ESTIMATES OF EXPENDITURE FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1ST APRIL, 1995 TO 31ST MARCH, 1996

Order read for consideration in Committee of Supply [5th Allotted Day].

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Head S (cont.) -

Resumption of Debate on Question [20th March, 1995],

"That the total sum to be allocated for Head S of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100." - [Encik Othman bin Haron Eusofe].

Question again proposed. 12.41 pm

The Minister for Labour (Dr Lee Boon Yang): Sir, yesterday afternoon, just before the moment of interruption, I was responding to Encik Othman Haron Eusofe's observation that with globalisation of businesses the wage gap between skilled and unskilled workers in Singapore would widen. As I was saying, this is an economic fact of life governed by the forces of supply and demand. Unskilled workers in Singapore will increasingly have to compete with unskilled foreign workers working here in Singapore on work permits and those who are in their home country. Those who are on work permit here come from low-wage countries and an influx of such workers will certainly widen the wage gap between skilled and unskilled Singaporean workers and it is for this reason that my Ministry is compelled to regulate the entry of foreign workers by reviewing the foreign workers levy from time to time.

As more and more companies redistribute their labour-intensive activities to nearby countries which have a much larger pool of low-cost workers, the unskilled workers in Singapore will face greater difficulties. We cannot reverse such trends and it is not in our long-term interest to try to retain such labour-intensive and low value-added jobs in Singapore. The right thing to do is to assist those who are unskilled to enhance their economic and market value by making them more employable. This is best done through skills upgrading and retraining. For this to succeed, it is important that workers take retraining and skills upgrading efforts seriously so that they are able to keep pace with the changes taking place in the economy. Even if they are retrenched for various reasons, they can seek alternative employment in other companies so long as they possess marketable skills. So workers must take a positive attitude towards retraining. They must be able to keep up with the changing skill requirements of industries in order to enjoy greater employability and market value for themselves.

Sir, to promote greater awareness of the importance of training and to demonstrate commitment, my Ministry supported the unions' proposal to have a training clause incorporated in collective agreements. However, to allay the fears of employers who are not ready or willing to put in a numerical target in their collective agreement, I suggested last year in this House that unions should first persuade employers to accept a clause on training of their workers in their collective agreement in qualitative terms. Based on our study of the collective agreements between companies and unions over the last year, the number of collective agreements incorporating training clauses has increased from 7% in 1993 to 27% in 1994. This is a very good response and my Ministry would like to take this opportunity to commend the unions' initiative and effort to get companies to commit to training and upgrading of workers. I would also like to say that the cooperation of the employers who have taken up the suggestion is highly commendable.

But while good progress has been made, the bulk of the collective agreements still do not have such a provision for training of their workers. I would therefore strongly urge all employers to respond positively to the unions' proposal for a training clause to be included in the collective agreements. And for those who have already done so, they should start to invest more resources for workers' training.

Finally, Sir, to ensure that company restructuring is carried out smoothly, companies should always consult their unions and provide the necessary information. This will enable workers to better cope with the changes which could involve redeployment to other jobs within the company or even retrenchment and looking for new jobs elsewhere.

Sir, Mr Othman also asked for a progress report on the amendments to the Employment Act. The Tripartite Review Committee on the Employment Act completed its review of the Act in June last year. Following the recommendations of the Review Committee, my Ministry, together with the Singapore Employers Federation and NTUC, carried out a series of briefings and consultations on the recommendations to obtain feedback to ensure that these recommendations, when implemented, can be done smoothly. Using the feedback from the industries and trade unions, we have made refinements to some of the recommendations, including consequential changes to the Industrial Relations Act. These refinements would be incorporated as amendments to the law. My Ministry will be presenting the amendment Bill to this House before June this year.

Sir, I next turn to Dr John Chen who spoke about the difficulty faced by those who are earning more than $1,500 a month being unable to seek remedy in the Labour Court. The monthly salary ceiling in the Employment Act, which presently stands at $1,500, is only applicable to certain provisions of the Act. For example, section 33 which gives priority of salary to other debts; Part IV which provides for minimal employment standards relating to rest days, hours of work, overtime payments and leave; and section 115 which provides for the eligibility of employees to seek adjudication from the Commissioner for Labour in respect of employment disputes with their employers.

Sir, the $1,500 ceiling is not applicable to manual workers who are covered by the Employment Act regardless of their monthly salary. Hence, all manual workers can appeal to the Labour Court for assistance regardless of their salary.

Non-manual workers whose salary exceeds $1,500 and who are not managers or executives can still enjoy the protection of the Employment Act, such as with regard to appealing against unfair dismissal, payment of salary and maternity benefits. However, the Ministry recognises that there is an anomaly in the Act that an employee who is not a manager or an executive but earns more than $1,500 and is covered by the Act is presently not able to pursue his employment dispute with the employer in the Labour Court by virtue of the salary restriction in section 115 which I mentioned earlier, and that the Ministry can only help such an employee through conciliation.

The Tripartite Review Committee on Employment Act has addressed this anomaly and the Ministry has accepted the Committee's recommendation to remove the salary restriction contained in section 115. The removal of the salary restriction would give this group of employees the right to appeal to the Labour Court to resolve their disputes with their employers.

On the matter of union representation, the Ministry had in 1992 issued a set of guidelines to enable employees who are junior management personnel and who are not executives, including those earning more than $1,500, to join rank-and-file unions. The guidelines have worked well and, in fact, many junior management personnel and front-line supervisors have since joined rank-and-file unions.

Sir, I next turn to the Nominated Member of Parliament, Mr John De Payva. He observed that the section on retrenchment benefits in the Employment Act is worded in the negative form. While section 45 of the Employment Act is worded in the negative form, it has never stopped eligible employees from claiming for retrenchment benefits. The law is also silent on the quantum of retrenchment benefits payable. Nonetheless, retrenched workers do receive retrenchment benefits although the quantum would vary from company to company and from situation to situation. In the case of larger companies, particularly the unionised ones, the retrenchment benefit norm is one month's salary for each year of service. For smaller companies, the quantum is usually lower. Sir, in my view, section 45 has served its purpose and is not necessary for the law to be amended.

Mr De Payva has also expressed concern that the section on retrenchment empowers the employer to retrench workers by virtue of reorganisation or restructuring. Management of a company, including recruitment, promotion and transfer of workers and the need to reduce the size of the workforce, should be and ought to remain a function of management. Hence, section 17(2) of the Industrial Relations Act gives employers the right to retrench workers on the ground of redundancy, reorganisation and restructuring.

Notwithstanding this, companies should provide reasons for retrenchment, including the basis for selection of workers who are affected by the retrenchment exercise. And in practice, companies have done so. If a company is unable or refuses to give reasons for retrenchment of workers, it will be difficult for the union to work closely with the company to ensure that the retrenchment exercise is carried out smoothly.

Sir, past experience on retrenchment cases shows that employers have not abused their rights and it is unlikely that employees could be victimised under the guise of retrenchment. If an employer is suspected of abusing the right given under the law, the worker or his union could make representation to seek the Ministry's intervention.

The Member also asked for a review of the provision in section 38 of the Trade Unions Act which enables any member of the public to secure a copy of the union's constitution for not more than $1 charge. As a trade union represents mainly the lower income bargainable employees, it is the objective of the law to keep the charge for obtaining information relating to the union as low as possible. This is to ensure that union members and those who are interested in joining the union will have easy access to the rules. That is why the charge for a copy of the union's constitution had been fixed at not more than $1. Notwithstanding the above, I will take note of his comments and in our review of the Trade Unions Act, we will consider his suggestion to review this charge.

The Member also called for another tripartite committee to review other labour legislation including the Industrial Relations Act and the Factories Act. My Ministry's officers regularly review all labour legislation and propose amendments where necessary. For instance, in January this year, we amended the Factories Act in this Chamber to enhance coverage of the Factories Act, improve workers' safety, increase penalties for offenders and updated certain outmoded sections in the Factories Act. Let me reassure the Member that we will continue to review various pieces of legislation under our purview to ensure that labour legislation remains up to date, relevant to our economic needs and can continue to serve both employees and employers.

Sir, Mr Koo Tsai Kee yesterday asked whether the Government will consider allowing more people from managerial ranks to join the rank-and-file union. Section 16(3) of the Industrial Relations Act prohibits a trade union of employees, the majority of whose membership consists of employees in non-managerial or non-executive positions, that means, generally regarded as the bargainable employees, from seeking recognition in respect of employees in the managerial or executive position. It also prohibits such unions from serving a notice in respect of these employees for the purpose of collective bargaining under section 117 of the Act.

The purpose of this prohibition is to avoid conflict of interest and labour-management disputes. However, the Act does not prevent employers from allowing their managers and executives to be members of rank-and-file unions for purpose other than collective bargaining. Managers and executives are also not prohibited from forming or joining their own unions.

Sir, in response to unions' concern that some employers had resorted to inflating job titles of their employees who are not actually in managerial or executive positions, the Ministry, in consultation with NTUC and SNEF, issued a set of guidelines in January 1992 on union representation of junior management personnel and front-line supervisors, which I referred to when I responded to Dr John Chen earlier on. The aim of these guidelines was to ensure that junior management personnel, particularly front-line supervisors who are not executives, are able to join and be represented by rank-and-file unions.

Since the implementation of the tripartite guidelines, the Ministry had dealt with 104 cases of claims to represent junior management personnel and front-line supervisors by rank-and-file unions. All the cases have been amicably resolved based on the guidelines. The settlement of these claims resulted in 1,840 junior management personnel and front-line supervisors joining rank-and-file unions.

Our experience is that the guidelines have been effective in resolving claims over whether an employee is an executive and should be allowed to join a rank-and-file union. Hence, we should continue to make use of these guidelines to encourage more junior management personnel and front-line supervisors who are not executives to join rank-and-file unions.

Sir, on the desirability for managers and executives to join rank-and-file unions, I have to point out that employers at this stage are still wary that this could give rise to a conflict of interest and problems in labour-management relations within the company. Employers are concerned that, eg, in wage negotiations, the company needs its managers and executives who have access to confidential information relevant to the negotiation to be able to negotiate objectively with the unions, and there may be difficulties if they are also members of the same rank-and-file union. Other employers are concerned that conflicts of interest could arise in the day-to-day operations of a company if managers and executives have to enforce discipline, particularly on subordinates who are members of the same union.

Employers' concerns cannot be dismissed. I am of the view that since managers and executives are able to negotiate effectively with their employers for their terms and conditions of employment, they do not need the representation of a trade union for this purpose. And for this reason, we should not force companies to allow rank-and-file unions to represent their managers and executives. We should continue to encourage junior management personnel and front-line supervisors to join rank-and-file unions.

Sir, I next turn to Dr Wong Kwei Cheong who asked whether the figures on the labour force contained in the Labour Force Survey include the large number of foreign workers that are currently working in Singapore. The Labour Force Survey is a sample survey which covers households, including foreigners in Singapore. The Survey cannot provide figures on the total number of foreign workers in Singapore because it does not cover foreign workers who live on construction worksites, for instance, and Malaysian workers who commute daily from Malaysia to work in Singapore. Sir, currently, we have more than 300,000 foreign workers in Singapore and they include more than 80,000 foreign domestic workers.

Dr Wong also asked for the levy collections. The foreign workers levy collections for 1992, 1993 and 1994 are $1.02 billion, $1.13 billion and $1.37 billion respectively. The levy is credited into the Government's Consolidated Revenue Account.

Dr Wong also wanted to know what incentives are there for employers to train foreign workers. My Ministry encourages foreign workers to undergo training and for the employers to provide such training. We, in fact, issue 3-year work permits to foreign workers who have obtained relevant technical qualifications or diplomas and exempt them from the foreign workers levy. 1.00 pm

The Skills Development Fund also gives 3-year work permit holders the same level of support as Singapore citizens and permanent residents for all training courses that are endorsed by the Fund. To further encourage employers in the construction and marine sector to train their foreign workers and to improve productivity, my Ministry also introduced a skill-based two-tier levy scheme for these two industries in 1991. Under the scheme, foreign workers who are certified skilled by the Construction Industry Development Board or the Institute of Technical Education can qualify for a lower levy of only $250 a month, which will be further reduced by another 20% from 1st April this year.

Sir, Dr Wong also asked whether the manufacturing sector's demand for foreign workers can be met. The Ministry of Labour is aware that the manufacturing sector has an increasing demand for workers in view of the strong growth achieved by the sector last year and the good prospect in the coming year. My Ministry has on 1st December 1994 raised the dependency ceiling for the manufacturing sector from 45% to 50% to give manufacturing firms greater flexibility and access to foreign workers during a period of business upturn. There is no need to further revise the dependency ceiling at this juncture as nearly 98% of manufacturing firms are able to operate within the new dependency ceiling of 50%.

May I now respond to the Nominated Member, Dr Kanwaljit Soin. Yesterday, she said that there were no unions for foreign workers and therefore the Government had to play a role in ensuring the welfare of foreign workers. There is a misconception here because our labour laws do not prohibit foreign workers from joining trade unions. Foreign workers are in fact treated as local workers in that they can join any union which represents workers in the industry. For instance, in the construction industry, there is a union called the Building and Construction Trade Union (BACTU) whose membership is open to both local as well as foreign workers. In fact, out of BACTU's 4,300 members, more than 25% are foreign workers. Of course, many foreign workers, including a large number from the non-traditional sources, do not join trade unions because they may think that since they are here for only a short period of stay, they do not see any real benefit in joining unions and they also may well want to save on the monthly subscriptions for their membership in the trade union.

Nevertheless, I agree with the Member that employers should look after the welfare of their foreign workers. This is why my Ministry has stipulated, as one of the conditions for the employment of non-traditional source work permit holders, that employers shall provide adequate housing, sanitary and other facilities for their foreign workers. My Ministry is also working with the Construction Industry Development Board to study the feasibility of setting standards for workers' quarters on construction sites.

Sir, as I said earlier, our labour legislation accords equal protection to local and foreign workers without discrimination. The Employment Act protects the basic terms and conditions of employment. The Factories Act safeguards workers' safety and health at the workplace and the Workmen's Compensation Act provides for compensation for workers injured in the course of their work. Any foreign worker who feels that he has not been treated according to the statutory provisions should take it up with the employer. If the employer fails to comply with the requirement, they can always seek the assistance of the Ministry of Labour to intervene. We provide free service to all workers, local or foreign, to settle grievances against their employers.

Sir, in addition, I would like to point out that work permit holders are accorded medical services at Government hospitals and polyclinics at the same charges as Singapore citizens. There is no discrimination against them in the charges that are levied for service at these Government hospitals.

May I now turn to Mr Koo Tsai Kee who spoke on the plight of mature workers who may not be able to enjoy wage increase once they have reached the salary ceiling. Since 1986, the NWC has moved away from issuing quantitative guidelines and has instead focused on qualitative recommendations. The main purpose is to provide greater flexibility for unions and companies to negotiate on appropriate wage increases and bonuses linked more closely to company and individual performance. The NWC guidelines help unions in their negotiations for wage increases for their members, including those who have reached the maximum of their salary scale. Such collective agreements are usually for two or three years' duration and the terms and conditions of employment in the agreement are subject to review. Unions are free to negotiate for wage adjustments to salary ranges and annual increments for workers who have reached their salary ceiling. In fact, this has been the practice whenever collective agreements are reviewed before renewal.

Based on my Ministry's conciliation of wage negotiations or NWC guidelines and collective agreement renewal, unions generally are able to secure wage increase through expansion of salary ranges. However, the quantum of percentage for workers who have reached the salary ceiling may be lower than that for the younger workers. This is mainly due to our seniority based wage system where some older employees who are already paid according to or more than their job's worth may not be able to enjoy the same level of wage increase as younger workers. Employers are understandably reluctant to make adjustment to maximum salary to avoid undermining the cost competitiveness of their operation.

There are important lessons to be learnt from this. Our workers should constantly be encouraged to take training seriously and to upgrade themselves so that even mature workers can take on higher value-added jobs and continue to enjoy good wage increases. Also, in reviewing salary ranges, employers and trade unions should place less emphasis on seniority. This will help to ensure that wages could better reflect the value of the job. Sir, as the issue of wages is very much under the purview of the NWC, which comprises better representatives from the unions, management and Government, it would be more appropriate for this subject to be discussed at NWC deliberations.

Sir, I now turn to the Nominated Member, Dr Lee Tsao Yuan, who spoke about the difficulties faced by women who have to balance the needs of family and home with that of a career. I agree that this is indeed a difficult task. But overall, our female labour participation rate has been quite healthy. In 1994, it was almost 51%. This is comparable to levels in most developed countries, including Japan, which is 50.3%, and the United States which is 55.7%. Better education has, in fact, enabled more women to take on higher paying jobs. However, women tend to withdraw from the labour force after marriage to devote time to their families. This has resulted in a significant fall in the female labour participation rate after the age of 30. Our survey shows that 95% of working women work full-time while the balance work part-time. The proportion of women working part-time is low compared to those in other countries, such as Japan, the United States and the United Kingdom.

In recent years, there has been a growing trend for females aged 45 and above to re-enter the labour market. In 1994, for example, the female labour force participation rate for those in the 45-49 age group was 49.7%, up from 32.1% for the same age group in 1983. Females within this age group are able to re-enter the job market to work full-time or part-time as they may have less household responsibilities. Their higher participation rate is also due to the fact that they are increasingly better educated and are able to take advantage of the numerous job opportunities created by our expanding economy.

Ideally, women can be granted no-pay leave to provide full-time mothering to their young children and to re-enter the labour market when their children are older and in school. I have been informed that PSD, which is one of the organisations that took the lead in trying to help women to take time off to meet their family requirement by way of offering no-pay leave or part-time work, has got a favourable response from their female employees. The PSD has told me that in the civil service and statutory boards, the take-up rate by women for no-pay leave is 21%. That means almost one in five women who are eligible for no-pay leave does avail herself of this facility. On the other hand, the part-time work response has not been as good. It is only about 4%. So it is consistent with the figure of 5% of the women who do part-time work nationally, as I have mentioned earlier on.

However, other than Government, which is the largest employer, and some large companies, it would not be practical to expect all private sector companies, particularly the small and medium-sized ones, to do the same. Women who wish to take care of their young children full-time may thus have to temporarily leave the job market and consider new employment opportunities available when their family responsibilities are reduced.

May I now turn to the subject of retirement age which was addressed by both Mr Othman and Mr Stephen Lee. The Retirement Age Act came into operation in July 1993. The Act provides for a statutory minimum retirement, which is aged 60. In introducing the Bill in Parliament, I announced that this minimum retirement age would be raised to 67 in seven to 10 years' time. Yesterday, Mr Othman informed this Chamber that the older workers preferred to carry on working if they are healthy. This is a very positive feedback and it goes to show that the Retirement Age Act will, in fact, be useful and relevant to mature workers.

My Ministry is currently studying various options to raise the retirement age to 67. A gradual step-by-step increase of the retirement age to 67 by the year 2003 is the most practical approach. It will enable employers and employees to have sufficient time to make the necessary adjustments. In looking at how the retirement age could be further raised, we also have to address the issue of cost to the employers, which was raised by both Mr Othman and Mr Stephen Lee. Raising the retirement age would certainly increase employers' cost and may undermine their competitiveness. The higher cost of retaining older workers is mainly due to our seniority-based wage system and rising medical cost for older workers and to some extent lower work capacity due to ageing. To ensure that Singapore remain internationally competitive, there is a need to help employers to reduce the cost of retaining older workers.

My Ministry is studying various measures, including a further reduction in CPF contribution and adjustment in wages and benefits for workers beyond the age of 60. While employees will be given the opportunity to continue working beyond the age of 60, we must also ensure that cost competitiveness of our economy is not adversely affected. I agree with Mr Stephen Lee that uncompetitive cost due to an ageing workforce will certainly have an effect on our economic viability and our competitiveness. If this is not properly addressed, it could, in future, jeopardise employment opportunities and prospects for all workers. It may therefore be necessary for workers and their unions to accept a further reduction in CPF contribution and even adjustments to wages and benefits in order to remain gainfully employed beyond the age of 60.

Mr Othman Haron Eusofe also asked whether the CPF interest rate for the Special Account will be revised. The interest rate for the Special Account will be revised with effect from 1st July with an additional payment of 1.25% above the interest rate in the Ordinary Account. Since this 1.25% is comparable to what long term investment in the market would on average yield above the savings deposit rate, we have no plan at this juncture to revise this rate.

Mr Othman also asked whether workers would continue to be allowed to withdraw from their Minimum Sum account or their Retirement Account a monthly payment after they retire at the age of 60 instead of the prevailing retirement age. When we revised the existing Minimum Sum scheme, we decided that the age at which employees are allowed to start withdrawing from their Minimum Sum should be pegged to the prevailing retirement age. This is logical because as long as the employee continues to be working he does not need to draw from his retirement account to support himself because he will be earning a monthly salary and he can carry on as before. He only needs to depend on his Minimum Sum when he finally retires completely. That is why we have decided to peg the withdrawal of the monthly amount from the Retirement Account to the prevailing retirement age. 1.15 pm

The Retirement Age Act also provides for exemption of employees who are in occupations where age is a bona fide occupational requirement. If such employees are already exempted from the provisions of the Retirement Age Act, then we will allow them to continue to withdraw their monthly payment from their Retirement Account at the age of 60.

Sir, I now respond to Mr Leong Horn Kee who asked whether CPF savings can be used for the upgrading programme for HUDC estates. My Ministry's policy has always been to disallow the use of CPF savings for renovating or upgrading properties, whether it is HDB or private property. An exception has been made for the nation-wide HDB upgrading programme. This is a Government-initiated programme to rejuvenate old HDB estates and to enhance the assets of our citizens. By allowing CPF members who are HDB home owners to use their CPF savings for this purpose, we have enabled every HDB home owner to benefit from the asset enhancement programme. On their own, without the use of CPF savings, many HDB flat owners may not be able to participate fully in this programme. Furthermore, the HDB upgrading exercise is not likely to be repeated at frequent intervals. In the current exercise, only flats which are more than 17 years old are upgraded.

Sir, notwithstanding this exception, HDB home owners are still not allowed to use their CPF savings for personal renovation or upgrading works to their flats. We are therefore unable to expand the use of CPF savings to the HUDC home owners to upgrade their flats. And I understand that the Ministry of National Development is not planning to include HUDC flats in the HDB upgrading programme. I think we should look at HUDC flats as more like private properties. For a start, they were sold to people who may have exceeded the income eligibility to purchase HDB flats. The owners, including those who have already formed the equivalent of management corporations to administer their own estates, should pay any upgrading works out of their non-CPF savings.

Sir, I believe I have addressed all the points raised.

Mr Chng Hee Kok (Tampines GRC): Sir, can I speak on my amendment for 5 minutes?

The Chairman: No. We have 2 minutes left. Do you want to say something?

Mr Chng Hee Kok: Yes.

The Chairman: But you only have 1 minute.

Mr Chng Hee Kok: Sir, I will make it very brief.

The present Home Protection Insurance Scheme only applies to HDB mortgages. There is a growing band of Singaporeans who are owning private property and I feel that it is about time that the CPF Board re-considered allowing this scheme to be extended to private house owners for the very simple reason that they are CPF contributors. At the same time, also, many of these private house owners are HDB upgraders and they may not be aware that they are supposed to take up private insurance policy to cover their mortgages.

Dr Lee Boon Yang: Sir, the CPF is structured to ensure that its members put aside sufficient savings for home ownership, Medisave and old age retirement needs. It is not the objective of CPF to meet all the needs, especially those of members in the higher income group. That is why employees do not contribute CPF on salaries beyond the $6,000 ceiling. Those in the higher income group will have to use their own savings to meet whatever non-basic needs that they may have. For instance, many high income CPF members who own private properties, costing much more than HDB flats, are actually using cash on top of their CPF savings to pay for their mortgage loans. Likewise, they should use their non-CPF savings to buy mortgage reducing insurance for their private properties from one of the many insurance companies which provides such service.

Encik Othman bin Haron Eusofe (Marine Parade GRC): Sir, there are some issues which I want to raise but in view of the time constraint, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman: We have to stick to a very tight schedule for the other amendments. I shall read the time allocated as I go along. Amendment No. (2), 5 minutes. Dr John Chen.

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

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

Sir, economic competition from the developing countries in the region is taking away jobs from us, especially the manufacturing sector. The retrenchment figures provided by the MOL show that retrenchment has been on the rise since 1989. It rose from about 3,200 in 1989 to about 9,300 in 1994. In 1994 alone, we see a jump of almost 3,000. This is a worrying trend. It confirms our fear that relocation and restructuring of companies will cause retrenchment to accelerate.

Sir, our unions and workers are feeling the impact of retrenchment. While the labour market is still tight and retrenched workers can still find alternative employment, the feedback I got from unions is that many of the workers, particularly the older ones, have some problems finding jobs at the same pay and have settled for lower paid jobs in the service sector.

I would therefore like to ask the Minister for an assessment of the retrenchment situation. Can he provide us with a demographic profile of those who were retrenched in 1994, what jobs were they retrenched from, what jobs have they subsequently found, how long have they taken to find a job, and what kind of pay do they get compared with their previous jobs?

Dr Lee Boon Yang: Sir, the retrenchment we are experiencing reflects a structural change in employment. Economic activities that are land and labour intensive will continue to relocate to neighbouring countries as we upgrade to a higher valued-added and capital intensive economy. But despite increasing retrenchments over the last few years, in fact more new jobs are also being created at the same time.

In 1994, total employment in Singapore increased to 72,100 compared to 70,787 in 1993. With strong economic growth and tight labour market, most of the retrenched workers were able to find re-employment. This is reflected in the low unemployment rate of 2% in 1994. The bulk of the retrenched workers were from the manufacturing sector, mainly electrical and electronic industries, as companies restructure to achieve higher skilled and value-added operations. The manufacturing sector accounted for 74% of the workers retrenched in 1994. The commerce sector formed 16%; and the financial and business services sector, 4%; transport and communications sector accounted for only 3% of the workers retrenched. About 69% of the retrenched workers were in production and related work prior to retrenchment. Clerical, sale and service workers accounted for 16% of the total number retrenched. Professional, technical and administrative workers formed another 15%.

Sir, an MOL survey in February 1995, covering 633 workers from seven companies which undertook major retrenchment exercise in the last quarter of 1994, showed that majority of the workers who were re-employed remained in the same occupational group, that means, those production operators who were retrenched would end up looking for another job as production operators.

Sir, the February 1995 survey also revealed that 72% of the retrenched workers had actively sought re-employment while 28% were not seeking re-employment for a variety of reasons. And out of those 72% who were actively seeking re-employment, 74% were successful. So three-quarters of those who were retrenched and were looking for jobs got jobs, while 26% were still looking for new jobs at the time of the survey. As the survey was conducted soon after retrenchment, we are very hopeful that over a period of time, even the 26% would be able to find jobs.

Sir, the survey also found out that 60% of re-employed persons suffered a pay cut in their new jobs; 20% received the same salary and the remaining 20%, in fact, enjoyed higher pay.

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

Dr John Chen Seow Phun: Sir, I thank the Minister and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman: Amendment No. (3), 5 minutes.

Mr Stephen Lee Ching Yen (Nominated Member): Sir, I beg to move,

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

Sir, I shall be very brief. The Singapore Employers' Federation has feedback that many employers are cautious about hiring older workers past 55 years of age. Employers are not clear whether they have to keep these older workers until they are 67 years old. I would like to ask the Minister to clarify the position on the hiring of older workers in this interim period of raising retirement age.

Dr Lee Boon Yang: Sir, let me reassure the Member and the employers that there is no intention to compel them to employ older workers beyond the age of 55, if they should hire any such workers at the present moment. Because when we introduced the Retirement Age Act, we had provided an exemption from all provisions of the Act for workers who had already retired at the age of 55 or above on 1st July 1993. In other words, any employer who today employs a person who is aged 55 or above does not have to keep the same worker to the prevailing retirement age.

Mr Stephen Lee Ching Yen: I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman: Amendment No. (4), 6 minutes.

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

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

Sir, some workers have provided the NTUC with feedback on the administration of the Workmen's Compensation scheme. Their grievance is that it takes a long time for their claims to be settled.

Sir, the problem centres on the medical assessment of the work-related injuries. I am told that under the law, interested parties, namely, the injured worker, his employer and the insurance company, can object to the Commissioner of Labour's assessment of the quantum of compensation which is worked on the basis of the percentage of permanent incapacity. And I think the insurance companies usually insist that their medical report be used. So where there is disagreement on the quantum of compensation, it may take a considerable time to be resolved. In the meantime, the injured worker and his family will suffer.

I hope that the Ministry will examine the administrative procedures so that claims can be expeditiously solved and settled.

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour (Mr Lee Yiok Seng): Sir, the Commissioner of Labour assesses the quantum of the workmen's compensation based on the percentage of permanent incapacity assessed by the doctor in the medical report.

Hence, the doctor has to wait for the injury to heal before he can make the final assessment on the permanent incapacity. According to our records, this usually takes about six months.

Assessments by the doctors of different parties differ very slightly because all doctors follow the same guidelines issued by the Ministry for assessing the incapacity.

The law allows interested parties to object to the Commissioner's assessment. This is to ensure that the assessment is fair to all parties concerned.

In practice, when a party disputes the assessment on medical report, the Workmen's Compensation Department will convene a conciliation meeting where all relevant medical reports would be presented to the parties. Most of the cases are settled amicably at this stage. 1.30 pm

I would like to thank the Member for his concern and assure him that my Ministry is constantly reviewing its procedures so as to expedite the settlement of claims for workmen's compensation whenever possible.

Encik Othman bin Haron Eusofe: I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for his reply and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman: Amendment No. (5), eight minutes, Mdm Foo.

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

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

Sir, the labour movement is concerned over the increasing number of fatal accidents in the construction and shipbuilding and ship-repairing industries. I feel that there should be closer and tighter supervision of these industries. Every effort must be put in to keep the number of such fatal accidents down. The recent amendments to the Factories Act and the introduction of various administrative measures by the Ministry are moves in the right direction. However, such measures would require sufficient enforcement officers to ensure that the intended changes to the work environment are achieved. I believe our safety legislation is one of the toughest in the region and many of the fatal accidents that occurred over the last few years were not due to the lack of legislation but the failure of the people involved in complying with the standard rules.

Therefore, one of the important aspects to improve safety is to get everybody, including employers, employees, contractors and subcontractors and their employees, to comply with safety rules. In this regard, the Government needs to ensure strict enforcement of the rules. Sir, I would like to know whether the present staffing level of the Ministry of Labour is sufficient to ensure proper enforcement.

Mr Zulkifli bin Mohammed (Jalan Besar GRC): Sir, I also share my colleague's view on the concern about safety and fatalities at hazardous work sites. Sir, I would like to touch on the safety management system and safety audit whereby, last year, some tough regulations were introduced. I would like to ask the Minister whether he can give a progress report on the present level of safety preparedness at the shipyards, and whether the Ministry will be making further recommendations on safety as a result of the preliminary findings on the audit reports received so far.

Mr Lee Yiok Seng: Sir, first, let me take up the subject raised by Mrs Yu-Foo and I would like to thank her for her concern about manpower resources in my Ministry. The present manpower resources of the Department of Industrial Safety (DIS) are adequate to carry out the necessary enforcement and training to ensure safety at the workplace. The Department has adopted a policy of selective inspection. Special attention is given to factories, worksites and shipyards that are prone to accidents. This is to maximise the effectiveness of its team of inspectors.

The Department is encouraging managers, supervisors and safety personnel to take on greater responsibility to ensure safety at work. In the recent amendments to the law, contractors carrying out projects of a contract sum of $5 million or more are required to employ full-time safety supervisors. If the contract sum is $30 million or more, they must also engage an independent external auditor to audit the safety management of the site.

In 1994, DIS trained a total of 76,000 workers, supervisors, managers and safety personnel. The DIS uses a pool of external trainers to increase its training capacity to meet higher demand. In addition, the DIS has been working closely with NTUC and unions to involve workers in the prevention of accidents.

By adopting a total accident-prevention approach of involving management, supervisors, union and workers, we should be able to improve safety at work without having to increase significantly the manpower of the department. However, my Ministry will review its manpower needs in the light of the additional regulatory and enforcement functions. I assure the Member that if more manpower is required, we will take it up with the Budget Division, Ministry of Finance.

Sir, Mr Zulkifli would like to know about the progress of the safety management system and safety audit. The Factories (Shipping and Ship-repairing) Regulations require any shipyard that employs 200 or more workers to appoint an independent external auditor to audit its safety management system. The first audit was to be completed by 1st December last year. All 20 shipyards that are required to be audited have completed the audits. The Chief Executive Officers of these shipyards have been asked to submit an undertaking to rectify any shortcomings revealed by the audit. This would ensure that top management is personally involved in ensuring that the safety systems are in place and that any shortcomings are rectified expeditiously to safeguard the safety and health of their workers.

The Department is currently reviewing the audit findings and will monitor the shipyards on the implementation of the auditors' recommendations.

Mr Zulkifli bin Mohammed: Sir, I just want to know what is the level of preparedness. Is he satisfied with the level of preparedness?

Mr Lee Yiok Seng: Sir, my Ministry will review all the findings which have been submitted to us and we are now monitoring all the shipyards. From the preliminary observation, we are quite satisfied with the findings.

Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

Mr Zulkifli bin Mohammed: Sir, I beg to move,

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

Sir, the first point I wish to raise is on noise induced deafness. As this is still the leading occupational disease, may I know what additional control measures the Ministry intends to take to further reduce this incidence?

The second point is on the incidence of chemical poisoning at workplaces. There has been a sharp increase, as reported earlier this year by the Ministry, and my question is: what are the existing safety procedures for factories handling poisonous chemicals and are they adequate? I would also like to know how often are checks made to ensure compliance with safety standards, like ensuring the air in the factory is within the safety limit?

Mr Lee Yiok Seng: Sir, noise induced deafness (NID) is the leading occupational disease. Over the last two years, my Ministry's Department of Industrial Health has stepped up enforcement action to identify more noisy factories and ensure that preventive measures are taken. As a result of this enforcement programme, more workers exposed to noise have been checked and more NID cases detected. However, most of them are in fact early cases with no significant disability.

As with NID, most of the cases of over-exposure to chemicals were in their early stages. The workers involved did not have obvious symptoms or show signs of the disease. They were detected only as a result of medical examinations. The number of such cases was 124 in 1993. However, the number in 1994 fell to 40. My Ministry takes a very serious view when workers are found to be subjected to excessive levels of noise or chemicals.

To ensure that noise and chemical exposures are within safe limits, the Department of Industrial Health regularly checks the exposure levels in potentially high risk factories. The Department assists such factories in implementing in-plant preventive programmes. Such programmes include engineering control, substituting toxic chemicals with safer substances, safe handling methods, monitoring exposure levels, health education of workers, provision and proper use of protective equipment and regular medical checks for exposed workers.

My Ministry has produced noise control guidelines to assist noisy factories and will soon be drawing up regulations on noise control in workplaces. To better control chemical hazards, new provisions under the Factories Act will require factory occupiers to obtain from their suppliers the material safety data sheets (MSDS) of chemicals and take appropriate precautions based on information in the MSDS. Certain chemicals or processes that may pose serious health risks to workers may also be prohibited. We will continue to monitor the situation.

Mr Zulkifli bin Mohammed: Sir, I accept the Senior Parliamentary Secretary's reply and I would like to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman: Amendment No. (7), Encik Othman.

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

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

Sir, I would like to ask the Minister to explain why it is necessary to revise the foreign workers levy and also the basis for the increase. I know that the number of foreign domestic maids is increasing. Families with young children, where both parents are required to work to maintain a family, or where there is a need for someone to look after the aged or the sick parents, will continue to need help and usually a foreign domestic maid. Most of my constituents who have seen me on this issue tell me that they have little choice as there are no other alternatives available for them. In that case, they will still continue to apply for a foreign maid and the demand is unlikely to be reduced. It only increases their cost. I hope that the Minister will take this into consideration when he considers future revisions.

Sir, another issue is the dependency ceiling for the service sector which was raised from 20% to 25% of the workforce. However, employers in the service sector still complain of shortage of workers, especially Singaporeans, to work in their companies. They have asked whether the Minister could review this dependency ratio to allow for more foreign workers to be employed in the service sector.

Finally, Sir, the problem of illegal foreign workers. I am told that some employers continue to employ illegal foreign workers. Their presence in large numbers can cause the wages of our workers to be depressed. I would like to ask the Minister what action the Ministry will take, or has taken, against illegal foreign workers. 1.45 pm

Encik Imram bin Mohamed (Nominated Member): Sir, I have two points to raise on the subject of illegal employment and enforcement.

(1) I notice that there is a high increase in operating cost. I would like to know the reason for this. Is it due to an increase in the influx of illegal immigrants? Or are we increasing our enforcement?

(2) On the question of enforcement, there are foreign workers holding work permits who moonlight in the evenings and over weekends. I believe these workers are subject to enforcement action by the authorities and, if caught, the employers too become liable to prosecution or fine.

The question I would like to ask is: is there any harm in these workers taking up secondary jobs? In my view, these people provide a useful source of manpower in this resource hungry Singapore. It will allow small businesses which cannot afford to employ or find difficulty in employing full-time employees to hire these workers on a regular part-time basis. These workers who take up additional work in their spare-time will not only ease the tight labour situation but also by being so employed they will not be involved in undesirable social activities. May I therefore suggest that instead of cracking down on their moonlighting, the additional jobs be legitimised. Of course, their main employers must agree and they may not mind. It serves their purpose too, as they will no longer be penalised for their employees', now legitimised, moonlighting activities.

Perhaps the Government could also work out some incentives to encourage employers to allow their foreign employees to take on additional jobs. I am sure there are complications involved which the Ministry will have to resolve before introducing the dual job permit system, but I feel it is worth a try.

Dr Lee Boon Yang: Sir, first, I will respond to Mr Othman's point about why there is a need to raise the levy for foreign domestic workers.

With regard to the levy for foreign domestic workers, an increase is necessary at this juncture to moderate the rapid growth in demand for foreign domestic workers. The last time we adjusted the levy for foreign domestic workers was in early l992, at which time we had only a little more than 65,000 foreign domestic workers in Singapore. Now, we already have more than 80,000 such foreign domestic workers here.

Also, this revision, which will take effect on 1st April 1995, is only for a 10% increase in the levy or $30 per month. This revision is actually a very modest adjustment compared to the cumulative wage gain enjoyed by Singaporeans over the past two years. I think, on average, over the past two years, Singaporeans have enjoyed wage gains well in excess of $200 per month.

The rapid wage gains had diminished the dampening effect of the last levy revision and led to a very strong increase in demand for foreign domestic workers in 1993 and 1994. In order to moderate this demand, we have no option but to make an adjustment to the levy.

What are the alternatives available? Families can always make other arrangements with their relatives or their in-laws. They can send older children to child care centres. There are child minders in the neighbourhoods whose services could be hired to keep an eye on the children, or the children could be left with the child minders. There are, in fact, many other options. In fact, the vast majority of Singaporeans do not actually use foreign domestic workers as the source of service to look after their children.

Sir, the Member also asked whether my Ministry has any plan to review the dependency ceiling for foreign workers in the service sector. In fact, we have done so. On 1st December last year, we raised the dependency ceiling for the service sector from 20% to 25%. In the case of small service establishments with only 2 to 10 local workers, they are, in fact, allowed to employ foreign workers beyond the 25% limit, subject to a maximum of 33%. With this adjustment, I think it will meet the requirements of most of the service sector companies.

Sir, I now turn to the question of illegal workers which was raised by both Mr Othman and Mr Imram. My Ministry is very concerned with the increasing incidence of illegal workers in Singapore. The problem is most rampant at construction sites. We view the matter very seriously as many contractors employ illegal workers deliberately to evade paying the foreign workers levy.

In 1994, my Ministry detected illegal employment at 42 construction sites. Out of the 42 cases, we found 39 contractors were involved in employing illegal foreign workers. And these 39 contractors, in fact, can qualify for additional work permit holders legitimately under the current dependency ratio. In fact, if they had chosen to apply for additional foreign workers, they would have been given approval. But they did not do so. They employed illegal workers, which demonstrated that they were doing so clearly in order to cheat the foreign workers levy system. They have therefore chosen to flout the law intentionally.

My Ministry has also observed that most worksites have inadequate security and poor or no access control with no system of identifying the workers who are allowed to gain access to the worksites. In order to improve the situation and to curb the rising incidence of illegal workers, my Ministry will amend the Employment of Foreign Workers Act. We will make principal contractors in the construction sector responsible for illegal foreign workers found at their worksites, even if such illegal workers were brought in by the sub-contractors. This will compel principal contractors to tighten security at their worksite to prevent the entry and employment of illegal workers in those sites.

Sir, the present penalty for employers who are convicted for the first time is a fine equivalent to 2-4 years' of foreign workers levy and/or imprisonment up to one year. My Ministry has successfully appealed to the courts to impose deterrent sentences in the form of heavier fines on errant employers. Employers who blatantly employ illegal foreign workers should be forewarned. We will not hesitate to appeal to the courts to impose jail sentences even on the first offence. And if these measures still do not deter irresponsible employers from breaking the law, my Ministry will consider even heavier penalties for more effective deterrence.

Sir, Encik Imram has also asked whether the increase in the Ministry's Other Operating Expenditure, I believe it should be under code SK 2000, is the result of additional cost for enforcement against illegal workers. Code SK 2000 refers to Other Operating Expenditure for the Work Permit regulation programme. The programme covers Other Operating Expenditure (OOE) for both the Work Permit and Employment Department and the Labour Inspectorate. The increase of 19% is not entirely due to the increase in efforts to enforce against illegal workers. We have other higher expenses for the coming financial year, including higher agency fee to be paid to the CPF Board for collecting the foreign workers levy on our behalf.

Sir, Mr Imram also asked whether the Ministry will, in fact, legitimise foreign workers working part-time or moonlighting instead of cracking down on them. Foreign workers are allowed to come to Singapore on the basis that there is an eligible employer with a full-time job for them. We do not issue work permits to foreigners for part-time work. For instance, in the construction sector, employers have to show proof that they have sufficient contracts in hand to justify bringing in non-traditional source workers. By approving work permits for specific employers, we are able to hold the employer directly responsible for the employment, welfare and eventual repatriation of the foreign worker. If a foreign worker is allowed to work for multiple employers, we would lose this element of accountability, eg, which employer should provide medical benefits to the foreign worker. If one employer terminates or dismisses the worker, what happens to the other employer? In the case of a non-traditional source worker, which employer should furnish security bond and be responsible for repatriation of the foreign workers? These are the problems that should be considered. As there are more than 300,000 foreign workers in Singapore, there would be adverse consequences if employers' accountability towards their foreign workers is not clearly established.

The Member's suggestion may also not necessarily benefit foreign workers. Some employers may well contract out their foreign workers to take on a second job and in the process underpay them for their main job. But more importantly, and I think this is a very significant point which I urge the Member to consider, foreign workers taking on a second job at very low wages would adversely affect unskilled Singaporeans who depend on the lower-end jobs for a living. It would also impede our effort to encourage more Singaporeans to work part time. Earlier on, in response to Dr Lee Tsao Yuan, I pointed out that part-time work is one solution for working mothers. And if we allow foreign workers to take on these part-time jobs, we are just simply depriving Singaporeans of an opportunity to do part-time work.

Allowing them to moonlight legally could also deprive a large number of less educated Singaporeans from finding part-time employment. They would also compete for jobs with the group of economically inactive Singaporeans who have an intention of seeking jobs after taking a short period off from working. On balance, I think it will be unwise and it would not be in our interest to allow foreign workers who are here for a specific job to moonlight legally.

Encik Othman bin Haron Eusofe: Sir, I thank the Minister and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman: Amendment No. (8), Encik Zulkifli.

Encik Zulkifli bin Mohammed: Sir, I beg to move,

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

Sir, I just like to know from the Ministry what plans do they have to expand further the level of cooperation between the Ministry and the NTUC in the field of safety and health programmes.

Mr Lee Yiok Seng: Sir, I would like to thank Mr Zulkifli Mohammed for his constant concerns on occupational safety and health programmes and for his contribution for workers in Singapore.

Sir, the Ministry has all along been working very closely with the NTUC to inculcate greater safety awareness amongst workers. The Department of Industrial Safety has regularly provided speakers for safety seminars and workshops organised by NTUC.

The Ministry will continue to work together with the NTUC to promote the safety of workers. Specifically, we have plans to work together with NTUC and the various industrial and house unions on the following projects:

(a) Safety Improvement Teams

The Ministry will collaborate with NTUC to encourage more workers to get involved in Safety Improvement Teams. The Safety Improvement Teams are similar in concept to QCCs. A Safety Improvement Team comprises a small group of workers, who work together to solve safety and health problems as a team.

(b) Hazards reporting system

NTUC and the Ministry of Labour will jointly work out a system for workers to report hazards to their union leaders who could then take up the matter with the management. If the management fails to take the necessary corrective measures, NTUC could then inform the Ministry. The Ministry will ensure that prompt actions are taken to resolve the issues.

(c) "Buddy" system.

The Ministry of Labour will assist the NTUC to develop a work culture where an individual worker not only looks after his own safety but the safety of fellow workers. 2.00 pm

The Chairman: Order. It is 2.00 pm. "Guillotine" time. Would you like to withdraw your amendment, Encik Zulkifli?

Mr Zulkifli bin Mohammed: Sir, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $45,585,440 for Head S ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates.

The sum of $2,583,900 for Head S ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.

Head I -

The Chairman: Head I - Ministry of Communications. Mr Heng, Amendment No. (1).

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

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

Sir, on 14th March 1995, the Minister for Communications gave his policy statement on land transport which he entitled "Improving Mobility". His main conclusions were that it is not possible to give every Singaporean a car. Hence, that is not his main challenge. His real challenge is to meet the aspirations of Singaporeans for increased mobility. Sir, I cannot say that I disagree, but I would prefer to put this issue in a slightly different perspective.

Sir, the aspirations of Singaporeans are not just for increased mobility, but really for convenient and comfortable mobility at affordable prices. If this is not possible, then more Singaporeans would want to do so through private transport, ie, to own cars. If owning cars is too difficult and expensive, then it becomes a political issue. Here, I must add that emphasis by the Minister on public transport to increase mobility is not incorrect. However, public transport involves the three Cs - convenience, comfort and cost. Unfortunately, because today's public transport does not provide the three appropriate Cs, many Singaporeans have to use private transport, ie, owning cars despite the high cost. Most Singaporeans do not believe that the Government has done enough to make public transport a viable alternative to private transport.

I therefore welcome the establishment of the Land Transport Authority (LTA) to look at the problems of land transport in its totality. In this respect, I would like to urge the LTA to look at both public and private transport pattern modes as a single issue. That means they should not look at buses and MRT as one, and cars as the other, but look at buses, MRT and cars as a single issue. In this way, the revenue raised through discouraging people to use private transport can be used to increase the convenience and comfort factors at reduced cost of public transport.

Sir, the objective is to reduce the convenience and comfort differential and to increase the cost differential between public and private transport. In this way, more people can be encouraged to use public transport. Is this what the Minister or the Government will call it by their dirty word "subsidy"? No, Sir, I do not believe it is, because it is actually different parts of the same issue. It is not subsidy, in the same way that we do not say that the first class travellers in a flight subsidise the economy class travellers although they pay vastly different prices and both reach their destination at the same time. I would say that if the Minister is really serious on providing public transport to improve the mobility of Singaporeans, I hope he will thus consider the following suggestions:

(1) To reduce all forms of duties, taxes and levies which increase the cost of operating mass public transport. Why increase the cost of mass public transport through these artificial Government-induced measures if the Minister wants his vision to be a reality?

(2) Provide grants to improve the frequency and quality of feeder services not only in HDB estates but also in private residential areas. Such grants can be partially recovered through a higher usage of MRT and trunk route services.

(3) To reduce the tax burden of operating taxis, as taxis are a form of public transport, albeit at the higher end.

Before I conclude, I wish to remind the Minister again that abolishing the tax burden is not a subsidy or a concession. If it were so, the Minister for Finance might as well increase the company's tax rate to, say, 100% and then give a rebate of 73%, therefore, saying that "Oh, it should be 100%, but I am giving you a rebate of 73%. So you are only taxed at 27%." It is quite ridiculous, is it not?

Dr S. Vasoo (Tanjong Pagar GRC): I cannot but agree with the GPC Chairman for Communications on some of the views that he has expressed.

Sir, the public transport policy, particularly the bus transportation system, should be given immediate attention. The problem has been a recurring one and commuters' dissatisfaction has increased quite significantly. It is all the more urgent as the implementation of the LRT system together with other related systems, as the Minister would be proposing, would take some years to realise. But bus transport, in fact, carries 2.3 million passengers daily. This is about four times more than the passengers carried by MRT. Also, many public bus commuters have expressed dissatisfaction and the need for improvement to the bus system. The bus and MRT integration policy has been undertaken but it has not really increased commuters' satisfaction.

I would like to know whether surveys have been undertaken to find out from ordinary commuters about the state of the bus system. The common complaints of many of the commuters are long waiting time and travelling time has not been reduced, despite the reassurance that the Minister has given to look at how this problem could be solved. Could the reduction of the operating fleet of buses, both SBS and TIBS, contribute to the problem? It has been noted that between 1990 and 1993, the number of buses has decreased from 2,712 to 2,649. This is according to the Public Transport Council's Report for the year ending 1994. However, the average daily number of passengers increased from 2.142 million in 1990 to 2.36 million in 1993.

The argument by the Minister is that the psychology of waiting is causing dissatisfaction, but I would say that it is the psychology of prolonged circuitous travel that is causing the frustration. Just to cite an example, Sir. One of my grassroots leaders travelled from Whampoa to Radin Mas last Sunday, 19th March 1995. It took him about 1 1/2 hours to travel there. I do not think he is exaggerating. Barring traffic jams and congestion, it cannot possibly take 1 1/2 hours to get there. The travelling time was shorter before, if not for the circuitous route. Commuters want to see the reduction of travelling time and not too many change-overs. Most problems are faced by the end-to-end commuters and this is in fact quite true if you speak to many of them.

The Public Transport Council should be more proactive and it could do better with a wider cross-section of feedback from public transport commuters. Of the 13 members on the Public Transport Council, I note that not more than two are bona fide transport commuters. Given this situation, how could the problems and the needs of commuters be objectively and thoroughly studied and solved? Sir, the PTC can do more with participation from grassroots leaders who are public transport commuters living in the various regions. With such a wider representation, more effective feedback could be obtained to improve the policy and quality of public transport. Sir, I am not saying that the current PTC members are not doing a good job. They are providing the necessary inputs, but the quality of such inputs can be improved with better representation. Otherwise, we should rename the Public Transport Council to "Private Transport Council".

Another area which requires a review is the realignment of feeder bus system with the MRT. We can do more by increasing the frequency of buses to reduce waiting time. At the same time, we should see if we can introduce a cheaper version of the Bus-Plus system for various major routes that are popular. With increased frequency of feeder buses and Bus-Plus system within the housing estates, we could reduce the waiting time to a great extent.

More competition should be encouraged between SBS and TIBS. Allow more bus companies to operate, if necessary. The Government believes in an open market and open competition. I see no reason why we should just keep to two bus systems, the major monopoly of which is SBS, and the lesser one being TIBS. Why is TIBS not allowed to compete in certain routes?

The Chairman: Order. Dr Vasoo, would you like to wind up your speech? We have got a long list of speakers.

Dr Vasoo: If SBS cannot operate some of these routes efficiently, they should be redeployed to other bus companies. I hope that the Minister would be able to provide some concrete solutions to these transportation problems.

Mr Goh Choon Kang (Braddell Heights): Sir, the Government has come to the conclusion that the public transport system must be improved to provide an acceptable alternative to the people who want to own cars. It is also important that we improve the public transport system as the majority of our population rely on public transport. What I have to say about the MRT, especially the proposed North-East extension, has been said many times, both inside and outside this House. Last year, I asked the Minister a very simple and direct question: When? But there was no simple and direct answer. The issue has to be kept alive and persistency has somewhat paid off. Progress is being made. Feasibility studies are being carried out and the result will be out in a few months' time. I am grateful indeed to Mr Lim Boon Heng, Minister-without-Portfolio, for publicly expressing his support of my stand and argument. I hope that I will also have the sympathetic ears of the Minister as well as more of his Cabinet colleagues.

Secondly, on bus service. Sir, our bus fleet, though modern and comfortable, cannot meet the demands of the people for increased frequency and address the perennial complaint of long waiting time. The average daily operating fleet, as mentioned by my parliamentary colleague, Dr Vasoo, has declined and here I am quoting from the Singapore Bus Service Annual Report: The daily operating fleet has declined from 2,480 in 1989 to 2,359 in 1993. If the bus fleet is not increased, I do not see how the frequency of bus services can be improved.

To improve productivity and at the same time control capital expenditure on new buses, SBS will continue to act against what it considers to be the low demand bus routes. The implementation of electronic boards showing arrival time cannot solve the problem of long waiting time if the daily operating fleet of the SBS continues to decline or remains at a constant level. I wonder if the Ministry commits SBS to a certain number of average daily operating fleet so as to ensure that there are enough buses to improve the frequency of the service. 2.15 pm

Take service 105, for example. SBS has admitted in a letter to me that there is high loading and long waiting time for this service. The solution is either to increase the frequency or the capacity. But SBS said that double decker buses could not be deployed for this service because, to quote, "there are height restrictions along the link road under the CTE before buses run into Lorong Chuan." So the other alternative, of course, is to increase the frequency. This apparently also could not be done.

The Chairman: Mr Goh, "guillotine" time on this amendment is 2.55 pm.

Mr Goh Choon Kang: Yes. Finally, on taxi services. Though taxi service is affordable to many, it is insufficient to meet increased demand. The common frustration faced by commuters is taxi drivers changing shift during peak hours and picking passengers who dial the cab phone line, which is engaged most of the time.

These are the complaints which remain to be addressed but the announcement by NTUC Comfort to provide a more efficient radio phone system which uses satellite to locate vacant taxis is very encouraging. This will reduce the number of taxis cruising empty and ensure that its taxi fleet is fully utilised to an optimum level.

I hope the Ministry can assist NTUC Comfort and other taxi companies to implement the system as soon as possible.

The Chairman: Dr Wan is not speaking. Dr Wang Kai Yuen.

Dr Wang Kai Yuen (Bukit Timah): Sir, before I proceed on this topic of taxi service, I would like to declare my interest as a Board Member of Comfort Group Limited.

Sir, by and large, Singaporeans can be proud of the taxi service being economical and efficient. Currently, since Mr Goh has talked about radio calls, 5% of the services in Singapore are catered by radio calls and the balance through hailing a taxi off the kerb. Our taxi operators are generally hardworking and honest. True, there are certain areas which can be improved and these are primarily related to the lack of taxis during peak hours as well as the difficulties of placing a radio call. However, these are nitty-gritty issues which could be resolved readily if the Public Transport Council could adopt a more market-oriented approach in taxi fare structure.

In the Ministerial statement announcing the establishment of the Land Transport Authority, the section on taxi service has noted that empty cruising is undesirable and hence the Ministry would be implementing policies to reduce it. I am concerned about this seemingly innocuous statement. Empty cruising rate is determined by taking the number of kilometres when a taxi travels without passengers and divide that by the total distance travelled during a given period.

Currently, the average empty cruise rate is about 33%. And from the road usage point of view, empty cruising uses up valuable road space and should be reduced. From the taxi driver's point of view, he also wants to reduce empty cruising to get a better return. However, by reducing the empty cruising rate, occasionally, there will be insufficient taxis on the road to cater for demand, and this in fact already happens during rainy days when the demand goes up while the empty cruising rate goes down.

Many of us have indeed experienced the frustrating wait for an empty taxi during those times. Therefore, one can only reduce empty cruise rate by so much. This phenomenon should be obvious to anyone who has studied the queuing theory. From experience, the current empty cruising rate of 30-plus percent is about at the right level. Although the Minister did not mention it, I think the Ministry is thinking of reducing the empty cruising rate by increasing the use of radio calls. This would also help the Ministry to implement the ERP system in future because somebody has to pay for the ERP charges as the taxis cruise empty.

Sir, if you look at the facts, we have indeed a long way to go before we could change the current usage of radio calls for taxis from the current 5% to even, say, 20% of the total usage. This is so for several reasons. The current radio spectrum dedicated for radio calls is completely used up. Perhaps with better management, one can squeeze a greater usage out of it. But to do so, heavy capital investment in the order of $5,000 per taxi would have to be required.

Who would have to pay for this? Already the current radio call fee of $2.20 is not a very strong incentive for taxi drivers and this is also the reason why during peak hours taxi operators prefer to take passengers off the kerb than to respond to a radio call. Even if we could change the mix to 20-80, there is still this 80% of services that have to be catered through hailing and a sizeable fleet is still going to be cruising the street looking for passengers. Furthermore, the compactness of our city would make a much higher percentage of radio calls unrealistic to achieve within the foreseeable future. Of course, unless the ERP rates for using the road are so high that taxis will be immobilised when they are not carrying passengers.

The Chairman: Order. Dr Wang, can I ask you to finish your speech as we are running short of time?

Dr Wang Kai Yuen: Yes, I will be finishing.

But then where would the city find parking space for these taxis? So either way we are faced with this very difficult problem and I urge that the Land Transport Authority give this concern due consideration. I find the statement that empty cruising should be reduced, because it is undesirable, too simplistic.

Mr Charles Chong (Eunos GRC): Sir, in December 1994, the MRTC invited systems suppliers to propose two LRT feeder systems as pilot projects to extend the reach of MRT to Bukit Panjang and Buona Vista.

The Minister for Communications in a Ministerial statement in this House on 14th March informed us that a feasibility study is also being done for an LRT system to serve the Marina Centre area. If these pilot projects are successful, could the Minister tell us which other areas will the LRT be extended to and when? What criteria would be used to determine which area would have the LRT system before others? Could the Minister also give us details of the service standards that would be expected of the LRT operator and the anticipated fares that would be charged compared to the present bus and MRT fares? Would there be any Government grant for the LRT operator? Or, is the operator expected to run the system as a profitable business?

Finally, with implementation of the LRT system, would areas that are still waiting for the MRT system, such as Braddell Heights, Punggol and Changi Airport, suffer a delay as a result of possible diversion of resources to the new system?

The Chairman: Prof. Low Seow Chay is not here. Mr Heng, please take your three subjects together.

Mr Heng Chiang Meng: Sir, first, I would like to thank the Minister for leaving the ALS in the CBD area alone this time round and reducing, of course, the ALS hours on Saturdays by one hour. This is because, as he said, the traffic conditions in the CBD are still at acceptable levels. Could the Minister please explain to the House what he meant by "acceptable levels", and what levels are not acceptable? I also would like the Minister to institute a programme of reporting publicly, say, on a monthly basis, these levels so that the public can see how these levels are progressing or moving over time.

Sir, there are two benefits to this. Firstly, if the public is aware of these levels and if they are approaching unacceptable levels, then I believe motorists - those using the CBD during ALS hours - can at least stop going to the CBD, unless absolutely necessary. Or they can use the public transport if public transport can serve the purpose. Hence traffic congestion is kept at acceptable levels.

Secondly, with such a monitoring system, I believe that as and when the levels reached are unacceptable and new measures are being proposed, at least the travelling public will be prepared for it.

Sir, I also like to request that if in future unacceptable levels are reached in the CBD, would the Minister look at some form of non-monetary methods to manage the traffic, instead of relying 100% on monetary methods. As a suggestion, one such form could be allowing odd number cars to enter on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays at the existing rates, while maybe charging even number cars at higher rates, and the reverse can be done of course for Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays.

My main point is this: I think it is time for the Ministry to look at non-monetary methods to manage traffic instead of always using and relying on monetary means.

The Chairman: Mr Heng, would you like to continue?

Mr Heng Chiang Meng: Sir, on the second point on traffic congestion at expressways, again, the Minister said that his Ministry is going to try out the Road Pricing scheme pilot project on certain parts of the ECP because of traffic jams during peak hours. Again, the method used is monetary means without looking for other causes.

Sir, what are the causes of these jams? Why would residents in the East Coast area want to get caught in traffic jams daily in their journeys to their places of work, perhaps in the West Coast, in the city, or in Jurong? Again, they get caught when going home. Why do they not take the MRT or the express bus services? Is it because of inconvenience? Or is it because of discomfort? Even if such trunk services like the MRT and express bus services are first class, what about the feeder services at their point of starting and point of destination, that is, at their residences or at their places of work? Are these convenient to bring them from where they stay to the terminus to take the trunk services and then bring them to where they work from the terminus?

Sir, I think the Ministry should give more thought to the causes of these peak hour jams before resorting so readily to more fees. The Ministry should study and see whether there are other reasons, not just on expressways but elsewhere, for these jams. Perhaps resolving the problems elsewhere may help to reduce the jams on the expressways.

Sir, can I continue on the third point on COE?

The Chairman: Yes, but you do not have much time.

Mr Heng Chiang Meng: Sir, last year, I suggested a single bidding category for COEs. This year, I am still suggesting that the Minister considers this system. In case he has forgotten, let me roughly repeat what I suggested last year.

Sir, bids should be for COEs, without the need to state a category. Only when registering the category, then the successful bidder would need to register a vehicle in that particular category. And to retain the progressive nature of the prices, perhaps vehicles with higher engine capacities could pay higher COEs than vehicles with lower engine capacities, that means, at particular multiples. The progression could be based on those progressions that are currently being used for road tax.

Sir, I believe there are three benefits for this suggestion. First, the progressive nature would be institutionalised, that means, cars with higher capacity engines will always pay more than cars with lower capacity engines. This would be unlike in the present system when sometimes the COEs for higher engine cars can actually be lower than COEs for lower engine cars.

The second benefit is that it will be a more orderly market. This is because the numbers available for common bidding are larger. Hence, they will provide greater stability. Unlike now, given the small numbers in each category, prices can fluctuate wildly from month to month.

Most importantly, the third point is that this system actually makes it unnecessary for the open category. I think the Minister has said that the open category is actually for fluctuation between categories, which means that you want to provide a flexibility for changes in demand in different categories.

The Chairman: Mr Heng, can I ask you to wind up because Mr Mah has to give his reply? 2.30 pm

Mr Heng Chiang Meng: Yes, Sir, I will. Sir, this means that, under this system, the market will eventually determine what type of vehicles and what type of categories are required. I believe such a system will cater for better future demands. I am not suggesting that the change be made now as the system is currently undergoing an experiment on double transfers. However, I would suggest that the Ministry seriously study this proposal and consider implementing it after the double transfers experiment.

Encik Harun bin A. Ghani (Hong Kah GRC): Sir, I think I am on a different level with my GPC Chairman. At the end of 1994, the total number of cars registered was 324,026 and for motorcycles it was 125,000. Of this total number of motorcycles, 99,696 are light motorcycles, that is, 200 cc and below. 20,279 are medium-sized motorcycles, that is, 200 cc to 400 cc, and only 5,025 are heavy machines, that is, 400 cc and above. It is, therefore, clear that many in the lower income group can only afford to buy these motorcycles of 200 cc and below.

To help the lower income group to own motorcycle, I hope the Ministry would introduce COEs for three categories of motorcycles. My reason for saying this is that those who can afford to own cars are given the opportunity to buy cars of their choice according to their means as there are five categories of COEs for motorcars. In fact, we should encourage as many people to buy motorcycles as this will help prevent traffic congestion and overcome the shortage of parking space. In actual fact, riding a motorcycle is not as dangerous as one may think, if every motorcyclist complies with the traffic rules. What causes an accident is when the motorcyclist is inattentive and careless when riding his motor bike or when he speeds.

Sir, I believe not many people in the lower income group can afford to buy the heavy-sized motorcycles. This is clear from the figures, as mentioned by me earlier, that the light motorcycles of 200 cc and below are most popular among the lower income group and they form 79.7% of the motorcycle population.

For this reason, I would like to suggest that the COEs for motorcycles be grouped into three categories. First, light category for motorcycles of 200 cc and below, second, medium category for those motorcycles between 201 and 400 cc, and third, heavy category for motorcycles of 400 cc and above. Sir, at present, the COE for motorcycles has gone up from $1 to $1,840. We do not know what will be the COE price for motorcycles in future when the price of a car is far beyond our reach and $1,800 means a lot to the lower income group.

The Chairman: I will confine the remaining speakers to two minutes each. Mr Chiam.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, a medium-sized Honda car in the US costs about $22,000 but, in Singapore, it costs probably four times that amount, close to S$100,000. One of the factors which causes the rise in prices is of course the quota system which we have put in place and the bidding for COE. The question of COE has already been debated not long ago in Parliament, and I do not think I want to go through the issues again. But I would urge the Government, if they have a heart, to keep the COE prices down by trying both the pay-as-you-bid scheme as well as the double transfers, not just one or the other. I have heard concerns being expressed that only the committee which is in charge of COEs knows of the actual bids made. Perhaps the Government could be more transparent in that area by letting the public know all the bid prices rather than just confine them to a few. This is good both for the purchasers of motorcars as well as the Government. Make the system more transparent, let the people know what are the bid prices for each of the categories and, finally, the bid price taken. I think this should be applicable to all the categories.

Mr Charles Chong: Sir, could the Minister provide us with an update of the development plans for Changi Airport Terminal 3 and also on details on the measures being taken by the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore to ensure that the services and the infrastructure of our Airport remain ahead of demand as well as ahead of the competition. There appears to be already an acute shortage of aero-bridges during the peak periods at both Terminals 1 and 2. Although more aero-bridges are being constructed, it is not uncommon for passengers arriving at Changi Airport to be transported standing up in buses to the Terminal building of the world's number one airport.

Sir, I notice that on page 172 of the Budget book that no provision has been made for the financial aid to CAAS for airport infrastructural development since financial year 1993 when approximately $338,000 were spent. Could the Minister let us know if there will be sufficient funds for CAAS to accomplish airport infrastructural development for financial year 1995?

The Minister for Communications (Mr Mah Bow Tan): Sir, first of all, let me thank Mr Heng Chiang Meng for his support for my Ministry's efforts to increase mobility for all Singaporeans by, particularly, improvements in public transport. He has qualified that the improvements should also take into account the comfort, convenience and the cost of public transport. Of course, I agree with that. He has also suggested that we should consider abolishing the tax burden on public transport by looking at private and public transport as a whole and reducing the tax burden for taxis.

Sir, the objective of setting up the Land Transport Authority is precisely to look at land transport in totality and by land transport, I am talking about the whole spectrum of land transport, ranging from basic bus services, airconditioned bus services, deluxe bus services, mass rapid transit, taxis and, of course, private cars. The issues which Mr Heng mentioned are important issues which the Land Transport Authority will look at, especially the question of what is a proper tax structure for the various modes of transport - bus, MRT, taxi, private car - appropriate in the sense that it is commensurate with the level of service which is provided and the benefits which it brings and the cost which it imposes on our infrastructure.

Dr Vasoo and Mr Goh asked about improvements in bus services. Sir, the improvements will take time but they must start by all the parties involved agreeing on what constitutes a reasonable bus service. Because if you do not start off on a common basis, there will always be disagreements about what is good enough, what is reasonable. So for this reason, the basic bus service standards were drawn up recently by the Public Transport Council. What the Public Transport Council has done is to set benchmarks for measuring the quality of bus services and the key indicators they have used include service frequencies and bus loadings, whether buses are crowded, over-crowded, accessibility of services, directness of journeys. So this will serve as the basis for the Council, bus commuters and bus operators to agree on what constitutes a good service at today's fare levels. They are the minimum standards. They are the minimum standards which PTC feels commuters deserve at today's fares and they are also the standards which the operators can provide and still earn a reasonable return for their shareholders.

The PTC has given the operators six months from last November to comply with the new standards. The PTC and the ROV will conduct regular surveys and audits to monitor service levels and ensure compliance with the standards. Straightaway, I am told that three trunk services and 12 feeder services will need immediate improvement. Bus companies have until May to do so. The result of PTC and ROV's compliance audit will be released to the public for their information and they also intend to publish regularly the results of their surveys for the benefit of commuters. But I said that these are minimum standards. What the PTC will also do is to encourage the bus operators not only to meet the minimum standards but also to try and exceed them.

Dr Vasoo may wish to know that one of these areas where the bus operators would be encouraged to exceed standards would be in the area of feeder bus services. This is an area which has caused a lot of concern to commuters based on the feedback that we have received. So what the PTC will ask the operators to do is to improve service frequencies of feeder buses to shorter than the 10-minute interval. The extent of improvement will be announced subsequently after May when operators have addressed the current shortcomings in the feeder service to meet the basic standards.

Sir, there have also been questions about the MRT-bus integration. This is something which the operators have embarked upon and it is one of the reasons why both Dr Vasoo and Mr Goh have noticed that the number of buses has come down. With the introduction of the MRT, there was overnight virtually a quantum increase in the capacity of the public transport system. If there was nothing done about integration, if there was nothing done about reducing or rationalising and removing the wasteful duplication of capacity between bus and MRT, we would have had a situation where neither the bus nor the MRT would be able to meet their operating cost. The reason is very simple. If you keep running the same number of buses when some of the commuters have gone off to MRT, you will end up with a situation where the trains would be half empty and the buses would be half empty and, pretty soon, both operators will come back to the PTC and say, "Look, I am afraid I have to ask for fare increase." And if the PTC looks at the numbers, I think it will be faced with a very difficult decision. If it does not accede to the request, we will end up with a situation where our major bus operators will run into the red and this is something which is unacceptable. If it does accede to the fare increase, commuters will end up with higher fares soon after the introduction of a new mode of transport.

Dr Vasoo also questioned the composition of the PTC members. Just let me very briefly run through the composition. The PTC currently has nine members. The members come from Residents' Committees, university, professionals, employers and national servicemen. They also comprise people from the Chartered Institute of Transport, the professionals from the ROV and transport economists. Yes, we can have a greater number, we can expand the composition of the Council. But I think that is not the point. The point is: are the members of the Council aware of their responsibility especially their main responsibility? And their main responsibility essentially is in two areas: (1) to safeguard the interests of commuters; and (2) to make sure that in doing so, it allows the operators to continue to run and provide a reasonable return. This is a delicate balancing act. I can assure the Member that when the PTC meets to consider requests for change of routes, extension of routes, deletion of routes, all the members, whether they are bus commuters or not, look at the problem with these two considerations in mind. And I have every confidence that the Chairman and members of the PTC are exercising this responsibility in the best way that they can. 2.45 pm

There is greater need for commuter participation, I agree. But there is no lack of feedback channels for commuters. We can enhance the channels of feedback to the Council. Channels of feedback are available directly to the operators. Channels of feedback are available through the Feedback Unit. If the Member feels that these channels are not sufficient, I am prepared to consider further expanding these channels. But I believe that the PTC is doing its job and doing it well.

Sir, there have also been comments from various Members at this sitting, and several sittings before this, about the feeling that competition will automatically lead to better service. We have several choices when it comes to setting the industry structure for buses.

First, allow free for all competition, as suggested. This may lead to a better level of service for commuters along the most popular routes, because everybody will want to serve these routes. Many operators will come in. They will, in fact, rush in. Initially, commuters will be spoilt for choice. Some of the operators will succeed, some will not. Eventually, the situation will stabilise. But what happens to the not so popular routes? Who is going to serve them?

The second option is that we adopt a policy of duopoly. We have two main operators providing the bulk of the services, supplemented at the fringes by smaller operators. This has worked reasonably well, because with this kind of structure, we can insist on universal service. In other words, we can insist that operators run services to places which they would not normally run if left on their own. And we can regulate the fares to keep them affordable.

Sir, based on our past experience and the experience of many other cities, the second option remains our better option. It is not perfect and we will need to continue to fine-tune at the edges.

There have been several other comments about specific services. Mr Goh asked about service 105. I will ask the PTC to look into his complaints about this service and I will ask the PTC to feed back the results of the investigations to him.

As regards the MRT extension to the north-east sector, I informed Parliament last week that a feasibility study is ongoing. Results should be out by the middle of this year for Government to decide when to start building the line.

Dr Wang questions the intention of my Ministry to reduce the empty cruising of taxis. As I have stated in Parliament, taxis are an important component of our total land transport system. But where do they fit into the spectrum of service? Are they a public transport system? Should they be priced as a public transport system? Or are they actually equivalent to a car? And indeed when a taxi is running on the road, it occupies as much space as a car. It creates as much congestion as a car when it is travelling in congested areas. And if you include the amount of empty cruising that they do - I do not care whether it is 20%, 30% or 40% - the fact is that they do cruise around empty looking for passengers. And if we take that into consideration as well, I would say that they create even more congestion than a car under certain circumstances.

Our policy will be to price taxi services at the appropriate level, peg it close to that of a car. Because the cost that it imposes on our infrastructure is similar to that of a car. If we can price the taxi service correctly, then we can let the supply and the availability of taxis be determined by market demand.

Our long-term policy will be to deregulate supply and fares. But I would like to see all the operating parameters properly settled before we take that step. For example, one of the things that we would need to settle will be to let the taxi service adjust to the electronic road pricing system. Because under the ERP system, what is going to happen is that taxis will have to pay every time they pass the gantries, which is unlike the situation today. So we would need to see how taxi companies respond to this challenge, how they intend to improve the level of service, by improving their radio despatch service, for example. In so doing, I believe that they can reduce the empty cruising. They cannot eliminate totally, but they can reduce it and in so doing, help to ease the congestion on the roads and also, at the same time, help to reduce their operating costs. Until these issues are settled, we will continue to monitor the taxi service closely.

Sir, Mr Charles Chong has asked about the progress of the LRT. The MRTC has shortlisted eight tenderers to participate in stage two of the LRT tender. This will involve feasibility studies on the financial and technical viability of the proposed LRT system for Bukit Panjang and Buona Vista. The MRTC will give more details after stage two tenders close on 29th May this year. Whether the projects will proceed will depend on the results of the stage two tenders.

Sir, the LRT system will be superior to the basic bus system. It will provide a more comfortable, a more convenient, a more reliable service. It will cost the Government much more to build. MRTC estimates that it can cost as much as 10 times more to provide an LRT-based feeder service compared to one that is provided by buses alone. But it is worth doing, not only because it will be a significantly better way of moving people around but, as the Prime Minister said last weekend, LRT systems can also be regarded as part of our asset enhancement programme.

The question of where and when to build is now being studied by my Ministry. One obvious criterion must be ridership. To justify the Government spending such large sums of money to build the LRT, the line must at least meet its direct operating cost. Like the HDB upgrading programme, we will also have to consider how residents can most benefit from the enhanced mobility to be provided by LRT systems, how they can also co-participate in the LRT programme.

So long as we have budget surpluses, we are in the happy position of being able to choose among different options - bus, LRT, MRT. But that does not mean that we forget completely all the basic rules of prudence.

The Government spent $5 billion on the first MRT lines because it was satisfied that they would be viable and on the understanding that fare revenues would be more than sufficient to cover operating costs. The Government will spend another $1.3 billion to build the Woodlands line on the same understanding. The Government is now considering whether and when to spend another $4 billion to build the north-east line, also on the same understanding. The programme to build LRT lines is part of this programme to invest for a better future.

Sir, Mr Heng asked about traffic congestion in the CBD. I would like to inform him that surveys have been done in the restricted zone. And these surveys are meant to measure how traffic conditions compare with a set of service standards which have been drawn up by the PWD to serve as benchmarks. When he asked the question what constitutes acceptable traffic conditions, there are a whole series of benchmarks which PWD uses. Some of these standards obviously refer to things like vehicle speeds, bus speeds and so on. I would not go into the details at this stage. But if he is interested, I can give him a whole list. My Ministry will continue to monitor traffic conditions in the city centre and will take appropriate measures to keep the traffic free flowing.

He also asked about what are the reasons for traffic congestion on the expressways. The reason is very simple. The number of vehicles on our roads keeps increasing every year. Before we had the quota system, they were increasing at something like 6%-7%. After the quota system, it is still increasing at about 3%-3(r)%. More cars inevitably lead to more congestion when people all want to use the car, which I suppose is the reason why they buy cars in the first place. Unless we can also increase the road capacity by the same amount every year which is physically impossible, we are going to face a situation where our roads, including our expressways, are going to become more congested.

So we have to tackle the situation in various ways. As I have indicated in Parliament last week, we need to continue to spend to build more roads, to improve traffic junctions and so on. But the equally important step that we have to take is that we must manage the use of our roads. We can use non-monetary methods, for example, the odd-even method. Many countries have done it this way. Without fail, they have all given up after a while, because it simply does not work. There are just too many ways for clever people to circumvent the rules.

We can do it by increasing taxes generally, eg, by increasing fuel tax, but this is going to affect everybody including those who do not use the congested roads. It will have other undesirable consequences such as raising the cost of road transportation. Or we can introduce road pricing, but only for the affected roads. This would be equally effective and less disruptive. 3.00 pm

The Chairman: Order. Mr Mah, we have exceeded the time. Would you like to finish?

Mr Mah Bow Tan: Thank you, Sir. So I would just like to say that we will take this approach. We will start off on a modest scale and aim for minimal disruption.

As I have announced, we will be implementing in June this year a pilot project on the road pricing scheme (RPS) at the most congested section of the East Coast Parkway (ECP). The road pricing scheme will operate for only one hour during the morning peak from 7.30 am to 8.30 am, Mondays to Fridays, excluding Saturdays, Sundays and Public Holidays. An RPS licence will cost $1 for all cars, including company cars, trucks and so on. For this pilot project, any ALS licence for the day will also serve as an RPS licence. In other words, if you have an ALS licence you need not pay for an RPS licence. This is a pilot project. Motorists will need a bit of time to get used to a new method of road pricing, which is different from the cordon pricing for the CBD. We will review it next year, and if traffic conditions have stabilised by then and are acceptable, we will wait for the introduction of the Electronic Road Pricing in 1997. If this minor surgery works, and we can tackle the problem before it gets worse, then there will be no need for a major surgery later on.

Mr Heng Chiang Meng: Sir, I thank the Minister for his reply and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman: Amendment No. (2), Mr Cheo is not here. Amendment No. (3), Mr Heng.

Mr Heng Chiang Meng: Sir, I beg to move,

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

Sir, first I would like to thank the Minister for his earlier enunciation on basic bus standards. However, I think there is a need to have these basic standards, that means, the actual numeric numbers, and not just broad statements of policy, to be prominently displayed, so that commuters can know what these standards are. In this way, the commuters could become the main component of a very good monitoring system. At the same time, it should also make it very easy for commuters to provide feedback on compliance or non-compliance with the standards by the bus operators. In short, I believe it is the Ministry's responsibility to come out with a simple system for the commuting public to play a key monitoring role in this issue of bus standards.

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

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

Mr Speaker: I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 3.20 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 3.03 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 I (cont.) -

Mr Peh Chin Hua (Jalan Besar GRC): ( In Mandarin): Sir, I am disappointed with the Public Transport Council and the Singapore Bus Service for the frequent changing of routes and the withdrawal of bus services every now and then. Many residents in my constituency have complained to me about the inadequacy in our public transport service.

Today, the problem of public transport is simply a pure transport problem. It has turned into a political subject. The scarcity of land, the economic prosperity resulting in the increase in number of vehicles and also the increased prices of COEs have compelled many Singaporeans to resort to public transport as part and parcel of their life. If the Public Transport Council and the Singapore Bus Service choose to ignore the political sensitivity that may arise from the public transport problem and still persist in focusing their attention on the profitability of the bus service and the commercial interest of the bus routes, then the consequences will be pathetic.

I do not quite understand why the Public Transport Council does not approve applications from private transport companies to ply routes which have been withdrawn by the Singapore Bus Service. In my view, even if the Singapore Bus Service had incurred losses in certain routes, that does not mean that the private transport company will face the same fate. In business, different methods of operation will yield different results.

I hope that the Ministry of Communications will improve the public transport service from the macro and free competition perspectives for the benefit of the people.

Dr Wong Kwei Cheong (Kampong Glam GRC): Sir, I would like to bring your attention to the plight of many bus commuters who were affected by the constant need of Singapore Bus Service to change or withdraw their bus services in order to maximise their profits.

During the eighties, residents of Dorset Road, Farrer Park were serviced by the following buses:

(a) Bus service 130, 131 and 141 plying Rangoon Road;

(b) Bus service 125 plying Norfolk Road; and

(c) Bus service 104, 134, 160, 161 and 163 plying Keng Lee Road.

However, the bus services were gradually withdrawn. Until today, residents of Dorset Road are served only by bus service 131. Residents have to wait for as long as 45 minutes before they could board a bus, especially during non-peak hours.

I have received many complaints during the meet-the-people sessions and have appealed to SBS for assistance on many occasions. However, the problem of long waiting periods is still unresolved.

I hope the Minister can look into this problem and help us to reduce the waiting time by introducing more bus services, especially to Orchard Road and to the Singapore General Hospital, as Farrer Park is an old estate and has an aging population.

Mr Teo Chong Tee (Changi): Sir, I have repeatedly requested for a bus service between Simei estate and Changi Airport and to my disappointment, my requests are still falling on deaf ears.

May I request the Minister to review the matter as Simei estate has a growing population and quite a sizeable number of residents are working in Changi Airport. I suggest the SBS consider re-routing one of the existing bus services via Simei estate. Bus services No. 24 and 27 are the ideal ones for consideration. This will greatly help to reduce the travelling time and maybe transport expenses of the airport workers staying in Simei estate. May the Minister, through his good office, help to influence the SBS to seriously consider my request for the benefit of my Changi residents.

The Chairman: Mr Charles Chong is not moving. Mr Choo Wee Khiang

Mr Choo Wee Khiang (Jalan Besar GRC): Sir, I have two cuts. May I take them together?

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr Choo Wee Khiang: Much obliged, Sir.

(In Mandarin): Sir, Mr Peh Chin Hua has already spoken on the shuttle bus services. I would like to take part in this debate. I would like to thank the Minister for his understanding of the need for shuttle service. I hope that he will continue to give Jalan Besar GRC the assistance in providing such services.

During my meet-the-people sessions and my visits, I understand that the bus service in the Whampoa area is grossly inadequate. I hope the Minister will seriously look into the matter. We also have similar problems in other parts of my constituency. I hope the Minister will do his best to help us out.

On senior citizens' need for public transport, I would like to make some suggestions about the concession cards. When we refer to senior citizens, we mean the old people. We want to help them to live a happy life in their twilight years. These people have made their contribution to society and to the country and I believe that after their retirement, we should give them all kinds of assistance and convenience available as a form of reward for their past services. I do not think that old people should be staying at home most of the time. So if they go out of their homes, visit their friends, do something useful for themselves, the Minister for Communications should consider how to help these senior citizens better.

At the moment, the concession pass for senior citizens is not good enough. I think there should be some improvement. I have four points to raise. Firstly, I hope that the Ministry of Communications will lower the minimum age from 60 to 55. In other words, those who have reached 55 will be eligible to apply for a concession card.

Secondly, when a card is lost, irrespective of where he lives, the holder will have to go all the way to Buona Vista station to get a replacement. I think this is a very troublesome process. Consideration should be given for card replacement to be available in other areas. At present, there is a charge of $5 for each card replacement. To the old people, $5 can be a big sum. The replacement should be done free of charge.

We could use post offices, the Neighbourhood Police Posts, community centres, bus terminals, to facilitate the senior citizens in applying for the concession cards or for replacement thereof. This would save them a lot of inconvenience. At present, the concession card can only be used during the non-peak hours during weekdays and on Sundays and public holidays. Since we are giving them the concession, we should try to be more liberal. Let them enjoy the concession rate at all times and not just be confined to the non-peak hours, so that the senior citizens will be able to enjoy the concession at all times.

I hope the Minister can give a more positive answer to my plea.

The Chairman: Dr Wong is not moving. Mr Mah. 3.30 pm

Mr Mah Bow Tan: Sir, Mr Heng asked earlier whether we can make the new bus service standards more explicit and transparent. I will ask the Land Transport Authority to look into this and, specifically, I will ask them to work towards a situation where major bus stops will display bus schedules so that these will help commuters to plan their journeys better. I believe commuters would be more interested in what time the next bus is going to arrive rather than the global standards which the PTC has currently set. What the global standards can do, however, is to ensure that when we monitor the services, we are able to determine whether the bus operators have complied with the standards on a global basis. I also agree with him that an important element in the enforcement process is to have adequate feedback from the public so that the regulators can zero in on the problem areas for investigation.

Earlier, the Nominated Member, Dr Lee Tsao Yuan, has suggested that the PTC set up a hotline. This can serve as an alternative feedback channel for members of the public who are not used to giving written feedback. The PTC tells me that they already have a hotline. In fact, the operators also have their own hotlines. But what I will do is to ask the operators to post at bus stops and interchanges the hotlines of TransitLink and the bus-MRT operators as well as the PTC. At present, the TransitLink guidebook also contains the operators' helplines. My advice to commuters is to give their feedback directly to the operators first because they are in the best position to take immediate action. The PTC can be called upon for redress in cases where operators have failed to respond to complaints.

Sir, Mr Peh Chin Hua raised this fundamental issue of whether we should have free competition in the provision of bus services. As I have explained a few minutes earlier in the House, we have adopted the current system of regulated competition because it allows us to impose universal service obligations to ensure wide coverage of bus services as well as to regulate bus fares. There is no evidence to suggest that free-for-all competition automatically leads to better service. In fact, our experience in the 60s and 70s showed us that an unregulated bus service leads to unreliable service and poor coverage as bus operators understandably choose to ply only the profitable routes. I think Mr Peh and I are around the same age, maybe, give or take 5 or 10 years. If so, he will recall, as I did, that in those days, buses were old, poorly maintained and frequently broke down. I remember, as school children, we had to run after the buses, jumped onto the buses, hoped that there was a spare foothold, hung on for dear life and made sure that the school bags on our backs stayed there. The point, Sir, is that we had free-for-all competition and it did not automatically lead to better service.

Sir, Mr Peh may wish to know that, currently, the PTC does allow operators to run bus services provided these do not duplicate the main bus services. In the last five years, PTC received 36 applications from private operators and approved 28 of them.

Dr Wong Kwei Cheong complained about bus services in his constituency, in particular, I believe, Service 131. I will ask the PTC to conduct a thorough investigation into Dr Wong's complaint as well as his request for more services and to let me have a report as soon as possible.

Similarly, I will ask PTC to consider Mr Teo Chong Tee's request for bus service between Simei and Changi Airport, in particular, the re-routing of some services through Simei. But I would just like to mention here that, in any re-routing of service, in order to serve one section of the population, it usually necessitates the inconveniencing of another group of passengers. What will happen is that the group of passengers who have the service taken away from them will either have to look for another service or, in some cases, they may have to travel longer distances and pay an extra fare. But, nevertheless, I will ask PTC to look into this particular request of the Member for Changi and to see preferably whether there is a justification for a direct bus service so that there is no need to re-route any service.

Similarly, Sir, I will ask PTC to look into Mr Choo Wee Khiang's request for additional shuttle services in his constituency.

Finally, Sir, I believe Mr Choo has asked whether we can help senior citizens to lower the cost of travel for them and also to minimise the inconvenience. On the points raised by Mr Choo about making it more convenient for senior citizens to get their senior citizen passes and also to renew them, I fully sympathize with his point of view. I will ask TransitLink to make sure that senior citizens are not inconvenienced when they want to apply or renew their passes. In fact, I am told that TransitLink accepts applications for senior citizen concession cards by post. So this is one way where senior citizens can minimize having to travel to a particular sales office. Also, besides the TransitLink office at Buona Vista MRT Station, applicants can also pick up their cards at any of the other eight MRT stations all over Singapore. But, nevertheless, I will ask TransitLink to see whether they can do more.

In so far as the lowering of the age of concession from 60 to 55 years and extending the hours of concession are concerned, I will have to refer this to the operators to consider, bearing in mind the fact that any concession that the operators give will eat away at their revenue base. So I will pass this suggestion from Mr Choo to the operators and see whether they can find a way to accommodate this request.

Sir, if I may, could I take a few other points that were raised in the earlier cuts which I did not have time to answer?

Mr Peh Chin Hua: Sir, can I clarify?

(In Mandarin): I am not quite happy with the Minister's answer just now. I do not think we should equate the transportation problems in the 60s to our situation now in the 90s. In the 60s, our buses were bad. There were no air-conditioned or double-decker buses. Our roads were very bad. We did not have expressways and our commuters had no money. Our people then were poor and many had to walk, or at most cycled from one place to another. The market was small and the population was small. Now, we are in the 90s. People are now richer. With the very expensive COEs, they may not be able to afford cars, but surely they have enough money to take buses. So there should be enough commuters for a number of bus companies to compete against one another and still survive.

Mr Mah Bow Tan: Sir, I still maintain that what Mr Peh was advocating was a free-for-all competition. If he says, "All right, let's have competition but let's manage the competition in a way where we do not have this free-for-all situation.", then I think we can start to talk business. But as far as having a free-for-all competition is concerned, a la the days when we had 11 or 12 bus companies, the point that I am making is that we cannot allow all the 11 or 12 bus companies to run where they can make money and still insist that they should also run services which lose money. It is not fair for us to insist that they do so.

But in our present situation, we do have two main bus operators which, while not competing directly with one another, nevertheless, still allow us to maintain a regime whereby we can compare and contrast the performance and the service level provided by each of them. And, as I said earlier, we will allow and, in fact, we do allow other bus operators to come in and run services at the fringes. So we do have a system of competition. But let us not go back to the days when it was a free for all. That is the point that I am making, Sir.

Mr Peh Chin Hua: ( In Mandarin): My point is that SBS would not go to my town. As a result, my town council arranged with a private bus company to come in and they are confident that they can operate profitably. But the Public Transport Council did not allow them to run these services, and there were a lot of complaints. I think there is no competition, since the SBS has withdrawn the services and is no longer servicing this area. The private bus company thinks that it is viable. The Public Transport Council should allow them to give it a try.

Mr Choo Wee Khiang: I would like to clarify, Sir. To a certain extent, I disagree with Mr Peh. However, on the point about free-for-all competition, I would rather accept the Minister's point of view. But I would like the Minister to consider allowing private operators to operate feeder bus services within the GRC. I am not asking for elsewhere. I think Mr Peh is a bit ambitious. I am just asking for my GRC.

Mr Mah Bow Tan: I believe Mr Peh and Mr Choo are GRC colleagues so I am not quite sure which services they are referring to. But, nevertheless, let me just inform Mr Peh that the applications from private bus operators to run bus services are all considered by the PTC. And if the PTC feels that this private operator is able to run the service without duplicating to a large extent the main bus operator's routes, then there is no reason why they will not approve. The reason for this is very simple because any private operator can come in and say, "Look, I want to run a service which is profitable. But don't ask me to run any other service or insist that I run a service which is unprofitable." So when it comes to an application from private bus operators, the PTC has to consider to what extent this new application will cream off revenue from the existing operators. I think that is the main consideration that they have.

As far as shuttle bus services or feeder bus services are concerned, I do not see any reason why the PTC will reject operators from running feeder services. And I can tell you the reason is because most of the feeder services do not make money. In fact, I am told that none of the applications from private bus operators to the PTC are for feeder services. So if there is an operator who is willing to run a feeder service in any constituency, please let the PTC know. I think they will be very happy to consider those applications favourably. 3.45 pm

Sir, may I now turn to the two points that were raised by Mr Heng and Mr Chiam See Tong earlier about the COEs. Mr Heng has raised the point about considering a new form of COE, or amending the current COE system. He has given me details about the proposal. My Ministry will study his suggestion carefully. But let me take this opportunity to remind the House that every time we tinker with the COE system, inevitably, it leads to other unintended consequences. In fact, when we started the COE system, what we should have done if we wanted to have the most economically efficient system was to have one single big COE category and to make all the COEs fully transferable and fully tradable.

But I think we all recognise the need to balance the advantages of the market and to trade off market efficiency against social equity and other considerations. That is why in response to many concerns, particularly the buyers of small cars, who were concerned that they should not be made to compete with buyers of large or luxury cars, or the buyers of goods vehicles who were concerned that they should not be made to compete with buyers of private cars, because they maintain that goods vehicles are essential, private cars are not, this is the reason why we designed the COE system in such a way that there are different categories for different groups of vehicle buyers.

Then in response to concerns that speculative activities were driving up COE prices, we made most categories of COEs non-transferable. Later on, on the advice of Mr Heng Chiang Meng's committee, we decided on a 12-month period to ban the transfer of car ownership within the first three months of registration. But, inevitably, as I said, whenever we tinker with the free play of the market by introducing more regulations, we give rise to market practices that try to circumvent these regulations. And these new practices, in turn, call for even more intervention and more regulations. For example, when we stopped the practice of transferability, the practice of double transfers evolved. So what we need to do is to constantly fine-tune the system, to constantly trade off between economic efficiency and social equity.

Mr Chiam also mentioned that we should try and keep COE prices down. Sir, we are now in the process of conducting an experiment on double transfers. I am not sure what the result of this trial is going to be. My Ministry maintains and believes that ultimately, at the end of the day, prices will move depending on how the demand for COEs moves. But during this trial period, we shall keep an open mind and we will see how prices move. Until the results of the double transfer trial are out, I do not intend to make any other changes to the system.

In so far as transparency of the bidding process is concerned, I am not sure whether Mr Chiam is aware that all successful bid prices are actually publicly available at the Registry of Vehicles. That is as transparent as we can make the system. And if anybody is interested, he can always go to the ROV and check the prices. There is no hanky-panky involved. All the bids come in at the same time. All of them are opened. The results are posted for everybody to see. That is as far as transparency of the system is concerned.

Mr Harun Ghani raised the point about whether we should have different categories of COEs for motorcycles. In principle, I cannot disagree with the fact that since we have already done the same for cars, why should we not have different categories for motorcycles. However, the available data indicate that buyers of small motorcycles are not being squeezed out by buyers of big motorcycles. In fact, in 1994, despite an increase in COE prices for motorcycles, 73% of motorcycles registered were 200 cc and below. This is, in fact, higher than the figure in 1993 when the COE price for motorcycle was $1. On the other hand, despite the introduction of more models of large motorcycles, only 9% of motorcycles registered in 1994 were above 400 cc. However, we will keep monitoring the situation and if need be, we will make adjustments.

Sir, one final point and that is in response to Mr Charles Chong's question about the progress of Changi Airport Terminal 3. The concept design for Terminal 3 (T3) is currently going on. It will be ready by the middle of this year. CAAS is working on the detailed design and this will also tie in with MRTC's study on the possible extension of the MRT to the airport.

In the meantime, while we are working on T3, we are also expanding T1 and T2. This is in order to make sure that Changi Airport remains ahead of demand as well as ahead of the competition. T2 is going to be expanded to cater for 23 million passengers and T1 to cater for 20 million passengers. Overall, the objective is to squeeze maximum capacity out of the existing terminals and infrastructure without compromising any standard of service.

Mr Charles Chong will be pleased to know that the capital cost for T3 will be borne by the CAAS out of the accumulated surpluses.

Mr Heng Chiang Meng: Sir, I thank the Minister for his reply, especially on his childhood's travelling experience. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

Mr Heng Chiang Meng: Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head I of the Development Estimates be reduced by $10 in respect of Code IC 5100.

Sir, recently, the Government implemented the B-signal project to improve the efficiency and service standards of buses. This definitely will add inconvenience to other road-users by giving priority to these buses. Of course, the result is that the buses would have higher efficiency and, presumably, higher productivity, resulting, presumably, in lowering cost and increasing profits.

In line with such priority pilot projects, the Ministry, I believe, is also asking the bus companies to further improve their services through, for example, better quality buses as well as facilities like global positioning systems (GPS). In this respect, I welcome such measures by the Ministry, but I hope that the bus companies and bus operators will not use this as excuses to later on increase their fares. And when they are trying to increase their fares, they should remember that the priority given to them by all other road-users in Singapore, in fact, has helped them to increase their bottom-line over these years.

Sir, would the Minister give this House assurances that such improvement projects of bus operators will not result in higher fares?

The Minister of State for Communications (Mr Goh Chee Wee): Sir, Mr Heng commented on the bus priority scheme and he also expressed concern about the possible impact of the new project undertaken by SBS on bus fares. Like other companies, SBS and TIBS have to face the pressure of cost increases due to rising wages and other factors. And like other companies, bus companies must keep improving productivity to neutralise or offset the impact of such cost increases. The benefits to the commuters of higher productivity is that bus fares can be maintained and service standards can be adhered to or even improved upon in spite of the rising costs.

The ROV and PWD have implemented bus priority schemes like bus lanes and B-signal to smoothen the movement of buses on the roads, so that buses can adhere to schedule and provide more reliable service to commuters. The PTC has also encouraged the bus operators to instal automatic vehicle location system in another effort to improve reliability and regularity of service, and to provide real time service information to help commuters plan their journeys. All these measures are aimed at improving service levels for the benefit of commuters.

Higher levels of service will mean more resources and consequently increase in operating cost. There is therefore a need to strike a balance between the quality of service and bus fares to ensure that commuters get the best value for money.

Mr Heng is right that the Government has done a lot to improve the efficiency of the public transport system to facilitate the movement of buses. I believe the bus companies should take note of the concerns expressed by Mr Heng. But commuters must also understand that ultimately how much the service level can be improved also depends on how much the commuters are prepared to pay.

Mr Heng Chiang Meng: Sir, before I withdraw my amendment, I would like to inform the Minister of State that bus companies in Singapore are not like any other company in Singapore. No other company in Singapore has been helped and assisted so much by Government policies to improve its bottom-line.

Sir, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman: Amendment No. (5), Mr Heng.

Mr Heng Chiang Meng: I am not moving this amendment, Sir.

Encik Harun bin A. Ghani: Sir, I beg to move,

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

Sir, we already have many container terminals in our country, such as Tanjong Pagar, Keppel, Pasir Panjang, Sembawang and Brani. We have been made to understand that the Ministry of Communications will further expand the Pasir Panjang Container Terminal. The question is why is there a need to further expand the container terminal at Pasir Panjang. Is it because our terminals are not able to cope with the many ship arrivals? What is the cost of this expansion project at the Pasir Panjang Container Terminal? When can this expansion project be completed? And when it is ready, can Singapore surpass the bustle of Hong Kong port? In short, can we be number one in terms of shipping traffic and tonnage?

Mr Charles Chong: Sir, could the Minister inform us if the piracy problem in the sea lanes around Singapore has been eradicated and, if not, what are the measures that have been taken together with our neighbouring countries to ensure safety of shipping in our sea lanes?

Mr Goh Chee Wee: Sir, Encik Harun asked about the development of the Pasir Panjang Container Terminal. Sir, PSA's container traffic has been growing at an average rate of 20% per annum. Last year, PSA handled 10.4 million TEUs (20-foot equivalent units) of containers.

[Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair]

4.03 pm

Mr Goh Chee Wee: The forecast indicates continued strong growth. The completion of Brani Terminal and upgrading of Tanjong Pagar and Keppel Terminal will raise PSA's combined handling capacity from 13 million to 16 million TEUs. But the capacity of these terminals will be fully utilised by the year 1997. PSA therefore has to develop a new container terminal at Pasir Panjang to meet the port's future requirement. The first five berths at the new container terminal will be operational in 1998. The completion of Phases I and II of the new terminal will double PSA's total container handling capacity to about 34 million TEUs in the year 2010. The total cost for Phases I and II of the new container terminal is estimated at $7.2 million.

Encik Harun also asked whether Singapore can become the world's number one container port. Singapore was the world's number one container port in 1990 and 1991 while Hong Kong was a close second. However, from 1992 to 1994, Hong Kong became the world's top container port based on the number of containers handled. Singapore and Hong Kong serve different hinterlands. While Singapore is the cargo hub for ASEAN, South-Asia and Australia, Hong Kong is the gateway to South China. Both ports are in an international shipping network. Singapore handles mainly transhipment containers worldwide while Hong Kong handles mainly containers imported and exported into mainland China. So the growth in shipping and container traffic at both ports is therefore closely linked to the economy and trade of their respective countries and that of the countries around them.

Mr Charles Chong asked about the problem of piracy. Sir, sea robberies are not new to this region. We have been cooperating closely with neighbouring authorities to eliminate this problem. Their efforts and ours, such as increased naval and marine police patrols, and arrest of suspects of sea robbers, have reduced the problem considerably. Since mid-1992, sea robbery reports have declined sharply. There was only one report in September 1993 and eight in January 1994. These incidents occurred outside our waters. There has been no reported incident in the Singapore Straits since early 1994. We will continue to monitor the situation and work with neighbouring authorities to control the sea robbery situation.

Encik Harun bin A. Ghani: Sir, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Heng Chiang Meng: Sir, I beg to move,

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

Sir, under this amendment, I just want to stand up to be counted as a supporter of the Member for Braddell Heights in his quest for a North-East line. A North-East line would go to my constituency, ie, the Cheng San GRC. I believe my GRC colleague, Dr Michael Lim, will elaborate more on this issue.

Mr Teo Chong Tee: Sir, I have brought up the issue of extending the MRT line to Changi Airport for umpteen times and I must admit that I have lost count of it, but for sure, Sir, I know that Changi Airport has won the "Best Airport in the World" title for seven consecutive years. This remarkable achievement has been made possible because of the continued improvements in the airport infrastructure and facilities and, more importantly, the people working in the airport.

It is my conviction and belief that if we want to retain the Number One title for many years to come, there is an urgent need to recognise the efforts of the hardworking and dedicated airport workers by rewarding them with one of the most convenient transportation links between Changi Airport and other parts of Singapore. Hence, the MRT extension line to Changi Airport is the best proposition to meet the transportation needs of the airport workers who, together with many other potential users of the line, will ensure its operational viability. The current expansion of Passenger Terminal Two as well as the planned expansion of Passenger Terminal One, and the future construction of the Third Passenger Terminal will further add to this demand. The linkage of the airport with the existing MRT lines will definitely be a booster for many existing and potential workers of Changi Airport.

Sir, I understand that studies have already been carried out by the MRTC to determine the feasibility of the extension line to the airport. I hope that all these studies will eventually lead to a positive conclusion. May I know from the Minister whether the studies have been completed and what is the time frame the MRTC is looking at for the construction of the extension line? May I also add for the consideration of the MRTC whether the latest much-talked about Light Rail Trains (LRT) system can be eventually implemented as a branch-off service to other parts of the airport such as the Air Cargo Complex and the airlines engineering areas which also house a very significant number of airport workers.

The Chairman: Mr Chng Hee Kok is not here. Dr Michael Lim.

Dr Michael Lim Chun Leng (Cheng San GRC): Sir, like my parliamentary colleague, Mr Teo, I have also been plugging at the North-East MRT line for years; as far as I can remember, since I entered Parliament.

The Government has stated that it would work towards an excellent public transport system. The MRT service is, of course, a major pillar of the public transport system. The North-Eastern sector is a well-populated area and yet an MRT line has not been built. Many residents in my area wonder why the Ministry built an MRT line to Woodlands so quickly in a corridor that is not densely populated and yet it took the Ministry so long to even conduct a feasibility study on the North-East line. Surely, the Ministry cannot be adopting double standards. Is the Woodlands line an attempt to lure residents to live in the Woodlands area? Surely, the Ministry cannot be singing one tune with regard to the Woodlands MRT line and a different tune with regard to the North-East line. It is difficult to convince my residents that the line to Woodlands is viable and that to the North-Eastern corridor is not viable. Maybe the Minister may like to try explaining to my residents with clear facts and figures.

The Ministry has announced that it would do feasibility studies. What is the nature of these feasibility studies? Why did it take the Ministry so long to even conduct a feasibility study? Some of my grassroots members have told me that engineers of MRTC have already done soil tests and have made suggestions as to whether the line should be above or below the ground. Perhaps the Minister would like to elaborate on the state of preparation for the North-East MRT line. The question is not one of whether there should be a North-East line, but rather when the line is expected to be completed. Can the Minister give us a clearer picture of the likely timing for the commencement of construction work on the MRT line?

Last but not least, when the decision to start building the MRT line is taken, I hope that the Minister will site the MRT station at a central site that would cater to the large and growing population in the Punggol Division of Cheng San GRC and not at the fringe of the area.

Mr Low Thia Khiang (In Mandarin): Sir, we heard Dr Michael Lim on the extension of MRT to Woodlands. I think the main reason was that there were no takers for many of the HDB flats which had been built in Woodlands during the past few years. Now, with the MRT extension, the flats are being snatched up very quickly.

Take a look at the MRT network in Singapore. Most parts of Singapore are being serviced by the MRT lines, except the North-eastern part which covers quite a large area. This is unfair to the people living in the North-eastern part of Singapore.

The Government has claimed that the population in the North-eastern part was inadequate to sustain a MRT line, and the construction of an MRT line to this area would incur losses. However, the Government should remember that public transport is a public service which should be spread out throughout the country.

Moreover, the Government has reduced its subsidy for the recurrent expenditure of MRT from more than $140 million in 1990 to just over $4 million in 1993. On the other hand, the Government's revenue from COE, road tax, etc. has increased from $1.59 billion in 1990 to $3.707 billion in 1993. During the period from 1990 to 1993, the Government's revenue from land transportation increased by more than 100%, and yet the subsidy for MRT was reduced by some 97%. As such, the Government can absolutely afford to construct and sustain the North-eastern line.

Furthermore, with the completion of the Serangoon and Punggol estates, the population in the North-eastern area has increased significantly. Coupled with the development of the Kangkar new town, the population will be further increased in future. The Government has no reason to delay any longer the construction of the North-eastern MRT line.

Mr Charles Chong: Sir, residents living near MRT tracks have complained of rising noise levels generated from MRT trains. SMRT has explained that this was natural because of the normal wear and tear of the wheels of the trains over the years. The SMRT, I understand, has also embarked on a plan to replace over the next few years the wheels of all its trains with less noisy wheels. The cost of this project is expected to be more than $5.4 million. However, will the noise level rise again when these new wheels begin to suffer normal wear and tear?

Perhaps other more permanent solutions should also be explored to ensure that residents living near MRT tracks are not inconvenienced. Noise barriers and tunnels could be constructed over the sections of the MRT tracks that run near residential housing to eliminate the noise. If the construction of these noise levels is not feasible, perhaps the speed of the trains could be adjusted over these sections of the tracks in order to minimise the noise levels. Although the cost of construction of noise barriers may be high, the money may be well spent on a permanent solution of the problem. Would the Minister therefore consider implementing such a solution?

Mr Mah Bow Tan: First of all, I just want to remind Mr Heng that the Government helps all companies to make money, not only bus companies. Companies like property development companies and food and beverage companies also benefit from political stability and good infrastructure.

Sir, Mr Heng and Dr Lim, among others, have asked when the North-East line is going to be built. Mr Teo Chong Tee, as he has put it, has again raised in this House for the umpteenth time when the MRT extension to Changi Airport will be built. Sir, I just want to inform the House that feasibility studies for both the North-East line and the MRT extension to Changi Airport are now being carried out and will be completed by the middle of this year. The studies will enable the Government to decide on the timing for the construction of these two MRT lines.

Mr Teo has also asked whether the MRT line to Changi Airport will be extended to the Cargo Complex. This is a question which will depend very much on the projected traffic pattern in the area.

Mr Low Thia Khiang says that we should build the MRT line to the North-East because we have collected so much money. If that were the only criterion, then the question arises: why should we build only in the North-East sector? Why not everywhere else as well? There must be some criteria for deciding where we build MRT lines. If we build just because we have got the money, then I think the MRTC will be spending all its time looking at feasibility studies all over Singapore. Is that the only criterion? 4.15 pm

I have explained in this House many times before how the Government decides where it should spend the money to build MRT lines. The Government is prepared to provide the capital to build an MRT line on the condition that there is sufficient ridership to support the financial viability of the line. Why? If there is a shortfall, if revenues do not cover cost, where is this shortfall going to come from? From other passengers who will eventually end up having to pay higher fares. So why should somebody who is travelling on the North-South or East-West line have to pay a higher fare to justify passengers travelling on another line, for example the North-East line, if it is not viable?

Sir, the decision to build an MRT line is a decision which has to be considered very carefully, not only because it is a heavy investment of public funds but also because it is permanent. Once you build it, you cannot simply un-build it, you cannot move it away, unlike bus routes. I have mentioned earlier that the Government has spent money on MRT. The first phase of the MRT system cost $5 billion. The Woodlands Extension is going to cost us another $1.3 billion. The North-east sector - the Government says yes, we will build, it is a question of when.

Dr Michael Lim asked why the Woodlands line was built earlier than the North-east sector. Let me explain. In 1990, when the two major arteries - in other words, the North-South and East-West lines - were completed, the MRTC reviewed its next phase of development. And at that time the Government faced two choices - to proceed with the North-east line which would have cost $4.3 billion based on 1990 prices; or, to start work on the Woodlands Extension which would have cost $1.3 billion. So given HDB's plans to develop new towns at Woodlands and Sembawang and given the fact that this was a cheaper line to build, the Woodlands line was the clear choice. So not only was it cheaper to build but it would also be viable because it could tap passengers from the HDB new towns of Woodlands and Sembawang.

On the other hand, HDB then had not yet firmed up its development plans for Punggol and Kangkar. Without the Punggol and Kangkar new towns, the North-east line would not be viable. When URA and HDB updated development plans along the North-east corridor, including the Punggol and Kangkar new towns, my Ministry asked the MRTC to review the feasibility of the North-east sector line. This is what the MRTC is currently doing and I expect the review to be completed in a few months' time.

Mr Charles Chong asked about train noise. The wheels of the new trains ordered for Woodlands Extension will be fitted with what is known as noise damping wheel element. These special wheels will result in a permanent reduction in noise produced by passing trains. The SMRT will also retrofit the existing trains with these new wheels in stages over the next few years. But in the meantime, MRTC and SMRT will continue with regular preventive maintenance measures on a more frequent basis to reduce train noise. These measures include wheel grinding to smoothen the rails, levelling the rails and re-profiling of train wheels to eliminate rail noise.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, may I seek a clarification? Why must the Minister be separating the North-east line to look at whether a line is going to be profitable or not? Can he not take the whole MRT line in Singapore as a whole just like what he did to the bus service, ie, even for unprofitable routes you provide the service because it is a public service? The Government was willing and prepared to give $143 million operating grant to SMRT in 1990 and the grant, I suppose, had been reduced to $4 million or so in 1993. If that is what the Government is prepared to do, why can the Government not build the North-east line now in anticipation of the increase in population? Why is it not viable in future?

Mr Mah Bow Tan: Sir, I have explained at great length why it is not a good idea to build when operating cost cannot be met. When he asked why we can do that for buses and not for trains the simple answer is that if a bus route is unprofitable and it comes to a stage where the bus companies are no longer able or willing to cross-subsidise that route with other more profitable routes, they will apply to the Public Transport Council and say, "Look. I don't want to run this service any more." We cannot do that with an MRT line. You cannot say that because the North-east sector line is losing money consistently, there is no sign that it is going to make money at all, therefore, we just uproot all the viaducts and un-build the station. It is not possible and this is the main reason why before we build, we have to make absolutely sure that there is at least some hope that the line is going to be viable. I thought that was perfectly clear.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Clarification, Sir. As a government, can you just say that because it is unprofitable, for instance, the bus service, you do not serve the area and, whatever the residents there may say, let it be?

Mr Mah Bow Tan: Sir, who is going to pay for the unprofitable service?

Mr Low Thia Khiang: The Government! That is why you collect tax. It is a public service.

Mr Mah Bow Tan: So where do we end, Sir? Why stop at North-east line? Why not have an MRT extension to Lim Chu Kang, to Pulau Ubin? Forget about the viability, after all this is a public service? If we carry on like that, then I think the Finance Minister will not be able to report those kinds of surpluses.

Mr Heng Chiang Meng: Sir, may I request your indulgence to say that it is evident that there are many in this House who are interested in the findings of the feasibility studies of the North-east line and the Changi Airport extension line. Therefore, may I propose that the Minister present the feasibility studies to Parliament when they are completed in the middle of this year?

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, I am also interested to know, as Dr Michael Lim has said, what is the basis of Government's decision to extend the line to Woodlands rather than build a North-east line. And also, why is the Government taking so long in this feasibility study of the North-east line?

Mr Mah Bow Tan: I thought I have answered that question already. Perhaps he should refer to my answer in Hansard.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock: Sir, I saw in the Order Paper Supplement an amendment on MRT car parks. As a Board Member of MRTC and SMRT, we do not build, we do not own, and we do not operate car parks.

Mr Mah Bow Tan: Sir, I forgot to respond to Mr Heng just now. He has asked that the feasibility studies of the North-east sector line be presented to Parliament. I will consider his suggestion.

Mr Heng Chiang Meng: Sir, I thank the Minister for his replies and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $71,390,120 for Head I ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates.

The sum of $790,592,100 for Head I ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.

Head M -

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

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

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

Sir, our anti-littering laws are probably among the toughest in the world. They include a heavy fine that was started many years ago and the Corrective Work Order which we introduced in 1992 as a further deterrent. "Keep Singapore Clean" campaigns have been held so many times before. They are now conducted annually during our Clean and Green Week. Our children have also been taught in their civic lessons in school that littering is a bad social habit, that it damages the environment, and that it is an offence to litter.

But judging from the recent press reports about the littering problem that still besets us, I am afraid that all our efforts against littering so far do not seem to have stopped most of the litterbugs from littering. In fact, more residents have of late complained of littering in HDB towns. This persistent problem, I believe, has prompted the Prime Minister to call on Singaporeans to keep their living environment clean and beautiful. Otherwise, it will negate the objective of our HDB upgrading programme, which is to increase the value of their flat.

Sir, there are different types of litterbugs. There are those who will throw litter outright anywhere, having no regard for the environment. Some of them do it intentionally and others habitually. There are also those who do not normally litter but will do so in a public gathering such as a cinema show or a soccer game. They leave behind a large amount of litter after the event.

There are a number of reasons why people continue to litter. First, many who litter do not think that the environment belongs to them. They therefore do not see the need to keep it clean. Second, those who litter probably think that they will never be caught in the act. Third, people generally do not see the negative effect of littering because the dirtied environment is always cleaned up very quickly by someone else. This actually has hindered our efforts to solve the problem. The irony is that today if there is a littering problem somewhere, people would be quick to hit out at the cleaner rather than the litterer.

Sir, the way to have a breakthrough against littering is to get every civic-minded Singaporean and organisation to speak out and act against the litterbugs. The Ministry should work together with Town Councils, grassroots organisations, schools and other Government or non-Government organisations to spread the message and to carry out some concrete actions. A series of joint anti-littering programmes with these organisations should be worked out. These programmes should not only aim at raising the public consciousness on the littering problem, they should also aim at applying collective pressure on those who litter. 4.30 pm

Town councils and grassroots organisations, for example, could make it a point to remind residents not to litter during a community function. They could, at the end of a function, request residents not to leave behind any litter. I am sure there are many other things that the Ministry can come up with and I would like to hear from the Minister what he has in mind to tackle this persistent littering problem.

Mr Chin Harn Tong (Aljunied GRC): Sir, from time to time, the local media highlight littering in, for example, public housing estates, the National Stadium and the East Coast Park. Other Members in this House also feel littering has worsened, despite the stiff fines and the Corrective Work Order scheme. Maybe there are not enough enforcement officials to catch the offenders red-handed. Or maybe Singaporeans are not civic conscious enough. I hope the Minister can enlighten us.

Sir, I am inclined, at first, to give most Singaporeans the benefit of doubt that, if they do litter, it is not because of sheer cussedness or anti-social habit but because they cannot find any litter bin nearby. I have observed in crowded places, the few available litter bins become quickly overfilled and their immediate vicinity is consequently littered with rubbish.

Sir, however, on further reflection, I have to accept there are some, granted that there are only a few, Singaporeans who deliberately litter, even when there are litter bins handily around. They choose to litter because they are in deserted or dark places or because they think they are safe from detection.

It is this relatively handful of irresponsible Singaporeans who literally dirty Singapore's reputation for cleanliness. Employing more enforcement officials or better coordination of the enforcement efforts of the various authorities may not be sufficient to stamp out the litterbugs. A stick-and-carrot approach is called for. Only our Government is in a position to offer the kind of carrot litterbugs cannot refuse.

I hope the Minister will consider the linking up of rebates on service and conservancy charges (S&C) payable by HDB residents with the littering issue. The justification for this linkage is that a big part of the S&C charges goes towards keeping housing estates clean and tidy. The worse is the littering problem in the HDB estates, the higher the S&C charges for all residents. As a matter of fairness, HDB apartments which house hardcore litterbugs, that is, repeated littering offenders, should not be given these rebates.

Mr Peh Chin Hua: ( In Mandarin): Sir, littering is an anti-social habit and litterbugs should be punished. I believe no one will object to the punishment of litterbugs. The question is whether the Corrective Work Order (CWO) is a more stringent and effective method of punishment. I doubt very much.

Soon after the implementation of the Corrective Work Order, a total of 332 persons have been punished for littering. The number of offenders sent for corrective work for the first two months of this year has increased to 180. According to the spokesman from the Ministry of the Environment, those who were punished under the Act did not commit the same offence again. I wish to find out whether those who were convicted and fined $5,000, or given a two-month jail term, or both, had committed the same offence again. If the offenders of the above categories did not repeat the mistake, then it is doubtful if we need to have the Corrective Work Order.

I fully agree with the Editorial of Lianhe Zaobao published on 17th March 1995 that punishment for minor offences through the Corrective Work Order might not be the best solution. I am worried that it could do more harm than good in the long run.

Let us look at four areas. First, I believe that offenders who are civic-minded or imbued with traditional values or have no intention of littering on purpose will be able to control themselves, and will not repeat the same offence after a fine of $5,000. To this group of people, to be fined in a court is already a shameful matter. It has the same effect of shaming the offenders. On the other hand, even though the use of an open and backward method to shame them publicly is to make them lose their face and not to commit the same mistake again, the Government would have inflicted a scar on their mind. To me, littering is a minor offence and an anti-social habit, so the Corrective Work Order may seriously hurt their self-respect.

For the black sheep who purposely indulge in this anti-social habit, punishment through the Corrective Work Order will not make any difference to them. Neither will it help them to turn over a new leaf. On the contrary, losing face is less important than losing money and freedom. I have asked many youngsters what they will opt for if they were given a choice of punishment either through a Corrective Work Order or a fine of $5,000. Most of them gave the same answer, ie, they would opt for CWOs because it could save them the money. Therefore, a fine of $5,000 or a 2-month jail term, or both, will definitely be more effective than the Corrective Work Order for these people.

The announcement from the Ministry of the Environment that 332 persons who were punished with a Corrective Work Order did not commit the same offence again seems to indicate that the Corrective Work Order is effective. However, from the fact that as many as 180 people were issued with Corrective Work Orders in the first two months of this year, I feel that a heavy penalty is more effective, and the Corrective Work Order has not thoroughly solved the problem of littering in public places.

When a person commits a mistake and is made to go through the experience of being shamed publicly, he might feel shameful and remorseful - a sense of losing face. If the Corrective Work Order is featured as a permanent form of penalty, people will soon get used to the idea of losing face. Such a measure will then lose its deterrent effect of shaming the offenders in the public.

Sir, in the long run, I am doubtful that the Corrective Work Order to shame litterbugs in the public is a good thing to do. It is the duty of the Government to build up the respect of the State. To maintain such respect, we should build up the self-respect of our individual citizens. If the Corrective Work Order has resulted in the people regarding "losing face" as something common, it will then be difficult for us to continue to maintain the dignity of the State in future.

I hope the Minister will take note that the Corrective Work Order might bring about more harm than good in the future.

Mr Teo Chong Tee: Sir, despite 30 years of campaigns and enforcement actions against them, the weather-beaten litterbugs have not been stamped out at all. In fact, they appear to be thriving very well in clean and green Singapore. In places like the beaches, public parks and HDB estates, their number has quite obviously multiplied! The presence of their "droppings" everywhere is testimony to my assertion.

The presence of the obnoxious litterbugs in our otherwise spick and span, almost clinically clean, Singapore is indeed an eyesore, a public nuisance. More than that, they can be likened to a malignant growth doing great harm to the body of the host in which it is residing. If chemotherapy does not help, maybe the surgeon's knife should be applied.

Sir, all sane and proud citizens will agree that the litterbugs are doing great harm to our country. Besides being a social nuisance, they waste the nation's financial resources, and tarnish the good name of Singapore, bringing disgrace to all other law-abiding Singaporeans. They make a mockery of our 30 years of progress and prosperity. They are a real misfit in a country striving to become a Switzerland of the East in the next century, which is no more than four or five years away. Therefore, no effort should be spared to get rid of them.

The question I would like to pose here is: why despite all the campaigns and enforcement actions against the ugly litterbugs, they are still thriving so well in our society? Why, after 30 years of relentless public education programmes and campaigns, there still exist among us a sizeable number of incorrigible, recalcitrant litterbugs, who seem to be untouched by all the efforts to eradicate them?

Can it be that we are not doing enough? Not adopting the right approach? Or the laws against them are not biting hard enough? Or should we begin from the very beginning, and ask ourselves, why a person litters in the first place? Maybe the sociologists, educators and psychologists can shed some light here. But as a layman, I would like to suggest the following measures: 4.45 pm

First, I would like to start on the premise that a litterbug is someone who is either:

(a) an ill-bred, inconsiderate and selfish person who shows no respect or consideration for his fellow citizens;

(b) an anti-social who has a grudge against the establishment;

(c) an insensitive, unthinking, shameless creature with no self-esteem or self-respect;

(d) a naivete who does not know that littering is wrong.

Or he may be a combination of more than one of what I have just mentioned. To each of the categories of litterbugs I have enumerated, the most effective measure to hit them is still where it hurts most, ie, their pockets. But I also believe in CWOs, and they should continue as a deterrent measure.

However, Sir, fines and CWOs have their limitations, and can only serve as a stop-gap measure. For a long-term solution to the littering problem, I feel that we have to begin with the very young. We have to begin instilling in the minds of the young during their formative years that littering, just like any other anti-social behaviour, is wrong. This has to begin while the children are in kindergartens and primary schools. Of course, home education is equally important, if not more so. All this, of course, takes time. Ultimately, the test of a person's true character is what he would do if he knew he would not be found out.

I remember we used to have what was known as "Use Your Hands" campaigns in schools. What has happened to them now? All schools used to require their pupils to do some manual work like cleaning the classrooms, keeping the school compound tidy, etc, in the 60s and 70s. Most Chinese schools in the earlier years in fact did not even have servants to sweep the classrooms or even clean the toilets. Such chores used to be performed by pupils on rotation basis. Weekly or monthly competitions were held to select the cleanest classrooms. Every teacher when teaching a class would award marks for cleanliness and orderliness of the classroom he was using. The marks given by all teachers teaching the class would then be totalled up at the end of the competition period, and the position of the class arrived at. Plaques with wordings like "The Best Kept Classroom of the Month" could be seen displayed on the walls if one were to visit the schools then.

Sir, I am certain such practice will have a positive effect on the pupils later on in their adult life. If such school practices had been continued, maybe today we need not have to organise campaigns like the "Cleanest HDB Block" competitions. Virtues like keeping the environment clean, and caring for public properties have to be ingrained in the minds of the people while they are young.

In summary, I would like to call upon the Environment Ministry and all others concerned with stamping out the despicable litterbugs to seriously ponder over this persistent problem, so that a long-term solution could be found. And this will help bring us one step closer to the gracious society we all aspire to bring about, hopefully, in the not so distant future.

Encik Othman bin Haron Eusofe: Sir, I have some questions on the Ministry of the Environment's proposal to corporatise the refuse collection service. Firstly, what are the main considerations leading to the decision to corporatise the service? How can corporatisation help improve the quality of service? Will there be an increase in charges for the service after corporatisation?

Secondly, on the Environment staff affected by the proposal, what measures will be taken by the Ministry to ensure that their welfare and well-being will be safeguarded?

Mr R. Sinnakaruppan (Kampong Glam GRC): Sir, I share Mr Othman Haron Eusofe's concerns on the corporatisation of the refuse collection service. This corporatisation exercise would involve a significant number of daily-rated employees (DREs), many of whom are older workers. These workers have given many years of loyal service in carrying out the difficult and unenviable task of refuse collection. So when the new company or statutory board is formed, I hope that the efforts of these workers are duly recognised. There are many workers who have some apprehensions whether they will be retrenched. Personally, I think that because of the manpower shortage, there should not be any retrenchment. But the Ministry must clarify this apprehension as early as possible. There are also other workers who are looking forward to a more competitive compensation package, better terms and conditions of employment and also looking forward to an attractive one-off incentive payment when they are transferred to the new set-up. I hope the Minister would not disappoint them.

Another area of concern is with regard to the medical benefits scheme. Last year, when the Government introduced the new scheme, some of the labour MPs and I appealed in Parliament to make the necessary arrangements so that these DREs need not pay upfront outpatient and specialist fees when they receive treatment in polyclinics and Government hospitals. With corporatisation, I hope that the present method of not paying upfront will continue as far as these DREs who are transferred are concerned so that they will not be unnecessarily imposed to pay such fees upfront.

Sir, I hope the Minister will look into these concerns.

Dr John Chen Seow Phun: Sir, one of the objectives of the Singapore Green Plan is to establish Singapore as a regional hub for environmental technology. This is a good objective for both environmental and economic reasons. By establishing ourselves as a technology centre, we will gain from better environment management. At the same time, by combining our many years of experience with the technology offered by the developed countries, we can provide environmental solutions to the regional countries and thereby benefitting from these businesses.

According to the Green Plan, the Ministry hopes to promote the technology and businesses by offering incentives through some of the EDB schemes. But these schemes are general incentive schemes and they may or may not have specific advantages, as far as environmental technology is concerned. Besides the EDB, there are also many agencies that should be involved in this effort. They are, for instance, the TDB, the NSTB, the National University of Singapore and also the Singapore Association for Environmental Companies (SAFECO) which was formed last year.

Sir, I would like to ask the Minister whether there is a concerted approach or a coordinated strategy to promote Singapore as a regional hub for environmental technology. What is the Ministry doing to bring about this objective?

Dr Lee Tsao Yuan (Nominated Member): Sir, the Ministry of the Environment has so far performed mainly a regulatory role in terms of enforcing environmental standards in Singapore. This is entirely necessary and has helped to make Singapore clean and green. I wonder whether the Minister would care to consider that the Ministry take on, in addition to its regulatory role, more of a developmental role. This is because the environment has become a business opportunity.

There are two specific issues that I would like to discuss. The first is ISO 14000. Just like ISO 9000 is a management standard, an environment management standard or ISO 14000 is being developed which will become a world-wide standard to ensure that companies pursue clean technologies and environmentally friendly processes. It is important that companies in Singapore take proactive steps to prepare for the implementation of ISO 14000. This will undoubtedly be a plus factor for doing business in developed countries - US, Europe, Canada - where environmental awareness is very high. Japan also places a high priority on environmental issues. Japan, for example, has spent over US$20 million and to date preparing for portions of ISO 14000.

However, certification will not be easy. It will take a company between 16-24 months to achieve certification of ISO 14000. For companies with ISO 9000, it will require 48 months. It is therefore important to begin now by setting up environment management and environmental audit systems. The question is: how can the Ministry assist the business community in this area? Will the Government consider giving some fiscal and training incentives to help them to achieve the necessary ISO 14000 certification?

The second issue is to develop Singapore into an environmental technology centre. The world environment market is currently estimated to be worth some US$300 billion, doubling to US$600 billion by the year 2000. The Asian market will contribute more than 40% to this market.

Singapore is well placed to supply technology to the growing Asian market. The major components and the necessary spectrum of activities - technology development, project management, funding, procurement and all other infrastructural support - are more or less in place in Singapore. These are provided by a number of private businesses as well as public sector organisations. What is needed is for some organisation to provide an overarching national strategy to give direction, minimise duplication and to effectively promote Singapore as a desirable environmental technology and business centre. In this regard, I think Dr John Chen and I have exactly the same point.

I suggest that the Ministry examine how this can best be achieved. For example, the setting up of a national steering committee would be one way to achieve this kind of coordination purpose, a steering committee that could comprise all the environmental agencies and some private sector bodies that are involved in environment.

We have to remember the keen competition in Asia. Many countries in Asia aspire to be environmental centres. Given time, they will succeed as many of these countries have large domestic markets for environmental services, and larger than we do. Our window of opportunities is therefore limited by time and we should strike while the iron is hot. However, if we want to become a regional environmental technology centre, we need to aggressively and proactively position ourselves to be one.

Dr Kanwaljit Soin: Sir, it is to the credit of the Ministry of the Environment that its mission statement says that it aims to develop Singapore into a model green city. It further states that it intends to cultivate an environmentally conscious, responsible and proactive population in order to make Singapore into a modern green city. I applaud the objective and I have a suggestion for the Minister.

For large-scale projects like the airport, MRT system, petrochemical plants, large housing estates and new towns, etc, environmental impact assessments have not been mandatory. I understand that investigations are made on possible environmental impact only in so far as public health may be affected. This is important. But equally important is the possible ecological damage of these projects and this is not being studied systematically. 5.00 pm

I would urge the Minister that total environmental impact assessments be done so that we have environmental base line studies that are made public so that we can begin to nurture an environmentally conscious, responsible and proactive population as outlined in the mission statement.

I do appreciate that our land resources are limited and that sometimes ecological considerations have to take a lower priority in comparison to the importance of development. But we must still try to work towards sustainable development. We have a duty and responsibility to answer to future generations and therefore we have to educate ourselves to be ecologically aware. I would therefore like to urge the Minister to implement environmental impact assessment studies for the bigger projects and to make these studies public.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: ( In Mandarin): Sir, with effect from 1st July 1994, any organisation intending to organise a mini-trade fair will have to apply to the Ministry of the Environment for a permit. The Government has claimed that the reason for controlling mini-trade fairs was that many people had complained of the inconvenience caused by the trade fairs, the traffic congestion it has caused, and the unfair competition to the shops nearby.

In the beginning, the rule was such that each organisation could only organise a certain number of days of trade fairs in each constituency per year, and the consent of the shop-owners nearby must be sought. Originally, such a method of control could be said to be fair and reasonable. However, when the Hougang Constituency Committee applied to the Ministry of the Environment for a permit, it was rejected. The reason given was that the Ministry would grant permit only to schools, religious bodies and grassroots organisations to hold such mini-trade fairs.

Prior to the implementation of this new regulation, the Hougang Constituency Committee could organize mini-trade fairs to raise funds for its activities. The Hougang Constituency Committee is responsible for the community activities of Hougang. It organizes social and recreational programmes to foster better relationship among the residents. It also organizes relevant cultural activities during the festivals of the various races, as well as preserving the traditional cultures of the various races. By disallowing the Hougang Constituency Committee to hold such trade fairs, the Ministry of the Environment is depriving the Committee of its source of income.

I enquired from the Minister and ascertained that the authority had no record of any complaint, and the Hougang Constituency Committee has all along been working in conformity with the Government's rules and regulations. Yet, our application is now rejected. This is indeed very puzzling! I am afraid I can only interpret this as an effort by the PAP Government to take advantage of its administrative power to discriminate against the grassroots organisations of the Opposition party by deliberately depriving them of their sources of income. The political motive is like "Sima Zhao's ill intent that is known to all" - the villain's design is obvious. This is yet another example of the PAP abusing its political power to deal with the Opposition.

Mr Mah Bow Tan: Sir, let me address the points raised by Dr John Chen and also other MPs, including Mr Chin Harn Tong and Mr Teo Chong Tee.

They have all expressed concern that littering is on the increase. There is no concrete evidence that this is so. But, nevertheless, I share their concern because after so many years of anti-littering campaigns, littering is still prevalent. The good news, of course, is that it is not the work of the majority of our population. The majority do not litter.

My Ministry commissioned a survey which was conducted by a team of management consultants earlier this year. In this survey, the majority of respondents indicated that they valued a clean and litter-free environment, that they themselves would not litter and, more importantly, they would feel upset if they saw someone else litter.

Our public education campaigns have been effective and they should continue so that we can reach out to more people and reinforce the message among the "converted." So who are these people who persist in littering? Mr Teo Chong Tee has described some of them. They clearly are those with very little concern for the environment and for their fellow residents. I think they are well aware that littering is an offence. They know that others in the community frown on them for littering. They know that littering spoils the environment for others and yet they persist. So how do we deal with them? We will start by stepping up our education campaigns and efforts. We must convince residents that public places and common areas are really part and parcel of their homes and that it is their responsibility to keep them clean. Nobody wants to live in a dirty home. Nobody goes around throwing rubbish in their house. So there is no reason why anybody should throw rubbish in his neighbourhood. We must instill this sense of belonging and pride.

I agree with Dr John Chen that we should encourage the community at large to speak up against this anti-social habit. Only when people who litter realise that their action meets with the disapproval of the community at large would there be effective peer pressure against the habit. Of course, we must continue with our enforcement effort against hard core litterbugs. Those who deliberately break the law and show no respect for the well-being of others must be made to bear the consequences.

I welcome Dr John Chen's suggestion that my Ministry work closely with grassroots organisations and town councils to curb littering. In this regard, Mr Chin Harn Tong's suggestion that payment of S&C charges should be linked to cleanliness of housing estates is worthy of serious consideration by town councils. In fact, if I am not mistaken, some town councils are already looking into this suggestion. So town councils and grassroots organisations should be part of the solution. They can assist my Ministry to a large extent by targeting our public education efforts on some of the more litter-prone areas in housing estates. They can voice their disapproval of anyone seen littering. My Ministry is even prepared to empower responsible residents to help police against littering. This way, we can build up pride and a sense of belonging to the estate. When residents are proud of their estate, they would take care of it and not dirty it.

In addition, my Ministry will make anti-littering one of the main themes of this year's "Clean and Green Week". To make the message meaningful, we will organise activities with grassroots organisations and town councils in the months leading up to the "Clean and Green Week".

The Member for Jalan Besar GRC, Mr Peh Chin Hua, feels that the punishment in the form of the Corrective Work Order is shameful and humiliating and, more importantly, it is not effective in the long run. I think his thinking may have been based on the perception that the CWO is dished out very liberally. This perception is not quite correct. I would like to inform the Member that only recalcitrant offenders and those who commit serious littering offences are made to do CWOs. In 1994, only 7% of littering cases were given CWOs, the rest were fined. CWOs are therefore not dished out liberally. Indeed, it is my hope that over time there will be less and less CWOs and that they could even one day disappear altogether.

Is the punishment humiliating? The CWO is intended to make the offender realise that what he has done has an adverse impact on the environment and the community. The purpose of the CWO is to reform him, make him realise the damage done and the effort needed to correct it. It may be humiliating for the offender, but if it serves the purpose, then it is for a good cause and it will be an effective deterrent. There is really no reason for anyone to litter in the first place. If he chooses to, then he must be prepared to bear the consequences.

Mr Peh suggests that a $5,000 fine or a two months' jail term would be just as effective. Sir, I am not sure whether the Member is suggesting that we replace the CWO with a $5,000 fine or a two months' jail, but I think we should not over-react on this. Littering is an anti-social habit. There are fines for littering, but not as heavy as the Member has suggested. But it certainly does not call for a jail sentence. The fact that none of the 300-odd persons who were punished with CWOs have committed the same mistake again is clear evidence that it is effective.

Mr Sinnakaruppan and Mr Othman Haron Eusofe both asked about corporatisation of our refuse collection service. I would like to inform the House that my Ministry is finding it increasingly difficult to recruit workmen who are prepared to work in our refuse collection service. We have an ageing workforce and the quantity of refuse generated is expected to continue growing. So we have got to find a solution to this manpower problem. I am hoping that with corporatisation, the company will be freed from civil service rules and be able to use its resources more efficiently. Just to give Members an example, we are now unable to attract workers to work in the afternoon or evening shifts because we are unable to offer them attractive enough terms. As a result, much of our fleet of vehicles are now not fully used in the afternoons and evenings.

I would like to take this opportunity to assure the Member for Marine Parade GRC that we will do our utmost to ensure that there will not be a decline in the standard of cleanliness and public health with this change. In fact, I am confident that the service will be more efficient. My Ministry will set standards for the company to ensure that service quality will be at least as good as what it is today and, hopefully, that it should be better.

Mr Sinnakaruppan has also asked about the welfare of the existing staff. May I inform him that all existing staff would be invited to join the new company. The terms and conditions are being finalised but I can assure him that these will not be less favourable than what they are enjoying today. My officers are now discussing the new terms with their unions and I should be able to give him more details very soon.

Sir, corporatisation will not in itself lead to higher refuse fees. My Ministry will control the fees that this company can charge and any increase will have to be fully justified.

I would like to turn now to the issue of environmental technology which was raised by both Dr John Chen and Dr Lee. The Government recognises the importance of promoting Singapore as an environmental technology centre. In fact, this forms one part of our vision under the Singapore Green Plan. Dr Lee suggested a steering committee to spearhead our efforts in this direction. May I inform her that my Ministry is now taking the lead in collaboration with several other Ministries and agencies, including MTI, EDB, TDB as well as the private sector in this effort. Various programmes to promote environmental technology include profiling Singapore as a convention centre and in this way to attract conventions and exhibitions on environmental technology to be staged here in Singapore and also promoting Singapore as a base for the transfer of environmental expertise from developed to developing countries. 5.15 pm

I think these programmes, although they have only started recently, are beginning to bear fruit. They are beginning to help to generate interest in environmental technology in the region. Let me cite some specific examples. Over the last two years, we have organised more than 10 regional environmental conferences and events which have brought representatives from developed as well as developing nations together to share expertise. We can play several roles in this regard. One is obviously the fact that we have gone through the process. Singapore's environmental technology and the application of environmental technology in keeping Singapore clean and green - the success of these efforts are there for people to see. So we can be a model or a demonstration of what can be done, as it were. And this is extremely useful for countries which are trying to establish the fact that the technologies that they have on offer can work. That is the first point.

Secondly, of course, is the fact that our businessmen are in the position, because of the familiarity with conditions in countries in the region, to be able to interface between the suppliers of technology and the areas where such technology can be implemented. It is because of this role that we can play that we have successfully entered into bilateral agreements with several countries, like Germany and Australia, to jointly promote the transfer of environmental technology. We have another bilateral agreement with Vietnam to share Singapore's own experience in environmental management and control.

The Government's active involvement in regional environmental activities and cooperation has led to increasing local private sector interest in this business, especially in the Asia-Pacific market, as Dr Lee has correctly pointed out. It has also resulted in the formation of SAFECO (which is the acronym for Singapore Association for Environmental Companies). SAFECO's objective is to promote tie-ups between environmental technology companies from developed countries with our local companies, and together to market this technology into the region.

We will continue to help open doors for local environmental technology companies and also to provide them with useful contacts overseas. In this respect, I am glad to note that SAFECO has already entered into MOUs with a number of overseas environmental business associations, including those from Australia, from Canada, and the United States. This is a positive development. We will continue, together with SAFECO and other agencies, to help local companies in their efforts to export their expertise to countries in the region.

With regard to the question by Dr Lee about the ISO 14000 certification, I would like to assure her that the Government is monitoring the developments in this area very closely. We have formed a committee to promote the awareness as well the adoption of the standards in Singapore. The Committee will conduct seminars and lectures for the business community at the appropriate time.

But let me just add that the ISO 14000 standards have yet to be promulgated by the International Standards Organisation. So I am afraid it is a little bit too early at this stage to respond to her comments about whether fiscal and training incentives will be made available. However, the Committee will certainly address these issues when the ISO 14000 standards are more fully developed.

Sir, may I ask Mr Abdullah Tarmugi to respond to the questions from Dr Soin and Mr Low.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock: Sir, since the Minister has talked at length about littering, just give me a few minutes to speak on this subject.

The Chairman: One minute.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock: I will be brief. I hear many Members of this House calling these litterbugs by many, many names. They said that littering is wrong. But have we asked ourselves why is it wrong? Perhaps we have, in our enthusiasm to eradicate this problem, given our young the wrong reasons for littering. We want them not to litter. Why? Because there is a fine of $500. But is it a good reason for not littering? Perhaps if we have told them that littering will spread dirt and mess up the environment and, thus, spoil our beautiful environment, spread germs when the sputum is thrown out because when it dries up, the wind carries the germs around and it spreads diseases, and worse still, attracts cockroaches and rats if we throw food around which will again spread dirt and illness, then we may have given them good and sound reasons not to litter.

So let us not scold them for littering because of the fine. Let us teach them why they should not litter, so that this value system becomes internalised in them and becomes a way of life for all Singaporeans.

The Minister of State for the Environment (Mr Abdullah Tarmugi): Sir, the Ministry of the Environment will consider the suggestion by Dr Tan Cheng Bock.

Let me now give the Ministry's response to Dr Soin and Mr Low Thia Khiang.

The Ministry of the Environment empathises with the NMP on the need to ensure that any development does not degrade the environment. Indeed, before any development is allowed in Singapore, its impact on the environment is assessed by my Ministry and this applies to all development projects, especially large ones like the MRT and also public housing.

The assessment is done at two levels and they are not merely done only on public health issues either. At the first level, Environment is consulted by the URA on land planning and land use matters and the Ministry advises URA on the environmental impact to be expected from the various uses the land will be zoned for. URA takes this advice into consideration in developing the Master Plan and the Development Guide Plans. At the second level, Environment is again consulted when the land already zoned for a particular use is to be allocated. Environment will assess the details of the proposed development and ensures that measures to minimise the impact on the environment are incorporated into the design.

If I may, Sir, respond to Mr Low Thia Khiang. The proliferation of trade fairs all over Singapore in recent years has created a lot of problems to many residents and shopkeepers. In some estates, I am sure the Member will also recognise, the fairs are held so frequently that they are almost a permanent feature all year round. When such fairs are held too frequently and over many nights at a stretch, it becomes a nuisance. Residents have complained. Among other things, they complain about the noise generated by the people, by the large crowds, the increased traffic generated, the foreign workers, the teddy boys, and what-nots. Shopkeepers also have complained that the operators of these fairs are giving them unfair competition simply because they do not have to pay higher rentals and, therefore, they could sell their goods as cheaply.

To curb the proliferation, we need to control the duration and number of such fairs in the estates. So it was decided that either the grassroots organisations or the Town Council may hold one large fair of not more than 16 days per year in each constituency (PAP or non-PAP), across the board. Each Residents' Committee is allowed to hold one mini-fair a year in their respective zones lasting not more than three days, and these and other details of the scheme were widely reported last year in the newspapers.

Since the introduction of the controls, my Ministry has received very favourable feedback from residents and shopkeepers. The MP seems to insinuate that Environment discriminates against his ward. Contrary to the Member for Hougang's claim, there are recognised grassroots organisations in every constituency, including Hougang, which could organise trade fairs and mini-fairs. Therefore, it is not true that the scheme discriminates against Opposition wards. Indeed, it applies to all constituencies and, in fact, since the introduction of control measures in July 1994, the grassroots organisations in Nee Soon Central and Hougang and the Town Councils in Potong Pasir and Bukit Gombak respectively, were given approvals to hold their fairs.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Clarification, Sir. The application from my constituency's committee was rejected. The reason given was that only schools, religious bodies and grassroots organisations were permitted to hold trade fairs.

Mr Abdullah Tarmugi: Sir, as I mentioned just now, "recognised" grassroots organisations.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: I see.

Mr Abdullah Tarmugi: And it is not the Environment Ministry which says which grassroots organisations are recognised or not. We go by what the People's Association (PA) recognises. So if the grassroots organisation wants to be recognised, I suggest the Member liaises direct with the People's Association.

Dr Kanwaljit Soin: Point of clarification, Sir. I was wondering whether the Minister would make public the environmental impact studies which are being carried out. It was one of my questions to the Minister.

Mr Abdullah Tarmugi: These are actually studies done in conjunction with the planning authorities, ie, with URA. But I am not sure whether it would be wise to make them public. Anyway, for really large projects which require environmental impact assessment, for which internal resources in Environment to carry out such assessments are inadequate, they would be done by the developers themselves. These are usually very special projects which involved really large projects like petrochemical complexes, dams for hydroelectric power, etc. I presume if the developers themselves want to release them to the public, they could.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Clarification, Sir. I would like to ask the Minister of State: is it not the PAP Government's intention to purposely define grassroots organisations - since he is also in MCD - for its political benefit?

Mr Abdullah Tarmugi: I am afraid the Member is barking up the wrong tree, Sir. That question ought to be directed to the People's Association.

Dr John Chen Seow Phun: I would like to ask for a clarification, Sir. After the corporatisation of refuse collection, will the Ministry allow private companies to compete for refuse collection business?

Mr Mah Bow Tan: That is the intention eventually. But I think that in the immediate aftermath of the corporatisation, we will allow the corporatised entity to settle down and, thereafter, we will certainly allow competition in this particular area.

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

Dr John Chen Seow Phun: Sir, I withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman: Order. It is 5.30 pm.

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

Mr Mah Bow Tan: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply has made further progress on the Main and Development Estimates for the financial year 1995/1996, and ask leave to sit again tomorrow.

Mr Deputy Speaker: So be it.