Fong Sip Chee
Singapore
“These include the flyovers at Paya Lebar Way, Aljunied Road, and various pedestrian overhead bridges. Their design and erection procedures were all found to be safe. The PWD will in future require all contractors to adopt erection procedures with two or more independent safety systems.”
“Sir, the Museum has been out of the fishy business for quite some time already. Since the establishment of the Science Centre, I believe that all the natural history exhibits have been transferred to the Science Centre in Jurong where they are properly displayed in a better environment. The role of the Museum has changed.”
“Mr Ho See Beng asked the Minister for Trade and Industry, with reference to his recent speech regarding increase in water consumption and the possible increase in water rates, whether there is no way of reducing water consumption without raising water charges, and whether he is aware that, as the Public Utilities Board has not ruled out t…”
“The Member for Thomson is absolutely right in his call for the insurance companies to be more active in the area of workers' protection rather than be the most passive party by writing out insurance policies. The Government does the legislation and enforcement. The insurance companies just write out policies.”
“We have also conducted a three-month health education programme, between November 1980 and January 1981, for deep-sea fishermen to educate them on the hazards of using compressed air and the precautions to take. A total of 352 fishermen have undergone this programme. The Ministry will continue to monitor the situation.”
“Sir, the proposed functions of the Institute of Occupational Safety and Health are training, consultancy and research in industrial safety and health. A study of how such functions are discharged in some developed and developing countries started in April 1980.”
The complete record
Every one of 433 lines we hold for Fong Sip Chee, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 9.
“Tampines Wood Estate. Thank you very much. They had to evict the residents! The residents said, "Look. Allow us to stay on. We will upkeep the garden for you." They said, "No dice. You get out." So they moved out. Grass grew and window panes were broken. So they offered these houses to the airlines. There were no takers. In the end, they had to get the former tenants back - those tenants who were living in their own houses and had to pay rent. What I was told was that those houses were not meant to be acquired but because of an administrative goof it was not plotted on the General Improvement Plan (GIP). You see, once a piece of land is developed, the houses will be plotted on the plan. In this case the plan for acquisition showed "lallang land" and therefore it was a very cheap piece of land, so it was red pencilled and marked out for acquisition. Later, they found that there were houses there, and they could not de-gazette it because this would create a precedent and would apply to other places. How could they gazette this? What happened? How do they justify this blunder? I do not know, This is one example. Then there was an example of a woman who lost her citizenship - in five minutes - and got it back after three rather naughty letters from me. I am not claiming any credit, but I just want to show an example of the Government machinery which operates with total ignorance of the real life situation of Singapore, our people, our culture. This woman met me and said that she lost her citizenship. I asked her how did she lose it. She said, "i don't know. I was told to go to the Identity Card Office with two photographs. They withdrew my pink identity card and gave me a blue identity card." I wrote to this Office.”
“There was an acquisition exercise somewhere in Tampines, and to their horror they found that the piece of land which was supposed to be acquired - it was gazetted for acquisition - had already been developed into a beautiful estate! If I am not wrong, it is Tampines Garden.”
“I believe our Ministers, particularly the Minister for Finance, are all canine lovers. Better treatment is being given to dogs than wives and children! If they do increase any tax, they collect it immediately. They announce it on 31st December and the next day the tax goes up. But if they give us a concession, we will get it next year. Of course, we are jubilant over the concession for CPF contributions. But some trade unionist Members raised this question: "Why not change the personal relief scale, instead of giving a concession for CPF contributions?" The answer was, "No, no. We want to have a wider tax base." When they give concessions, they do not want to have a wider base. How do they justify this? I am also reminded, Sir, of the statements made during the by-elections by the Minister of Defence-designate then. I have to be extremely kind to him, Sir. Since he promoted me to a Major in the Army, probably because he had heard of my reputation when he came in. I have to restrain my comments, but I do wish to quote him. The Minister-designate said during the election campaign, that the former Member for Potong Pasir - Mr Ivan Baptist - I can call him by his name now, Sir - fought the bureaucracy while he (Mr Baptist) was an M.P. What the Minister of Defence forgot to mention was that Mr Ivan Baptist fought bureaucracy, and lost! Now he has taken over Potong Pasir! He added, "I can fight bureaucracy better because I know how it works." And he was the former Head of the bureaucracy! If bureaucracy is something that needs to be fought, it must be something evil. Therefore, this is the main theme of my discussion today, "justification of administrative blunders." I do not wish to go into ideological or philosophical arguments. Let me get down to a few real life examples.”
“I have just asked my colleague, the Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Defence (the Minister for Home Affairs would not tell me), how much the Ministry spends a year for the upkeep and maintenance of the Provost Dog Unit. He said, "It is a very expensive affair. It requires two NCOs to handle the dogs, and the dog food will probably cost about $3 a day for each dog." May I at this stage - before I allow myself to make further mistakes - say that I have no intention at all to compare our wives and children with dogs! But unfortunately, it is a good example to show how much we are worth, if we could only find out the amount of money spent on the two Dog Units. Of course, in the Police Force there are different grades or streaming - the more intelligent dogs would be the Narco dogs, the less intelligent ones would be the guard dogs. So how much money is spent on maintaining one dog per year? And we are expected to maintain our wives at $1,000 a year, $750 per child up to a maximum of two children. This scale has been there for years. No adjustment has been made so far. Ten or 15 years ago, I would imagine that an allowance of $500 as relief for maintenance of a child was more than enough. But in 15 years everything has changed. The consumer price index has gone up. The cost of living has gone up. Our children are still worth $500 each, and with a little generosity, a bargaining off, it has been increased to $750 per child only if we have two children. I do not know how they justify that. Is it a mistake? Is it a blunder? And here also we have a very good animal lover in the Member for Mountbatten who prompted the Minister to consider training the animals, apes, monkeys, and so on.”
“There are many mistakes - I would say they are quite genuine mistakes, if I may use the term very loosely, but, a mistake is a mistake. The Government has been brave enough to admit them, although not all, Sir. For example, several years ago, the Member for Punggol raised in this House the question of tax relief for aged parents. He was a very gallant man, Sir, to raise this question and taking on the then Minister for Finance. And true to his colours, the Minister stood in this House and replied to the hon. Member saying (Vol. 29 col. 85) that filial piety is a virtue in Asian society and so why should one be so mercenary as to ask for tax relief for parents? I thought it was a good argument. Fair enough. Bearing in mind my own training and my own cultural background, I thought that was a very good reply. However, the present Minister for Finance - I do not know whether it was out of his good heart, but I always believe he has one - agreed to grant a tax relief of $300 for the maintenance of parents. In other words, filial piety can be quantified - $300! The Minister's generosity did not stop there. A year later he increased it to $750. Now, we are not complaining about this, but it just goes to show that, where filial piety still remains a virtue in our society, we have, within a short period of a few years, two different approaches to the same problem. One said it was mercenary. The other said that the father was worth $750. If you employ a gardener, you have got to pay more, Sir. Then there is the question of tax relief for the wife and children.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is really encouraging to see you in the Chair. I promise I shall behave as well as if Mr Speaker is in the chair. Sir, I am afraid that this year's budget debate has to be an anti-climax in this House, as all the important issues have been efficiently, competently and adequately expounded over the TV forum. I wish to remind hon. Members that if they intend to propose any cuts in the vote for the Ministry of Culture on mass media, they will have to bear in mind the power of the mass media. It therefore leaves us, Members of this House today, to discuss only the more mundane issues and not high finance or economic theories. Of course, several Members have indeed impressed this House very much, not only with their delivery but also for the meat of their speeches. I am afraid therefore that I would have to join in this anti-climax. Although all the important issues have been disposed of by the effective replies and arguments put forth by the Senior Minister of State at the TV forum, all is not lost, however, because none of us have touched on the manpower expenditure. There are several points I wish to raise here which ought to be raised in the Committee of Supply but, because they occur so frequently, I feel that I might as well raise them now in the general debate. What I intend to discuss today is what I would call "justification of Government administrative blunders." If we were to look at the budget for manpower, $603 million will be spent on salaries and wages alone. With the frequent lapses in the lack of humanity in the various Ministries, it is timely for me today to strike a little chord of warning so that we will not lapse into the same behavioral patterns as in the colonial days.”
“I wish to single out the establishment of the Cultural Foundation, and I hope that with the establishment of this new set-up it should be able to cater for what the Ministry of Education has failed to do. So it is not a question of cancelling out. It is a question of complementing each other. There are many points which I wish to raise but since those hon. Members who were not prepared last week are now sufficiently prepared, I will relieve the House with just one last question. It seems that a Member of this House has been openly challenged by a Consumers' cooperative to explain his statement. This is a point which the new leaders must take note. They are liable to be challenged. This has nothing to do with the education problem. Perhaps we may hear a few words from the hon. Member for Whampoa to enlighten us as to how these brick-bats will affect the dignity of this House. He has been challenged to make the statement outside, implying that the Member may be indulging in falsehood in his statement in this House.”
“One very noticeable absence in the Addendum is the mention of the Ministry's effort to inculcate the so-called cultural values. Perhaps they stop the game of cancelling out, which I pointed out two years ago. It took them two years to realise that this is best left to the Ministry of Culture. But is that the policy? Should not the Ministry of Education at the same time inculcate the cultural values and the values of our own identity? There is completely no mention of this in the Addendum except that of Civics which applies to secondary schools. In primary schools, it is called Education for Living. Is it that the Ministry of Education suddenly realises their inadequacy and incompetence in handling the subject? Or is this aspect of education no longer important in our education system? There is no mention of it in the Addendum and I suppose the Ministry of Education will forthwith deal with the more pressing problems of first "settling down" themselves. Even today we find teachers receiving letters of transfer. Transfers were done in December. But up to this morning, teachers are still receiving letters of re-posting, with no prospect of that school getting a replacement. What has gone wrong? Is that the result of the streamlining? I cautioned hon. Members not to take on the Ministry of Education too severely. I am afraid I am guilty of acting against my own advice, but I am of the view that it ought to be brought up here in the hope that the Ministry will not come out with more last-minute rectification methods to correct the situation. How long will it go on to correct the situation? I asked this question two years ago: how long will this transition go? The Ministry of Culture has done exceedingly well over the last one year.”
“This is a very queer situation which I find it difficult to understand. If one were to look at the Addendum, it states that the long-term objective is to have all the pre-university classes in junior colleges, and only one junior college is to be built by 1982. How long is that "long-term" Sir? Is it between now and 1982 or is it between now and next year? Will just one more junior college be sufficient to meet the long-term objective? We need an indication as to how long is "long-term". There is one matter which I have discussed with some of my colleagues quite frequently. I refer to the Addendum which states that those less academically inclined pupils will be channelled to vocational training under the Revised Secondary Education System. Why must we attach the stigma to these pupils? Why cannot we say that these pupils are more vocationally inclined, instead of saying that they are less academically inclined? When we started technical education, it was quite an effort to launch it because parents were quite naturally resistant to technical education. The same applies to vocational education. This is a clear case of a lack of understanding of the ground. Another of the paragraphs in the Addendum stated very clearly that this is to prevent early specialisation, so that streaming will be done in Secondary III instead of Secondary II. The streaming is postponed by one year because they do not want early specialisation. But in the primary school, pupils are being streamed in Primary III. How do we compromise? On the one hand, it was stated that there should be no early specialisation, but on the other hand, specialisation or streaming is being done at the primary school level.”
“The time will come when there should be one standard type of school with English as the principal language, in fact, the pivot language, with the other languages as the second language. I accept that. That must be the system. It must be that way. If we are to progress, we need English, there is no quarrel about that. But if one were to retain the frame of mind as the hon. Member for Jalan Kayu, then I think we will not produce any more such Members. I am sad to say, particularly for those hon. Members who are Chinese educated and the Chinese school teachers, that we have to accept that the Chinese language can only be saved in an English school or, in future, in that standard type school. The enrolment, as we all can see, is in favour of the English school. This trend is irreversible. We accept that too. Therefore, there are more Chinese boys and girls studying Chinese in English schools than Chinese boys and girls studying Chinese in Chinese schools. For the same reason, there are more Malay boys and girls studying Malay, their mother tongue, in English schools, which becomes the second language, than Malay students in Malay schools. I think we all accept that. But what has been done to ensure that they have a sufficient command of their own mother tongue to lead them back into their own culture, so as to give them what the Prime Minister repeatedly emphasised, the cultural ballast, an identity of their own, of Singapore? This system is not there. There is no immersion for these students. What we understand from the Addendum, bilingualism simply means that if you are not good in English, then you are not bilingual; if you are very good in English but you cannot speak Malay or Mandarin, you are not bilingual.”
“One does not actually need to like a painting in order to give 100 marks, but for those who fail the English Language, although the total is well above the average, according to the existing policy, they will have to be retained. So the teachers have to add marks to them in what they call "the semestral assessment." If that is allowed to go on, it will throw the entire education system into complete confusion. I think I have spent enough time on Education. First, they moved in the experts. Next they moved in the task force, and none of the points raised in the Addendum is qualified by the statement that it has been cleared with the task force. Here the emphasis is on bilingualism, bilingual education. If one were to read through the entire Addendum on Education, you will invariably come to the conclusion that bilingualism means deficiency in the English language. So we have these immersion courses in the nine "super" schools. But it does not say that bilingualism means that one must be equally proficient or efficient in two languages. Why not CL2 in the English schools so that the students could be given the chance of taking immersion courses by being immersed in the Chinese language in a Chinese school? So how do you define proficiency in bilingualism? The Addendum states:- "Schemes to improve the English proficiency of pupils in non-English-stream secondary schools will be introduced in January 1979." Well and good. At this stage I think I need to state categorically that I support bilingual education, and I accept it painfully because of my educational background and I too, am addressing the House in my second language.”
“Not only I myself am flabbergasted, but I think the whole of Singapore is going round in circles. In fact, I was advised by some hon. Members not to touch on Education because it is so confusing. They say I may go round in circles; I may not know what I am talking about. I said, "That is all right. If I do not know what I am talking about, it is all right. But do the Ministry of Education know what they are doing or talking about?" So on that count, we are at par. I may not know what I am talking about. I have a strong feeling that the Ministry of Education also do not know what they are talking about or what they are doing either. It must be the case, Sir. Sometime ago there was a policy decision - no automatic promotion. Well and good. Principals and teachers dutifully and diligently implemented the policy. Suddenly they found out that if they were to follow this policy, many of these students would have to be channelled into the Basic Course. There would not be enough places in the Basic Course. So telephone calls from the Ministry of Education, "Don't fail them "unnecessarily". Try to push them up." The net result was that students were given as much as 30 to 40 marks to get themselves promoted so that they would not jam up the Basic Course. The whole examination was a farce. Either the criterion for no automatic promotion was wrong or the other policy must be grievously wrong. You cannot give marks just to promote a student. In borderline cases it was quite easy for the teachers to give additional marks for Art. Art is a very subjective subject.”
“And the B class had to take out 14, to put in another seven immersion students. These 14 had to go to C class, and the C class had to take out 21, to put in another seven immersion students; and it goes on. The time-table had to be changed, and the seating arrangement also had to be changed. This could have been done in December. But I do not know why it wasn't. Marks were available then. Perhaps all these things culminated in today's statement, "Administration to be streamlined". Then there was an announcement - not an announcement actually, but a briefing on the question of ECA. Now it is no longer counted as a Pre-University admission qualification. Then the Minister for Education had to make a speech to clarify that. A briefing is a briefing. A briefing is to explain policy in greater detail and yet they had to clarify the briefing. Those in charge of the briefing will have to attend an immersion course in English. I think there have been many important announcements. They affect all of us. And if they are that important, they ought to be discussed in detail; not in a day or two or a week or two. It must be over a period of months. If they are that important, and if sufficient thought was given to those announcements, they ought to be included in the Addendum. But I see none of them in the Addendum. Is it a last-minute change? Is it a last-minute addition? How much thought has been given to those announcements of the change in policy? There is one important question and it is this: have all these new policies been cleared with the task force? There is no mention of it. The task force may come up with something else, and they are going to change it again. Here we are going round the mulberry bush.”
“Assuming that Government Administration is a subject for the GCE "O" level examination, I would begin by giving the Ministry of Education 70 marks and above, i.e. P1. I have the grading system here and I got it only this morning from a school teacher. The Ministry started with 70 marks and above, P1. That is not too bad. Unfortunately, I have to deduct 25 marks from this grade when the Special Team of Government officers moved in. Something must be wrong. Deducting 25 marks from there, it will probably put the Ministry at P4 or P5. P5 is 50-54 marks. Now, when the task force moved in, I have to deduct another 20 marks. That will leave the Ministry at S8 with 35-39 marks. And with the implementation of all the so-called new policies in the last one month - Sir, I do not wish to go on because the Ministry might end up with a minus - I am afraid I have to announce that the Ministry of Education is not qualified to enter into the Pre-University. Having immersed themselves with problems for so many years - they either immerse or submerge - they have now emerged with what they believe are solutions. Let us see what happens to these solutions. I do not wish to be accused of being personal, but my son was completely flabbergasted. He came home one day and declared that he would lose his assistant monitor. Next, he said that for the first time he got the time-table on the second day of school, but now everything had changed because the immersion students were coming. What the school did was to put seven immersion students in one class. That means 47 students. So they had to remove seven students from that class in order to accommodate the seven immersion students. These seven students were relegated - a form of demotion - to the B class.”
“In fact, I consider any further discussion in this House to be a contribution - if they regard their suggestions as contributions - that is absolutely irrelevant. The message has been made very clear. In fact, I do also remember the hon. Senior Minister of State for Finance touched on this subject in a speech outside this House. Therefore, I feel that any further deliberation on this subject from a person less competent would be a completely useless exercise. If we were to follow closely the Member for Jalan Kayu, with his bilingual ability, it invariably leads us to the question of how we train our future generation leaders. I would not start at a point when they become Members of Parliament. I start at a point when they begin their first year of formal education, in Primary 1. Now we have pre-primary. I do not know, but I think I ought to make an appeal to this House - that hon. Members should forthwith cease criticising the Ministry of Education. They would be causing more harm to themselves and their children than they realise. The more they criticise the Ministry of Education, the more hasty decisions and announcements will result. In the last one month, Sir, we have got a series of announcements of education changes; even today, we see the headline "Streamlining of the Ministry of Education". If I were a school teacher or a parent, I would ask big questions. They are not so sure themselves - administration required to be streamlined; syllabus required to be changed, and changing. Where do we go from here? This reminds me of what we used to talk about in the Army: "Reference to the last cancellation in the last order, please note that the cancellation is now cancelled." Unfortunately, Government Administration is a subject for study in the university.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, before I submitted to your guillotine last Friday, I was at the point of leading my discussion towards one of the most important points laid down in the Presidential speech, and that is the question of leadership of the Government, in particular, the future leadership. I quoted the example of the hon. Member for Jalan Kayu. He was not in this House at that time. To be fair to him, perhaps I may repeat here. I have always looked upon the Member for Jalan Kayu with great respect in the past, so also in the present and in the future. I said that he spoke not in his first language, Sir, but in his second language, English. Despite that, the eloquence in his second language is something that we all, at least I myself, hope to emulate. In his speech there was a very clear display of his thinking, his philosophy, and of his background training in the Chinese stream. It is perhaps because of that that he son of stopped short at the stage when he mentioned new leaders. The weekend break, Sir, has been a blessing in disguise for me because if I were to go on discussing the subject, I might regret it today for I might be looked upon as being foolish. I have good reason to think in this way, Sir, because last Friday a few Members touched on the very same question of second generation leadership, and from no less appropriate, qualified, or competent a person than the Member for Bukit Merah. Even my neighbour, the Member for Leng Kee, spoke on this subject. It is very gratifying and consoling for many of us to know that the qualities, the requirements, and the capacity expected of the new leadership have been laid down. So there is no need for us to worry.”
“Here is a man, Sir, educated in Chinese, and listening to his diction, syntax and eloquence in English, we find that his speech is heavily filled with traditional and typical of the philosophical thinking of a Chinese educated man, a very smooth blending of the two worlds, two languages, two philosophies, two thoughts. We find that in the Member for Jalan Kayu. Perhaps it is because of his background and his training that he stops short at the mention of new leaders and new blood. In fact, he was almost doing the same thing as the Prime Minister did for induction. I thought he would have gone further. But no. His background, his education, his own philosophy prevented him from doing so, and he stopped short there. I thought he has got plenty on his mind. Here is a man without the benefit of the Addendum on the Ministry of Education, stood up in this House, spoke in eloquent English with perfect fluency. 4.30 p.m. May I make it easier for you, Sir? I have just heard the bell. [Laughter].”
“I am sorry, Sir. I am just testing your patience because the Prime Minister frequently has been guilty of this privilege of switching languages. Well, he is the Prime Minister and I am not. That is the difference. I have to conform to the Standing Orders. We have listened to the speeches, started by the hon. Member for Serangoon Gardens, a very farsighted speech, not too mundane as far as the people in Singapore are concerned. It is not down to earth. But he gave us high-powered binoculars to scan the horizon in South-east Asia. In moving the Motion - a very eloquent speaker and his points were well taken - he has quite correctly assessed the situation and I hope our people will not take a statement like that on foreign affairs as something irrelevant. As an island Republic we are subject to foreign influence whether we like it or not, and it is about time that we should be alive to all the happenings in the world - at least in this part of the world. I will have to appeal to the Member for Serangoon Gardens and later on to the Member for Jalan Kayu because I have to mention their names but not with the same frame of mind as I have mentioned those earlier. The Member for Jalan Kayu gave us a good lesson. He is a very eloquent speaker. He spoke in English if I remember, and I want to mention him because this will lead to my points. I have got with me the Addendum on the Ministry of Education. As I said, I see some volcanic dust here, I will try to remove them.”
“Sir, having gone through this, I think we owe all these Members our thanks. We owe them for having been here. I know that one of those departing Members is on leave. But all of them in this House spoke, except Mr Yong. I am sorry. I cannot go on breaching the Standing Orders at your expense, Sir. I know you have been very kind to me today. The Member for Geylang West is really tired. Having said all that, Sir, I only hope that when the time comes for me to say farewell to this House, I can do so with the same courage as the Member for Telok Blangah and with his never-say-die humour and eloquence in this House. I only hope I can do half as well. I know their constituents will miss them. If they were here, they would raise a protest over the departure of those Members I have mentioned. I said earlier, Sir - I am sorry, this is my Malay speech. Ini untok upachara menentukan Qiblat untok Masjid Ansar.”
“You did not raise it. Yes, we had a discussion on that. Reynaud's phenomenon was not raised for five years, but last year the Member did.”
“I have promised that we shall continue to be the best of pals, even outside this House. I take note of the Member's comments earlier, his concern for the safety and health of the worker. There is only one apology I owe the Member, and that is at times I might have sort of put a mist or camouflaged his criticism by the nature of my answers thereby reducing the severity of his criticism. That was all to my debating advantage. But I never doubted for one moment that the Member was serious on every point he raised. I remember the Member raised the problem of Reynaud's phenomenon. Sir, may I just recap this for the House? People who use pneumatic drills to dig up roads, after some time their fingers may turn blue and may be trembling, this is called Reynaud's phenomenon. I am so sorry I have to come out with this technical term today, after six years of listening to the Member's technical terms. I found it exceedingly difficult to follow his medical knowledge. But unfortunately Reynaud's phenomenon cannot be raised in this House, not for fear of a no-answer from the Government Bench but because if he did, I would have to refer him to the House of Commons! Reynaud's phenomenon does not occur in tropical countries. It occurs only to people in the temperate countries.”
“The Minister for Home Affairs has suggested that I take his role. I will not be able to do so, because no man can speak like P. Govindaswamy. No man can speak like him. He knew his ground. I know who were the people close to him, giving him points, and he refined them in his thoughts, but not necessarily in the best of English Language. He stood up in this House, pointed his finger at the Government Bench, and I thought the Minister for National Development enjoyed debating with him very, very much. [Laughter]. Gentlemen, we now laugh but when we think what an honourable man the MP for Anson was, we are all proud of him. As for the Member for Sembawang, I have shared many jokes with him, at times at his expense, at times at the expense of others. We all know his gastronomic preference. We all know his movements. We all know that he went through every Budget Statement Ministry by Ministry. Once I told him that at the end of every Budget session, he always emerged a rich man, by the number of items he had cut by $10 and $100, and after that withdrawing them. I thought he contributed to this House very well. The Member for Nee Soon was a little reserved in his debate in this House. It may be because he was dealing with foreign affairs. He was more interested in local affairs. I cannot go on giving bouquets, neither do I wish to say anything to hurt the feelings of people. But if I have missed out some good points of certain Members I have mentioned -”
“When I reached my office, the office attendant who was waiting for me downstairs said, "Mr Ng Yeow Chong called from the hospital. He wants you to go there quickly." I rushed back to the car, wet, and reached the hospital. He could not see a thing as both his eyes were patched up. We all knew he had an eye ailment, poor in sight. I leak out no secret, Sir. The Prime Minister said that in his statement. He asked for my hand. "Let me hold your hand." He spoke to me. I knew he was crying, the cry of a brave man, not a coward. He asked me whether he should go to Australia for treatment. I said, "I can't tell you, but if the doctor says so, you should go." He refused. He spoke to his wife. That was on Tuesday. On Thursday, he left Singapore because we did everything in one day, on Wednesday. We got his passport and his ticket ready. The Prime Minister was also aware of this and was very sad. Mr Ng wanted no pity. He wanted no sympathy. What he wanted was understanding, and he got it. In spite of his handicap upon his return, he continued to work, continued to be in good spirit, continued to be as vigorous, at least in his thinking, not necessarily in his movement. Perhaps a little bit slower in his gait, in his walk, but not in his thinking. He continued to be vigorous. So here is a man whom I today unreservedly wish to place on record my respect for him. As for the Member for Anson, he is more dear to my heart, and the Minister for Home Affairs knows why. I can speak a little bit of his lingo, heavily adulterated, at times misunderstood. I must confess, Sir, that I had been provoking him at every Budget session to attack the Minister for Home Affairs. He did. If you read the Hansard, you will find that this House was richer with him around.”
“Members here who had gone through that phase will remember those days. I remember on one occasion at the Victoria Theatre, I had to organise a meeting of the key people in the various constituencies, mainly the Chairmen of the CCC and other community leaders, including leaders of civic organisations. Under those circumstances the organisation was, of course, not at its best. I was young then, a little panicky, a little bit harsh in my actions, and Mr Yong Nyuk Lin chided me. I am not ashamed to reveal this, Sir. He did me a whole world of good. He chided me. I will remember him. I still remember his face. But after the function was over, he spoke to me. He understood how I felt. He said, "We have got to do things the proper way. Do not panic. We know we have got problems. But let's cool our minds. We will pull through." We did pull through, Sir. We did, or we would not be here today. I mention this incident particularly for a man who will be leaving us, but his image and his wisdom will never leave our minds, at least not mine. That was Mr Yong Nyuk Lin. We remain the best of friends. We lose him. He told me he was old, about time to go and in good spirit. Mr Ng Yeow Chong, the Member for Mountbatten, I first knew him as a cadre. He helped Mr Kenny Byrne, the former Member for Crawford. I was down at the ground with him helping the Minister for Foreign Affairs, and the Minister for Health with whom at times I had a tussle because when he talks about productivity and I talk about productivity, we seem to speak on the same subject but meaning differently. And I knew the Member for Mountbatten for many years. One day he called me in my office. It was raining heavily and I was in Parliament.”
“Perhaps on Monday, although I am not giving notice, Sir, I might be able to fire just a small cracker. But, Sir, while I stand and speak here. I notice the very noticeable absence of a few Members on the Front Bench on the other side. The Member for Geylang West has been more than a Minister to me. He guided me. His cheerfulness and strong sense of humour have shaped my personality. I think it is only fair that some Members should stand up today and say a few words for those who are leaving us. Maybe this is the reason why the House has been a little bit quiet in all these days of our debate. It is because we spoke - and I hope I speak the mind of all hon. Members when I say that - we have spoken with a heavy heart. I had a chat with the hon. Member for Geylang West two days ago. Permit me, Sir, for breaching the Standing Orders if I call him Mr Yong Nyuk Lin. Even then I could sense the intense feelings in him, not because he is leaving this House but because he was looking back on what we had done. I may be breaching a gentleman's etiquette if I mention my private conversation with him, but I feel it is worthwhile for all of us to listen to it. He gave of his best. He took the worst criticism, including my own at one time. I disagreed with him in some of his policies, but not his personal self and the way he has been treating us. I remember how we went through difficult days. We went through two riots. I had the unpleasant task of organising tours to the constituencies. We toured 51 constituencies in four days. We had to meet the Citizens' Consultative Committee members and the management committee members which were not fully functioning at that time. We had to set up goodwill committees. We had to get down to the ground to talk to the people.”
“The Prime Minister gave a citation on each and every Member here at the induction of the 11 new Members - new blood, and for their benefit, and whom the Member for Potong Pasir has described, they are not totally deprived of grey matter. Some of them have crossed the Floor and joined us here - some more visibly than others! (You know what I mean, Sir). This year we have the Member for Potong Pasir also giving us his citation of the performance of a good number of hon. Members. I am glad to be included; so are those he mentioned earlier. We have the same nostalgia. I think the hon. Member for Potong Pasir has done exceedingly well. I have said that he spoke with honesty, sincerity and frankness. Even today, Sir, he spoke with his usual eloquence, flair and flamboyance. We know what his heart is. We know his feelings. But he did not let us down except in the last few moments, I noticed when I quickly changed my glasses to look at him, that perhaps his eyes were a little wet. Apart from the Member for Moulmein and a good number of others I can also claim to know the Member for Potong Pasir very well. I spoke to him only two nights ago. You will have to pay the Parliament servants for overtime work because we stayed back very late, Mr Speaker, Sir. Please approve it. I know the Member's problems. It is sad for the people of Potong Pasir to lose the good services of this man. I cannot go on, as the Prime Minister did last year on what the Member for Potong Pasir has just done, naming hon. Members for fear of being invidious. But I think I need to mention one or two other names, Sir, because all of us had stuck together even when our minds were engrossed in state affairs. Of course, the reporters complained that this year's debate was devoid of fire and pyrotechnics.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not easily caught tongue-tied, but after listening to the speech by the hon. Member for Potong Pasir I rise with a very heavy heart to address this House. Permit me to go through the formalities by saying that I also rise to associate myself with the sentiments of all Members here in thanking the President for the speech he delivered on behalf of the Government at the opening of Parliament on 26th December last. Subjects dear to my heart may be too near the volcano. You have heard me for several years - I seldom mince my words. But I believe this is what a Member of Parliament should be. In this respect, I give my full respect to the Member for Potong Pasir. In his six years in this House (he has given us the exact number of months and days) we have enjoyed his debate. He spoke with all sincerity, honesty, fairness, except to me, once in a while when he found it extremely delightful to throw one or two brick-bats at me. I assure the Member for Potong Pasir, Mr Speaker, Sir, that I too enjoyed that very much. Last year, at the opening of the First Session, the Prime Minister spoke, against all Standing Orders, for 3 hours and 36 minutes, The Member for Potong Pasir threatened in the Members' Room, chaired by 'Mr Speaker' of the Members' Room, the Hon. Minister for Home Affairs, that he would speak here for 3 hours and 37 minutes. He was quite prepared to take you on, Sir, on Standing Orders, because he wanted to quote from Hansard, but he chose not to do so. He wanted to leave behind a lasting, lovable impression of the Member for Potong Pasir. We will all have him in our minds.”
“Sir, I am not competent to comment on the competence of the Attorney-General's Chambers. Question put, and agreed to. Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the clause be read a Second time." Sir, earlier on, Members negatived clause 25. Under this new clause, the provisions of clause 25 as negatived earlier, have been included in this new clause with slight modifications. Sir, the intention is to rectify a drafting oversight so as to streamline the legislation.”
“Sir, I beg to move, In page 12, after line 11, to insert - '(b) by deleting the word "workroom" appearing in the first line of subsection (3) thereof and substituting therefor the word "workplace";'. Sir, the intention of this amendment is to streamline the two amendments as listed in clause 16 (a) and (b). It appears to be a minor drafting oversight. Amendment agreed to.”
“Sir, may I seek your consent and the general assent of Members to move an amendment to this clause?”
“Sir, we are aware of the "little contribution" from the NTUC. We will seek that little contribution in future. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Mr Fong Sip Chee] Bill considered in the Committee. [Mr Speaker in the Chair] 3.52 p.m. Clauses 1 to 15 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 16 -”
“Sir, I am most happy to give the assurance. In fact, I wish to inform the Member that we are constantly monitoring the situation. Hon. Members may wish to know that the suggestions, observations and other utterances in every sitting of Parliament are referred to the departments concerned to take note of. The suggestions that are found feasible, as I said, have been incorporated in this amendment Bill. I do not think we would deviate from our usual diligence on this matter.”
“Particularly, he observed that in the budget provision this year there is a reduction in the number of staff in the Factory Inspectorate. Sir, there is a reduction of only one staff. It is due to the abolition of a supernumerary post. As I stated in the Budget debate, since 1975 there has been an increase in staff from 36 to 55. I also stated that the Inspectorate has been able to conduct its activities quite well although it had to stretch its staff to the limit. Of course, I would welcome more staff for the Factory Inspectorate. But we must have effective legislation to back them up. Hence this amendment Bill to provide more effective enforcement of the various provisions and to give the staff reasonable powers to enable them to carry out their work. I assure the House that the reduction of one staff would not impair or impede the enforcement work of the Inspectorate. Certainly, Sir, this Bill will not involve the Government in extra financial expenditure. It is only meant to tighten up and streamline certain provisions with a few amendments to provide better coverage. Sir, I hope that my explanation will satisfy the Members.”
“The Member has also raised certain general principles and I am grateful for his observations. It is good to have general principles. But these alone are not enough. If there are certain aspects which are feasible and practicable, and we think we can deal with them more effectively, they should be spelt out clearly in the Bill. Members are aware that the Minister has the power to make regulations and if there is no material change in the spirit of the law, regulations can be made under section 61 of the Act to regulate certain processes or even to prescribe certain standards. I suppose that covers the point raised. The Member raised the question about work rooms and work places. Sir, in fact, I intend to seek your consent and the general assent of Members to make an amendment to clause 16 when we come to the Committee stage. Members will note that clause 10 says: "All places of work, floors, steps, stairs, passages, gangways and means of access shall -". If we follow the description given, such as floors, steps, stairs, etc., then these descriptions are necessary to define workplaces. In the construction industry particularly, it is very difficult to define the place of work. Because on the way to a workplace on a certain floor in a construction site, very often we find that the access to the place of work is so hazardous due to poor housekeeping. Therefore, we have to specify what we mean by "place of work". Hence clause 10 which is an amendment to section 33 of the Act. Sir, I have the privilege of discussing with the Member for Jalan Kayu outside the House very frequently and have benefited from his wisdom. He raised a pertinent point. He is concerned about whether the Ministry is effective in its enforcement work.”
“Serious offences will be taken to court and the court will be asked to decide on the matter. But in our working experience we have found that it is highly impossible for us to bring each and every case to the court. The offence may be a minor one involving technical details and the fine may come to a very small sum. But the Member for Jalan Kayu will perhaps appreciate that, with the manpower that we have, if we were to involve our inspectors, most of whom are engineers or technical officers, in the preparation of court cases and attending court in addition to their time spent on investigations, interviewing witnesses and so on and, in cases of fatal accidents, having to attend the Coroner's inquiry, a lot of their time will be committed in these proceedings. We, therefore, feel that it is necessary to include this amendment to give the Chief Inspector powers to compound minor offences. The Member for Potong Pasir may have doubts as to the intelligent application of this clause because the Chief Inspector might abuse his powers and compound each and every offence even though it is of a serious nature. I assure the Member that this is not the intention. It is certainly not the spirit of this amendment. We shall see to it through administrative means that each case will be accorded a fair treatment, whether it should be a court case or it should be compounded. In the absence of this power to compound, we will either have to let the employer off because of a lack of opportunity to bring the case to court through a shortage of staff or we will have to bring every case to court. Both situations are not acceptable. I think we have found a good solution by providing this power to compound.”
“With technological advances and new devices being discovered in the protection of workers, some of the devices are built into certain machinery, such as the electronic eye where the machine will automatically shut down in case of a sudden irregularity, or that a worker will not be able to activate or operate a particular machine unless he uses both hands. These devices will eliminate the possibility of negligence or carelessness by putting one hand in the wrong place while the other hand is activating the machine. Such devices are available. Many of them have been incorporated in the machinery. Without the amendment as provided for in the Bill now, these effective alternative safety devices will be illegal. We ought to give these devices a legal standing where such effective safety devices have been incorporated in the machinery. With that explanation, I hope the Member will understand the spirit behind these two particular clauses. On the question of putting up notices in the four official languages, I do not think we should legislate the obvious. The four official languages in Singapore are well known. They are Chinese, Malay, Tamil and English. I do not think we need to specify in the Bill the language to be used because the employer should understand it. If an employer employs Tamil workers and he puts up a notice in Chinese it is a clear case of ignorance on his part. We have sufficient powers under the law to compel an employer to do what is right and proper. We do not need to stipulate exactly what language should be used. Be it Italian or Russian. The new section 88A in clause 29 of the Bill gives the Chief Inspector power to compound offences. Sir, this amendment is not intended to give the Chief Inspector of Factories unlimited powers to compound any offence.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I must thank both Members for their observations. May I first deal with the Member for Potong Pasir. He has made some relevant observations, but I should like to enlighten him as to the spirit and reasons behind the amendments. The Member for Potong Pasir has raised doubts, in clauses 4 and 5, as to whether the Ministry intends to exempt certain employers from their liability by providing exemption in another clause if other means of safety apparatus are available in places where it is not possible to implement the regulations. In our working experience we have discovered that in certain workplaces the working environment is peculiar - in that ventilation is not at all possible. So if we were to insist upon the observance of section 14 of the principal Act, most employers would be committing a technical offence. In the absence of the provisions as stipulated in the principal Act, they have instituted equally effective safeguards such as the provision of breathing apparatus, masks and so on, which are equally effective in preventing accidents. This amendment is to give the Ministry the same amount of leeway which the employers now enjoy, and it enables us to be more enlightened in our enforcement. If an employer can provide equally effective safeguards to the workers when the original provisions cannot be complied with due to a peculiar situation, then we should appreciate the employer's problem and not impede the management of the factories, so long as the welfare and health of the workers are safeguarded. It is in this spirit that clauses 4 and 5 have been included in the Bill. May I touch lightly on clause 5(b)? The principal Act provides for the safeguards regarding moving parts - flywheels and other moving machinery where protection is needed.”
“Further, he is frequently helpless in trying to establish the identities of persons whom he believes to be able to help in the investigation. With the endorsement of the House on this Bill, I trust that our workers will enjoy a safer and healthier working environment. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 3.22 p.m.”
“The preparation for legal proceedings has in the past immobilised a good number of my officers who should be on the field undertaking enforcement work. Hence, it is proposed in clause 29 to make provision to empower the Chief Inspector of Factories to compound minor offences under the Act by accepting from the person reasonably suspected of committing an offence a sum of money not exceeding $200. Existing provisions in the principal Act in relation to accident investigation have been found to be inadequate. This hampers proper investigation. Two amendments are therefore introduced to give the Factory Inspectorate the necessary power to overcome this handicap. Clause 15 of the Bill intends to vest in the Chief Inspector additional powers to prohibit any alteration or addition to the site of any fatal accident or to any machinery, equipment, plant or articles which may have contributed to the cause of the fatal accident, without his prior consent. Similar powers have been given to the Chief Inspector of Factories under the present Act for dangerous occurrence. This clause extends the power to cover fatal accidents. This additional power will prevent wilful tampering of evidence which can frustrate investigations. Clause 24 of the Bill grants additional powers to the Inspector of Factories to seize any article found in the factory for purposes of conducting an investigation or inquiry. It also provides the Inspectors with the power to require any person found in the factory to produce his identity card so as to establish his identity. These powers are not excessive but are necessary and reasonable if proper investigations are to be conducted. Hitherto, the investigating officer has to depend on the police to effect any seizure of articles.”
“This has resulted in poor documentation of such records which frustrates safety management and impedes enforcement. To rectify this defect, clause 11 is introduced to amend section 34 requiring records of such tests to be kept. Further, clause 12 of the Bill which amends section 35 of the Act introduces a new requirement for plants, tanks or vessels which have previously contained explosives or inflammable substances to be inspected before hot work is allowed to be carried out. Stringent adherence to this procedure by Safety Personnel in the factories will certainly ensure the elimination of the presence of explosive or inflammable substances which can cause fire and explosions. The Bill also includes amendments providing for better observance of safety standards. Under the present Act, the maximum penalty for infringements of safety provisions which are likely to cause death or bodily injury to any person and other offences for which no expressed penalty has been provided for is a $2,000 fine or an imprisonment not exceeding three months, or both. The seriousness of infringements of this nature need not be further emphasised. The present penalties are in our view not sufficiently adequate to deter persons from committing such infringements. Clause 26, therefore, seeks to amend section 82 of the principal Act by providing for enhanced penalties of a maximum fine of $10,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or both. As can be seen from the statistics provided to hon. Members in this and previous Sittings, minor accidents do not seem to have abated. They cannot obviously be treated lightly and appropriate action must be taken. However, it is a time-consuming exercise to bring every case before the court.”
“This new provision will minimise the danger of injury to which the workers are exposed or to more nasty consequences as a result of machinery or plant breaking down. Clause 8 of the Bill which amends section 28 of the principal Act requires notices to be put up instructing workers in the safe operation of a machine or process which is likely to cause bodily injury. With the introduction of this new provision, neither the worker, the safety personnel or supervisor, nor the employer can plead ignorance, a common tactic frequently employed when accidents occur. It will facilitate more effective and speedier inspection by the enforcement officers. Clause 20 of the Bill seeks to amend section 61 of the principal Act by empowering the Minister to make regulations to prescribe the qualifications and training of persons who are employed at any machine or plant. This is an important provision, particularly for construction worksites where accidents involving mobile cranes, excavators and bulldozers are caused mainly by operators who are not sufficiently trained in the handling of such heavy mobile machinery and plant. Another area where similar upgrading of safety measures is most expedient is the shipbuilding and repairing industry, where working in confined spaces and in explosive or inflammable environment is common. Hon. Members are well aware that deficiency of oxygen is a hazard ever-present in confined spaces, particularly where a number of workers are deployed in one confined space, and if the oxygen depletion process is quickened it may result in multiple fatalities. While the existing Act requires a responsible person to test and certify that a confined space is safe before allowing workers to work in it, the tester is not required to keep records of such tests.”
“There is the pain, misery and anguish of the worker and his family in every accident. We must avoid this human suffering especially as they are caused by accidents which often need not have happened at all. The safety and health situation in industrial establishments should be further improved. The administration of the Factories Act since its enactment in 1973 shows that the law needs to be further strengthened to meet with the increasing sophistication in our technological advancement and it is for this purpose that this Amendment Bill is before the House. The proposed Amendments seek to provide for safer working conditions as well as better enforcement of the Factories Act to ensure that its provisions are complied with. The proposed amendments to the Factories Act are described in the Explanatory Statement to the Bill. I should like, however, to highlight some of the more salient features. Sir, our experience shows that the knowledge in safety standards in the use and operation of machinery is found to be wanting. Accident statistics in the past two years have shown that there were more than 2,000 accidents involving the use of machinery. Analysis made on the causes of these accidents revealed a combination of several factors - lack of awareness on the part of the workers on the danger associated with the machinery they handle, poor maintenance of machinery and the absence of adequate training to provide the operators with a thorough knowledge of the machines' peculiarities or potential hazards. To meet with this situation, a number of amendments have been proposed. Clause 7 of the Bill which amends section 24 proVides for the proper maintenance of machinery and plant installed in factories.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Hon. Members will recall that the House in February 1973 passed the Bill which was enacted as the Factories Act 1973. Introduced by the Government then as a result of its concern over the trend of the increasing number of industrial accidents, the Act sought to improve safety, health and welfare provisions as well as to ensure a more stringent observance of safety standards. Sir, in the five years since the House dealt with the matter, the industrial safety situation has improved. It is gratifying to note that hon. Members have also been as vocal as they are concerned with the well-being of our workers as evidenced by the lively discussions in this House in the Budget debates over the years. Some of their pertinent observations and suggestions which the Minister found to be feasible have also been incorporated in this Amendment Bill. Based on the criteria used by the American National Standards Institute, the accident frequency and severity rates in 1973 were 6.8 accidents per million man-hours worked and 1,282 man-days lost per million man-hours worked. In 1977, the accident frequency and severity rates recorded a decline to 5.3 and 501 respectively. In absolute numbers, however, there were in 1973, 2,910 industrial accidents involving 73 fatalities as compared to 4,575 accidents with 57 fatalities in 1977. Nevertheless, the number of industrial accidents remains high. It is a matter of continuing concern on the part of the Government. The economic cost of these accidents is large. With manpower as our only dependable resource, we cannot afford to see our workers maimed or killed. More importantly, the social cost is high and cannot be measured by plain statistics.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Anson said "you". I hope he was not referring to the Chair!”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have just a small point to make. The Member for Kim Seng was referring to Chai Chee constituency when he talked about beautification. I think the word "luxury" was used. Sir, I can assure the House that it is not a luxury. We cannot afford it. It is just a modest programme to inculcate in the residents the spirit of self-help, instead of demanding too much from the Government all the time. In this case, it is the HDB. That was the spirit and still is the spirit of the whole project. Unfortunately it has not been approved by the Housing Board as yet. I hope it will be approved. We are not trying to show off anything. But I believe the people can be motivated in this spirit of neighbourliness and self-help. There are a lot of things we can do ourselves without making too much demand on the Government. If I may be allowed to touch on the question of maintenance of HDB flats. I have just written a strongly worded letter of complaint to the Area Office. It seems that there is no control over the workers employed for the normal maintenance work. There were cases of contract workers trying to outrage the modesty of female occupants. The letter has just gone to the Area Office this morning. I hope the Minister will look into this matter.”
“In implementing the disabled resettlement scheme, very close liaison is main- tained with the various government agencies, namely, the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Education, the Social Welfare Department and other voluntary organisations where they have the training establishments. The prospective employers too in this case ensure that the training given to the disabled person would enable him or her to be gainfully employed on completion of the training. The Employment Service is aware of the establishment of a rehabilitation centre by the NTUC and we welcome this as it is a complementary measure to our efforts.”
“In addition, the young school leavers are given guidance under the Junior Trainee Scheme to take up jobs in industries. Furthermore, the Employment Service actively counsels the registrants to consider job alternatives to those originally requested by them. In 1977, there were 332 disabled persons registered with the Employment Service for employment assistance. These are separate from the industrially disabled persons which I have touched on earlier. During the year, a total of 123 disabled registrants were directly placed in employment without the need for training; 40 were successfully placed after an initial training period and 24 are still undergoing training under the Disablement Resettlement Scheme. These statistics show that the placement of disabled persons registered for employment assistance with the Service has been fairly successful, considering the general reluctance of employers in engaging disabled persons and the difficulties in assessing their vocational abilities. The Employment Service does not have training facilities for the disabled. However, the organisers have especially designed training programmes for disabled persons whose disability resulted from road accidents and so on, diseases or congenital defects within the employable age group. The objective of the scheme is to assist in the employment of disabled persons to gain economic independence through on-the-job training which is quite similar to apprenticeships in the light industrial establishments or formal commercial training in private, commercial or secretarial schools. A disabled trainee is provided with financial aid and other supportive assistance during the period of training.”
“Sir, the main problem facing the Employment Service is that there is a scarcity of jobs of the registrants' choice, which is usually soft and cosy indoor jobs with good pay. Although there are large numbers of vacancies in the building construction, shipbuilding and repairing sectors, they remain unfilled because our registrants either do not possess the required qualifications or skills or are reluctant to take up these occupations. The Employment Service experiences difficulties in placing the following categories of registrants: (1) The middle-aged female registrants who insist on a specific job in a specific establishment. For example, post of school servant in a particular school or a health servant's job in a particular hospital; (2) Young school leavers who are interested only in white collar jobs with good pay and good working conditions; and (3) Registrants with working experience who have high expectations and insist on being paid salaries comparable to what they were drawing in their last jobs. The choosiness of the registrants and the difficulties experienced by employers in getting workers create an undesirable situation and leads employers to opt for the easier alternative, i.e. recruitment of foreign workers who are prepared to fill the vacancies which our workers shun. The reason for our workers opting for certain jobs is rather obvious. They are essentially a secondary worker in the family and therefore their parents can provide them with subsistence while they remain unemployed or while they are actively seeking jobs. One of the measures aimed at correcting the undesirable attitude of our youths towards blue collar occupations is to promote vocational training.”
“The first attempt was not approved by the Treasury. We hope to succeed this time. Sir, I just want to give some facts. There are about 350 establishments in Singapore using one or more of the various types of carcinogenic substances with an estimated 2,500 persons exposed to the risk. I think a general statement will suffice. To save time, I do not propose to classify them under the various headings. I have the information here anyway. The control is there and if an occupational cancer prevention programme can be fully implemented, it will certainly help the situation. The activities of this programme will involve the following: (a) Drawing up the codes of practice as a guide to industries and health education of the workers and management against the hazards; (b) Environmental monitoring and control of work places with carcinogenic hazards: (c) Medical surveillance of workers and those exposed to these hazards; and (d) The setting up of an informal occupational cancer registry. The programme is very detailed. We are also getting examples from overseas. But it suffices to note that section 54 (4) of the Factories Act, 1973, provides that: The occupier of a factory shall place warning notices in places where there are special risks to which the persons employed are exposed and the precautions to be taken to obviate such risks.' There are sufficient powers under the Factories Act for us to maintain this surveillance. With our other promotional campaigns, educational activities and training courses, we should be able to check the situation.”