the borderline cases to switch over to EM2 and the others should continue to stay in EM3. Mr Peh has also asked the Ministry of Education to encourage or counsel parents to allow their children to go to ME3 where lessons are taught mainly in the mother tongue. A related argument which is shared by many is that some students may not be good in their English, but they are doing well in Chinese and the other subjects, then they should be allowed to study Chinese and other subjects in which they are strong. According to a survey done by the officials of the Ministry of Education, such cases are very few indeed. In the 1991 PSLE examination, out of 31,552 candidates, only six students obtained distinction in Chinese with good passes in Mathematics and Science, but only a "C" or "F" in English. In the 1992 PSLE, only 19 out of over 30,000 students obtained distinction in Chinese and good grades in other subjects, but did badly in English.

Even though their number is small, the Ministry of Education has made arrangement to offer suitable courses for them in ME3 stream. If there is a sufficient number of students opting for ME3, then we will start a class for them. The Ministry of Education accepts the suggestion of Mr Peh to explain to parents the difference between EM3 and ME3, but, of course, the final decision should still be left in the hands of the parents.

Encik Sidek bin Saniff: Sir, Mr Ho Peng Kee asked about our uniform youth organisations (UYOs). The enrolment in the school uniform youth organisations has been increasing since 1983. The target of one in three of secondary school pupils to be in the UYO was reached in 1987. It dropped slightly in 1992.

Sir, UYO members participate in various rugged outdoor activities, such as camping, hiking, orienteering, canoeing, tracking, scuba diving, parachuting and wall or rock climbing. These activities are robust, demanding and challenging. In the process, UYO members develop qualities such as perseverance, discipline, a strong character, a love for the outdoor and adventure. While UYOs were not established for the purpose of producing entrepreneurs, it is recognised that the qualities the activities foster in their members are what successful entrepreneurs will need.

Sir, school UYOs provide excellent opportunities for young Singaporeans to develop into responsible and productive citizens. The UYOs could continue the promotion of a stronger entrepreneurial spirit among their members by stepping up their activities and providing for more members to participate in them. The Ministry of Education, on its part, will continue to support their effort by providing the necessary assistance, including subsidies, which comes to millions of dollars, in the organisation and promotion of such activities among pupils.

Sir, Mr Choo Wee Khiang asked about the centralised training. Sir, my Ministry and our schools have always been supportive of the various national sports associations' effort to promote their training activities in schools. The schools consider it an honour when their students are selected to represent Singapore and have always helped to ensure that their students attend centralised training, of course, with the consent of their parents. I would like to assure the hon. Member for Jalan Besar GRC that this cooperation on the part of my Ministry and our schools will continue.

Mr Choo Wee Khiang: Sir, can I clarify?

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr Choo Wee Khiang: I would just like to seek clarification from the Minister. I understand that the Ministry of Education is supportive of such training scheme. But I would like to know how far can it go. Would the Ministry be considering allowing all these students to be exempted from other types of ECA activities?

Encik Sidek bin Saniff: If I am not mistaken, the Member was asking whether this can be considered as part of ECA. The Member must understand that ECA is part and parcel of the school. This is an additional activity. Even the ECA in school is confined to two major areas. The students will know how to balance between the school's ECA and the one outside the school. We have arranged it in such a way that so far we have managed to overcome this. I am quite sure if the Member has some ideas and should his own organisation need some help, he can give us the details and we can sit down and see how we can overcome it.

Mr Lee Yock Suan: Sir, I am responding to the points made by Mr Umar and his concern about the availability of counselling services and also the discipline problems. He may not be fully aware that there is a Pastoral Care and Career Guidance Section in the Ministry, which has been very actively helping the schools with their counselling problems. I think the scheme has worked well and it will be extended to all our secondary schools by the end of this year and, thereafter, gradually to all the primary schools. So there is a trained group of counsellors under this unit. It conducts workshops and trains the teachers and helps them to develop a good relationship between teachers and pupils so that the teachers are better able to counsel the pupils and help them with their personal problems.

Concerning discipline, Mr Umar seems to be a strong advocate of corporal punishment. I think this is a controversial subject. If you ask teachers and parents, there will be a wide range of opinions. Personally, I feel that, yes, if there is a need, corporal punishment should be administered. But we should not use it in every instance. Very often, if the teacher shows care and concern, it might be better in winning the pupils around and getting them interested in school again, whereas if you punish and shame them, they may just leave the school. I have checked the data on this issue because I was concerned myself and I found no evidence that the schools are becoming more lax in terms of discipline or more unwilling to inflict corporal punishment. Of course, if the schools want to administer it, it must go through proper procedure, partly to protect the teachers themselves. I think the best way is to designate certain people, the principal or designated officers, to carry out this unpleasant duty.

Mr Umar asked about streaming and I think most of his points have been answered. Basically, our position is that parents do have a responsibility for their children's education. At the point of streaming at Primary 4, we feel that it is best to give them a choice, after due counselling and advice from the schools who know their children well. From the experience, as quoted by my Minister of State, in fact, the evidence shows that parents are quite sensible, of the ones who are pushed up, for example, to EM1 from EM2 or from EM3 to EM2, about 50% are able to make the grade. So the parents know their children's abilities and also they are more supportive of their children. So in the process they help their children to make the grade.

I would like to respond next to Mr Ho Peng Kee's points about the Gifted Programme. I note his support for the programme. He has various questions about the status of this programme and how the children are performing. As expected, the GEP pupils are performing very well in their school examinations. For example, in 1992, last year, their mean aggregate for six subjects, English and five subjects, is 7.2. That means almost a distinction, A1, for every subject. The mean number of distinctions is 7.8 and the mean number of A1s is 5.8. But this is only to be expected because they are gifted children academically. They are not necessarily all the top scholars, because to do well in examinations, you need not only intelligence but also application. So some gifted children may not score that well in examinations. But it is perhaps not so important as whether we are able to develop them to the full extent in terms of their total talent and capacity, whether it is creativity or arts or whatever.

The evidence from the winning of awards is similarly impressive. Several of them have won the Prime Minister's Book Prize for bilingualism. They have also won prestigious awards overseas. In the recent Lee Kuan Yew Awards for Mathematics and Science, which were offered for the first time last year, two of the three 'O' level awardees were from the GEP programme, and all three of the 'A' level winners were former GEP students. The GEP has produced four President's scholars so far from among three batches of students. So it is quite an impressive record. 2.15 pm

More important than the academic achievements and the winning of awards is whether these people are also developed in the right manner, socially, and in terms of community responsibility and so on. I would like to assure the Member that this area has not been neglected. There is a community builder's programme in the GEP programme which involves the GEP pupils in voluntary work. For example, in February last year, some of the students scripted, produced and directed a double bill play to raise $13,700 for the Movement for the Intellectually Disabled of Singapore. I think that was a very commendable effort.

It is very important that the schools and the parents handle these bright children in the right way. They are very intelligent and so under the normal school programme they could be turned off. That is why we give them special programmes. But in the process, we must make sure that we do not turn out spoilt brats.

Dr Ow Chin Hock: Sir, thank you for this opportunity.

(In Mandarin) In addition to the question that I raised yesterday, I would like to ask the Minister or the Minister of State for his views on the present standard of Chinese language in Singapore. Will the implementation of the recommendations in the Report of the Ong Teng Cheong Committee help to raise the standard of Chinese in Singapore?

Secondly, does the Minister of State agree with the proposition that "language is the carrier of culture (

)"? In other words, Chinese language and Chinese culture must go together. Mr Low Thia Khiang also referred to this matter yesterday. For many years I have been vocal in expressing my views and suggestions on this matter, both inside and outside this House. I do not know if the Minister of State is aware of the saying: "With the skin gone, what can the hair adhere to ( )?" If the standard of Chinese keeps on falling all the time, we will probably lose one important key, and that is, the key to the treasure of a few thousand years of civilization of the Chinese people.

Finally, I believe the Ministry of Education has set up a Supervisory Committee, chaired by the Minister of State, to supervise the proper implementation of the recommendations of the Ong Teng Cheong's Report. I would like to ask the Minister of State how many meetings have the Committee held since April of last year.

Dr Ker Sin Tze: ( In Mandarin): Sir, yesterday, Dr Ow asked why, since the publication of the Report by the Chinese Language Review Committee and the Feedback Unit had held dialogue sessions, the Ministry of Education had not responded to their views.

Dr Ow sent me reports on the dialogue sessions held by the Feedback Unit, and I have read them. During the two dialogue sessions - one was in English and the other was in Chinese - the complaint from the participants was that it would not be proper to allow students to make use of their dictionary during the Chinese essay-writing examination. As I mentioned just now, this issue is a controversial one. When the Chinese Language Review Committee was deliberating on this matter, there were differences in opinions. But in the end, their conclusion was to request the Ministry of Education to allow the students to make use of their dictionary during the GCE "O" level Chinese essay-writing examination. As the Chairman of the Monitoring Committee, I have to abide by the decision of the Chinese Language Review Committee and implement its recommendations accordingly.

As to how many meetings we have held, I would like to inform Dr Ow that after the Minister had declared that the Ministry of Education would accept most of the recommendations of the Chinese Language Review Committee and appointed me Chairman of the Monitoring Committee on the implementation of these recommendations in June last year, we held our first meeting in August. Subsequent to that, the Committee had to allow adequate time for Ministry officials to implement the recommendations. Since I am also holding office at the Ministry of Education and I am in daily contacts with the Ministry officials and many members of the Committee, I could monitor the implementation of the recommendations very closely. I would like to report that most of the recommendations have been implemented or are in the process of being implemented. The Monitoring Committee would be having another meeting soon.

On the question of whether the officials of the Ministry of Education have been "overtly agreeing and covertly opposing" and dragging their feet in the implementation of these recommendations, I heard stories to this effect before I joined the Ministry of Education. But after I have joined, particularly in supervising the implementation of the recommendations of the Chinese Language Review Committee Report, I found that although the officials in charge had different views during our discussion, they are, nevertheless, serious and conscientious when it comes to the implementation of these recommendations. So, the allegation is not quite true and there is no need to be too worried about it.

Secondly, whether the standard of Chinese can be improved after the implementation of the recommendations, I can say with certainty that the standard of Chinese will be raised. The reason is that once these recommendations are seriously implemented, there will be positive effects in the teaching and learning of the Chinese language. Under the better arrangement as recommended, students will be able to learn the language in accordance with their own ability, and thereby do better in their study, and hence the standard of Chinese will be raised.

Thirdly, Dr Ow asked whether I agree with the theory that "language is the carrier of culture", and the saying: "With the skin gone, what can the hair adhere to"; implying that a culture cannot exist without its language. I agree that a thought or an ideology can be expressed in any language through words, but the more complicated ideas or thoughts will be more effectively and most appropriately expressed in the original language. Of course, a language and its culture are closely related. You can express the principle and the philosophy of a particular culture through its original language better. Therefore, I agree with the saying quoted by Dr Ow.

A Member of Parliament argued that we should raise the language standard in order to achieve a higher cultural level. I agree with him that we must raise the standard of Chinese and, at the same time, raise the consciousness and awareness of the students on the importance of Chinese culture. Of course, this can also be achieved through more extra-curricular activities, in addition to the normal lessons. On the teaching of Chinese language, all our primary schools are encouraged to offer Higher Chinese to their students if the student number is adequate to form a class. Last year, the number of SAP schools was increased from 10 to 15.

This will provide the students with more contact and exposure time with the Chinese language. At the same time, we will soon inform all our schools that we will continue to allow the SAP schools to have two additional periods of Chinese lessons in the Primary One and Primary Two classes. In Primary Three and Primary Four classes, they can have four extra periods, and the schools can also retain the extra number of teachers.

All these actions show that the Government is determined to improve the teaching of Chinese so as to enhance the standard of Chinese in schools. We can also organize more extra-curricular activities such as drama performances by the Drama Society, cultural activities by the Chinese Language Society, excursions or visits to exhibitions, like the Silk Road Exhibition, to strengthen the students' awareness of the Chinese culture and civilization.

Encik Umar Abdul Hamid: Sir, just to clarify what the Minister has mentioned about corporal punishment. Yes, I support corporal punishment. But I must stress that I do not support and advocate the abuse of corporal punishment, because I feel that there must be some kind of deterrent action in school to prevent students from committing offences.

Mr Lew Syn Pau: I thank the Minister and the Minister of State for their replies. I withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman: Amendment No. (5), Mr Peh. Can I remind you, Mr Peh, that we are short of time.

Mr Peh Chin Hua: ( In Mandarin): Sir, I beg to move,

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

With regard to the shortage of clerical staff in schools, many Members have already spoken on it over the last two days, so I do not wish to waste time going over the topic again.

What I wish to say now concerns a report on the 7th March issue of Asia Week that under the colonial educational system of Hong Kong, students in the colony are getting less and less knowledgeable in the history and geography of China. As a result, when they grow up they face many obstacles when doing business with China. As a matter of fact, many university graduates in Hong Kong do not even know the names of the three provinces in the north-eastern part of China or where Chongqing is. Of course, they would not know that Xiang ( ) and E (

) are the other names for Hunan and Hupei Provinces respectively. Because of their lack of adequate knowledge in this field, they are seriously handicapped when venturing into China.

Take a look at the situation in Singapore today. Nowadays, history and geography lessons in our schools tend to emphasize on China and South-east Asia. This, of course, gives no cause for criticism. But then, the history and geography of the Asia-Pacific region seem to be grossly neglected. In the circumstances, there is no guarantee that the situation in Hong Kong, as I have just mentioned, will not be repeated in Singapore. Ask a Singapore schoolboy where Beijing or New Delhi is, and I will not be surprised at all if he tells you he does not know! Therefore, in order to avoid this from happening, we should review the materials taught in the history and geography lessons in our schools to keep in line with the political and economc changes in this region, so that the development of an external economy which we are promoting now will yield better results.

If possible, history and geography should be taught in the mother tongue as this will help our students in the learning of their mother tongue and enhance its value.

I feel history and geography, as well as the economic and political development of China and India, are of great relevance to us.

The Chairman: Mr Peh, what relevance has this to do with school administration and security?

Mr Peh Chin Hua: Many MPs have spoken on the topic. So I do not wish to speak on it and I am making use of this time to speak on an amendment which I have missed just now.

The Chairman: I do not understand. But could you please stick to the topic that we have here?

Mr Peh Chin Hua: Yes. (In Mandarin) I feel that we should let our students acquire better knowledge of the history and geography of China and India, as this will be the key to open the door to their economies.

The Chairman: Mr Sinnakaruppan is not moving. Dr Soin.

Dr Kanwaljit Soin (Nominated Member): Sir, I am concerned about the problem of school drop-outs and our plans for this group of people. And with your permission here, may I ask the Clerk to distribute a Table on the educational profile. [Copies of Table distributed to hon. Members.]

From the statistics on the educational profile of Singapore's workforce by age group, we can see that 45% of the working population below the age of 20 has less than lower secondary education. I think this should worry all of us. We will not be prepared for the high-tech era with this sort of an educational profile of our young people.

Secondly, the National Council of Social Service gives a figure of 57,000 disadvantaged youths in Singapore who require direct intervention. The community organisations only helped 5% of them in 1990.

It is therefore essential that we must monitor what happens to our youth from the age of six to 16 years. At present, the premature school drop-outs and their parents are counselled and if this does not work, there is no system of follow-up and monitoring by the MOE or any other agency. Every year, the number of disadvantaged youths is building up and the social and economic costs to society will be enormous if we do not confront this challenge. 2.30 pm

Here, Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to mention a recent White Paper commissioned by the Education Department in the United Kingdom to show how a cycle of criminality is triggered off by truancy and dropping out of schools. I quote from this report:

`It starts with hanging around street corners, drifting into shoplifting and stealing bicycles, progresses to petty burglary, perhaps, becoming involved with drugs, before long the journey from street corner to prison cell is complete.'

I would like to ask the Minister what plans he has for potential school drop-outs.

I would like to raise the second point about the ITE and VITB. From what I understand, the VITB has become incorporated into the ITE. ITE has become a post-secondary training institute with which I have no quarrel. But the VITB used to admit 10,000 students annually even if they did not complete their secondary education and it used to train them. But from next year, the ITE will be taking in only 6,000 post-secondary students. What is going to happen to the other 4,000 students who would have got a place in the VITB under the old system? I would appreciate the response from the Minister.

Mr Tong Kok Yeo (Nominated Member): Sir, under our existing admission system on admission into junior colleges, students are admitted based on the preliminary examination results. This arrangement ensures continuity which is beneficial for students intending to continue their studies in these colleges. This ensures no disruption.

Sir, for the N' level students, this arrangement and continuity are not there. N' level students take their 'N' level examinations in September of the calendar year. After having sat their examination, there is no compelling need or requirement for the students to continue to attend classes. In this respect, some schools enforce it or do it by asking the students to continue to attend classes. Some schools do not.

Sir, this arrangement is very loose and is not good for students who intend to continue with their O' levels. I would like to ask the Minister whether he will look into introducing a more formal arrangement for N' level students who intend to continue with their `O' levels after their examinations.

Encik Sidek bin Saniff: Sir, I am supposed to answer Mr Peh's question on security, but since he chose another topic, I will leave it to my Minister.

In answering to the Nominated Member, Mr Tong Kok Yeo, the N' level examination is taken in September each year. Immediately following the examination, pupils do not leave schools but continue to attend lessons in the fourth term. It is a practice of the school principals and teachers to impress upon their pupils the importance of continuing in school as preparation for the O' level begins immediately following `N' level examination. Attendance is monitored and schools work closely with parents to ensure that pupils continue to attend lessons.

Let me give you some rough percentages. The attendance rate achieved is generally quite high, ranging from 70% to 100%. After the release of the `N' level results in December, pupils who qualify for admission to Secondary 5 continue with their 'O' level course in January. In other words, there is thus no break in the pupils' study and continuity is achieved.

Mr Lee Yock Suan: Sir, I would like to respond to Dr Soin's points. Firstly, concerning the table that she distributed, I am personally puzzled by this figure of 45% of the workers under 20 having less than secondary education. I suspect that this figure could include the foreign workers. But this will have to be verified because actually our recent school results have been excellent and out of every cohort, almost 90% score three `O' level passes. So this figure does not gel with the facts that I have.

In fact, over the years, through the efforts of the Ministry and other groups concerned, the drop-out rate has been falling, especially in the primary schools. Let me give you some figures. Of the cohort that went into Primary 1 in 1985, 1.7% did not complete PSLE. These were probably the people who went on to P7, P8, and so on, and they dropped out mostly at the ages of 13 or 14. This figure of 1.7% could be compared to the figure of 2.7%, some six years ago, which was for the batch that entered schools in 1980. So the drop-out rate for primary school students out of every 100 that entered Primary 1, the present rate that does not complete PSLE is only about 1.7%. So it is actually very small. This is the figure that we should focus on because these are the children that could be led astray.

Personally, I am not that concerned about the secondary school drop-outs, especially if they drop out, say, after Secondary 4 `N' and at the older ages because for some of these people, if they find it difficult to continue with the school system, it may be better for them to go into the field of work and learn on the job. Most of these people do eventually turn out to be well-adjusted adults. So we need not be that concerned from the social angle with this group. Of course, from the educational point of view, we would prefer that they complete 10 years successfully and be prepared for further training. But this depends on their own motivation and capacity to learn.

As for the VITB converting to the present ITE, being a post-graduate institution, I think this is the right move. But I take her point that we should not forget about this other group who may not be able to make it to the full 10 years and `O' level. That is why in the new system we have this Normal (Technical) stream which is basically meant for this same group of people who would, otherwise, have remained in the primary school, P7, P8 and Monolingual stream. They will, henceforth, be promoted to secondary schools into this stream where they do more of the computer applications, technical workshop and learn skills which are relevant to their future careers. So, hopefully, with this move, there will be even fewer drop-outs from the primary school system and more of them will adjust to the secondary school system. But we will have to wait and see. If need be, I am prepared to have ITE re-look and see whether they can take in some of these people as well for training.

But the essential point is that we should look at what is causing the pupils to drop out. I think the Ministry's concern is actually about this problem because of its potential to create future social problems. We have to look at the causes and there are basically two main reasons. For the older ones, it is very often the interest to go out and work, maybe, because of financial reasons at home, or they have lost interest in schooling. The other group will be children who have lost interest in schooling because they have not been able to keep up. For the latter group, the schools are trying their best to provide remedial lessons and to provide a supportive environment to encourage the children to stay on in school, and as soon as the students are found to be showing signs of dropping out, they will be counselled by their form teachers, and later on by their principals who will bring in their parents, and so on. This is an area where the Ministry is studying to see what further improvements can be made. But it is not something that can be done by the Ministry alone. It has got to be in cooperation with the community groups, CDAC, SINDA, MENDAKI, and so on, especially if it involves also financial problems - whether these other groups can help them out in certain ways.

Basically, we do not have differences of views on the need to tackle this problem. It is only a question of approach. I personally am not in favour of compulsory education for the primary school stage especially and also the secondary level because the experience in many developed countries which have compulsory education is that, despite all their best effort and all their enforcement and having big teams of truant officers going round to try and catch these people, the drop-out rate is very high, something like 30% or 40%. And they will, actually, be very happy to have our figures. Out of every cohort that goes into Primary 1, only 1.7% do not complete PSLE and another 2.7% do not complete `O' levels. Our figures are actually very good by world standards, basically because of parental support for education and that is our best insurance.

Dr Ker Sin Tze: Sir, can I respond to Mr Peh's question on history and geography teaching?

The Chairman: We are running out of time.

Dr Ker Sin Tze: All right.

Mr Peh Chin Hua: I withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman: Amendment No. (6), Mr Ho.

Mr Ho Peng Kee: Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head L of the Main Estimates be reduced by $10 in respect of Code LG 2500.

(In Mandarin) Sir, Singapore is a small place. Like it or not, Singaporeans must learn to live peaceably in close proximity. In fact, we have encouraged people to work overseas. As we build Singapore Inc, we nurture a sense of adventure and teamwork in our young, the experience of communal-living in a school boarding facility or university hall of residence makes an important difference.

I commend Government for encouraging communal living by supporting the building of boarding schools in ACS and RI and halls of residence in NUS and NTU.

Life in a boarding school and hall of residence instils leadership skills, discipline, teamwork, mutual tolerance, esprit-de-corps and sense of identity in its members. These are important attributes we seek to instil in all Singaporeans. Living in a hall is a useful part of university experience.

May I ask the Minister whether his Ministry has plans to provide stronger support to boarding schools and university halls of residence and secondly, whether there are plans to build halls of residence in the polytechnics? Lastly, let me declare my interest that I am Master of a hall of residence in NUS. I have been living in the hall for more than 10 years and my earlier observations are based on my personal experience and conviction.

Mr Lee Yock Suan: Sir, the Ministry has no plans to set up boarding facilities for polytechnic students. I think it is a question of use of resources. The polytechnics will cater to some 40% of our student cohort and the number is just too big. Singapore is, basically, a small place and the transportation system is excellent. So there is really no need from the transportation point of view to have boarding facilities. But I recognise the point that it is good for the students to have some experience in boarding. Perhaps, for some of these students, we should send them to outward bound courses, or overseas for trekking and develop the team work, team spirit, and so on, through other mechanisms.

Mr Ho Peng Kee: Sir, I withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman: Amendment No. (7), Mr Lew.

Mr Lew Syn Pau: Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head L of the Main Estimates be reduced by $10 in respect of Code LI 3200.

I would like to ask the Minister about the admission criteria into the Medical Faculty of the NUS. I am not talking about the need for quota which, I believe, is necessary if we want a good spread of talents across all sectors of our economy. I am talking about the selection of applicants within this quota. Every year, I get cases of applicants with four As denied admission, while others with three As or worse results get admitted. Some of these applicants denied admission have no alternative but to venture overseas for their medical degrees. Many others, however, may not be so fortunate and have to settle for their second best choice and, at the same time, carry a chip on their shoulders for life. 2.45 pm

I am aware that candidates, apart from having good results, have to sit for an aptitude test and attend an interview as well. Unfortunately, the latter bring with them elements of subjectivity which are not always transparent to the applicants. I would like to ask the Minister to consider making the whole admission process more transparent so that those denied entry can better understand the reasons and not begrudge the system.

The Chairman: Mr Peh is not here. Dr Soin.

Dr Kanwaljit Soin: Sir, since 1979, the intake of female students into the Faculty of Medicine has been restricted to one-third of the total intake of medical students. Two reasons have been given for the female intake quota. (1) Female doctors shun speciality training and prefer outpatient work and are thus considered less productive than male doctors; (2) Female doctors do not continue working after graduation and thus are wasting taxpayers' subsidy on medical education. Both these reasons are faulty and inaccurate, as I will show. At this stage, I would like the Clerk of Parliament to distribute a Table I have prepared. [Copies of Table distributed to hon. Members.]

Firstly, women doctors are concentrated in primary health care. For example, they are general practitioners, outpatient doctors, maternal and child health clinic and polyclinic doctors. These medical practitioners deal with disease prevention and promotion of health, besides treating illness. And surely I do not need to remind the House that the most cost effective strategy that provides the maximum returns for investments on health is the practice of disease prevention and promotion of health.

Secondly, there is hardly any difference in the total number of male and female doctors who continue to work in the medical field, as Members can see from the chart that has been distributed. If you look at the total number of male and female doctors working, the figure is pretty close. It varies between 94% and 97%. The only difference is that about 10% more female doctors work part time as compared to male doctors. And this occurs because some married female doctors have child care reasons.

Furthermore, from a total of more than 1,000 female doctors, only about 2% take no-pay leave for child care. Therefore, from their participation in the workforce, we can see that the productivity of female doctors is about the same as male doctors, and thus we can see that there is no economic reason to impose the quota on females.

Secondly, I am sure that the Minister knows that the practice of favouring male students over female students for admission into the Medical Faculty offends against our Constitution which is predicated on equality and equal protection of the law. Equality in education must mean equality of opportunity and equal treatment to all citizens in the matter of admission to educational institutions maintained by the State. The only test of admission is merit, merit and merit. If a female entrant has a qualification which is equal or superior to that of a male aspirant, she must be judged by those qualifications. Her sex has no place in the test to be applied for admission. I would therefore urge the Minister to abolish this anachronistic quota on female medical students.

Mr Lee Yock Suan: Sir, firstly, in response to Mr Lew's question which I believe is a question which has been raised in this House before, the reason is that every year a disproportionately large number of high-flyer candidates apply for the medical courses. So in 1979, it was decided that the number of high-flyer applicants to be admitted to Medicine be limited to ensure a better spread of talent to other faculties, as Singapore also needs good minds trained in other disciplines. This was jointly announced by NUS and the PSC and reported in the press. High-flyer applicants for Medicine, therefore, have to compete amongst themselves for a certain number of places. In the selection process, aptitude and suitability for the course as assessed by the interview are taken into account together with the 'A' level performance. The selection is based entirely on merit. I hope MPs on their part will help to persuade their constituents that Medicine is not the only field that they can do well in. They can go into banking. Maybe they can also go into politics and come here as NMPs, for example. So why should we all rush into Medicine?

As for female medical students, I have to study the data that Dr Soin has given me. I have just received them. What I am told is that, according to this write-up, one of the reasons for this lower intake of female students is that they cannot be assigned duties as freely as male doctors, especially after they marry and have children. I believe from my own personal observations that female doctors also have a higher tendency to stop work after they get married because of family reasons. As for the figures that she has produced, I do not know whether they include the people who have stopped practising. We are spending a lot of money on the training of doctors. On average, we spend about $20,000 per student per year in the other courses. But for Medicine, it is something like $60,000 per year. So for a 5-year course, it is $300,000 of taxpayers' money. We must make sure that the money is well invested and that the doctors will practise. I will need more time to study these figures. Perhaps we can be given more time and we can discuss this again.

Mr Lew Syn Pau: Sir, I thank the Minister for his reply and I withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $2,315,095,600 for Head L ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates.

The sum of $891,010,000 for Head L ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.

The Chairman: 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 twenty minutes past Three o'clock.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 2.53 pm to 3.20 pm. Sitting resumed at 3.20 pm

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate in Committee of Supply resumed.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Head U -

Dr Tan Cheng Bock (Ayer Rajah): Sir, I beg to move,

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

Sir, during one of the debates on upgrading, I did warn the Ministry of National Development that upgrading should be according to need, not according to what is desired. You may desire to have a balcony, but actually do not need it. The Pilot and Demonstration Phase clearly showed that the space-adding item costs $24,800. I therefore can understand why HDB had to re-cost their upgrading. But it is better to let the people know and be frank about this high cost of additional item and their need to pay more, if this item is requested. I agree with this. Even HDB's feedback on the need for this item was not from the 4-, 5-room or Executive flat dwellers, but primarily from the 3-roomers. Therefore, I support that this item be made optional except for the 3-roomers.

Sir, we have stopped building 3-room flats. Therefore, to bring the 3-roomers closer to the standard of the 4-roomers, this space-adding item should be given as an item in the package. Here again is a question of need, not desire. Therefore, I am suggesting to the Ministry that the Government subsidy for this item for 3-roomers be up to 90%, leaving the flat owner to pay 10% or $2,480 instead of the $9,900.

Sir, another reason why I ask the Minister to consider a 90% subsidy is my concern that some of these 3-roomers may be still paying for their flats through their CPF and I wonder how an additional $13,400, if they opt for the space-adding item, would affect their future payment. In spite of these changes in cost sharing, I still think it is value for money. I would encourage all to opt, if offered, especially 3-roomers. Because for 3-roomers to upgrade to 4-room, the jump is from $30,400 to $60,500 for a 3-room flat to $125,000 for a 4-room flat. An upgraded 3-room flat will go up in value. So also for the 4-, 5-room and Executive flats.

With regard to the Precinct Concept, I wonder if these three packages offered will bring about disharmony and non-uniformity to the physical outlook of the precinct. My impression of a precinct is a grouping of five to seven blocks, well-designed to blend with each other, having many things in common and evolving eventually into a character of its own. However, in the latest upgrading, the offer of three packages is going, I believe, to create physical disharmony and social differences. Imagine, three out of four blocks opt for the Basic Package. Then you are going to have three blocks with no upgrading of the building facade and ancillary works, old HDB number plates, lifts with old interior and no provision for future installation of security system. Of course, you get a repainting job done. The other four blocks, if they opt for the Standard Package, will have a new facade, new block numbers, new lift door jam, new lift interior and provision for future installation of security system. I think the Ministry of National Development should re-think on this.

The point is that if the difference between the Standard Package and Basic Package is based only on four items among 13 items listed, and the cost difference is minimal, I believe, and as these four items are, in my opinion, essential to give the precinct a sense of uniformity, colour and character, then the Ministry of National Development should review and perhaps re-package the three packages. One suggestion would be to have only two packages - Standard package, based on all the items mentioned in the Standard Package, and the Standard-plus Package. Of course, we have to adjust the pricing and subsidy, and the details can be worked out later.

Sir, I do not want to see a precinct developing distinct social differences because we do not take into account the social and psychological effects of upgrading. Imagine walking into a precinct with such obvious physical differences. Then there are also other implications, like maintenance and security. A basic block, with no security system, while others have, will pose potential danger to those who have installed security systems. How about maintenance? How do you apportion S&C funds to maintain the different blocks? So I think there should be uniformity if you want to avoid future problems. I therefore ask the Minister to review the packages in the light of what I have said.

Dr S. Vasoo (Tanjong Pagar GRC): Sir, I share the points raised by Dr Tan Cheng Bock. What I would like to add is that the facilities in the old housing estates are poor and old, and there is a need to look at how these facilities could be further improved. Young people who are living in these old housing estates, particularly the housing estates in the city area, want to leave these estates because they are not very attractive. At the same time, the type of flats in many of these old housing estates in the city area are 2-room and 3-room flats. There should be plans to see how these housing estates could be further improved and I would like to find out from the Minister of State whether there are plans or priorities given to upgrade the estates in the older housing estates, particularly in the city area, that is, Tiong Bahru GRC itself.

Mr Choo Wee Khiang: ( In Mandarin): Sir, the statement made by the Minister of State, Mr Lim Hng Kiang, on 10th March with regard to the upgrading of old housing estates is indeed most welcome. It reflects the Government's intention to share the fruits of our economic success with our people, particularly the lower-income group. At the same time, this is also a kind of reward to the people for supporting the People's Action Party. This gesture of the Government is of great significance and has far-reaching effects. Here I would like to take this opportunity to express my appreciation to the Government for the special consideration given to the residents of the Jalan Besar GRC (Kallang Division). On behalf of the residents of the 6 blocks of flats in my Constituency which will be among the first batch of old HDB flats to be upgraded in this exercise, I would like to thank the Government for the efforts taken to improve the living environment.

For this upgrading programme, the people who pay the money will get more than value for money. From what the Minister of State had said, it would appear that the residents will get back ten times the value for the money they are paying. Take the 3-room units for example, the owners pay only 10% of the upgrading cost under the "standard package". This can truly be said to be money's worth. The downward adjustment of the owners' cost-sharing is good evidence of the Government's care and concern for the lower income families. This will ensure that the lower income families can better afford the cost-sharing and the flat-owners need not worry about the implementation of GST. As for the town councils, the Government will bear the cost originally meant to be borne by the town councils. This is indeed hard to come by! Our burden will be lightened and we can use the savings to improve the facilities in our housing estates.

From the reaction of the Opposition Members over the last two days, we can see that they are also very concerned and interested in the upgrading programme and are rather apprehensive about it. In fact, they are like "ants on a hot pan". Of course, in their position, they may say that this is a vote-catching stunt of the PAP. But, there is one thing which Mr Chiam See Tong has forgotten, that is, the object of this upgrading programme is to improve the living environment of the people, and it serves as a gesture of rebate to the people. This is something which gives no cause for criticism.

Other PAP MPs will also have to take their turns and queue up for the upgrading. Mr Chiam and the other three Opposition Members will also have to queue up. As the colloquial saying goes, "Wait for a long time and you will get it." I hope that these three Opposition Members will behave like Mr Chiam See Tong and wait patiently in their queue.

On the other hand, Mr Low Thia Khiang is more realistic. He knows that his constituency will have to wait a long time in the queue, and so he has decided to strike a compromise. Like what they say in the Hokkien dialect: " No fish, shrimps will do (Half a loaf is better than no bread)." So he requested the Minister of State to consider approving partial upgrading. The reply by the Minister of State was very appropriate: "When you perform a surgical operation, you must complete the operation at one go. You cannot leave the scalpel inside the body, and stitch back the wound. That would be too troublesome." So, his answer was very clear and appropriate. I am afraid Mr Low will have to be more patient. Wait for a long time and he will get what he wants. He has to queue up, just like the others.

Sir, here I would like to report to the Minister what I have gathered by way of feedback during my block visits. First, almost all the residents expressed the desire to have an additional toilet. Or, at least to separate the toilet from the bathroom. We have, from time to time, to answer the call of nature, especially in the morning when children have to go to school and the adults have to go to office. There is always this problem. In circumstances like these, there are a lot of inconveniences. If there are more members in the family, then the problem is even greater. The kind of tolerance one has to exercise in this situation is simply beyond our words. Residents will not be able to make good use of their precious time. Under certain circumstances, if they cannot go to the toilet in time, it may even create family squabbles.

From what I know, the six blocks of flats in the Whampoa area were built way back in 1963. The built-in area of each unit is 48.93 square metres. Compared to a 3-room flat built in 1985 it is smaller by about 13 square metres. Furthermore, a newer 3-room flat has a second toilet and a store room, and the kitchen is very large. I feel that if we want the residents of the older estates to share the progress of our society, then the Government should consider the addition of a toilet and a store room as a basic necessity in the standard package of upgrading for 3-room flats. At the same time, the owners of these 3-room flats should be given higher subsidies and lower cost-sharing. By so doing, I believe we will be better able to improve the living environment of these residents.

Next, I would like to ask the Minister what arrangement he has made to help the residents settle the mode of payment and the terms of loan available to them. I believe that there are still a small number of residents who cannot afford to meet their share in the upgrading cost. Under such circumstances, how will the Government help them?

Dr Vasoo: Thank you, Sir, for allowing me to talk on housing allocation and loan policy.

Sir, the HDB has introduced a new allocation policy, that is, the new booking system as well as the walk-in selection. I am thinking whether this allocation policy itself is satisfactory. How is it working? What is the feedback received on this allocation system? What I was given to understand is that there are a lot of people who still feel very frustrated with the allocation system because some of them continuously go for balloting, but they still do not get the flats. Although HDB claims that after three ballots, priorities are considered for this group of people, theoretically, and also from the number of cases that I have known of, there are people who have gone for balloting for more than three times and are still unable to get their flats. Perhaps the demand of flats in those areas they have applied for may exceed the supply.

At the same time, this in a way creates the impression that they are participating in a lottery system, and this is a common saying amongst the people who are participating in this booking system. I am thinking whether the HDB is looking into further ways to improve this allocation system.

The other very basic concern facing families, particularly in the 2- and 3-room flats, is the prices for resale flats. Because resale flat prices today have gone up very much higher than what they can afford to pay in terms of cash outlay.

The loan policy of HDB is based on the posted prices. These posted prices are far below the market prices that are available. Because of the wide discrepancy, many of those who want to upgrade, particularly the 2-room and 3-room families, find it difficult because they need to have additional cash outlay from their pockets. I would like to find out from the Minister of State whether HDB is, in fact, reviewing its loan policy, in order that it could allow more families to benefit from upgrading into bigger flats.

Dr Ho Tat Kin: Sir, I agree with what Dr Vasoo says. The present system of booking for flats by balloting is very uncertain. Many of the unsuccessful applicants are very frustrated by the system, because they cannot plan ahead. They do not know when they can get a flat.

Sir, the previous system of booking allows the applicants to plan ahead, whether they get the house in three years, four years, or even five years. I would like to suggest to the Minister to consider bringing back in part this booking system. It can be a hybrid of booking and a ballot. People can queue up for booking and if they feel like going for balloting, come out of the booking queue and ballot. I hope the Minister can consider this.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock: Sir, I move this amendment in the light of many accusations by the Opposition that flats are very expensive and being priced out of the average Singaporeans. This has been debated many times. But memories are short and I think answers have to be given again.

There are, however, two issues, one of which has been brought up by Dr Vasoo, and that is, the posted prices are HDB's 1984 sale prices and are well below the current market value of resale flats. Thus, buyers of resale flats have to pay a substantial amount in cash upfront.

The second issue is that HDB has already stopped building 3-room flats in 1986. Hence, the low income families should be helped to buy 3-room flats. What measures are being taken to help the low income families to own flats?

Dr Wong Kwei Cheong (Kampong Glam GRC): Sir, I would like to ask the Minister on the pricing policy for HDB flats.

In view of increasing cost, how does the Government ensure that HDB flats are affordable to the average income households, especially to households earning less than $700 per month?

I would also like to ask the Minister how does Government intend to help low in come families to own their HDB flats.

Dr Koh Lip Lin (Nee Soon South): Sir, Singaporeans are most concerned about the rapid increase of prices of HDB flats over the past few years. Government has always maintained that HDB flats are priced so that they are affordable to average Singaporeans. The question is whether the price increase has made the flat less affordable.

From 1987 to 1992, the average income of Singapore has gone up by 53%, according to the statistics of CPF. The prices of HDB flats have also gone up. From the price ranges of the flats quoted in the HDB Annual Report, it can be noted that, other than 3-room flats at Woodlands, prices for most types of flats have gone up by more than 53%. This means that, compared to 1987, larger flats are now less affordable to Singaporeans. Of course, the quality of the new flats today are better than those built in 1987. A 4-room flat today is better than a 4-room flat of 1987. But, then, do not forget that the expectation of Singaporeans has also gone up, as shown by the decline in the demand of 3-room flats. In fact, we were told that HDB has stopped building 3-room flats.

Therefore, when we define affordability, we should also take into account the higher standard of living and the rising expectation. HDB has often linked the affordability to the demand of flats, that is, the number of applications to purchase flats. The number of applications declined actually from 1987 to 1991, but increased sharply in 1992. One reason for this increase must be the sharp rise in prices of flats in 1991 and 1992, because many people suddenly realise that if they do not buy a flat now, they may not be able to afford one later.

From 1987 to 1992, according to HDB Annual Reports, the demand for rental flats increased steadily by three to four times. This again is an indication that there are more Singaporeans who want to buy flats but cannot afford to do so. Perhaps the HDB should review its pricing policy. The expectation of an average Singaporean family is at least a 4-room flat. To maintain the affordability of HDB flats, Government should make sure that the price of a 4-room flat should not increase more than the average income of a family. 3.45 pm

Assoc. Prof. Low Seow Chay (Chua Chu Kang): Sir, I notice that the prices of HDB new flats have increased quite rapidly in the past few years. In Chua Chu Kang Estate, the 4-room flat was about $70,000 three years ago. Today, the price could be as high as $120,000. A similar trend was also registered for the 5-room flats. Watching the trend of price changes, one wonders whether it would be priced beyond the affordability of our people in the near future.

I would like to ask the Minister the following questions: First, why did HDB flat price increase so rapidly in the past few years? Second, if the trend in price increase should continue, will HDB flats eventually be priced beyond the affordability of our people? Third, for the low-income earners, does the Government have any plan to build smaller flats? Fourth, since the posted price of a 3-room flat is far below the actual transacted price in the current market, it causes some problems to the resale flat purchasers who could only afford a 3-room flat and have a limited amount of cash. The problem lies in insufficient HDB mortgage loan and also the limited withdrawal of CPF funds. I would like to ask the Minister what plans the Government has in terms of financing and the use of CPF funds to help this group of people.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock: Sir, the recent announcement by the Ministry of National Development with regard to the new form of housing that we have strata title bungalows and cluster housing is most welcomed. However, I would like to know more details on planning guides for this. I hope there will not be too much restraint on design. One question I would like to ask is how do you apply the management corporation on such low-density housing. I ask this because I know we encounter problems putting one building complex under one strata title when you have so many owners of different usages under one roof. And as you need 75% to institute changes, it is very difficult for all tenants to agree because each has different needs and interest.

Land for sale to build houses is the other issue that I want to find out from the Ministry. Does the Ministry have restrictions as to how many a person or company can buy? If these are meant for individuals and construction companies, I see that the individual will be edged out. I would like the Minister to clarify on this.

Finally, is there a period whereby you must complete building the homes after purchase?

Dr Wong Kwei Cheong: Sir, as Dr Tan has covered the points that I want to make in this cut, may I go on to the next cut?

The Chairman: Yes.

Dr Wong Kwei Cheong: Sir, I would like to ask the Minister how much land will be released and how much commercial space will be developed over the next three years. In view of the present glut in commercial space, what measures does the Government take to prevent another collapse in our commercial property market.

I would also like to ask the Minister on the Government's policy in the sale of land for private housing development. In view of the current shortage of landed properties, will the Government consider releasing more land, especially land at Marina South, for landed housing development? I understand the Bukit Turf Club at Bukit Timah will, eventually, be relocated. I would appreciate it if the Minister can explain the Government's plans for this piece of valuable real estate.

Assoc. Prof. Low Seow Chay: Sir, Singapore is a land scarce nation. Almost all the population live in high-rise apartments. Fortunately, there are only 3% of our people who have the opportunity to still own landed residential property. The number of landed residential property in Singapore at the moment is about 21,000 units. The growth last year alone was only about 5.5%, that means, only about 1,100 new units were added to the market. Last year, I understand that the Government had tendered out land for the development of 600 units of private landed property. And it was just announced that in the next three years, each year land will be tendered out for the development of another 1,000 units of private residential property. Sir, this is quite a substantial amount of land which is being tendered out by the Government in aid of the development of private landed property.

Of course, this is one of the very good news for the potential landed property buyers. So I would like to ask the Minister a few questions. First, what is the long-term policy in providing land for building residential landed property? Second, the amount of land tendered out is quite substantial compared with the previous supply. So what would be the anticipated impact on landed property price in the next few years? Third, since land is scarce in Singapore, should the Government be more stringent in granting approval for permanent residents to own landed properties in Singapore?

Mr Peh Chin Hua: ( In Mandarin): Sir, from what I know the subsidies given to Town Councils come mainly from the Ministry of National Development's annual grant ranging from $600,000 to $4 million. These subsidies are left entirely at the disposal of the Town Councils, mainly to help pay the conservancy charges for the lower-income families living in the 1, 2 or 3-room HDB flats. We should commend the Ministry of National Development for being so thoughtful in looking after the lower-income families.

However, in the management of this fund, I feel that the Ministry of National Development should have a very good monitoring system so that the funds will not be misused. I understand that some town councils allow their offices to be used for the activities of political parties, particularly during the general elections and bye-elections. Furthermore, some activities organised by the town council for their residents were being advertised on banners bearing the logo of a political party. This is inappropriate because these activities were funded by the town council. I hope that the Ministry of National Development would look into this matter, and if any town council is found to have misuksed its funds, the Ministry should reduce its subsidy to the town council concerned in order not to waste public funds, and to prevent the lower-income families from being deprived of the benefits due to them.

Mr Cheo Chai Chen (Nee Soon Central): ( In Mandarin): Sir, I wish to talk about the grant of subsidies to the town councils and the Government's recent instructions to town councils to transfer more money from the conservancy charges collected to the sinking fund.

Last month, the Ministry of National Development wrote to the town councils saying that some town councils had intended to raise their conservancy charges because the operational costs had been going up all the time. These town councils had also requested the Government to provide more annual subsidies to them. It was stated in the same letter that the Government had agreed to increase its annual subsidies for the 3-room, 2-room and 1-room HDB flats, and to grant additional subsidies to the town councils for their 3-room, 2-room and 1-room flats for 1992 and 1993. However, there are conditions attached, that is, the town councils must raise the conservancy charges of various types of flats by at least 5%. In addition, with effect from 1st April, this year, the minimum amount for the sinking fund shall be increased from 25% to 35% or 40%, depending on the types of flats. Now, I would like to express my views on these new measures:

First, I feel that these new measures are being implemented too hastily. The Ministry of National Development did not discuss the matter with the various town councils to understand their respective situations, before introducing these new measures. In fact, in raising the sinking fund, the Government did not take into consideration whether those town councils which had less 3-room, 2-room and 1-room flats would be adversely affected. These town councils would not be getting as much benefits in terms of additional subsidies, yet they have to transfer more money to the sinking fund. As a result, the operational fund available to them would be greatly reduced, even to the extent of not having enough to meet their day-to-day expenses.

Sir, the day-to-day expenses of town councils cannot be slashed drastically, otherwise the town councils would be compelled to raise their conservancy charges. As such, I do not understand why the Ministry of National Development should, on one hand, increase its annual subsidies to town councils for their 3-room, 2-room and 1-room flats and, on the other hand, require the town councils to raise their conservancy charges by at least 5%. Furthermore, it requires all the town councils to increase their contributions to the sinking fund to 35% or 40% of the conservancy charges collected. When the Government announced that it was increasing its annual subsidies to the town councils for their 3-room, 2-room and 1-room flats, it did not mention that it was simultaneously reducing its subsidies to the bigger flats. This reduction will affect the operational cost of the town councils, resulting in the town councils' income being reduced.

From what I have just explained, it can be seen that there is a need to review these new measures. I welcome the Government's increase in its subsidies to the 3-room, 2-room and 1-room flats. However, I feel that the minimum amount of sinking fund should not be raised, but should be retained at the existing rate of 25% because the use of sinking fund is restricted. Moreover, as and when the sinking fund is found to be inadequate, we can always top it up with our operational surplus. But, on the other hand, when the operational cost is inadequate, the town council concerned will be in trouble.

Under the Town Councils Act, the town councils can apply to raise their conservancy charges. Those town councils which are unable to make their ends meet can make separate applications to the Government to raise their conservancy charges. If the Government finds the application to be reasonable, then it will allow the town council to raise its conservancy charges. Presently, under the old rules, it is not necessary for every town council to raise its conservancy charges. From my understanding, at least, the four town councils run by the Opposition parties do not need to raise their conservancy charges. However, under the new regulations, because the town councils have to transfer large sums of money into their sinking fund, their operational funds are greatly depleted. As a result, the operational fund is not enough to meet the day-to-day expenses. If the conservancy charges are not increased, then even with good operational surpluses from the past it will last at most 1 to 2 years. Thereafter, the conservancy charges will have to be raised substantially again. Therefore, I hereby suggest to the Minister for National Development the following:

First, maintain the minimum contribution to sinking fund at the present rate of 25%.

Second, when granting additional subsidies to the town councils, the Government need not demand that the town councils raise their conservancy charges by at least 5%, that is to say, the town councils themselves shall be at liberty to decide whether they want to raise their conservancy charges or not, or they could even decide to raise the conservancy charges by a smaller margin, depending on their respective situations.

So long as the town councils need not raise their conservancy charges, they should try their best not to raise them. Every town council should keep expenditure within the limits of income so as not to increase the burden of its residents. Under the new measures, nearly all the town councils are required to raise their conservancy charges. Some town councils which may not need to raise their conservancy charges this year are now forced to change their mind. Although the Ministry of National Development is saying that each town council has a right to decide whether it wants to raise its conservancy charges or not, with the increase in the minimum contribution to the sinking fund, the town councils are left with no choice but to raise their conservancy charges. For the genuine interest of the residents, I feel that the Minister should review the above-mentioned new measures.

Finally, I would like to ask the Minister one question, that is, before these new measures were announced, how many town councils had indicated that they had to raise their conservancy charges, and who are they?

Mr Choo Wee Khiang: Sir, may I clarify, please?

The Chairman: Mr Choo, could you wait for your turn?

Mr Choo Wee Khiang: On the point of town councils.

The Chairman: It is Mr Chia's turn.

Mr Choo Wee Khiang: All right.

Mr Chia Shi Teck (Nominated Member): Thank you, Sir. May I first declare my interest as a director of a public listed company involved in construction and sale of properties.

From the 1991-92 Annual Report of the HDB, I notice 14,755 flats were sold, out of which 47% were 4-room apartments, 28% 5-room flats and 18% Executive apartments. Resale transactions totalled 15,997 and 53% were mainly made up of 3-room apartments. This shows that people are moving out of the smaller apartments into the larger ones.

Rental demand went up to 9,300 and 6,800 flats were rented out, almost the same as the year before of 6,600. The surprising thing here is the deficit shown in the Annual Report. In 1990-91, with the sale of 17,037 units, the reported deficit was $80 million, which works out to about $4,700 per unit. In 1991-92, 14,755 units were sold, but $341 million deficit, or $23,100 per unit. The Minister may like to explain why with lesser units sold we are now having a higher subsidy, higher deficit, per unit. Is there a fixed subsidy policy for the different units?

As for the rental units, the bigger surprise is in 1990-91.

6,648 units were leased out. There was a deficit of $69 million or $10,400 per unit, as against 1991-92 when 6,847 were leased out and the deficit was $167 million or $24,000 per unit. So it looks like leasing apartments is a more costly affair.

We now have about 627,000 housing units and the projection of the HDB is to have 823,800 units. Taking about 87% of Singaporeans live in HDB flats, we are talking about a housing stock of more than 700,000 units, and we have a population of 2.7 million plus 300,000 foreigners, making about 3 million people. How far more do we need to continue to build? First, I declare that, of course, the Government has subsidised public housing from 1960 till now. We are talking about $4.6 billion. So the Government has subsidised public housing. We now have a housing stock of over 700,000. HDB's projection is that it is going to build 800,000 flats and plus the private units, we are talking about 1 million houses, probably to house the 4 million population that we are talking about. So it is four to a house.

On the accounts, the interesting thing is on the car parks. Parking charges collected in 1991-92 were $184 million, and fines collected were $31 million. A year earlier, 1990-91, parking charges collected were $162 million, and fines collected were $24 million. But in the accounts, there was a deficit due to depreciation, interest, property tax, demolition and so on. If car parking is a losing business, I suggest we give it to the town councils.

The mission statement of the public housing programme is very interesting, ie, to provide affordable quality housing to meet the needs of the population. In page 604 of the 1993 Budget, it states the MND's job in financing HDB. It says:

`The provision of financial aid to the Housing and Development Board for the implementation of its public housing programme and for the protection of the capital gains attributable to past Governments.' Probably the Minister would like to explain how MND goes about protecting the capital gains attributable to past governments and, in this case, it must mean protecting the values of the properties, unless it is a controlled market and there is an intention to see prices go up.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Eugene Yap Giau Cheng) in the Chair]

4.05 pm

Mr Chia Shi Teck (Nominated Member): The HDB should be praised for continuously improving the types of housing available. The problem here is that as the HDB upgrades and pushes up the prices, this may be one reason for the big deficit this year because of better quality housing, and yet it cannot increase the price according to its cost. But still HDB housing would never be the same as private housing because you are not comparing apple with apple. In private housing, the land that you sell in your housing programme is exclusive, and it is fenced up for security. The prestige is not the same. The facilities are not the same. The car park is free. Parking lots are given to the residents who buy flats in private estates. For one car park lot, the HDB now charges $50 if it is not covered. Those who buy private housing may own two cars and you are talking about $100. Over 99 years, you are talking about over $100,000 just on the car park fees. So there is a big difference between HDB flats and private apartments.

The private developers tender the land at market price, as against HDB's land, ie, Government land. The density is not the same. There are less restrictions, less control and often better designs. So the question is if the HDB is worried about not building the more "luxury" housing for fear of too huge escalation of private property prices, then maybe the HDB should compete apple for apple and actually build Executive apartments or 5-room apartments with the exclusivity of the private sector. That means probably the HDB could follow URA's Pidemco's position in tendering the land and building shopping centres, as in Bugis Square. That way, maybe you can play the good samaritan if you want to price an apple to an apple. Otherwise, unwittingly, the HDB's prices, some as high as $300,000 now, are supporting the private apartment prices. And I think this is not the right thing to do.

As seen in the 1985 recession, it is a matter of supply and demand. The private housing actually went below replacement cost, but the HDB's prices never went down. It stayed a while but it continued to move up. So we are actually looking at the HDB's prices to peg the private sector prices. But I am not recommending that HDB go into that market. If that is your fear, then you should go in to sell apple for apple. But the better thing to do, as what Minister Dhanabalan said yesterday, is to control the supply side. In your sale of land, you could flush more land out and let the private sector do the competition.

We have so many hundred thousand housing units. The question is whether there is a need to continue to build more. And, as what Dr Tan Cheng Bock said earlier, the need and the actual desire, expectations and aspirations are not the same. Is it also because of the huge sums of money that the people have in the HDB flats? I was told that in many housing estates, people have purchased their flats but have actually not moved in and the flats are left vacant and empty. Is that the right way to use our limited resources, both in land and in terms of money? And in view of our regionalisation policy, people are being geared into loans in financing their houses. The question is whether this in itself is an obstacle for people wanting to move out. The Senior Minister did say that Singaporeans are not that adventurous and not wanting to take risks. My view is that is not true. My view is that Singaporeans are very smart and a smarter thing for him to do now is actually to sit on properties and let the prices escalate, especially when there is a mission statement that MND will protect and make sure prices go up, so to speak.

The Chairman: Mr Choo.

Mr Choo Wee Khiang: I am not speaking.

The Chairman: Mr Low.

Mr Low Thia Khiang (Hougang): ( In Mandarin): Sir, the maintenance and management of HDB flats was originally the responsibility of the HDB. Later, in the name of allowing the people to have more active participation in the management of their own town and to have a better standard of living, a decision was made to set up town councils.

In the 1988 General Elections, the Government made the town council an election issue, and threatened the people that if they were to vote for the Opposition parties, the Opposition parties would not have the expertise to manage the town councils and would even use up all the money of the town councils. Then the Government would sit tight and remain indifferent. I would like to ask the Minister: Has any town council under the management of an Opposition party squandered any of the funds belonging to the town council?

After the establishment of town councils, the Ministry of National Development formed a Housing Estate Management Department to supervise and provide financial support to the town councils. The subsidies granted by the said Department have been reduced from $118 million in 1989 to just $1 million in 1992.

According to the estimates for 1992, this subsidy should be $151 million. Why is it that only $1 million was granted to the town councils? Even more surprising is that last year, this subsidy was not granted to the town councils, and yet in this year's estimates, the amount is reduced to $121 million. I would like to ask the Minister the following questions:

First, why was the $151 million approved by Parliament last year not granted to the town councils?

Second, why is this year's estimates for subsidies to town councils reduced by $30 million to only $125 million? Why are the subsidies to town councils being reduced?

Sir, recently the Ministry of National Development wrote to the town councils and forced the town councils to transfer a major portion of their revenue from their residents' conservancy charges into the sinking fund. For example, for the 4-room and bigger flats, the town councils have to transfer 40% of the conservancy charges into the sinking fund. The reason given was that the cost of repainting and renovation of HDB flats had gone up over the past few years, and that the existing provision for sinking fund was based on the 1986 prices. May I ask the Minister for National Development how were the figures for grant of subsidies to town councils for painting and other upgrading works worked out? Which year's prices were used as their basis of calculation?

More importantly, the Ministry's demand for a major part of the conservancy charges collected to be transferred to the sinking fund will result in the town councils having not enough operational funds to meet their day-to-day maintenance expenses. I would like to ask what measures the PAP town councils have in dealing with the situation, especially Mr Choo who is always singing praises of the Government's policy! What sort of magic formula has he got to deal with the problem?

On one hand, the Ministry of National Development has reduced its subsidy to the town councils by $30 million in this year's estimates, and on the other hand it is forcing the town councils to put a bigger portion of their conservancy charges collection into the sinking fund. I would like to ask the Minister what is the meaning of all these? Sir, during the 1988 General Elections, I told the electorate in Singapore that the management of town council is not the problem. The problem is where to get the money? It is my view that the establishment of town council is a trick of the Government to try and push the responsibility of maintaining, funding and managing the housing estates to the residents. Let us hope that what I have just said will not turn out to be true.

Mr Choo Wee Khiang: Can I reply to Mr Low?

The Chairman: You have missed your turn. Mr Robert Chua.

Mr Robert Chua Teck Chew (Nominated Member): Thank you for giving me time to discuss "Relaxing Rules and Regulations for Property Development" under this cut. I think all Singaporeans agree that the Singapore Government has done a very good job in developing the country so beautifully and orderly. Last year, the construction industry, for example, continued to grow at 17.6%, far above the other sectors of the economy and contributing 1.1% to the total GDP of the country. The property development side is doing very, very well. Under such circumstances, I am wondering if the Minister would enlighten us whether his Ministry takes periodic reviews of rules and regulations concerning property development so as to avoid duplication, to improve coordination, to reduce delays and red tape. For example, what mechanism exists to coordinate the work of different Ministries, Departments and Divisions involved in planning and approving property development and how to simplify or reduce such rules and regulations?

The second point concerns rules and regulations for industrial land use. With changing development in the manufacturing sector, the need for land usage for manufacturing has been changing over the last few years. No longer are manufacturing plants just production areas. New needs have to be met, for example, for R&D, for training, for in-bound and out-bound logistics, for procurement, warehousing, sales, marketing and so on. Has the Ministry taken a review of the existing guidelines concerning usage or even space utilisation in the manufacturing area? If so, what are the new guidelines?

Also, is the Ministry looking into allowing integrated development to take place on the same piece of land so that the property developer can build office/industrial complexes on the same piece of land. Right now, we are quite clear about what the land should or should not be used for. We have divided them into housing, commercial, industrial, science parks and business parks. What about allowing for integrated development? Because with the changing needs, integration of a company's operation, integrating its office operations, its manufacturing operations, its procurement and other operations, makes a lot of sense at this time because it saves labour, it reduces administration costs, it reduces transportation between the different locations which should reduce congestion on the road and save transportation cost. So I am asking the Minister whether he would consider allowing integrated development on more sites in future and whether guidelines could be issued for such a purpose so as to improve efficiency and productivity.

I would like to make a final request for a simple guide book to be issued for the public in view of this new initiative being taken by the Ministry, for example, on strata title bungalow lots. I think the public would want to know in a simple form what must be done before a member of the public can take on any development. Right now, because there are so many rules and regulations, members of the public are not well informed. At times, even the professionals are a little confused.

The Chairman: Mr Choo, you have one minute to speak.

Mr Choo Wee Khiang: ( In Mandarin): Sir, thank you for allowing me to speak. Mr Low asked me how I am going to run my town council. The Hokkien has this saying: I cannot teach you my tricks. So if I cannot teach you, how can you want me to teach you? You must join the PAP.

The Minister for National Development (Dr Richard Hu Tsu Tau): Sir, I will take points under (1)(b), (1)(e) and (1)(j) on the Order Paper Supplement and the Minister of State will take the subjects relating to the Housing and Development Board and Town Councils.

First, Dr Tan Cheng Bock has raised some questions about the review of planning guidelines and design flexibility. I thank him for the support of the new initiatives we have introduced recently. He is specifically concerned about problems which might arise from the development of strata bungalows because it may not be easy for the management corporation set up to agree, particularly where the number of units may be small, and to obtain a majority may be difficult. Under the Strata Titles Act, for infrastructural changes, 25% or more of the members of the management corporation can veto an infrastructure project. I think this is a problem which is common to all democratic institutions where the majority decision has to be upheld. I do not think it is Government's job to try and set up guidelines further than the Strata Titles Act. But I would imagine that in the case of strata bungalows, the common share facilities are relatively small. Generally, they will be things like swimming pools, sports facilities and items which are separate from the dwelling units themselves. So hopefully the areas for disagreement may be much smaller.

He has also showed interest in the sale of sites for individual small plots and he is concerned as to whether there should not be restrictions on the number of units which can be bought by single individuals. At the moment, there is no intention to impose a unit limit. In other words, anyone who wants to bid for one or all of the units is allowed to do so. I am aware that there is some reservation about large developers monopolising these units. But for the present, we are not going to impose restrictions because it is necessary to ensure that public land is sold at the best possible price. It will be difficult to impose restrictive covenance on the sales terms. However, we will monitor the situation. If, in fact, all future land sales of this type are monopolised by one or two companies, then we may want to re-consider.

Finally, on the question of completion time. There will be a 48-month time imposed on the completion of construction after the contracts are awarded. This is to ensure that the development as a whole gets completed at about the same time. Otherwise, you might have units left empty and development would be very untidy.

Dr Wong Kwei Cheong raised questions on the sale of land for commercial and residential developments. On the question of sale of commercial space, the Government will release land this year for the development of about 105,000 square metres of net commercial space. This level of release is expected to be maintained over the next two years. The Ministry of National Development has a three year rolling plan reviewed annually, taking into consideration the long term trends of supply and demand for commercial space. The actual amount released each year will be announced in an updated three year rolling plan made public yearly. The supply of commercial space to be completed over the next three years can be gauged from the number of projects in the pipeline. URA has estimated that this supply in the pipeline could be about 1.59 million square metres.

The Government land sales programme is targeted at meeting the long term demand, taking into account the existing stock and the potential supply in the pipeline. Where there is a glut of commercial space, this will be reflected in the supply. One should note that the supply of commercial space for sales sites will only be realised some five to seven years after the launch of sale. So there is a very long lag gestation period.

The Government does not intervene to regulate the commercial property market. How the market fares depends on a host of factors affecting the demand for and supply of commercial space. For example, it would depend on the strength of the economy, the investment decisions of property developers and investors. The Government's basic strategy is therefore to adopt a steady supply policy which will not exacerbate the peaks and troughs of the market. At the same time, Government tries to provide comprehensive and timely information on the existing stock and potential supply of properties to assist interested parties to make their decisions on property investments. In the end, it has to be left to the market to decide what they wish to build and how quickly, based on the supply of land which Government makes available. If there is a glut, then the market should reflect this in the lack of interest in the land purchases.

On private housing, the Government also releases land each year for the development of about 3,000 dwelling units. The strategy is to release enough land to underpin the long term demand, therefore, keeping prices affordable. Since 1991, URA and HDB have been releasing land for the development of landed properties. Government will release more land for the development of landed property to meet the demand for such types of property. In this way, prices of landed properties should remain affordable and more people will be able to own such properties. Some 490 units of landed properties will be built on land released by the URA and HDB in 1991 and 1992. In 1993, land will be released for the development of 1,070 units. Another 2,300 units are expected to be built on land to be released in 1994 and 1995. Thereafter, the rate of supply would be about 1,000 units of landed properties a year.

Marina South is prime land, part of which is intended for the future down town core. The planning intention is therefore to have high density housing to optimise the use of land. This will allow more housing units to be built to give more people a chance to live next to the city. I think it is not practical or economically sensible to have landed properties to be located in Marina South.

The land at Bukit Turf Club has an area of approximately 135 hectares. It will be used predominantly for landed properties. Supporting facilities such as neighbourhood centres, civic and community institutions and sports and recreation will also be developed.

Dr Low Seow Chay has asked about the release of land for private development. He is concerned about prices of such properties getting out of control. I would point out that property prices are determined by market forces of supply and demand. Like commercial properties, property prices would vary with the health of the economy. Landed property prices, for example, fell during the recessionary years in 1985 and 1986. But they have since recovered and increased substantially over the last two or three years, mainly because of the good performance of the economy.

4.30 pm

It is not feasible for the Government to regulate the market to prevent the fluctuation of prices in landed properties or in any other type of property. The Ministry's strategy in this area is to provide a steady supply of land for property development and to announce the three-year rolling sale of site programme in advance so that everybody, including property developers and home buyers, are aware of the potential supply for the private sector. Since 1991, URA and HDB have been releasing land for landed property development. Some 490 units of landed property are being built on the land released in 1991/92.

I have said earlier that from 1993 to 1995, my Ministry would be releasing enough land to build 1,000 units of landed property each year. My Ministry will make a review at the end of this year to see whether changes might be necessary. If the situation requires it, we are prepared to release more land for landed property development. We hope that through the planned release of more land to increase the supply of landed properties, prices of landed properties will remain affordable and more people will be able to own such properties if they wish.

Dr Low has asked whether more strict rules might be applied to permanent residents in the purchase of landed property because of the strong demand for landed property. I would tell him that landed properties are controlled under the Residential Properties Act and only citizens of Singapore are allowed to buy them without specific permission.

Finally, Mr Robert Chua has asked whether the Government would periodically review the regulations and rules for the development of properties. I can assure him this takes place all the time and, in fact, there is a continuing dialogue with property developers, architects, and other members of the construction industry to ensure that the system does not get out of date. We receive feedback and when timely and where such changes are necessary, they will be introduced.

He has asked whether there may be a review of rules and regulations for the use of industrial land because of the changing nature of manufacture, new products, new systems. Indeed, we do recognise this. Therefore, we have started Science Parks. We are in the process of developing Financial Parks for companies which wish to conduct their backroom computer operations outside the city area. There are specific areas designated for aerospace industries and such like developments, petrochemicals, and so forth. So it is in recognition that the nature of industries is changing quite rapidly that we need to be flexible in providing for the use of industrial land.

On the question of allowing integrated developments, I think this is a more complex issue and we are looking at it, but, certainly, it is not something which we will not consider.

Finally, he has asked whether the Ministry could produce a guide book on the new initiatives. I think that is a good idea. We have, in the past, been issuing regularly guide books on, for example, conservation areas, and so forth. And we will certainly put together new issues for the guidance of the developers and for the public at large.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, can I have my question answered?

The Minister of State for National Development (Mr Lim Hng Kiang): From the wide range of concerns raised by Members, it is obvious that trying to meet the housing aspirations of Singaporeans is not going to be an easy task. As we have heard today, some Members have asked for more HDB flats to be built, because the waiting list is getting very long; on the other hand, Mr Chia Shi Teck has questioned why we are building so many. Before I address the specific areas raised by individual MPs, let me try to paint the big picture first.

First of all, let us ask ourselves: what is the housing situation in Singapore today? Lest we forget, this is 1993. It is not 1973 when Singaporeans were just looking for a roof above their heads. It is also not 1983 when most Singaporeans were just buying their first homes. Today, more than 90% of Singaporeans own their homes. We are therefore well on the way to a full home-owning society. This is a truly remarkable achievement. It is the clearest demonstration of the Government's programme to ensure that every Singaporean has a stake in our country. It has been achieved by massive Government subsidies to housing over the years. And I say the money has been well spent.

The SDP has said that HDB flats are not true ownership. It is 99 years, there are a lot of restrictions, and therefore it is not true home ownership. Let me ask the SDP: in the constituencies they represent, perhaps, the SDP should organise a campaign to ask the residents there to return the flats to the HDB because the SDP claims they do not own the flats. The HDB will be very willing to refund back their purchase price and convert their home ownership flats to rental flats. If the SDP does not have the resources to organise it, I can get HDB to organise such a campaign for them free of charge.

We must understand the situation today. We have achieved home ownership and that is something that we can be proud of. So where do we go from here? The Prime Minister answered that question three days ago. The Government's objective is to encourage Singaporeans to build up their assets. The more successful can do so on their own steam. The less successful will be assisted. But it will not be a handout. They must also put in the effort and work for it. So how do we plan to do it? We plan, as far as the housing situation is concerned, to enable Singaporeans to upgrade their old flats, so that their asset value is higher. We will also allow them to upgrade to new and bigger flats so that they have a higher investment, bigger assets. And if they can make it, we also want to facilitate their upgrading to private property.

Let me assure the House that the PAP Government has achieved full home ownership within the financial resources of the Government. We have no intention to depart from this practice in our next phase to increase the assets of every Singaporean. Singaporeans want to buy bigger and better HDB flats. They see that as investing in a better asset and as investing in their future, at the same time, enjoying a higher standard of living. There is nothing wrong with people aspiring to upgrade to better quality flats if they can afford it, and with HDB meeting these aspirations.

Mr Chia Shi Teck asked, with 700,000 housing units today, why are we proceeding to build so many more. As he knows, the projection for Singapore population is targeted at 4 million, if not more. The household size today is about 4.3 and steadily declining, which means, in the long term, we do need 1 million housing units to house the 4 million population. The view that we have spent too much in housing is not supported by macro-economics evidence. Let us compare the share of residential construction in total investment in Singapore over time as well as other countries.

In the 1970s, the share of residential construction in Singapore was 18% of total investment. In the 1980s, this rose to 22% of total investment, because we were encouraging home ownership. In 1991 and 1992, this has dropped to 16% of total investment. So it is not true that we are over-investing in residential construction. The proportion has in fact dropped. Investment in residential construction has not crowded out other worthwhile investments.

Let us compare our investment in residential construction with other countries. As I indicated earlier, Singapore's investment has dropped from 22% to 16%. In Japan, it is about 20%; USA and Canada, about 25% of total investment is in residential construction; West Germany and France, about 28%. Interestingly, whereas ours has dropped from 22% to 16% in the 1990s, South Korea's share of residential construction has in fact increased to 24% in the 1990s. I concede that Hong Kong is probably the only country with very low investment in housing. On the average, they invest about 10% of their total investment in housing. But Singaporeans have to make the decision. Are Singaporeans prepared to live under the same conditions as Hong Kong? Is Hong Kong, in fact, under-investing in housing, because it is not a popularly elected government? So at the macro-level, the evidence shows that housing is not crowding out other worthwhile investments.

Many MPs have asked whether affordability has fallen. Let us look at the individual level and ask: what proportion of a household income is taken up by housing? If you look at the experience of other countries, the conventional wisdom is that the average property price is about five times the average gross annual income. Some cities where housing prices are generally considered high, this figure is much higher. For example, in Tokyo, it is 9.4 times the average annual income. In Frankfurt it is 7.5, and in New York it is 7. In Singapore, if you look at the flats purchased in 1992, among the 3-room type, comparing the average price and the average household income, this is a ratio of 3.4. So the people buying 3-room flats are paying 3.4 times their average annual income. For 4-room, it is 4.9; for 5-room, it is 4.7; and for Executive flats, it is 5.5.

So housing prices in Singapore are well within the range in other countries, despite the shortage of land in Singapore. So this shows that housing prices in Singapore, on the whole, are affordable and do not take up an excessive proportion of Singaporeans' household income. I will address this issue later on when we talk about affordability for the lower income groups.

I mentioned just now that the three programmes for the future are (1) upgrading of old flats; (2) allowing Singaporeans to upgrade to new and bigger flats; and (3) upgrading to private property. Let me now take the upgrading of old flats and address the questions posed by Dr Tan Cheng Bock.

The cost-sharing ratio, which I announced on Wednesday, is intended to benefit the lower income groups so that their asset value will also increase under the Upgrading Programme. Again, we have been prudent in our approach. I agree with Dr Tan Cheng Bock that the high cost of the additional space-adding item must be highlighted to Singaporeans and the cost-sharing ratio must be more evenly spread so that only those who truly value and are prepared to pay for their share will opt for them.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock suggested that the space-adding item should be optional for the 4-room and 5-room flats. That is, indeed, the case. If they are prepared to pay for a higher cost-sharing ratio for their space-adding item, they will opt for it. If they do not find it good value for money, they will opt out.

Dr Tan also asked that the subsidy for the 3-room flats should be raised from 60% to 90% for the space-adding items. I think 60% is already a fairly generous percentage. We recognise the needs of the 3-room households for additional space and the suggestion put up by Mr Choo Wee Khiang for an additional toilet. And that is why we try to bring the percentage down as low as possible.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock also asked whether residents in the old estates would be able to finance their share of the Upgrading Programme. Before we embark on the upgrading of every precinct, we consult the residents and we do a study of the CPF accounts. Most residents in the old 3-room flats that were bought 15 or 20 years ago would have paid up their flats and they are able to pay the additional $3,500 or $13,000, whether they opt for a Standard Package or a Standard-plus Package. They can take up a loan from the HDB repayable over 10 years and they pay a very low interest rate, 0.1% above the CPF rate. For those genuinely very poor and are not able to pay the loan, HDB will hold on to the loan and only take back the payments after they have sold the flat. So the whole package is designed so that the old and the poor are able to afford their share of the upgrading.

4.45 pm

Dr Tan Cheng Bock also asked whether the precincts will become disharmonious if different blocks opt for the different packages. What I envisage would be that the Advisor to the CCCwill gauge the level of affordability of the precinct and will offer one package to them for voting. I believe most precincts will be able to afford the Standard Package so the design will be based on the Standard Package. And for those blocks that want the space-adding item, the design will accommodate the space-adding item. So I can assure Dr Tan Cheng Bock that the precinct will be harmonious and well-designed.

Dr Vasoo raised the issue of rejuvenation of old estates. Besides upgrading, we also have other plans to attract the younger generation into the old estates. For example, we have announced that existing residents can buy over their neighbour's 3-room flat so as to convert it and make it into a bigger flat. This will allow new households or bigger families who need bigger flats to buy over their neighbour's flat if the neighbour is moving out and, therefore, remain in their estate. We have also, in areas where it is possible, redeveloped new flats in the old estates so as to inject new residents into the estates. So we are doing all we can to rejuvenate the older estates.

Mr Choo Wee Khiang raised the problem of flats having only one toilet cum bathroom. He requested that in the Upgrading Programme, we should consider adding another toilet. I am fully in sympathy with him. Those flats which were built in the very old days were very small and they only had one toilet cum bathroom and it created a lot of problems in the "morning peak". That is why we set a very low ratio of 40% for the 3-room flat so that, if they can afford it, we will build the additional toilet for them. The HDB will also look at how we can separate the existing toilet into separate compartments for a toilet and a bathroom so that we can make it more convenient. In addition, HDB is also studying whether we can put a wash basin in the master bedroom.

Let me just say that the HDB's Upgrading Programme is one of the key programmes in our next phase to build up the assets owned by every Singaporean. It will cater for all Singaporeans living in the older estates who are happy to continue to live there.

Let me now turn to the problems of people who want to buy newer and bigger flats, the concerns raised by Dr Vasoo and Dr Ho Tat Kin. Let me explain the situation. The profile of HDB flat applicants today is very different from the past. In the past, the applicants were primarily first-time buyers. They were thankful just to be allocated a flat and tended not to be too particular about location or design. Today, about 50% of our flat applicants are upgraders. Upgrader applicants already have a home of their own and can afford to be more particular and hold out for a flat in the right location and of the right design. This change in the profile of HDB flat applicants became apparent and started to pose a problem around 1985 when HDB ended up with a large stock of unsold flats in Yishun and Woodlands. Applicants in the queue were not prepared to pick flats in these estates. The previous waiting list system was, therefore, no longer tenable. The booking system was, therefore, implemented to respond to this change in the profile of the flat buyers.

The kind of problems that we are facing today can be divided into three categories because the demand and supply pattern for these three categories are different. The first category is mature estates. In the mature estates, the demand exceeds supply by about 10 to 1. We just simply do not have land in mature estates, like Toa Payoh or Ang Mo Kio, to build flats. There is just simply no land. For example, in Toa Payoh recently, we put up 270 flats for booking and we have 4,300 applicants, or a ratio of 1:16. So for every person who gets a flat, 15 are disappointed.

Dr Ho Tat Kin suggested that we have a queuing system. If we have a queuing system, we will have a riot. And there is no way to satisfy the remaining 4,000 applicants because there is just simply no land left. In Ang Mo Kio, we estimate that we have only enough land to build just 800 more flats and I am sure there are more than 4,000 applicants waiting in the wings to apply for flats in Ang Mo Kio. So the queuing system does not work in the mature estates. The supply is just not there. In scarce resources, there are only three ways to allocate: queuing, balloting or tendering. If you do not like balloting because it is a lottery, will you accept tendering?

The second category is new towns on transition to becoming a mature town. These are towns which are nearing completion and land is running out for flat development. Like mature estates, such new towns in transition are very popular because the facilities are all built up and there is a lot of publicity. Two good examples are Pasir Ris and Tampines. In Tampines, at the last quarter exercise, there were 25 applicants to every flat. So Tampines is now facing the same situation as Ang Mo Kio, if not worse, because we publicised the Design and Build Programme and the World Habitat Award for Tampines. So there was a huge surge in the demand and now it is 25:1. Again, there is no way we can have a queuing system because there is only land available in Tampines for 5,600 flats and already there are 18,000 unsuccessful applicants for Tampines New Town.

The final category of estates are those which are under development. These are Jurong West, Chua Chu Kang, Woodlands and in future towns, like Sembawang and Kangkar. In these areas, HDB has a steady stream of land to build more flats when the demand requires. And in these areas, we do have a modified queuing system in place. Applicants who tender for the flats consistently in these areas build up the weightage in the probability in which they get their flats and new household applicants will get their flats in these new towns within one year from the date of first application. So if people choose these new towns where we can have a continuous stream of development, they are assured that within one year of their application they can book their flat. So there is plenty of certainty in these new towns. But people choose to go to the mature estates and to the nearing mature estates and they claim that they do not have certainty. What can we do? So there is no necessity to reintroduce a waiting list system for these new towns. There is a modified queuing system. New household applicants will select their flats within one year and upgraders will select their flats within two years, if they stick to these new towns. The demand has not increased since the implementation of the booking system. Today, we have about 40,000 odd applying each quarter and this comprises 20,000 new households, because new families are created every year, and 20,000 from upgraders.

Let me now turn to affordability of HDB flats. As I mentioned just now, we do track the percentage of household income being taken up by housing and we do make sure that it remains at around 25% to 30%. In the case of 3-room flats, the monthly mortgage payment for 3-room flats, as a proportion of the average monthly income, has, in fact, fallen from 15% in 1985 to 9% in 1992. For 4-room flats, although the prices have gone up, the mortgage payment for a 4-room flat, as a proportion of average income, has remained constant at about 22% to 23%.

HDB prices have to go up because HDB flats are primarily cost-driven. Increases in the HDB flats over the past two years are due primarily to the significant increases in construction and land costs. Government is, therefore, forced to raise the prices of HDB flats but we try to do so by a smaller amount than the rise in the construction cost. As a result, the subsidy has gone up. The average subsidy per flat sold was $23,000 in FY 91/92 and is now estimated to be $32,000 for FY 92/93.

Our approach to pricing of HDB flats is that, as a general policy, HDB flats are priced to ensure that 3-room and 4-room flats are affordable to the lower and average income groups. The higher income groups who can afford to buy bigger flats, like the 5-room and Executive flats, will pay for the costs of the bigger areas, better design and better finishes. But my Ministry will make sure that housing will remain affordable for the lower-income groups.

We are looking at several measures to make sure that the lower-income groups will continue to be able to buy flats in the future. First, the HDB intends to build smaller 4-room flats with simpler design and finishes towards the end of 1993. These flats will cost about 10% to 20% less than the normal 4-room flats. The selling prices will, therefore, be correspondingly lower.

Second, at this juncture, I would like to announce that my Ministry has also reviewed the HDB's Mortgage Loan Financing Scheme for the purchase of resale flats, the subject taken up by both Dr Vasoo and Dr Tan Cheng Bock. We agree that the current financing of pegging the loans to the posted prices is a bit out of date and we are revising it. The mortgage loan finance will now be increased on 1st April 1993 to 80% of the market value, or 80% of the transacted sale price, whichever is lower. For families with income not exceeding $1,000 per month, the loan is revised to 95% of the market value, or 95% of the transacted sale price, whichever is lower. So this will allow lower-income families to afford 3-room flats in the resale market without recourse to cash.

Dr Koh Lip Lin said that the increase in demand for rental flats is because of increase in prices. That is not the case. The increase in demand for rental flats is because, over the last two years, HDB has relaxed the requirements for applicants for rental flats, in particular, we have relaxed the age requirement for applicants for rental flats. And this has resulted in a big increase in the demand for rental flats. Similarly, the increase in demand for HDB flats is not because of higher prices. I have assured Singaporeans that the construction prices for HDB flats are likely to be stable this year because the construction sector is stabilising and we do not expect to see big increases in HDB prices this year.

Let me now turn to the subject of Town Councils. Mr Peh asked whether we will investigate misuse of funds by Town Councils for political purposes. Let me assure him that we will. And if we catch any Town Council violating financial regulations and misusing funds, we will take action.

Mr Cheo and Mr Low Thia Khiang complained that the high percentage of contributions to the sinking funds has resulted in lower operating revenue for the Town Councils. Let me explain. We have found, through our experience, that Town Councils are not putting aside enough money to fund their future cyclical funds. The previous 25% is grossly inadequate because of the rising cost of cyclical maintenance. We have hoped to leave it to the Town Councils to use their judgement and increase the contributions on their own. Unfortunately, that does not happen. So now we require all Town Councils, PAP or Opposition, to increase their contributions to the sinking fund. Mr Cheo said, why put it in now? He will raise it later on when the need arises. I am sorry, Mr Cheo, we may not be around when the need arises. So it is better for us to put the money in the sinking fund and all Singaporeans are assured the money is there for future cyclical works. Mr Cheo said that we are forcing all Town Councils to increase it by 5%. That is not true. We give Town Councils the option and a free hand. If they want to raise, they notify us and we will give them the additional grant. If they do not want to raise, we will let it be.

The rationale is this. The Government has pledged to give more grants to Town Councils which are running tight. If you are running tight and you need to raise your S&C charges to fund your operations, the Government will step in and help you and give you more grant.

The Chairman: Order. It is 5.00 pm.

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

Dr Richard Hu Tsu Tau: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply has made further progress on the Estimates for the financial year 1993/1994, and ask leave to sit again on Monday, 15th March, 1993.

Mr Deputy Speaker: So be it.