ESTIMATES OF EXPENDITURE FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1ST APRIL, 2001 TO 31ST MARCH, 2002 (Paper Cmd. 3 of 2001)

Order read for consideration in Committee of Supply [8th Allotted day].

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Head M (cont.) -

Resumption of Debate on Question [15th March, 2001].

"That the total sum to be allocated for Head M of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100." [Assoc. Prof. Low Seow Chay]

Question again proposed.

Assoc. Prof. Low Seow Chay (Chua Chu Kang): Sir, in solid waste disposal, recycle, reuse and reduction are important issues. Most of the substances and materials that we use for our products are not renewable. We must take action to conserve the resources so that we will leave behind sufficient quantities for the future generations of mankind.

Recycle, reuse and reduction will be the movement by environment lovers, and responsible world citizens to conserve our resources. From what I read, a BMW car contains a high percentage of materials which could be recycled. You can sell the car to a company for recycling when it is due for scrap. Do we have any policy, setting the constraints in the recycled contents in our new product and the contents of which could be recycled when it is scrapped?

Sir, the decision for compulsory recycled contents in products has to be commercially viable. However, if nothing is done, the concept of recycling will never take place. At least, we should have some financial incentives or encouragement to include recycled contents, or increasing the recyclability of the products could be made more attractive for the manufacturers' participation. Do we have any incentive schemes to encourage people to work towards this objective? Our Government should show support to the recycle movement by imposing recycled contents in some of their own projects if cost and quality are neutral. One good example is requiring door-frames and wooden floor materials to be made of recycled wood for public housing. In fact, I have seen the product, and no layman can tell the difference.

We have seen recycled bins in schools and in shopping centres, but we can hardly see any recycled products on sale in the consumer market. Even if there are, like recycled papers, greeting cards and envelopes, they do not seem to be commonly used and acceptable by the people. In fact, recycled products are still fighting a tough battle with normal products. Is there a way that the Government could help to make recycled products more attractive, in terms of pricing and to make known to the supporters of the recycle movement? If so, it requires identification of the recycled products, in other words, labelling of recycled products. Are we prepared to consider labelling all recycled products?

Recycled products could only be viable if the public accepts them. Making people understand the importance of recycling to be an action towards resource conservation and environmental sustainability is the key to the success of recycling. We should have an education programme, teaching and persuading people to feel good about supporting and using recycled products. Would the Government consider launching a Recycle Campaign with the NGOs and schools to increase their awareness in support of the recycle and reuse movement?

Mr Heng Chiang Meng (Cheng San): Sir, yesterday, the Minister said that at the current rate of solid waste generation and disposal, we would need to build one new incineration plant, occupying about 7 hectares every five years, and one new landfill, the size of Sentosa Island every 25-30 years. He has put forward these statistics to show that this situation is not tenable. He said that his Ministry would look into a solution of closing the solid waste generation loop, ie, to have more recycling. I would like to suggest that he seriously consider another solution, in addition to closing of the loop, that is, the reduction of waste generation.

To reduce waste generation is very easy to say but the real question is how. In this area, I am afraid that many of the Government's current initiatives are to increase prices to discourage the generation of waste. Is this really effective? Sir, like drugs, the pain of higher prices will become less effective with time and, therefore, more increases are normally needed to overcome the higher threshold of pain. The result is that we may, unwittingly, become a higher and higher cost country and become less competitive.

Now, with privatisation of solid waste collection, the private collectors will be required to institute waste recycling schemes in public housing and landed properties to reduce generation of solid waste. Pushing this problem to the private sector will not resolve the problem at all. All it does is to pass the buck to the private sector on what originally was and still is a national problem. Moreover, if mandated to do so by law, I do not believe that the private sector will do a good and proper job. What may happen would be some activities to satisfy the bare minimum of what the laws require, with the higher cost being passed on to consumers.

Sir, the Acting Minister has also said that currently, only about 40% of solid waste generated is recycled. Even if the figure can be increased to 50% or 60%, we will soon be reaching the limits of recycling. Therefore, the Government must do more to get Singaporeans to reduce and to reuse products, ie, the 2Rs of what we call the 4Rs of environmental care - reduce, reuse, recycle and recover. 12.45 pm

Sir, right now, the preferred method in this area of reduction and reuse, as I said earlier, appears to be orientated at the end of the process. That means you charge higher and higher prices for removing garbage, in order to persuade people not to generate so much garbage. As I said earlier, I doubt this will work in the long run. Sir, I like to see the Acting Minister put more emphasis on the beginning of the process, ie, try to educate, encourage and help people to generate less garbage, which is to reduce. And where it is not possible to reduce, then individual households and companies, or those who generate garbage, should be encouraged to reuse.

Sir, there are a thousand and one ways of doing this, provided the Government is willing to do so. And the money saved in building less incineration plants and landfills could be better used to provide the means for the people to reuse and to reduce. I believe that if we can come out with some form of financial incentive to reward those who generate less garbage, perhaps we will see more success in this area.

Furthermore, I think there are many NGOs more than willing to provide ideas and assistance. These are the NGOS in the environmental field. Sir, the other countries have also gone a long way in this direction. We can certainly learn from their experience.

Mr Kenneth Chen Koon Lap (Hong Kah): Sir, can I take my two cuts together?

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr Kenneth Chen Khoon Lap: Sir, the Minister and several Members have touched on the solid waste problem yesterday and today. But few Singaporeans realise it to be such, because they take it for granted that after the rubbish has been thrown out, it is taken away by a refuse truck and they never see it again. Very few Singaporeans know what actually happens to the refuse after that. As Singapore has a very dense population with very limited land area, refuse disposal is of major concern.

Although Mr Heng and Prof. Low have already touched on some figures, I would like to go into a bit more details to drive home the point. The amount of waste we produce each day is on the increase. I was informed that in the year 2000, the total tonnage of waste was 7,640 tons per day. The amount of refuse in one year can occupy about 54 football fields. With an increase of 5% per year, it would increase to a staggering 12,500 tons per day within 10 years. The Environment Ministry will have to build one new incineration plant every five years to cope with this. Currently, there are four incineration plants. By the year 2030, we will need 10 incineration plants to dispose of all our daily wastes. All in all, this will require 7 hectares of land and a cost of almost $1 billion.

But, more seriously, besides allocating more land and financial resources to build more incineration plants, we also need to allocate more landfill space for the ashes and wastes that cannot be burnt. As mentioned by the Minister, at the current rate of waste generation, we will need to allocate landfill space about the size of Sentosa island at the rate of one every 30 years. It is certainly a frightening thought.

I would like to know from the Minister, apart from the four plants he mentioned yesterday, what concerted effort is being taken to address this particular problem. Because, apart from the sheer quantity of waste that we have to handle, we also have to consider the pollution damage caused to our environment. I would like to propose that we should do more to educate the population of the seriousness of the situation. We should consider all measures to reduce the waste generated each day. We must change the mindset of Singaporeans that waste disposal is a problem to be solved by the Environment Ministry alone. But it is not a one dimensional problem. Even if new technologies are found for more efficient methods of waste disposal, as long as we keep on generating waste needlessly, the problem will grow bigger and one day, it may become unsolvable.

Sir, on a related subject of waste disposal is recycling. We often talk about the importance of recycling, but all the talk never seems to be able to materialise into much action. It is high time we changed our mindset on recycling. Recycling has always been a major issue of environmental consideration, but this environmental consideration has always been overshadowed by the cost consideration. It is often more expensive to recycle something than simply producing it from new materials. This is the reason why recycling has never been able to take off in a big way. However, the most compelling aspect of the environmental consideration is still the necessity to conserve our scarce earth resources. It is not an immediate problem. It is often designated as low priority concern. But with the population growing at a staggering rate each year, very soon most of our resources will be depleted, and we cannot just pass this problem on to our next generation.

The other equally important consideration is that recycling can be a significant way to lessen our waste disposal problem. I think many Members have already made that clear. It is time for us to rethink some of the practices in our daily life. For example, the use of disposable utensils or products made of polystyrene, PVC, plastic or such bio-undegradable materials which cannot be recycled should be minimised. Perhaps we should consider bringing back the old practice of using reusable utensils, even at the expense of having to put up with a little bit more inconvenience. I would suggest the Ministry promote more awareness on the importance of recycling, spread the message that even though it may not be cost effective in the short term, it is essential if we are to preserve our environment and resources and help towards resolving our waste disposal problem.

Sir, I do not want to go into details of ways and means of re-instituting the various recycling possibilities, because there are so many. But I would like the Minister to promote more recycling initiatives and perhaps introduce some form of incentives to those individuals as well as corporations who take recycling seriously.

Mr Simon S. C. Tay (Nominated Member): Sir, as I share many of the concerns of the previous speakers, I will try to reduce my points. I share the perception that we have reached a limit to technical solutions. We have built Pulau Semakau, a world's first. We are going to build another incinerator and these are big ticket items in the budget. But beyond solutions, we will need to look at the mindsets and social habits of Singaporeans. Here, I would disagree with Mr Kenneth Chen who spoke just before me. I actually think that the Ministry has done a good job in making citizens generally aware of the problem and aware of the need for recycling. Of course, more can be done for awareness. But the next step we have to take is to move from awareness to action. We have to enable action by making it easy, by allowing enterprise and making our effort effective. What I mean by ease, enterprise and effectiveness goes beyond campaigns or once in a while collecting old phone books or newspapers. We need to have regular projects in each neighbourhood or even in each house. We see in many developed countries blue bins or other systems used to collect bottles, cans and other recyclables. I am afraid I cannot understand why we do not have the same. I believe we should.

The second thing about enterprise connects to the privatisation of waste collection. This is going to be difficult because eventually we are going to have to raise prices. We can, however, do this in a way that is sensitive to the needs of people, because we cannot move house, just because one company charges more than the other to collect our rubbish. In that sense, it is a very imperfect market, even if we privatise. What we can do to make the market better is to create more volume, not just by mandating it. We should create a market. Deposits on cans and bottles are a very small example of the kind of clear incentives we need to create this market, and then create the volume for recycling.

Sir, more generally, I think there are many other things we can learn from other societies. We are not the first to face this problem, though it is more acute in Singapore. I would like the Minister to share his thoughts with us about closing the loop on waste.

Mr Lim Swee Say: Sir, I would like to thank the Members for speaking on recycling. As mentioned by Mr Kenneth Chen, waste generation in Singapore is on the increase. Twenty years ago, we produced about 2,500 tons of solid waste every day. Ten years ago, the amount doubled to 5,700 tons and last year, as mentioned by Mr Kenneth Chen, it has gone up by another 35% over the 10 years, to 7,600 tons. The split between the domestic sector and the industrial sector is about 50:50. In other words, every person in Singapore today generates about 0.93 kilogram of solid waste every year. If we were to compare ourselves to, say, USA, it is still lower. In USA, it is 1.97 kilograms; Germany, 1.26 kilograms; Japan, 1.09 kilograms. The good news is that compared to many of the other countries, we are still producing less than them. But the bad news is that Singapore, being a small country, faces much greater challenge and constraint - in finding enough space to dispose waste. As mentioned by the Members, every five years, we need to build a new incineration plant. Every 30 years, we need to find a landfill site as big as Sentosa island. Obviously, this is not sustainable.

Sir, yesterday, I mentioned that in order to achieve sustainability in the disposal of solid waste, we need to accord greater emphasis to waste minimisation. And I thank the Members for speaking up and for their support.

Yesterday, Mr Heng Chiang Meng asked why do we not focus more on 3Rs - reuse, reduce and recycle. Sir, I agree with him fully. Since 1991, the Ministry of the Environment has been promoting 3Rs very proactively. There are 130 companies in the 3Rs industry, and they deal with a whole host of recycling: wood waste, paper, scrap tyres, copper slabs, marine clay and so on.

We also promote the fourth R, which is recovery. For example, all our incineration plants today recover heat from incineration of waste, and we feed the electricity to the national grid.

Yesterday, Prof. Low Seow Chay asked what happens to all these materials collected for recycling. Sir, as I mentioned, the rate of recycling in Singapore today is 40%. Of the wastes that are being collected for recycling, about 50% are recycled in Singapore, and 50% for export. For the 50% recycled in Singapore, waste paper is recycled into paper products such as cardboards, and toilet papers. In the case of wood waste, companies are turning it into chip boards for furniture, wooden panels and so on. We are now using marine clay to make bricks for construction. In fact, HDB will be using some of these bricks produced by one of our recycling companies. So, on the whole, we think that 40% of recycling rate is not bad. If we compare ourselves to the rest of the world, in Germany, Munich city is 42%; Netherlands, 39%. However, the rate of recycling has stabilised at 40% since 1996, meaning that since 1996 we have not been able to increase the rate of recycling in Singapore. Therein lies our real challenge.

Sir, yesterday, Mr Heng Chiang Meng said that we should encourage further recycling. I agree with him because our challenge today is to achieve another breakthrough beyond this 40% recycling rate. Mr Simon Tay mentioned that the privatisation of waste incineration would not solve the problem, in terms of sustainability. I agree with him. We believe that privatisation would only enhance our performance in the short term. But for long-term sustainability, we have to go beyond that. And that is the reason why yesterday, I announced that the ENV has set a target of achieving a 50% recycling rate over the next 10 years. Sir, I must admit that this is not an easy target to achieve. But we think it can be done. It is doable if all of us work harder together to achieve this. 1.00 pm

Mr Heng Chiang Meng asked whether the Government is trying to pass the buck to the private sector. I can assure the House that that is not the intention. We look at this challenge as a shared challenge of the three "P" sectors - the Government, the private sector and the people sector. It is a common challenge facing all of us. So we are going to work together. We are not going to pass the buck to the private sector.

At this moment, the recycling rates for paper, plastic, construction debris and book wastes range from 10% to 60%. We examine each of these items and our assessment is that there is enough scope for all of us to work together to increase the recycling rates for each of these types of wastes by about 20 percentage points over the next 10 years. That is why we believe that the 50% target is doable, not easy but doable, if we work hard enough, if we work together.

The challenge really is how to extend recycling beyond the industrial sector. The 40% recycling today are basically achieved through recycling by the industrial sector. To extend beyond that to the domestic sector and commercial sector, we have to work both the supply and demand sides of recycling.

Mr Kenneth Chen mentioned that we need to strengthen our education on waste recycling and spread the message, and we have to educate the young. And Mr Simon Tay mentioned that we have to go beyond awareness and turn awareness into action. I agree with both of them. For example, our school children today, at Primary 3, are told about the importance of recycling. My daughter came back from school one day when she was in Primary 3 and asked mummy and daddy, "How can we participate in recycling?" She also asked, "Where is the bin for the plastics and bottles? Where is the bin for the cans?" I was very shy, pretended and said that there was no such system in our home today. The point is that after a few years, my daughter never talks about recycling anymore. Why? The awareness has not been turned into action. There is no continuous reinforcement. As a result, we are not reaping the benefit of all the effort we have put into education. That is the reason why ENV decided that we must now require all the public waste collectors to introduce waste recycling to every household in Singapore so that your daughter, my daughter, your son, my son, after coming home from school, having learned about recycling, hopefully, they will be able to practise recycling on a day-to-day basis.

Under our contractual agreement with these nine public waste collectors, they are required by ENV to introduce waste recycling schemes and bring recycling to the door-steps of the residents. We believe this will make it easier for each and every household to participate in waste recycling. I am pleased to inform the House that Jurong sector will be the first to launch the scheme by April next month. The other sectors will do so by the end of this year.

As for recycling at the commercial premises, as mentioned by Mr Simon Tay, I agree with him. In fact, this is another challenge that we have to overcome. In the case of the commercial premises, we are going to reach out to the building managements to encourage as many building managements as possible in Singapore to introduce waste recycling in our commercial buildings. Hopefully, over time, we will be able to spread recycling beyond the industrial sector to the domestic and commercial sectors.

Having taken action on the supply side, we are also taking action on the demand side, meaning that we are going to step up our promotion effort to further develop the recycling industry in Singapore. Our aim is to nurture a vibrant recycling industry in Singapore and position Singapore as a leading centre of excellence in 4Rs (reuse, reduce, recycle and recover) in this region.

Mr Heng Chiang Meng yesterday mentioned that maybe we should introduce more incentives to encourage recycling, and today he mentioned that we ought to do more to promote "reduce" and "reuse". Sir, as I said, I agree with him. We are now looking at the experience of other countries and see in what way we can learn from them. I am going to make a trip to Europe in May and US sometime in July. The purpose is to see how we can learn from these countries on how they are able to implement recycling more effectively than Singapore.

I am also pleased to inform the House that we have set up a multi-agency task force. It is led by EDB, comprising members from ENV, JTC and PSB. This task force, over the next few months, is going to formulate further our industry development strategies. They are going to propose new incentives, where necessary, to support and assist the industry in its development. At the same time, we will work together to nurture more companies, promote more investments, to build new capabilities and capacities in our industry for the 4Rs and, hopefully, in the process, we are going to speed up the pace of innovation in the industry.

Sir, Prof. Low suggested that we should impose recycled contents in our Government procurement programme. I think we have to be pragmatic here. In the case of Singapore, many of our industries and manufacturers are basically global companies producing for the global market. So, in a way, our industry is basically an export-oriented industry. Our domestic market is a very small one. Therefore, we feel that to use our domestic market as a lever to enforce recycling contents in manufactured products may not be effective. At the same time, it may also affect our competitiveness in attracting foreign direct investment. We are not comfortable to insist such a regulation because the global manufacturers may also be constrained by the availability of recycled components. Instead of requiring them to do so, what we are trying to do is to create the condition in Singapore to make it attractive for them to do so. We believe that this will be the kind of win-win outcome we can strive for.

Prof. Low also asked whether the Government can help to make the recycled products more attractive in terms of pricing and to label these recycled products. To make recycled products more attractive is a very good idea. It is something I fully agree. I spoke to many of our recycling companies. I asked them, "What is your strategy in competing for market share?" They said that their strategy is to sell their products cheaper than the non-recyclable products. However, they said that their cost of production is higher. With a higher cost of production, how to compete on the basis of low prices? Therefore, they asked me whether the Government could come in to subsidise or offset this higher cost of operation.

Sir, I think this approach may not be sustainable because it would not be possible for the Government to continue to subsidise the recycling industry. But we believe that there is a lot of scope for us to speed up the process of innovation in our recycling industry so that the industry can come out with more innovative products that can command more attractive pricing in the market. In this regard, ENV, EDB and the various Government agencies are going to work closer together to support the industry through the IDS (Innovation Development Scheme), whereby we are going to co-fund the cost of developing new products, new processes and new applications of these recycled materials. In the process, I think we would be able to help them to become more viable and more profitable.

Regarding labelling the recycled products, the Singapore Environmental Council has this Green Label scheme in place. What we can do is to work closer with them to incorporate this concept, as proposed by Prof. Low Seow Chay, into the Green Label scheme, and maybe to work with SEC to conduct a campaign to create greater public awareness.

Mr Kenneth Chen also asked whether we should review the use of disposable crockery that are non-biodegradable. In the short term, what we are trying to do is to generate both the demand and supply sides. Because if we are not able to create the demand for the recyclable waste, at the end of the day, whether the waste is biodegradable or non-biodegradable, if they all end up in the incineration plant, it actually makes no difference. In that sense, while I note the point by Mr Kenneth Chen, I would say that the challenge really is to find a way to recycle these wastes. Because, if there is a way of using them, then I think it makes a lot of sense for us to move away from wastes that are non-biodegradable.

Sir, I think I have addressed all the questions by Members.

Mr R. Sinnakaruppan (Kreta Ayer-Tanglin): Sir, our expressways cut across many high-rise public and private housing estates in Singapore, especially in the central area. Over the years, traffic has increased in our expressways in the city area and the outlying areas. Also, many residents find that this has caused significant noise problems for them and their families not only in the day time, but also as late as 10.00 pm, 11.00 pm and 12 midnight. Many find that the noise pollution is unbearable.

Sir, many of my residents live in flats very close to these expressways. In fact, some of these flats were built way before the expressways, like CTE and PIE, were built. Due to the lack of space for the construction of these expressways, some of these expressways cut very close to the flats. For example, I know of one or two flats in Whampoa Drive area where they do not normally meet the URA's set-back guidelines, for instance, so much so that when one of these flats went through a Main Upgrading Programme, the SAI (space-adding item), which was supposed to be built, could not be built because the expressway is so close. That is how close some of these flats are to the expressways.

I would like to ask the Ministry to seriously look into this. Residents, especially living probably six or seven storeys above, are the ones who feel the greatest impact of this noise pollution. I am also aware that those flats which are near the MRT tracks also face this similar problem, although those from the traffic of the expressways is even greater. I understand that countries, like Japan, have built sound barriers at strategic spots in their expressways. I am not asking that these be built across Singapore in all the expressways but at strategic points where the impact of this is felt by most residents. I know that there have been talks that this would not be aesthetically doable by some of the urban planners. But I think if it is functional and it can help many residents, it would certainly be useful.

Sir, in particular, I have got several residents who have told me that they have to put up with this for many years and, in fact, they found that their hearing has actually been impaired and they have to get help from doctors. So I think it is a significant problem and I hope the Ministry will look into this.

Assoc. Prof. Low Seow Chay: Sir, the topic I wish to talk about is hand, foot and mouth disease.

The finding of the recent hand, foot and mouth disease epidemic was related to the EV71 Enterovirus. At the peak of the epidemic, there were more than 400 cases reported a month and some children died of the disease. In October last year, drastic action was taken to break the chain of transmission of the epidemic. After things got back to normal, in late last month and early this month, the disease started again. About 100 cases were reported per month, and two children had died as a result.

Sir, EV71 infected hand, foot and mouth disease has proven to be quite lethal. In the outbreak in Malaysia in 1997, 47 deaths were suspected to be due to the hand, foot and mouth disease. In the outbreak in Taiwan in 1998, at least the deaths of 80 children were implicated to be caused by EV71 Enterovirus, and more than 60,000 cases were reported. We were lucky that here the damage due to the EV71 was not as bad as other countries.

The re-emergence of the EV71 epidemic in the beginning of this month prompted one to ask whether the measures taken by the Ministry are effective enough to take care of this deadly epidemic. In the first place, is the reporting system of the hand, foot and mouth disease cases by the GPs to the Ministry quick enough? Could it be that by the time the Ministry gathered all the data, the disease has already spread? I tried to find out some data or information of the disease from the Internet and I got nothing from the Singapore web-page on how to prevent and control the spread of the disease. It shows that some efforts should be put into the web and other media to help the control of the disease. Should we do more in public education so that the people are well aware of the danger of the disease and, when contracted, they know precisely what to do to contain the spread of the disease? 1.15 pm

Years ago, when a person contracted a communicable disease, he will be kept in the Communicable Disease Centre to prevent its possible spread. I have not heard about such measure for quite some time. Should we rethink about the matter and see whether it is feasible to confine people contacted with the EV71, hand, foot and mouth disease, as a means to contain that disease?

The Chairman: Do you want to move on to your next amendment?

Assoc. Prof. Low Seow Chay: Sir, the next cut is odour control. In the previous year's debate in the Committee of Supply, I spoke about the necessity of the smell or odour control regulation. The reply from the Minister was that if it affects the public health, then it could be controlled under the Environmental Public Health Regulations. Though saying so, nothing much seems to have been done in improving the environment in the area of odour or smell in the air that is discomforting to the people.

Without an odour standard, it is very difficult for the people to complain about the foul smell and the industries that generate the chemicals which cause the smell. It is also very difficult for the Ministry to say who is wrong, simply because there is no law to say that it is illegal to generate the smell. At present, anyone who is unhappy about something smelly, he will just make a complaint to the Ministry. The Ministry will then go to the source and tell the person not to generate the smell.

Sir, in reality, zero emission standard is only applicable to the hazardous and toxic emission of harmless smell. It may seem too much if we tell the source to comply with zero emission. To be reasonable, we need to set a limit to such emission and a standard would then be needed. Take the case of the smelly bean curd shop chou tou fu. The complaint of the smell led to the closure of the premises. I am sure the authority has used other laws to request the stoppage of the business and, certainly, it was not because of the smell level that had been complained about. In the recent well-reported case about the smell from the chicken farm and from organic farming using animal wastes and fertiliser, even the consultant from the NUS did not know what standard would be acceptable, in terms of smell. If one could not set a standard, how could one know that the farmer has done his job in controlling the smell, the people may have a sensitive nose to smell even though it is of a very low and harmless content. The consequence would be to either close all the farms or resettle all the people from the affected areas. If this is the solution, it would be very unfortunate and it will certainly insult the intelligence of many people.

Before things get from bad to worse due to arguments and counter-arguments about the problem of smell, it is time that we should at least set up some standards in dealing with smell, so that both the emitter and receiver will have a common ground in settling their problem of smell or odour.

Encik Sidek bin Saniff: Sir, I will be dealing with the questions posed by Mr Sinnakaruppan and Prof. Low on HFMD and, of course, the last one on control of smell.

Sir, Mr Sinnakaruppan asked about traffic noise. Let me assure him that traffic noise comes from vehicle engines and tyres. ENV, MCIT and MND have implemented measures to control traffic noises from expressways. These measures include setting of noise emission standards for vehicles; using low noise porous asphalt material for surfacing certain stretches of expressways; siting multi-storey car parks, electrical substations or other non-noise sensitive structures to screen traffic noise from residential buildings; setting back residential buildings from the expressways; and designing layout of flats such that living rooms and bedrooms are located away from traffic noise.

Sir, with increased urbanisation and widening of expressways, the noise level has gradually been increasing along certain stretches of the expressways. To address this gradual increase of traffic noise from expressways, ENV and MCIT engaged a noise consultant to conduct a study on the impact of traffic noise from expressways. The study includes a review of the existing guidelines and mitigation measures, including sound barriers. In the preliminary findings of the study, the consultants have also identified several 'hot spots'. These are blocks of flats fronting the expressways where the noise level is high.

ENV and MCIT will evaluate the findings and recommendations of the consultancy study. We would also look into noise mitigation measures from these 'hot spots' especially.

Sir, in land scarce and highly urbanised Singapore, some degree of noise pollution is inevitable. Notwithstanding this, we would seek to minimise the impact of traffic noise on residents living near expressways through the use of planning and other noise mitigation measures.

Sir, Prof. Low asked about HFM disease. My Ministry appreciates his concern. We are also concerned. In response to Prof. Low's questions and, with your permission, Sir, I would like to put in perspective the overall situation with regard to infant fatality.

Sir, from September last year to now, there were seven children below 5 years of age who died of viral infections involving the brain, lungs and heart. Four had EV71 and one had an enterovirus that is still being typed. The virus or viruses responsible for the other two could not be identified. In the last five years, there were an average of 16 deaths a year, ranging from 11 to 28 deaths, among children aged 5 and below. This puts us among one of the lowest mortality rate among children of this age group in the world. What is worth noting is that there has been no noticeable increase in the number of deaths among children aged 5 and below in recent years. In fact, the number of deaths last year, among children in this particular group, totalled 11. And this was less than the previous year which was 18.

Sir, why then has there been this recent attention given to EV71? For one thing, it was only recently that developments in the diagnostic tool, known as PCR, this is something to do with the laboratory equipment that magnifies the DNA, the genes of the virus using an enzyme, known as polymerase, has enabled it to be used by diagnostic laboratories worldwide to detect EV71.

Then how does EV71 relate to HFMD? Is it a potentially aggressive virus that often causes deaths?

Sir, EV71 is generally not known to be an aggressive virus. In most cases, EV71 will not cause death, but instead cause a mild and common childhood disease known as the hand, foot and mouth disease. It is just like the flu virus. The flu virus does not usually attack the heart or the brain and then cause death, although it can and has been known to do so.

So when will EV71 turn aggressive and lethal? The outcome would depend on the relationship between the viral agent and the host, the baby, the kid. For example, factors like the amount of virus a person is exposed to or the ability of the body's immune system to defend against the virus can make a difference. Genetic factors also play a part, some persons may possess a certain gene which renders them more prone to complications by allowing efficient virus entry into the cells.

Sir, since one of the symptoms of EV71 is hand, foot and mouth disease, a good strategy to prevent the spread of EV71 is to prevent an outbreak of the hand, foot and mouth disease. We are not saying that EV71 cannot be aggressive when there is no HFMD outbreak, as we have seen it can, but preventing outbreaks of HFMD would minimise the chance of exposure to EV71 virus.

My Ministry therefore monitors very closely the incidence of HFMD throughout Singapore and, in particular, in all the pre-schools. If there are signs of localised secondary transmission going on in any pre-school, ENV will move in quickly to prevent an outbreak from occurring.

In the months ahead, ENV will be working with MOE and MCDS to see how best pre-school operators can be further trained in the areas of illness detection, isolation of the unwell child and preventive measures to check transmission.

The Chairman: Mr Sidek, "guillotine" time on this amendment is 1.40 pm.

Encik Sidek bin Saniff: Yes. Sir, let me assure him that the web site and the information will of course be available. We are doing that.

Sir, Prof. Low also asked about odour. There are currently no standards for odour emission from industries, including poultry farms. This is because most odours are made up of many organic compounds that cannot be detected by instrument. Sir, our nose is still the best means to assess an odour.

Sir, panels comprising selective individuals have been set up in some cases to assess odour. However, the panel members still use their noses to detect odour. There are odours and there are odours. We should only be concerned with odours that have health implications or are a nuisance to many. Odour emissions from chicken farms, pharmaceutical and food industries, etc, are some examples. In such cases, we would require industries to install odour control equipment to reduce the odour emission. 1.30 pm

Assoc. Prof. Low Seow Chay: (In Mandarin): The hawker centre is one of the most frequented places for people in Singapore when they go for food, because it is inexpensive and there is a great variety of food. It has become one of the essential parts of daily living of our people. With the convenience and good choices of food in the hawker centre, Singaporeans have, unconsciously, developed a habit of eating out.

Apart from hawker centres, there are also more and more food courts now coming to the HDB estates. If we compare the hawker centre with the food court, of course the hawker centre would be inferior, as far as appearance, decoration, ambience and the level of comfort are concerned. So, when we upgrade our hawker centres, we should not just stick to the old fashioned way of doing it, ie, just cleaning, painting, and putting in some new tables and chairs. I think we should redesign the hawker centres with better lay-out of stalls, comfortable seats, and generally more pleasant environment. We should have a thorough change, so that a modern hawker centre would attract customers, whether in its outlook or comfort comparable to the food courts.

Following the ageing of our people, we notice that there are many hawkers at the hawker centres who are old enough to retire. We could notice in certain hawker centres where business is not well, some stalls are not open, while some stalls are operating for only a few hours a day. Some elderly hawkers find it too tough to carry on with their trade and rent out their stalls to other people. The hawkers may be aging but their stalls still have economic value. Perhaps the Ministry of the Environment should allow these old hawkers who have been operating for many years to surrender their stalls to the Government for some form of compensation, so that these stalls could be transferred to willing new-comers, to better serve the customers.

The Ministry of National Development has already mentioned that it will be compensating any neighbourhood retailer who wants to give up his shop with $48,000. Perhaps the Ministry of the Environment could also offer an attractive package to anyone who wishes to give up his stall.

Upgrading of a hawker centre may take as long as one year. Some hawkers may not have enough savings to last for such a long period without income. I wonder if the Ministry of the Environment could make some arrangements to help them. Are the stallholders required to pay their rent when the hawker centre is being upgraded, and no business is conducted there?

The design of some of the hawker centres, eg, the one in Taman Jurong Block 1, is very old fashioned. No matter how we upgrade, it would not be nice and presentable. Perhaps we should build a new hawker centre nearby so that the hawkers can continue to operate in the existing hawker centre, and then move into the new hawker centre when it is completed. In this way, they will not be deprived of the earnings during the period of upgrading.

The Chairman: Prof Low, would you like to give some time to the other two persons?

Assoc. Prof. Low Seow Chay: Yes, please.

The Chairman: Mr Low Thia Khiang.

Mr Low Thia Khiang (Hougang): Sir, I will just ask a few questions regarding the upgrading of hawker centres. I would like to know, first of all, after the centres are upgraded, whether the rental will be increased and, as Prof Low has asked, whether any compensation would be given to tide the hawkers over the difficult period during the upgrading process. How long does the Ministry expect to upgrade all the hawker centres in Singapore, and what is the schedule of the proposed upgrading?

Mr Chew Heng Ching (East Coast): Sir, over the last few days, we have heard that the Government has come up with schemes to help HDB shop retailers. There is one group of retailers who needs help, and I think this has not been addressed. I am referring to those stall owners operating in wet markets managed by the Ministry of the Environment. I have one such market in my constituency.

Sir, we will recall that in the mid 1990s, the Government encouraged ownership of wet market stalls, and stallholders in these markets volunteered to buy their stalls over from the Government, and they did so. However, lifestyles have changed and, over the last five years, we have seen a shift in preference, with households preferring to shop in air-conditioned supermarkets and suburban malls. As a result, many of these wet market stall owners are facing falling business, and the fall seems to be permanent rather than cyclical, and many are also carrying very high mortgage rates, which they find difficult to sustain.

Sir, I am not sure whether the Retail 21 Committee has addressed these stall owners' problems. Many are in a dilemma. By nature of their wet market environment, they have less flexibility. They cannot easily sublet part of their stalls, because the stalls themselves are very small. Neither can they change their use, nor apply productivity enhancement measures to upgrade. They offered to sell their stalls in the resale market, but there were no takers.

Sir, I have three proposals for the Minister to try to solve this problem:

1. Allow these stall owners to set up a cooperative to remodel their wet market stalls into a viable modern supermarket. In so doing, the Government undertakes to help redevelop the wet market into a modern style supermarket, and let the stall operators manage and operate the supermarket;

2. Implement something like the SERS programme for residential units, ie, the Government rebuild the wet market and allow stallholders to have a choice, whether to continue to operate the stall when the market is rebuilt, or totally sell their stalls back to Government;

3. If all the stallholders are willing to quit business and sell their stalls back to the Government at an acceptable price, the Government should consider buying back all the stalls, tear down the market, and use it for something else.

Sir, I am urging the Minister to address this problem and help our wet market stall owners.

The Chairman: Mr Chng is not moving. Mr Lim Swee Say.

Mr Lim Swee Say: Sir, as time is short, I will go directly to the points brought up by the various Members.

Firstly, the issue of whether we will allow some flexibility in the design of the upgrading of centres. Sir, I am happy to say that what the Ministry will do is this. For upgrading, we will assign a standard budget, on a per-stall basis, for each project. The grassroots leaders, advisers and the market association can then decide what are the additional features and designs they would like to have. Of course, their design will be subject to approval by the ENV, HDB and JTC who are the managing agents, and the additional costs of these features will be borne by the grassroots organisations and the Town Councils. This means that we will provide them with the standard package and standard fund, and they can do the topping up.

Secondly, is there any programme to enable some of the stallholders to get out, if they do not want to move into the upgraded centre? For the first-generation stallholders, they will be given $19,000. These cooked food stallholders can take the $19,000 and give up the stalls. In the case of the market stalls, they will be offered a cash grant of $15,000. So those who do not want to go into the upgraded centre, they can take the grant and leave. But these are only for those centres that are involved in redevelopment, ie, if we are going to reconfigure or redevelop the centre.

As for the centres that are only meant for upgrading, ie, no structural change but just upgrading, our original intention is actually not to offer them these cash grants. But a few MPs have suggested that we should at least allow some of them, in particular, the older ones, to get out if they want to. So my Ministry has decided that we will offer cash grants to those who are more than 62 years old at the point of announcement. For example, if a centre is selected for upgrading - not for redevelopment but for upgrading - all the stallholders who are more than 62 years old can opt for these cash grants, if they want to. Whereas in the case of a major redevelopment, the cash grants will be offered to all stallholders, regardless of their age.

On the question on whether there will be any change in rental after the upgrading, Sir, firstly, subsidised stalls in all centres pay a standardised base rate. For example, for a cooked food stall, today it is $160. In the case of a market stall, it is between $56 and $92. All centres today pay these base rates. These base rates are reviewed from time to time. The last time we reviewed the rental was in 1995, some 6-7 years ago. But I am happy to inform the House that my Ministry has no intention, at this moment, to revise the rental, meaning that there will be no change to these base rate rentals in the near future. However, for those centres that have undergone both upgrading and redevelopment, there will be some adjustment to the rental, to reflect the better facilities, design, layout and, in some cases, even bigger stall size.

There are two types of centres. The first type is just upgrading, ie, no structural change, but upgrading in terms of better tables, stools, toilets, ventilation system and so on. For those stalls, the adjustments will be very minimal. I am not able to give the exact amounts, because the sums involved will vary across centres, depending on the condition of the centre, its location, etc. But as an indication, I am pleased to inform the House that the adjustment to the rental for the upgraded stalls will be between $1 and $4 a day. So, we are keeping it very minimal.

An hon. Member: A month or a day?

Mr Lim Swee Say: A day. $1 to $4 a day, depending on the location, where they are. For some centres, it will be $1; for some other centres, it could be as high as $4. But, on the average, it would be about $2, for the upgrading of the stall. If we do a simple calculation, we will find that it will not be possible for the Government to recover the cost of upgrading through this $2-per-day adjustment, because the cost of upgrading is about $20,000 per stall. So, at $2 a day, it will take us 10,000 days, or something like 30 years, to recover.

The Chairman: Order. We have reached the "guillotine" time on this amendment. Prof Low.

Assoc. Prof. Low Seow Chay: Sir, I think Members will agree with me that the Minister has really given a very comprehensive and thorough report to almost every one of the questions asked. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman: Amendment No. (2), Mr Heng. "Guillotine" time on this amendment is 1.51 pm.

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

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

Sir, I am glad to see that the Inter-Agency Committee on Energy Conservation (IACEC) will now be put under the Ministry of the Environment and, from what I gather, the thrust of the Government's energy conservation initiatives appear to be focused on three measures:

1. To strengthen the regulatory and institutional framework for the conservation of energy;

2. To improve the market environment so as to provide an improved platform for all to conserve energy; and

3. To use the public sector as the leading edge and show the way for all to emulate.

Sir, while these are good and admirable measures, I think a very basic fundamental point is missed. Energy is used by humans and, therefore, can only be conserved by humans. Yet, the measures are not focused on how to make Singaporeans as a whole use less energy as a behavioural norm. If every Singaporean can consciously use less energy in every aspect of his daily living, such behaviour will carry over from his home to his workplace. So, if each of us can conserve only a bit, the combined effects of the total population can lead to a huge decrease in energy usage.

So I would like to really suggest that the Government start encouraging more Singaporeans to conserve energy. And I am very sure the Acting Minister would agree with this motherhood statement. Unfortunately, the example of the recent rebates given on the hybrid electric car, as well as other measures or lack of measures, does not give one hope that the Government is prepared to put its money where its mouth is.

We all know that the use of any new technology is expensive. Witness the prices of PCs when they first appeared and the prices of PCs now. Also, without an extensive infrastructure, motoring with a hybrid car will cause more inconvenience for the owner. And the rebates that have been given so far do not take all these factors into consideration, resulting in the estimated overall costs to be higher than that of conventional cars, despite the perhaps cheaper initial cost of the vehicle. It is, therefore, not surprising that most dealers do not expect a high demand for the hybrid cars, despite the rebates.

The Chairman: Mr Heng, would you like to give some time to Mr Thomas?

Mr Heng Chiang Meng: Yes, Sir, just one final point. Yesterday, Mr Ong Kian Min brought up this question of solar heating panels. I have brought up this issue before in previous Committee of Supply debates, and I wish the Government will give some financial rebates on this.

Mr Thomas Thomas (Nominated Member): Sir, I am pleased to say that most of the points that I had wanted to bring up have already been addressed by the Minister. However, I would just like to ask what are the acceptable international standards for noise levels, in decibels, from expressways, and what is the general noise level from our expressways? 1.45 pm

Mr Lim Swee Say: Sir, I agree with Mr Heng Chiang Meng that energy conservation can only be effective if there is enough of public consciousness. When I mentioned that ENV would take over the IACEC, effective from April, I did also mention that we are going to expand the scope of the Committee beyond energy conservation to include clean energy as well. At the same time, I want to assure Mr Heng that the Committee would adopt a 3P partnership approach, meaning that whatever programmes we introduce, we will strengthen the partnership between the people, public and private sectors, so that together, we will be able to achieve this objective in energy conservation, as well as expanding it to clean energy.

Mr Heng cited the example of the hybrid vehicles as an illustration that the Government is not prepared to put the money where its mouth is, in terms of promoting energy conservation. Sir, I beg to differ, because in the case of the hybrid vehicles, the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology has already explained that the green policy as well as the transportation policy, must go hand in hand. In our national interest, Government has to balance between the green policy and transportation policy. As far as the IACEC is concerned, I assure Mr Heng that my Ministry will do whatever we can to harness the support and participation of the 3P sectors so that together, we can move towards energy conservation.

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

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman: Amendment No. (3), Mr Heng.

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

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

Sir, Singapore, being a highly urbanised place, the noise level and noise pollution are relatively high, compared to many other countries less urbanised. Like it or not, we have to bear with it if we want to continue living in Singapore. On the other hand, I must congratulate the Environment Ministry for doing a marvellous job in keeping the noise pollution within very acceptable limits. However, what I fail to understand is why does the Ministry still allow the use of the normal percussion piling methods in construction sites when these sites are situated very close to existing residential areas. The use of such a piling method, using a heavy block dropping on the top of a pile to hammer the pile into the ground, creates too much noise for nearby residents, regardless of the measurement of noise at the point where the noise is being generated.

Sir, such a method is similar to using a hammer to knock a nail into a piece of wood, except that the dimensions of the hammer and nail are now increased by 1,000-fold. Besides noise, such a method also often causes stress to structures of nearby buildings, creating cracks in the walls of nearby buildings, and very often, conflicts between neighbours. I would like the Minister to consider banning the use of such piling methods in construction sites by reducing the level of permitted noise generated from construction sites when such sites are within certain distances from residential areas. After all, there are quieter, alternative piling methods which contractors can use.

The Chairman: Dr Lily Neo, you have the privilege of moving the last cut.

Dr Lily Neo (Kreta Ayer-Tanglin): Sir, bad air in the office buildings here makes one in three office workers feel lethargic and experience dryness of the throat, skin and eyes.

A new survey by the National University of Singapore (NUS) researchers found that workers here have it worse than those in 11 European countries when it comes to 10 out of the top dozen health problems linked to "sick-building syndrome". Sir, "sick-building syndrome" refers to an excess of work-related irritation of the skin and mucous membranes and other symptoms, including headache and fatigue, reported by occupants in modern office buildings.

The researchers checked 98 locations in five buildings. The buildings generally had lower levels of carbon dioxide and fine dust particles but marginally higher carbon monoxide levels than buildings in Europe. But high levels of contamination were found here in a few isolated locations in the five buildings surveyed. Yeast, mould formaldehyde and carbon dioxide also exceeded the limits in some spots.

Sir, one interesting finding of the local survey was that workers were not as dissatisfied with the air quality as those in Europe, although Singapore workers showed more symptoms. Our cultural differences could explain this. It is possible that employees here are less likely to complain to their bosses, even if they suffer "sick-building syndrome", than workers in European work places. Earlier, studies here by ENV found that one in five office workers here have health problems because of poorly ventilated buildings.

It is a known fact that indoor air quality is a subject of public health importance as many spend a lot of time working indoors. Studies show that most people here spend 80% of their time indoors. Poor air quality decreases productivity because of discomfort, absenteeism and sickness. A number of Australian and overseas studies have identified the high costs of poor quality indoor air. Sir, these costs included direct medical costs, loss in productivity and damages to material and equipment. Loss in productivity in the United States of America is estimated to be nearly five times that of direct medical costs.

Air quality is influenced by temperature, humidity, air movement and air contaminants. There are legislation and regulations governing indoor air quality in US, Australia and New Zealand. In view of the great implications of indoor air quality, I would urge the Minister for the Environment to have regulations in place here to ensure compliance with air quality and thus ensuring healthier workers, and better productivity.

Recently, the US Environmental Protection Agency's draft report concluded for the first time that dioxin was a human carcinogen. May I ask the Minister for the Environment what are the measures taken by his Ministry to control the level of dioxins emitted into the atmosphere, and whether the current levels emitted to our air atmosphere are safe.

Encik Sidek bin Saniff: Sir, I would like to thank Mr Heng Chiang Meng for bringing up this important issue. Our law takes into consideration the background noise of the environment. The noise measured would be adjusted according to the background noise. Therefore, the permissible noise level in a quiet neighbourhood will be more stringent, when compared to a neighbourhood with higher background noise.

I agree that jack hammers or percussion hammers can pose a problem if done close to a residential building, especially caused by the vibrations which transmit through the ground. Our law restricts the noise level being generated by the piling activities, regardless of the types of equipment or machinery used during construction.

Having said that, I am pleased to announce that all new construction sites, commencing work from 1st October 2001, and located within 150 metres of residential premises, will be required to observe a stricter set of noise levels at night. The decision to impose stricter noise control measures at night was taken in response to the many complaints which my Ministry has received. Last year, for example, we received an average of 33 complaints a week on construction noise, compared to an average of 21 per week in 1999. This is despite the drop in construction activities of about 20% last year.

Sir, the new set of noise levels will limit work at night in two segments, the first segment, between 7 pm and 10 pm, and the second segment, between 10 pm to the next morning, at 7 am.

During the first night segment, from 7 pm to 10 pm, the permissible noise level will remain at 65 decibels, but averaged over one hour, and the instantaneous noise over five minutes shall not exceed 70 decibels. From 10 pm till 7 am the next morning, the permissible noise level will be lowered to 55 decibels averaged over one hour, and the instantaneous noise over five minutes shall not exceed 60 decibels.

Sir, given these permissible noise levels, noisy work, such as concreting, will not be done after 7 pm. Less noisy work, such as erection and dismantling of form work, fixing of steel bars, loading and unloading of materials may be carried out. However, after 10 pm, only quiet work, such as bricklaying, plastering and painting can be done.

With the more stringent control of our noise at construction sites, we hope that residents living close to construction sites will have quieter evenings and more restful nights.

Sir, Dr Lily Neo brought up the point regarding indoor air quality. Following the 1995 survey, guidelines on good indoor air quality practices were published in 1996 and widely distributed to those in the building management industry. Further studies conducted in 1997 and 1998 in offices, MRT stations, schools and underground carparks, showed that generally, indoor air quality has been satisfactory in these places, except for a few isolated locations.

Laws on indoor air quality may not be necessary at this time, as standards have also not been set by WHO and threshold levels not established. In the meantime, however, ENV enacted laws in February this year to require proper maintenance of water cooling system in central air-conditioning of all public buildings. This law, when enforced, will bring down incidence of the Legionnaires' disease, caused by the legionnaire bacteria which grows in poorly maintained water cooling tanks.

Sir, on the question about dioxin, as Dr Lily Neo knows, dioxins are by-products of combustion. They are also produced by some industrial and natural processes. ENV has been monitoring dioxin levels in ambient air since 1999. So far, trace levels have been detected occasionally. The levels are lower than the levels found in quite a number of developed countries, such as Germany, UK and Netherlands. Hence, the level of dioxin in our ambient air does not pose a problem.

The Chairman: Mr Heng, there is one minute left.

Mr Heng Chiang Meng: I thank the Senior Minister of State for his reply, especially the last point on noise standards. With that, Sir, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $431,048,700 for Head M ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates.

The sum of $452,771,000 for Head M ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.

The Chairman: I shall now deal with the remaining heads of expenditure in respect of which no amendments stand on the Order Paper Supplement.

In respect of the Main Estimates, they are Heads D and G.

I propose to take those heads of expenditure en bloc.

Question, "That the sum for those Heads of Expenditure which appear in the last column of the Schedule of estimated expenditure under the Main Estimates on page 24 of Paper Cmd. 3 of 2001 stand part of the Main Estimates," put and agreed to.

Question, "That the sum of $32,318,858,720 shall be supplied to the Government under the Heads of Expenditure for the public services shown in the Main Estimates for the financial year 1st April, 2001 to 31st March, 2002, contained in Paper Cmd. 3 of 2001," put and agreed to.

Question, "That the sum of $19,606,584,900 shall be supplied to the Government under the Heads of Expenditure for the public services shown in the Development Estimates for the financial year 1st April, 2001 to 31st March 2002, contained in Paper Cmd. 3 of 2001," put and agreed to.

Resolutions to be reported.

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

Dr Richard Hu Tsu Tau: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply have come to certain resolutions.

First Resolution reported -

Question, "That the sum of $32,318,858,720 shall be supplied to the Government under the Heads of Expenditure for the public services shown in the Main Estimates for the financial year 1st April, 2001 to 31st March 2002, contained in Paper Cmd. 3 of 2001," put and agreed to.

Second Resolution reported -

Question, "That the sum of $19,606,584,900 shall be supplied to the Government under the Heads of Expenditure for the public services shown in the Development Estimates for the financial year 1st April, 2001 to 31st March 2002, contained in Paper Cmd. 3 of 2001," put and agreed to.

Dr Richard Hu Tsu Tau: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That Parliament doth agree with the Committee on the said resolutions."

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolutions accordingly agreed to.