Hansard, 1987-01-26

Under the provisions of clause 2(d) of Article 46 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, the following Members have been granted permission to be or to remain absent from sittings of Parliament (or any Committee of Parliament to which they have been appointed) for the periods stated:- Mr Ho Kah Leong (Jurong), Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Communications and Information - from 15th to 20th December, 1986. Mr Lee Yock Suan (Cheng San), Minister for Labour - from 17th to 19th December, 1986. Dr Lee Boon Yang (Jalan Besar), Minister of State, Ministry of National Development and Ministry of Home Affairs - from 17th to 19th December, 1986. Mr Leong Horn Kee (Thomson) - from 18th to 27th December, 1986. Maj Fong Sip Chee (Kampong Chai Chee) - from 18th December, 1986 to 10th January, 1987. Mr Yeo Toon Chia (Ang Mo Kio) - from 22nd to 30th December, 1986. Mr S. Chandra Das (Chong Boon) - from 23rd to 31st December, 1986 and from 28th January to 4th February, 1987. Dr Ho Tat Kin (Boon Teck) - from 24th December, 1986 to 5th January, 1987 and from 25th to 31st January, 1987. Dr Tay Eng Soon, PBM (River Valley), Minister of State, Ministry of Education - from 26th to 28th December, 1986. Dr Wong Kwei Cheong, PBM (Cairnhill) - from 26th to 28th December, 1986. Mr Ong Teng Cheong (Kim Keat), Second Deputy Prime Minister - from 26th to 31st December, 1986. Dr Koh Lam Son (Telok Blangah) - from 28th December, 1986 to 1st January, 1987 and from 29th January to 4th February, 1987. Mr Tang See Chim (Chua Chu Kang) - from 5th to 9th January, 1987. Mr Chiam See Tong (Potong Pasir) - from 7th to 15th January, 1987. Encik Othman bin Haron Eusofe (Geylang Serai) - from 12th to 18th January, 1987. Mr Jek Yeun Thong (Queenstown) - from 12th to 30th January, 1987. Dr Dixie Tan (Ulu Pandan) - from 23rd to 24th January, 1987. Dr Augustine H.H. Tan (Whampoa) - from 23rd to 30th January, 1987. Dr Yeoh Ghim Seng (Joo Chiat), Speaker - from 26th January to 6th February, 1987. Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam (Fengshan) - from 27th January to 1st February, 1987. Mr Lim Chee Onn (Bukit Merah) - from 3rd to 14th February, 1987. TAN SOO KHOON Deputy Speaker Parliament of Singapore

The following Bills were assented to by the President of the Republic of Singapore on the dates stated: 13th December, 1986 Income Tax (Amendment) Bill. 14th January, 1987 Statutes (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill. TAN SOO KHOON Deputy Speaker Parliament of Singapore The House being met, the Clerk at the Table informed the House of the absence of Mr Speaker from this day's Sitting. Whereupon Mr Deputy Speaker proceeded to the Table and took the Chair, pursuant to the Standing Order.

asked the Prime Minister whether the former Minister for National Development was probed by the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau; and, if so, what was the reason.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the question has been answered at the Coroner's inquest into Mr Teh's death on 20th of this month.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, now that Mr Teh has passed away, can the 1DPM tell us whether the two cases for which the late Mr Teh was investigated are now closed and, if not, what further action is being taken?

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Prime Minister will be making a statement on this particular subject after Question Time. So I suggest the hon. Member raise the question later.

Sir, why was the Government silent or did not make an announcement during the period from 20th November to 19th January?

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I suggest the Member for Potong Pasir raise the subject with the Prime Minister later on. He will be making a statement. So there will be ample time for questions after he has made the statement.

asked the Minister for National Development what are the development plans for the vacant lot adjacent to the Housing and Development Board flats at Upper East Coast Road Estate bounded by Bedok South Road, Bedok South Avenue 3 and Upper East Coast Road.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Housing and Development Board has no immediate development plans for the vacant lot bounded by Bedok South Road Extension, Bedok South Avenue 3 and Upper East Coast Road.

Sir, would the Ministry of National Development consider turning that vacant plot into a park or a playing field for the use of residents?

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, there is no intention to turn it into a park. The area will be turfed and will be kept clean because it has to be made available for development, maybe, in the next one or two years. There is no need for a park in that area at the present moment.

asked the Minister for National Development whether, in the resettlement of shopkeepers in rural areas, he will consider (i) resettling shopkeepers in an affected area as a single group to a specific location; (ii) giving priority to shopkeepers for shops in a new town if they are already residing in that new town; and (iii) giving monetary compensation to those who are eligible for allocation of shops on resettlement terms but do not wish to avail themselves of such benefits.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it may not be possible to resettle shopkeepers in an affected area as a single group to a specific location because of the following constraints. Firstly, the number of shops in an HDB estate is planned with due consideration to the number of dwelling units. This is to avoid a situation of having too many shops catering to a small clientele. Out of the total supply of shops in an HDB estate, only about 50% are set aside for shopkeepers affected by resettlement. Secondly, there is usually an unbalanced spread of trades among resettlement shopkeepers. Traditional trades such as provision shops and departmental stores are always larger in numbers, whereas clinics and other specialized trades like launderettes, photo-processing shops, etc. are few. To relocate the resettlement shopkeepers en bloc to a specific area would deprive HDB residents of a wide variety of goods and services. The traditional traders will also suffer from fierce competition. This is not desirable for both the shopkeepers and the residents. Thirdly, shopkeepers affected by resettlement are given priority for shops in a new town where their families are residing. However, such allocation is dependent upon the demand and supply situation, the urgency of development affecting the shopkeepers, competing demand from similar cases, and compatibility of trades. My Ministry is currently reviewing the policy of allocation of shops to resettlement cases. The Member's suggestion about monetary compensation will be taken into account in this review.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, could I ask of the Hon. Minister for National Development when he could disclose the results of the review.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the review is in progress. I cannot inform Members of the House exactly when I can release the results of the review, but we will certainly try to do it as soon as possible.

Sir, in view of the Minister's reply regarding priority to shopkeepers for shops in a new town if they are already residing in that new town, may I ask whether any sort of priority is given with respect to shopkeepers from other areas?

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I do not think I have quite got the point.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, what I am asking is whether residents have priority over non-residents in respect of shops in the same town? Or are they treated exactly on the same basis as resettled shopkeepers regardless of where they reside?

Sir, priority is only given to resettlement cases. Residents who want to tender for shops in their own area have to take their chances just like everybody else. There is no priority of any kind.

Mr Deputy Speaker, may I explain my question again? I am talking about resettled shopkeepers. If a resettled shopkeeper has been resettled to Town A, will he be given priority over another resettled shopkeeper who is not residing in Town A, or are they treated exactly on the same basis?

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, from my answer, I said that special consideration will be given to resettlement cases where they are residing in a particular town. In other words, from the example that the Member has given, a resettled family in Town A will be given some sort of priority to get a shop in Town A and will not be treated on the same basis as a resettlement case living in Town B.

Sir, the Minister, in answering the question, said that he was against resettling shopkeepers as a single group because these shopkeepers were mostly engaged in traditional trades. Is it not then that the Minister is imposing his judgment over market forces?

If we want to really allow allocation to be determined by market forces, we should not give any priority at all. We should just allow them to tender together with the members of the public. But HDB has to exercise some judgment because, in any particular town centre or neighbourhood centre, there must be a certain distribution of shops to cater for the needs of the residents. That is why we do not, as I said, resettle shops en bloc into a particular area.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, would the Minister not agree that it was he in the first place who is resettling them and therefore, he is, in fact, disturbing market forces?

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I think the Member must decide whether he wants to allow market forces to have complete free play or to give special consideration to resettlement cases. We have always decided on a compromise in which we do not allow market forces to completely determine the allocation of shops. And we have taken a decision that resettlement cases should be given certain priority. The question is to what degree the priority should be given, and that is what I thought we are discussing. This is a question of judgment.

Mr Deputy Speaker, that is precisely what we are asking - special consideration for resettlement cases.

asked the Minister for National Development, in view of the high failure rate of doing business in Housing and Development Board estates, whether the HDB will consider offering cash grants as an option to shopkeepers who are resettled outside the Central Business District.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, under current resettlement policy, there is no provision for cash grants in lieu of alternative shop accommodation. However, as I have stated just now in answer to the other question, my Ministry is currently reviewing this policy and the Member's suggestion will be taken into account in the review.

asked the Minister for Education whether his Ministry has taken steps to reduce the number of children in the classes of our Primary and Secondary schools, in the light of his findings on enrolments of independent schools abroad.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, manageable enrolments and better teacher-pupil ratios are necessary if we are to improve the quality of education in Singapore. These and other findings were identified by the principals and myself during our visit to schools in the United States of America and the United Kingdom in December 1986. A Report on the visit is being finalized and will be made public early next month. The Report will deal not only with the query raised by the Member but with the other factors which are necessary to make a good and successful school. To answer the Member's query fully, I should discuss it in relation to these other factors. Sir, if the Member will be patient for a few more weeks, I promise that his query will be answered fully.

asked the Minister for Education what is the plan for the former Seh Chuan High School building located at the junction of Chun Tin Road and Jalan Seh Chuan.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the former Seh Chuan High School building is earmarked for use as a holding school for the Pei Hwa School, whose proposal to upgrade its existing facilities is presently under consideration.

asked the Minister for the Environment whether steps have been taken to deal with the flooding problem along Telok Blangah Road in Telok Blangah Estate.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, until last year the stretch of Telok Blangah Road between Wishart Road and Bukit Chermin Road was a known flood prone area. My Ministry has since widened and deepened Bukit Chermin Canal and the adjacent roadside drains. The project costing $3 million was completed in August last year and this stretch of Telok Blangah Road is not flood prone any more. However, Sir, the junction of Henderson Road and Telok Blangah Road floods at present because of the inadequate flow capacity of the roadside drains there, and the Public Works Department of the Ministry of National Development is now improving these roadside drains under its Telok Blangah Road Widening Project, and this project is expected to be completed in the middle of the year. Sir, I would like to stress that drainage systems cannot be designed against great extremities of the weather. It is just not economic to do so. So the drainage improvements along Telok Blangah Road will substantially alleviate flooding but cannot ensure a completely flood free road under all weather conditions.

Supplementary question, Sir. Could the Minister inform the House on the success of other flood alleviation schemes implemented by his Ministry?

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Ministry of the Environment has been implementing various flood alleviation schemes over the years and has since August 1985 accelerated a number of new drainage systems with the objectives of flood alleviation and prevention. For example, Sir, in 1986, nearly 50 contracts totalling about $200 million were tendered out as compared to around 30 in 1985. The House may be pleased to know that the number of areas affected by floods has been decreasing gradually. Areas such as Orchard Road, Siglap, Bedok, Kallang, Woodlands and Ulu Pandan are no longer flood prone. And when the accelerated drainage schemes such as the Bukit Timah Flood Alleviation Scheme, Phase II, are completed in three to four years' time, areas which are presently flood prone, eg, the Bukit Timah catchment valley itself, Tanjong Katong, Pasir Panjang and Upper Paya Lebar Road will no longer be flood prone, hopefully. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, besides alleviating floods in flood prone areas, my Ministry is also implementing drainage schemes in new developments such as the Tampines New Town, Bukit Batok New Town and Caicuogang New Town in order to ensure that flooding will not occur in these places.

asked the Minister for Finance whether he will review the implications of the discontinuance of the multi-revenue collection service and consider introducing the service in New Towns where there is pressing need for such a service.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, as I have explained to the House previously, the Government decided to phase out the multi-revenue collection centres because cash payments and cash collections are by and large unproductive. Therefore, the Government would like to encourage cashless payments so that the public need not waste time queuing up to pay bills. The Government was aware that the decision might cause some inconvenience to the public. Hence, alternative cashless means of payment have been provided and actively promoted. These include GIRO, Interbank GIRO, telephone banking, Electronic Funds Transfer at Point of Sale and payment through ATMs. Publicity campaigns were also conducted in 1985 through exhibitions, mass media and advertisements to educate the public on the use of these alternative means of payment. The closing of the multi-revenue collection centres was done in three phases, beginning in February 1986 when five were closed. Another seven ceased operation in July 1986 and, finally, the remaining seven were closed in January 1987. Overall, I am satisfied with the measures taken to minimize inconvenience to the public arising from the closure of the multi-revenue collection centres. To re- introduce this service in new towns would be a regressive step and I do not propose to do so.

Sir, is the Minister aware that there are quite a number of people who cannot go on to the cashless system? And in their interest, what positive steps will be taken to cater to their needs?

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am aware that there will be some people, particularly the low-income group, who might find it difficult to have bank accounts. But I think the objective should still be to try and encourage everyone to have an account with the POSB, for example. The Member may not be aware that of the six major billing organizations, it has never been possible to collect bills through the multi-revenue collection system in four of them. And these are PUB, HDB, Telecoms and SBC. The two other major bill collecting bodies are the Income Tax and Property Tax Departments and these, by and large, do not involve people in the lower-income groups. The multi-revenue collection centres' activities were centred around income tax, property tax, hospital bills, road tax, renewal of certificates of registration of businesses, ambulance service bills, TOLs, parking and traffic offences. By and large, I believe that the majority of these activities do not involve the very low-income groups.

asked the Minister for Labour (a) what was the number of persons registered for employment as at 31st December, 1986 and the number of jobs found in 1986; and (b) whether the job market improved in the last quarter of 1986 and in which sectors.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, as at 31st December 1986, 8,910 persons were registered with the Employment Services Department as compared to 9,900 at the end of 1985. A total of 3,460 persons secured jobs through the department in 1986. The job market has improved in the last quarter of 1986 with an estimated 15,600 jobs created. The improvement was, however, only in certain sectors, notably Manufacturing, with about 8,200 jobs created, Commerce with 6,600 jobs and Community, Social and Personal services with 2,500 jobs. The Construction sector continued to decline, losing 2,200 jobs. On the whole, 1986 saw a net increase of about 11,000 jobs. Growth in the second half of 1986 created about 29,000 jobs which more than offset the loss of 18,000 jobs in the first half of the year. Based on preliminary figures, the unemployment rate for December 1986 is estimated to be 4.6%, down from 6.5% in June 1986. Allowing for seasonal adjustments, the final figure for December 1986 may be slightly higher than 4.6%.

asked the Minister for Trade and Industry if he will give an update of the rules and regulations that have been eased by various Government ministries and departments as a result of work done by the recently formed Business Enterprise Committee.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, between 24th January and 19th November 1986, the Business Enterprise Committee (BEC) reviewed 216 rules and regulations which were administered by 10 ministries. These reviews arose from appeals sent to the BEC by trade associations, property developers, private companies and private individuals. As a result of these reviews, half these rules and regulations were either removed or amended and made more flexible. The changes have benefitted the private sector by: 1 Increasing the flexibility of operations; 2 Reducing business expenses; 3 Removing redundant controls; 4 Eliminating unnecessary documentation procedures; and 5 Streamlining and simplifying essential rules and regulations. The BEC released its first progress report on 24th June 1986. The second progress report which contains a fuller account of the appeals and studies carried out by the BEC will be released shortly.

asked the Minister for Trade and Industry what are the effects of the rise of the Yen on the Singapore economy and whether the effects will be reversed if the Yen falls.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, since September 1985, the Japanese Yen has appreciated by over 30% against the US dollar. The rise of the Yen has hurt many Japanese exporting industries with plants in Japan. These companies are anxiously trying to reduce their cost of production by moving their operations offshore. Singapore has benefitted from this outflow of Japanese investment, because of the timely and decisive changes in our economic policy which we have made last year. Manufacturing investment commitments from Japan have doubled, from $244 million in 1985 to $490 million in 1986. As our cost cutting measures take effect and our competitiveness improves, we should attract even more Japanese investment commitments this year. The Yen's appreciation has made our exports more competitive, both to Japan, and also against Japanese exports to third country markets such as the US and the European Economic Community. Our non-oil domestic exports to Japan rose by 18.4% in 1986, compared to 7.6% the year before. In other words, the rate of growth more than doubled. Despite this, Singapore still runs a large trade deficit with Japan. The Yen is not expected to depreciate against the US dollar. Nevertheless, whatever the movement in international exchange rates, provided Singapore maintains our competitiveness, we will always be able to adapt to these changes and find new markets and new sources of investment.

Sir, the Minister has said that our wage rate is competitive. How competitive is it now compared to Hong Kong, Taiwan and South Korea?

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, when we embarked on the package of measures after the Economic Committee published its report, we estimated that it would take about two years for us to regain our competitiveness; in other words, to get back to the position in 1981. We have since then been monitoring our progress. We have to calculate not just wage rates but the overall cost of doing business - cost of utilities, rentals, Government bureaucracy, administrative charges. MTI's assessment is that the measures have had a significant impact. We are perhaps three-quarters of the way to recovering our 1981 position but not quite all the way there. That is why the Government has said that we need one more year of wage restraint to make sure that we do not ruin the game plan before the game is won.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we still got no answer from the Minister. How competitive are we now in this present position as regards wage rates compared to Hong Kong, Taiwan and South Korea?

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I do not have the statistics with me. Our estimate is that overall the policy measures have made a difference of about 30% to the cost of doing business and that this is not quite a complete recovery. How do I know it is not quite complete? Well, because if you look at our performance last year and the performance of the other NICs last year, we did a lot worse than they did. South Korea had 11% growth, Taiwan about 9% ---

10%.

10%, even more so reinforcing my point. Hong Kong about 6%, Singapore 1.9%. I think that is reason to think we have not completely recovered. Why do I think we have made progress though? Because our investment commitments last year went up drastically over the year before. The year before was $1.1 billion. Last year it was more than $1.3 billion. At the last count, I think more than $1.4 billion. And if you look at the commitments for this year, 1987, we are expecting an even better year for investments, although naturally EDB and MTI would be cautious about giving hostages to fortune and promising any numbers before delivering the results. However, as I have said before, these investments have been committed on the assumption that they will find a low-cost business environment in Singapore. As one multi-national corporation employer said to me, "We put in these commitments in brick and mortar, believing the Government when it said that it would hold its wages down, when it said that the CPF would be trimmed, when it said that it was concerned with business costs in Singapore." If the Government now changes its position, or for that matter if the unions and the population now changes its resolution, and the assumptions on which these calculations were made are demolished, then I do not think the bricks and mortar will stand for very long. Because the entrepreneurs will remake their calculations and, if the arithmetic no longer works out right, they are not going to pour good money after bad.

Sir, one last supplementary question. The Minister has given a long answer. As I understand it, investments are still pouring into Taiwan and I believe the wage rates in Taiwan are now almost equal to that of Singapore. Why aren't the same amount of investments coming into Singapore, whereas investors are going in big numbers to Taiwan?

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, before we answer questions, I think we should examine assumptions. First, I am not sure that investments are pouring into Taiwan. I am not sure what the Member for Potong Pasir means by "pouring in". Taiwan has 16 million people, probably more than that. If we make a per capita comparison, or one based on the size of the GDP, I think we are not doing badly. Secondly, I do not know what the basis of the Member's statement is - that Taiwanese wages are almost as high as Singapore wages. The last time I looked at them, there was a very significant differential. I do not have the numbers with me. The differential is even larger for professionals like engineers. In Taiwan you can hire a fresh graduate engineer for S$800-$900 a month.

What about workers in electronics?

Let me finish. In Taiwan you can hire a fresh graduate engineer for S$800-$900 a month. In Singapore you cannot find an electronics engineer for less than $2,000 a month. So for engineers, we are much more expensive. As for workers' per hour wage rates, there is no basis for saying that we are as cheap as Taiwan. If the Member has figures, I would be interested to see them.

Sir, I think we should not measure investment per se. It is the quality of investment that we are after. I have a supplementary question for the Minister. He mentioned that last year there was an investment inflow of about $1.4 billion. Would the Minister tell us how many jobs are likely to be created by this investment inflow?

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, at a rough calculation, the capital investment per job is about $70,000. You need $70,000 worth of machinery, equipment, plant, buildings, in order to provide a job for one Singaporean worker, the equipment and the wherewithal for him to be productive to do a job well. On that basis, the total amount of investment will have created about 20,000 jobs. This is a gross total. We must also allow for job losses, ie other companies which have retrenched workers or other businesses which have not done well. I do not have a figure on net job creation for last year.

asked the Acting Minister for Health whether he will reconsider allowing the use of Medisave contributions to purchase medical insurance covering hospitalisation benefits up to class B1 for a start.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Medisave Scheme was introduced to avoid the pitfalls of a general medical insurance scheme. The experience of countries where a third party pays the hospital bill has been that it gives the consumer the delusion of free medical services. The result has been significant increases in the demand for such services. Our B1, B2 and C class wards are already heavily subsidized and highly affordable. Those with low Medisave balances are also allowed to overdraw on their account when they use C or B2 wards. My Ministry, therefore, does not propose to allow Medisave to be used to purchase general medical insurance. I recognize, however, that the Medisave Scheme may not be sufficient to cover the cost of major or prolonged illnesses. My Ministry is finalizing discussions with the Council of Health Insurers on a catastrophic illness insurance scheme for certain major, high-cost medical conditions.

asked the Minister for National Development if he will provide free parking at the Dempsey Road carparks during National Service registration periods.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Dempsey Road car park is a fringe car park with 340 lots. To park there for a whole day costs only a flat 60 cents compared to 60 cents hourly or half-hourly for other URA car parks. As the cost of parking there is already extremely low and as it is also a fringe car park meant for other motorists, I regret that we cannot agree to allowing free parking at the Dempsey Road car park during National Service registration periods.

Sir, if it is so low, why would the Ministry want to charge? After all, it is a gesture just for national service registration.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, parents are likely to go to this car park once in their life-time if they have one son, or maybe twice, if they have two sons. Surely the fee of 60 cents per day is just not worth talking about. Do you think the service that the national servicemen give to the country should be measured in terms of 60 cents? I think it is not worth discussing. I have been there to send my own son off. Yes, it was an inconvenience. There was a big traffic jam. But it is only once in a life-time. I do not think we should waste our time talking about this.

asked the Minister for National Development (a) how many Housing and Development Board shops were vacant as at 31st December, 1986; and (b) how many shopkeepers affected by resettlement are awaiting the allocation of such shops.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, as at 31st December 1986, there were 650 vacant HDB shops which were being offered to tenderers and resettlement cases. In addition to this, there are another 500 shops which are either left vacant pending redevelopment under the current exercise to redevelop old rental blocks or are earmarked for other uses, such as letting out to non-profit organizations. Presently, there are 200 shopkeepers affected by resettlement who are awaiting allocation of HDB shops. In addition, there are an estimated 1,000 new resettlement cases who are expected to request for shops.

Can the Minister tell us how many out of the 200 he mentioned have been waiting for allocation of shops for more than two or three years?

Sir, I do not have the details. If the Member would write to me, I can give the answer.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Minister has mentioned that some of these shops are to be allocated to non-profit organizations. Do the PAP education centres come under this classification?

Education centres are non-profit organizations but my reference was to other organizations such as old folks homes, child creches and so on.

Sir, under what basis does the HDB rent out to the PAP for use as education centres?

Education centres in constituencies are let out by the HDB to the PAP on a concession rental basis because it provides a service to the constituents and their children. This has been the policy and we will continue to follow this policy.

Are the concessions similar to those given to MPs, only $5 a unit or thereabouts?

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is not $5 a unit. I think it works out to $1.30 per sq. metre, or something like that.

Is the HDB willing to give this concession to other political parties who wish to have education centres?

This concession is not given to political parties. It is given to a service, an educational service.

The PAP is the only political party ---

Yes, it happens that the education service or education centres are run by the PAP. But the HDB will be making available education centres to bona fide foundations or education centres running such educational services.

Mr Deputy Speaker, as I know it, I have travelled in many of the constituencies and I see big PAP logos drawn on the walls of units where they have got these education centres there. So certainly it was given to a political party. There is no doubt about that. So if concession is given to one political party, will the HDB consider giving the same concession to other political parties?

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have said that the concession is not given to a political party. It is to an education service provided to the constituents. If an established bona fide organization applies to the HDB to provide a service to the constituents, HDB will certainly consider it.

asked the Minister for National Development whether warning signs put up by road contractors along expressways are adequate for the safety of motorists.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, all contractors carrying out works along expressways and other roads have to provide adequate warning signs and lighting to ensure the safety of motorists and pedestrians at all times. They are required to comply with temporary traffic sign guidelines laid down by the Public Works Department. Generally, contractors abide by these guidelines but there are some who flout these regulations. Regular checks are carried out by PWD and action taken against contractors found not following the guidelines on safety measures. The penalty imposed on recalcitrant contractors includes suspension and debarment. The PWD will step up enforcement action to ensure that contractors adhere strictly to safety measures.

What is the incidence of contractors flouting the rules?

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, there are various degress of flouting of the rules. But I can tell the Member that up to 10 errant contractors are suspended on the average each year.

I would just like to ask the Minister whether he would consider, perhaps in the case of expressways, requiring contractors to place their warning signs at a distance of perhaps 300 to 400 metres from the worksite and that these signs be placed in such a way that traffic is diverted gradually from the affected lane.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, there are, in fact, existing guidelines for safety signs to be placed at specified distances from the particular work that is being carried out. I am aware, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, that quite often on expressways there are inadequate signs or signs that are not placed far enough, away from the worksite. I have already asked the PWD to pay greater attention to this. There is, in fact, a Roads Opening Coordination Committee which is chaired by the PWD and on which we have representatives from all the other statutory bodies that have to work on roads, like the TAS, the PUB and so on. They deal with these matters. I personally have been very dissatisfied with the way in which some of the contractors have flouted the safety guidelines. Safety consciousness does not seem to rank high not only with our contractors but even, I would say, with some of our supervising engineers who are more concerned with the work as such rather than with the road safety aspects. So as I mentioned in my answer, I have asked the PWD to be more stringent in its implementation of the road safety guidelines.

Could I ask the Minister also, in conjunction with the review of the road safety being done now, if he would ask the PWD to pay attention to the question of telephone booths along expressways. In this connection, would he not also ask the PWD people to come out with an alternative solution to provide appropriate locations rather than doing away with this kind of convenience to the public altogether?

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in fact, this aspect of safety also came up for discussion when I discussed with the PWD. I have also noticed that there are telephone booths along expressways and that people use these telephones not for the purpose for which they are intended, which is to call for breakdown vehicles and so on. Many Singaporeans nowadays carry beepers and the moment the beeper goes, they just stop at the nearest telephone along the expressway. It is not at all safe to have telephone booths of this kind along expressways. So I have asked the PWD to consider removing as many of these telephones as possible and installing some other kind of telephone which will only give access to breakdown service. Perhaps we can persuade the Automobile Association or one of the NTUC organizations to join in this system where you pick up the telephone and it will only ring at a place where you can ask for assistance for breakdown, or accidents, or whatever it is, and not make a personal or business call from telephones along the expressways.

asked the Minister for National Development why nearly all the units in the upper floors of Blocks 146, 147 and 148 in Potong Pasir Estate have been left vacant from the time they were ready for occupation to the present date.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, Blocks 146 and 148 are low-rise blocks located in the Neighbourhood Centre of Potong Pasir Estate. These comprise 10 offices and 89 3- and 4-room flats on the upper floors. The 20 offices have all been let since 1985. Block 147 is a shop and office block and has no dwelling units. It is the HDB's policy to rent and not sell flats in low-rise blocks in Neighbourhood Centres. This is to ensure that, if necessary, the site can be redeveloped in future. In February 1987, the HDB will be relocating non-citizen middle level executives currently housed in high-rise flats in Ang Mo Kio and Hougang to these low-rise flats in Potong Pasir as well as to some other areas. This relocation will enable the flats in the high-rise blocks to be renovated and offered for sale under the Home Ownership Scheme. The flats in the low-rise blocks in Potong Pasir will therefore be occupied very shortly.

Sir, does the Minister realize that as a result of this long delay in the occupation of these flats above the shops, the shops have suffered by way of business? And I believe the normal concessionary rates have not been given to them.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have said that these blocks are at the Neighbourhood Centre. Obviously the shops in the Neighbourhood Centre do not just depend upon the flats above the shops. There are only 89 flats and if these shops are going to depend upon 89 flats to generate business to keep them going, they will become bankrupt very soon. They depend upon the whole neighbourhood which is already occupied. I do not think the fact that because 89 flats above the shops are empty, there should be grounds for some concession.

Sir, does the Minister realize that, in fact, what I am saying is the complaint of the shopkeepers there when I go on my rounds? They are asking me: Why are the flats above them not occupied? So every little bit of business does help them and they are paying high rentals at the moment.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, people complain about all kinds of things. Surely, we should be able to sift these complaints and determine what is serious and what is frivolous. On the rentals that these shops pay, well, that is what they offered to pay. So they should not complain.

asked the Minister for National Development whether the Housing and Development Board has any plans to develop the vacant plot of land above the Mass Rapid Transit station bounded by Toa Payoh Central and Lorong 2.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the plot of land above the Mass Rapid Transit Station bounded by Toa Payoh Central and Lorong 2 is reserved for commercial development. An eating house and a single-storey covered walkway leading up to the entrance of the MRT station are presently under construction at the site. There are no immediate plans to develop this plot of land as there is no demand at present for additional facilities.

asked the Minister for National Development when is the scheduled opening date of the new Housing and Development Board Yishun North Area Office.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the new Housing and Development Board Yishun North Area Office is likely to be opened in May 1987. In the meantime, the Yishun Area Office at Block 102, Yishun Avenue 5, is providing the necessary services to residents in Yishun North.

Sir, can the Minister explain why there is such a long delay in the opening of the Yishun North Area Office in view of the fact that the building itself was completed many, many months ago?

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is true that the building was completed some months ago, in fact, almost a year ago. The delay is due to the fact that the HDB decided that it should upgrade its Area Offices and when this particular Area Office was built it was under the old standards. This upgrading programme includes central air-conditioning, planning the office for open-office concept using system furniture and this required re-partitioning of the offices and so on. It is this that has caused the delay. There are a number of Area Offices which are affected by this decision of HDB to upgrade the standards of the Area Offices.

asked the Minister for National Development when is the scheduled completion date of Yishun New Town Bus Interchange.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Yishun New Town bus interchange, bounded by Yishun Central and Yishun Avenue 2, is scheduled to be completed by end of July 1987. Currently, there is a temporary interchange along Yishun Central.

Sir, can the Minister give an assurance that the new bus interchange at Yishun New Town will not suffer from the same fate as the Yishun North Area Office, ie, there will be a long delay after its completion?

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the original completion date was supposed to have been April. There is a delay of about two months but this is not due to any decision to upgrade the interchange. It is just due to some delay in getting sanitary approval from the Sewerage Department. As far as I am aware, there is no decision to suddenly upgrade our bus interchanges to a very much higher standard than what they are today.

asked the Minister for National Development whether, in the resettlement areas, structures vacated by residents will be immediately demolished and the debris removed.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in areas required for public development, the Resettlement Department clears and resettles the residents. The demolition of vacated structures and removal of debris are handled by the development authorities requesting for the clearance. As and when structures are vacated by residents, the Resettlement Department liaises with the development authority concerned to demolish these structures. In most cases, vacant structures are demolished within a month. However, there are sometimes difficulties and delays in demolition. This is because, firstly, vacated structures in congested squatter areas are scattered among other houses which are still occupied. They are inaccessible to lorries and bulldozers which therefore cannot carry out the work. Secondly, vacated structures are adjoining occupied buildings and they share common overhead cables. The demolition of such structures may endanger the lives of other residents. Under such circumstances, the Department usually persuades the residents to accept rehousing and move out as early as possible so that the site as a whole can be tidied up. Where necessary, demolition and debris removal are carried out manually but this requires more manpower and is not the most cost effective way of doing things. The Resettlement Department will coordinate closely with the development authority to see that vacated structures are demolished within the shortest time.

11.55 am

Mr Deputy Speaker, it is with sadness that I make this statement on the suicide of Mr Teh Cheang Wan. On Sunday, 14th of December last year, at about 9.10 am at my home, my security officer, Insp. Ho Wah Hui, told me that Mr Teh's S/O, Sgt Richard Kua, had come, rrying a letter given to him by Mrs Teh for me. Mrs Teh had told him that Teh Cheang Wan's body was found cold in bed at about 8.00 am. I opened the envelope and read the undated note. It read: 'Prime Minister I have been feeling very sad and depressed for the last 2 weeks. I feel responsible for the occurence of this unfortunate incident and I feel I should accept full responsibility. As an honourable oriental gentleman, I feel it is only right that I should pay the highest penalty for my mistake. Yours faithfully, (Sgd) Teh Cheang Wan" I noted "9.15" as the time I read it, on the corner of the envelope. Then I rang up Mrs Teh at her home. She gave me her account of how she discovered that Teh Cheang Wan had not awakened from his sleep. I asked if a doctor had been called to certify his death. She handed the telephone to her daughter, Dr Teh Kwan Geok, who said that they were paging for Dr Charles Toh, the physician who had been treating Teh Cheang Wan for his high blood pressure. The daughter said her mother hoped the cremation would not be delayed by an autopsy. I said that depended on whether the doctor would certify that the death was natural. I said I would visit them later. I immediately rang up the Cabinet Secretary, Mr Wong Chooi Sen, and then my colleague, Goh Chok Tong. I asked them both to go over to Mrs Teh to render what help was needed. I asked Wong Chooi Sen to ring me up when Dr Charles Toh had examined the body. At about 11.10 am Wong Chooi Sen informed me that Dr Charles Toh had examined the body but could not certify that death was by natural causes. My wife and I went over to visit Mrs Teh at Jalan Bukit Tunggal. She was not happy at an autopsy but agreed that an autopsy had to be held. I showed her the handwritten letter by Teh Cheang Wan that she had handed to the S/O for me. That Sunday evening, 14th of December, Dr Kwa Soon Bee, Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Health, told me over the telephone that the death was caused by an overdose of Amytal barbiturate. On Tuesday, 16th of December, I wrote a letter of condolence to Mrs Teh and to acknowledge the significant contributions Teh Cheang Wan has made in the HDB. I knew then that there would have to be a Coroner's inquest which would disclose his suicide and the reasons for it. Members have read the evidence placed before the Coroner at the inquest on the 20th January. The Director of the CPIB, Mr Evan Yeo, had seen me on the 21st November on a complaint of corruption against Teh Cheang Wan. I asked that investigations be discreet because once people come to know that the CPIB was investigating so prominent a Minister as that for National Development, the news would spread like wildfire. The Ministry of National Development has more opportunities for corrupt practices than any other. A Minister's reputation would be put to severe test by an investigation. Such an investigation could not be kept secret. Therefore, once open investigations had started, they would have to go on until all the evidence is uncovered to show either that the complaints are baseless, or that there is enough evidence to submit to the Attorney-General for him to place before a Court of Law for trial and judgment. On 27th November, the Director of the CPIB wrote to me giving a summary of the evidence he had gathered and asked for my permission for an open investigation. I was satisfied that there were sufficient grounds to do so. On 28th November I approved open investigations. On 2nd December, the Director and his Senior Assistant Director, Mr Tan Ah Leak, for the first time interrogated Teh Cheang Wan at the Istana Villa. They confronted him with Liaw Teck Kee, the contractor, who said that he, as the intermediary, had handed two sums of $500,000 each to Teh Cheang Wan. The Director was satisfied that Liaw was a truthful witness. He reported this to me. I asked the Cabinet Secretary, Wong Chooi Sen, to ask Teh Cheang Wan to take leave of absence until the 31st December. By then the investigations would have been completed and the Attorney-General would have decided whether or not to prosecute. The Investigation Paper was sent to the Attorney-General on the 11th December. Teh Cheang Wan died on the 14th December. Mr Deputy Speaker, we all know Teh Cheang Wan. He was a man of considerable ability. Behind his diffident manner and demeanour and his Hokkien-accented ungrammatical English was a sharp clear mind. After open investigations started, we did not meet. I received a letter from him dated Saturday, 13th December 1986, that morning. The Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of National Development, Mr Koh Cher Siang, told Mr Dhanabalan, the present Minister for National Development, that he was on overseas leave and was recalled by Teh Cheang Wan to vet his draft and correct his grammar. Mr Teh's personal assistant typed the letter before he signed it. It was identical in terms to a letter he sent to the Director of the CPIB on the same date. In his letter he denied the charge that he had on two occasions been given half a million dollars of which he kept $400,000 and gave Mr Liaw, the contractor, $100,000. He went on to write on page 4 of his letter (13th December): 'If I am brought to trial, the very process of it which will be painful and long, will certainly be the end of me even if I am found innocent.' The Attorney-General received the Investigation Paper from the Director of the CPIB on the 11th December. After Teh Cheang Wan's death on the 14th, the Attorney-General could not proceed with the charges he was considering. Sir, there is no way a Minister can avoid investigations, and a trial if there is evidence to support one. Teh Cheang Wan chose death rather than face a trial on the charges of corruption which the Attorney-General had yet to settle. The effectiveness of our system to check and to punish corruption rests, first, on the law against corruption contained in the Prevention of Corruption Act; second, on a vigilant public ready to give information on all suspected corruption; and third, on a CPIB which is scrupulous, thorough, and fearless in its investigations. For this to be so, the CPIB has to receive the full backing of the Prime Minister under whose portfolio it comes. But the strongest deterrent is in a public opinion which censures and condemns corrupt persons, in other words, in attitudes which make corruption so unacceptable that the stigma of corruption cannot be washed away by serving a prison sentence. Sir, Members must share my profound regret that Teh Cheang Wan who has made such a signal contribution to Singapore's development should have ended his career and his life in this manner and in these circumstances.

Mr Deputy Speaker, can I ask the Prime Minister a question? Can the Prime Minister tell us whether the two cases for which the late Minister was investigated are now closed, or whether investigations will continue?

Investigation for the first charge which had gone up to the Attorney-General, namely, with regard to a land acquisition appeal over which a sum of $500,000 was said to have been paid to Teh Cheang Wan is completed. The second investigation relating to the sale of Government land to the owners of the River View Hotel is open and charges have not yet been brought because some witnesses are still out of jurisdiction.

Can the Hon. Prime Minister inform the House whether any steps will be taken to recover the $800,000 alleged to have been taken by the late Minister, if it can be proven that he did indeed receive that sum of money?

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Prevention of Corruption Act provides in Article 14 for the recovery, by the principal, of any amount given by way of a secret gift. Members would have read that Teh Cheang Wan had offered to pay the $800,000 if he did not have to face charges. There is, therefore, legal provision for the recovery of the sums that were paid not only from the recipient but also from the giver; but only once, either from the recipient or from the giver.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I ask of the Hon. Prime Minister to enlighten the House as to whether there is any possibility that the CPIB officials who interviewed Mr Teh could have misconstrued Mr Teh's intention behind his offer to pay $800,000 to settle the matter?

The investigators were extremely scrupulous and careful in this case. The Director had seen me and I had explained to him the gravamen of the charges and, therefore, there was a statement to this effect which was signed by Teh Cheang Wan, and it is in the files.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, can the Prime Minister tell us whether any other persons, in particular, officials of the Ministry of National Development, are implicated in the allegations for which the late Minister was being investigated?

The investigations have not disclosed the complicity of any other person in the Ministry. There was in the case of the land acquisition an unusualness in the procedure. The land having been acquired, an appeal was lodged. It usually takes six months to a year for the appeal to be heard and for it to go before the Minister for his decision. In this case, the appeal was never heard, and the Minister intervened and gave his decision without an appeal ever being heard. No complicity by any official was involved. It was the Minister's personal intervention. Therefore, the officers of the CPIB who conducted this investigation are satisfied that there was no complicity and no aiding and abetting by any official of the Ministry or any other Permanent Secretary or Minister or Parliamentary Secretary.

Mr Prime Minister, in the process of the investigation of these two cases of alleged corruption, were there other instances of alleged corruption involving Mr Teh surfaced in the process of this investigation during the period of the investigation in the last few weeks?

Can I have the question again? Is the Member asking whether, as a result of this investigation, further crimes were disclosed?

Yes. My question was whether further instances of corruption have surfaced as a result of the investigation.

The question is ambiguous, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, but I will answer both interpretations. One interpretation would be: did the investigations unravel or reveal further wrongdoings connected with the investigations? No, they did not. They were two specific instances of corruption. But since the launching of the investigations, of course, further information of suspicions of corrupt practices have been made and are being pursued. It is, I am told, normal in the circumstances that all hints, dark thoughts, suspicions, will inevitably surface and it will take considerable effort and time to sieve out reality from imagination. The most important objective of the Government or of the investigators is to see if any system had been altered which would enable corrupt practices to take place. This is of the utmost importance because unless they are detected and the original system restored, then a loophole would have been created in the administrative procedures which inevitably at some stage or another may be taken advantage of by other officers or Ministers some other time.

Mr Prime Minister, you have just spoken of the system. We have heard that the system that you have is for Ministers to declare their assets and their wives' and children's assets to you. In the light of one of your senior Ministers having taken bribes, do you feel that you need to review this system of yours and perhaps get Ministers and PAP Members, including myself, to make a declaration of their assets and their families' assets at the beginning of each year?

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would be grateful to the Member for Potong Pasir if he would make any proposal which could either prevent, check or make detection of corruption by any Minister or any MP or any public servant easier. The declaration of assets is useful in that if assets are found to exceed what has been declared, an explanation has to be offered. There were no assets that exceeded what Mr Teh Cheang Wan had declared. Even if it had been made public to all Members of Parliament and to the public, there were no such assets. People who embark on this method of getting rich, particularly if they are able, do not leave such obvious traces behind. And the CPIB, thorough as they are and professional as they are, have not been able to come up with assets not declared.

Mr Prime Minister, Sir, it was you in this House who said that you knew how much each of your PAP MP was worth. Do you not think that if the assets of each MP were made public, for the scrutiny of the whole Singapore population, it would be better than the scrutiny of one man?

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we face a very natural problem of privacy. I am not against publication because there can be no damage to anyone. But I speak from experience that for the same reasons that the Member for Potong Pasir does not want to disclose what his income is as a lawyer, what his assets are, the value of his goodwill or the capital that he has in his firm, so other Members feel that a certain privacy is necessary. It is already difficult enough to get good men to be candidates, to bare their public lives to close scrutiny. Those countries which have implemented these systems, like the United States of America, only recently have had their press gloat over the spending habits of their public officials. I remember, and this is just off the top of my head from memory, how the best dressed man in the Carter Administration was one of its poorest, Mr Andy Young. "But he loved fine clothes", wrote the writer, "and other raiments and ornaments." I did not think that helped in getting good men to serve an administration. But that is the American system and I wish them well. I do not think much purpose is served today by a debate on my statement on Teh Cheang Wan. But if the Member for Potong Pasir believes that this is a method of stopping corruption and an effective one, let us debate it. He can file a motion. One of our MPs will second it. We can have a full debate. Today I suggest he confines his searching questions to this particular case. I have said that in this particular case no extra assets have been disclosed. He was an able man. There were no secret bank accounts. There were no assets.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, much has been said of the new house of the late Minister at Bukit Tunggal Road. Was this declared by the late Minister?

It was. More than that.

How much is it worth?

The house was declared to have been built for $1.5 million. More than that, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. The Minister wrote to inform me that he wanted to build this house. I speak from memory now but I could produce the letters, perhaps three or four years ago. I wrote back and asked if the contractor was in any way connected with HDB work. The answer came. He was. I advised in writing, in reply, that he should get himself a contractor not connected with the HDB. A year or a year and a half later, he wrote back to say that he had such a contractor and asked if I had any objections. I said, "No. Proceed." The house was built. I visited it for the first time on the morning of his death.

One more supplementary question, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir.

The last one.

The late Mr Teh Cheang Wan's son has been away all this while. Is the CPIB making attempts to get him back to Singapore to help them in their investigations?

No.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have several questions to ask the Prime Minister and I would like to preamble them with this. It is indeed a tragic moment for us all that such a thing has happened to the Government, a government which has for more than two decades upheld the principle of clean and honest government. However, it is wrong to say that what we have held so dear for so long have all come down in pieces. Regrettable and deplorable though this incident may be, it is reassuring to know that the Government right from the beginning has the courage and determination ---

Are you making a speech?

No. I am just preambling my questions.

Could you proceed with your questions, please?

There are several questions which I would like to ask.

Could you ask your questions now?

It is rather difficult to frame them if I do not preamble them with ---

I am sorry. This is a Ministerial statement.

I have listed down the questions here but I would like to explain why I am asking them.

A Ministerial statement has been made. I can only allow you to ask questions but I cannot allow you to make a speech. Could you proceed with your questions?

Yes. In that case, I would just make it short by saying that there have been some allegations about cover-up in high places. But I for one would not subscribe to such wild talk. Corruption cases in other countries are normally exposed by the mass media or the opposition parties. But this one was brought to the surface as a result of the Government's self-imposed discipline, and that is the difference. And the events in the last two months have shown that the Prime Minister did not take the easy way out, the so-called cover-up. He has made the decision to ---

Mr Jek, could you ask your questions?

What I would like to ask the Prime Minister is this. Since he has made that very painful decision for the investigation to proceed, he must have known that this would be bad and damaging for the Government's image, and yet he was courageous enough to make it. And we have very good reasons to be confident that the next Prime Minister would also do the same. But what about the next and the next? I am therefore interested to hear the views of the Prime Minister on how do we institutionalize procedures in Government departments so that in future when such cases are brought up, no one, not even the Prime Minister of the day, has the power to stop them. How do we lay trip wires in strategic places so that once certain boundaries are crossed alarm bells will sound everywhere. Another question I want to raise is, how do we make the CPIB adopt more active ways in carrying out their duties, like the CID or the ISD, and not continue with the present passive way, waiting for complaints to come in and then start investigating. The ISD, for instance, in the past infiltrated into communist organizations and smoked the communists out. The CPIB in this instance did not seem to suspect anything until someone had put in a complaint. How was it possible that they did not become alert when a Minister had suddenly adopted a lifestyle very different from his outward appearance? It was not difficult to know ---

Mr Jek, you are making a speech again. Can you ask your next question?

But I am explaining the question now.

There is no need to. Mr Jek, are you asking your next question? If not, I shall ask you to resume your seat.

I am now asking the third question.

All right, ask your third question.

The third question is, what is the Government going to do with the middleman? Graft taking is like drug taking. Under our laws the drug taker when caught is jailed and rehabilitated, and the drug trafficker is hanged. In this particular case, the alleged graft taker had paid the penalty with his life. But what are we going to do with the drug trafficker? I feel very strongly that we should deal even more harshly with such persons, for if we have less such people who throw names around, who think they can buy anyone with money, who claim they can fix anything with Ministers, there will be less corruption in society. They are the instigators and perpetrators of corruption.

Mr Jek, I am warning you. You are making a speech.

My last question would be ---

No, I cannot allow that any more. Would you please resume your seat.

My last question will be ---

No, Mr Jek. Will you please resume your seat? Mr Jek Yeun Thong resumed his seat.

I am at a loss as to what I am supposed to answer. I will pick up his last statement about drug traffickers and bribe traffickers. I assume the question is, are we prosecuting Mr Liaw Teck Kee? The answer is no, because the CPIB had to depend on Mr Liaw Teck Kee's cooperation to ensure that the charge in court would stick. He was an accomplice but his evidence was necessary. To prosecute Mr Liaw Teck Kee would be counter-productive. He was not the giver. He was just the go-between. He was not the taker. He was just the go-between. As for the system, there can be no sudden burst of creative management which will put up new trip wires all over the place. The system has evolved over the decades with checks and balances. In the Ministry of National Development they have been worked out to a fine art. All tenders are sealed. They are opened by a committee. There are rules as to how tenders are awarded based on the tenders received. We cannot conceive of any more trip wires. If we can, we might be like some of these houses with burglar alarms where the tenant regularly trips them up and not the burglar. The simple answer is, there is no assurance that standards will not go down. Every part of the 27 1/2 years that we have been in office have meant a certain upholding of standards. It is very easy and very natural to allow them to slacken and to sag. We do that at our peril. We are not an established society in a continent of other established societies like Europe. We are a very young one, situated in an area where we know that to do business requires a certain flexibility. When Intraco was first formed, we had hilarious episodes of how Intraco officers in order to do business in foreign lands, like Africa, the principal trading officer had to take a fellow officer along to witness the actual gift that was proffered in order that one other officer could countersign that there was such a gift and that it was handed over and not taken by the giver. It is a complex and complicated business of life. The Americans constituted a commission of some sort after the Lockheed scandal and they required all corporate managers to report certain methods of payment. But if they comply with those self-imposed restraints they will find that it is very difficult to sell either American arms or aircraft against the competition of other countries without those constraints, and that is a fact of life.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, there was mention of cover-up. Why did the Government not make a public announcement that the former Minister for National Development was under CPIB investigations for the period from 28th November to 19th January?

Do I understand the Member for Potong Pasir right, from 28th November to 19th January? Mr Chiam See Tong indicated yes.

I am flummoxed. Do we want to announce to the world that the CPIB has commenced investigations on a Minister in charge of a very heavy portfolio before they know the outcome of the investigations?

An announcement that there was an investigation by the CPIB. Perhaps the Prime Minister would know that the news had been circulating two, three, four times around Singapore. Does the Prime Minister not think that it would be better if there was a proper announcement? It would perhaps save more anguish for members of Mr Teh's family.

I dispute that.

Mr Deputy Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether proceedings are to be instituted to recover the $200,000 allegedly received by Mr Liaw?

That point has not been considered by me. I do not know if the Attorney-General has considered the point. I would imagine that it is completely legal to require the return of the money. I am not sure what the CPIB itself would wish, because this will not be the last time it will require the cooperation of an intermediary.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I ask the Hon. Prime Minister whether the giver of the bribe under our system is liable for punishment? If so, I think it can serve as a form of deterrence against bribes and corruptions, Sir.

Yes, it is. Where possible, they are also punished. But the perfect bribe, as the Director of CPIB has explained to me many a time, is the satisfied giver and the satisfied receiver, with no intermediaries, no witnesses, no evidence. In this particular case, there was an intermediary and therefore it may not be necessary to have the cooperation of the giver. But for the land acquisition case, the original giver may have died. It was an estate.

Sir, can the Prime Minister tell us whether the CPIB investigation has established as to why the said Mr Liaw Teck Kee choose to report the alleged corruption only after a lapse of four or five years?

He did not choose to report. The CPIB called upon him for information. The original information the CPIB received had nothing to do with Mr Liaw.

12.43 pm

"to amend the Civil Law Act (Chapter 30 of the Revised Edition)", presented by the Second Minister for Law (Prof. S. Jayakumar); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

"to repeal and re-enact with amendments the Environmental Public Health Act (Chapter 155 of the Revised Edition) and to provide for matters connected therewith", presented by the Minister for the Environment (Dr Ahmad Mattar); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

Resolved, "That, items 1 and 2 on the Order Paper be taken immediately after item 9." - [Mr S. Dhanabalan].

Order for Second Reading read. 12.45 pm

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Enlistment Act, 1970, makes no specific provisions for reservists to serve more than 40 days per year. At present, if a reservist serves beyond his statutory 40-day liability, the law does not guarantee him the right to retain his civilian job or other job-related benefits, nor does it automatically entitle him to compensation should he be injured while performing his duties. It is up to the employer whether he wants to keep a place for the reservist in his firm, and up to the Armed Forces Council to exercise discretion and to grant the reservist fair compensation. This Bill seeks to remedy the omission in the Enlistment Act and to guarantee the reservists' entitlement to such benefits. Under this amendment, a reservist serving beyond the 40-day limit will have the same status under the law as any other reservist who is serving within the 40-day limit. The Bill will not, however, give Mindef the power to compel reservists to serve for more than 40 days per year. The Bill only gives formal status to reservists who have already agreed to extend their service. It is up to the reservists themselves to decide whether to volunteer to serve longer. The Bill is necessary to cater for a small but critical group of reservists who often need to spend more than 40 days a year with the SAF. They are the key appointment holders (KAHs) and also those who are being groomed for key appointments. KAHs hold important posts in reserve units. They are battalion commanders, brigade principal staff officers, regimental sergeant majors. The SAF has about 100 KAHs - negligible compared to the total number of 200,000 reservists, but vital if the whole reservist army is to be properly officered, commanded and led. KAHs cannot expect to spend just two or three weeks of in-camp training once a year, like rank and file reservists, and still fulfil their heavy responsibilities. Besides attending normal in-camp training together with their reserve units, they need to spend time running these units - planning training programmes, reconnoitering exercise areas, administering their reservist troops. At the same time, they must attend upgrading courses for their own education and improvement, so that in time they can be promoted to even more responsible positions. These commitments are an essential and normal part of the duties of KAHs. They can often add up to 50 or 60 days a year, although a KAH would not expect to serve for so long every year. There are also a handful of KAHs who attend the Singapore Command and Staff College (SCSC) course every year, which means for them seven months of active duty. To restrict KAHs to 40 days a year because of an comission in the Enlistment Act is therefore clearly unsatisfactory. The service beyond the statutory 40 days a year is voluntary. Mindef cannot arbitrarily take a reservist away from his civilian job to spend seven months attending SCSC. It can only do so with the prior knowledge and consent of the reservist and his employer. All reservists know that KAHs have to put in this extra time and effort. Those who are unable to make this commitment are not given key appointments. Those chosen to be KAHs are responsible, conscientious, dedicated individuals. Even now, in the absence of legislation, I know of some reservist formation commanders who spend one afternoon a week in camp, keeping their units trim and operational round the year. To be fair to these reservists, the arrangement has to be regularized. This is the intent of the Bill. There is one other factor which determines whether a reservist KAH will spend all the time he needs on his reserve duties, and that is, the attitude of his employer. A reservist can only put in a wholehearted effort if he gets the backing and support of his employer. If he is worried that the employer will hold against him periods spent away from the company on reservist duties, it is bound to affect his morale and performance. Of particular concern will be the view of his immediate superior, for at the end of the year the superior will have a great say in deciding and judging how well the reservist has done in his civilian job. Fortunately, in Mindef's experience, employers have generally been supportive of the key appointment holders scheme. It makes sense for them to do so. The training that the SAF will give these employees and the experience the reservists will acquire commanding their units will make them better leaders and managers. Outstanding reservists must have strong leadership abilities, which will also make them excellent company employees. Many employers also see this as their way of being responsible corporate citizens, of playing their part in the Total Defence of Singapore. They have therefore planned their working schedules to cope with their employees' longer periods of absence, and they have continued to grant these employees staff and welfare benefits during their extended reserve service. Mindef appreciates the example set by these reservists' employers, and would encourage all other employers to do likewise. Of course, there may still be a few reservists whose employers give them less than complete backing in their SAF duties. This problem will not be solved by legislation, but I think we can expect it to diminish with time. If the KAH scheme works, every year more and more successful reservists will rise to high positions in private companies and in Government departments. As employers themselves, they will have other reservists working under them, who will have to take time off for their SAF duties. We can then look forward to the understanding and support of these senior KAHs for the scheme. For the last few years, Mindef has laid great stress on the operational role of reservists, both as soldiers and as commanders and staff officers. Public atti- tudes towards reservists have improved, and so have the attitudes of reservists towards their SAF duties. People now know that reservists are indeed front-line soldiers, and that a good male citizen has to be both a fighting fit reservist as well as a successful civilian. This Bill will help the SAF to progress further in this direction. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the amendments proposed by the Minister are clear and there is an obvious need for them. Hence, I support these amendments especially, as the Minister has mentioned, when the need to extend the reservist training period is voluntary and not compulsory. However, I would like to seek from the Minister some clarification. First, I would like to comment that I believe national service and reservist in-camp training have generally become quite accepted by the people and the employers. Every male citizen knows that, unless there are exceptional reasons, he has to undergo 2 to 2 1/2 years of national service and up to 40 days of reservist in-camp training. The proposed amendment now says that reservists can be liable for longer than the 40 days of in-camp training. There seems to be no upper limit on the yearly reservist training period. May I ask the Minister: why did he not set an upper limit in the amendments just as there is a clear 40-day limit in the original provision? Is it not sound to give a clear signal to reservists and employers, including foreign investors, the limit of such obligations for their male employees? Secondly, I am pleased to hear from the Minister that the intention to extend the 40-day limit would be voluntary. May I ask the Minister for an assurance to this House that in future should there be a desire to extend the 40-day limit to the wider body of reservists, he will come back to this House to seek an amendment to section 14(1)(a) which specifies the days in which the reservist must go for in-camp training. Lastly, may I ask the Minister whether his Ministry has considered giving enhanced compensation, whether in cash or in kind, to reservists who voluntarily go for longer than 40 days of in-camp training.

Sir, being a reservist myself, I feel compelled to speak on the Bill but I must admit that I have no pecuniary interest. Our reservists have come a long way. It is about 17 years now since the first batch of our national servicemen graduated into the ranks of the reserve. While earlier batches of reservists underwent five annual in-camp training periods over a 10-year cycle, today's reservists perform no less than nine in-camp training over a 13-year cycle. From my personal experience, many reservists do come forward quite willingly to serve their in-camp training, for it is a good break away from their civilian work and an opportunity to meet with old friends from the same reserve unit. In practice, the 40-day limit, as stated in the Act, is seldom exceeded because most reserve units have at the very most three to four weeks of annual in-camp training per year and this includes two IPPTs. I must, however, inform the Minister that there are some reservists who express concern that the Bill before us today could be an attempt by Mindef to extend the normal in-camp training period beyond 40 days a year. Many wonder why the limit should be increased when the present 40-day limit is seldom exceeded. I am glad the Minister has now explained the purpose of this Bill, but nonetheless the Minister could allay the concern of these reservists that Mindef has no intention to extend the in-camp training period beyond 40 days limit and that there is no reason to do so at the moment. Sir, reservists who hold key appointments in the reserve are usually also those who are doing well in their civilian life. They are either holding managerial or supervisory positions. Their time spent in the reserve is the time lost by their employers. They are as important to the defence and national security of Singapore as they are in the generation of wealth. But most employers, as the Minister has stated, quite understandably have placed national defence before wealth generation. Most employers have willingly released their men for their annual in-camp training. Notwithstanding this, I think Mindef could still minimize inconveniences and disruptions to reservists' civilian careers by planning carefully the in-camp training programme. The planning of training programme and unit administration could perhaps be carried out over week-ends, or a few evenings before the main troops move in. In that way, it will minimize inconveniences and disruptions to reservists in their civilian jobs. I support the Bill, Sir.

Order. I suspend the Sitting now and will take the Chair again at 2.30 pm. Sitting accordingly suspended at 1.00 pm until 2.30 pm. Sitting resumed at 2.30 pm

Debate resumed.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the Enlistment (Amendment) Bill. Sir, at the outset it must be pointed out that any extension of the present period of 40 days will indeed inconvenience both the reservists as well as the employers. But, Sir, I believe that this is a necessary inconvenience in the overall interest of the defence of Singapore. Although the number of key reservists, as mentioned by the Minister, is small, I think it is necessary for both Government as well as employers to appreciate and recognize the contributions of key reservists towards national defence. Although there is appreciation on the part of Government and enlightened employers, I feel much more need to be done. Open and generous recognition by employers of contributions of such reservists will boost morale and motivation of key appointment holders. Employers should take the lead to publicize the efforts and contributions of such key appointment holders in their in-house newsletters, for this will be clear testimony of commitment and recognition by top management of the contributions of such reservists. Besides recognition by top management will have the added effect of influencing other reservists to assume greater responsibilities in their own reservist appointments. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, whilst I agree with the Minister that this Bill should be seen as a demonstration of appreciation of work done by key reservists, I feel that this alone will be insufficient. I would urge the Government to be more generous by offering liberal incentives to key appointment holders. For example, key appointment holders could be given generous allowances during the stipulated period of training and possibly also be sponsored by the Singapore Armed Forces to membership of prestigious clubs in Singapore. I feel that this tangible form of appreciation would go a long way. Sir, one other suggestion which I would like to make for the Minister's consideration is for SAF to dispel the idea that reservist training is indeed a holiday camp. Although SAF has over the years encouraged employers to visit their officers during training, I feel there is room for improvement in this area. In particular, Sir, when key appointment holders are actively engaged in training exercise, top management of key reservists should be invited to visit the camp and see the relevant training. Interaction by top management with key appointment holders in the field during exercise is bound to contribute to more understanding and, hence, foster greater rapport between key appointment holders and respective management. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would urge top management and employers to take advantage of such opportunity to visit reservists during their training. It is not enough to visit sick employees in hospital. Time has come for company welfarism to be extended to reservists during in-camp training.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I be allowed to join in this debate? I believe the majority of young men in Singapore today have come to recognize the necessity for defence, and I believe they cooperate with Mindef in doing their in-camp national service training. On the part of Mindef, I would urge them to do everything possible to minimize the disruption caused to these young men in their jobs. For this, I would like to recall what I read of an incident in Switzerland, a country which takes its defence very seriously and where most young people go for almost a lifetime of national service training. This shows the extent to which the authorities will go to accommodate just one of these young people in Switzerland. There was a bachelor and he was a farmer by choice. He preferred to stay in a place where there is quiet. He purchased for himself a few cows. He had to milk his own cows. The authorities, when calling him up for national service, took into account his type of work. They made sure that they would call him up at a season where there is minimal involvement with his livestock, milking and other jobs. So this is the extent that they would go to accommodate only one young man in getting him to do his national service. Well, I hope in Singapore we have this kind of concern, this kind of attitude, this kind of spirit for our young people. As regards compensation of payment to these young people doing in-camp training. There is a group - I believe quite a sizeable group of young people - who prefer to work for themselves, who are blue collar workers skilled in some jobs, like welding. They do not like to take on a steady job but they prefer to be sub-contractors and are employed as independent contractors; in other words they are working for themselves and therefore they do not pay CPF. Sometimes the people who employ them for jobs do not keep records. Sometimes these young people go from person to person to get jobs. In fact, one of these type of workers had come to see me, saying he had a problem claiming his pay for one month's in-camp training. He could not get from his employer, or the person for whom he had probably done a job two months ago, to say how much he was paid. Meanwhile he had no work and that the person who employed him could not be found. In these kind of circumstances, I would urge Mindef just to accept a statutory declaration of a national serviceman because, as in this particular case, he really suffered hardship. He was earning $600-$700 a month when he was working and when he was called he could not substantiate his rate of pay. So he was only paid $90. Now, how can $90 be enough to pay for his HDB instalment and to maintain a wife and two kids? $90 certainly is not enough. So perhaps the SAF could do something for this type of national servicemen.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, let me respond to the points raised by the MPs. First, the Member for Thomson. He asked why there is no upper limit on voluntary service which is allowed by the Bill. The original Act specifies 40 days, the amendment does not specify a limit on voluntary service. The answer is that the service is voluntary. There is no compulsion. Mindef cannot force a person to serve in the SAF beyond 40 days. And if a person wishes to serve in the SAF more than 50, 60 days, or even six months, there is no reason for Mindef to say, "No. This is illegal, forbidden under the Act." Why should we draft the Act that way? Of course, neither would Mindef unreasonably impose on a reservist to serve six months each year, year after year. That simply cannot be done. So the upper limit is not statutory. The upper limit is set by what the reservist is able to contribute, and how his reservist duties fit in with his civil responsibility. Secondly, the question of going from a voluntary extension of service to a compulsory extension of service. The Member asked if I will come back to this House to get permission to amend the Bill should we need to do that. The Member for Kaki Bukit also mentioned this. I should say that we have no intention of doing that. But should it become necessary, I will of course come back to this House because the Bill does not presently give Mindef discretion in calling people up more than 40 days a year compulsorily. Thirdly, the question of enhanced compensation for key appointment holders. It is linked to the point made by the Member for Chong Boon, who suggested looking for different incentives, different generous tokens of appreciation for key appointment holders so that they will know that they are important key digits in society. Mindef has done what we can to give them recognition, to make sure that when it comes to National Day Awards, key appointment holders are also not forgotten, to make sure that when we have a club, like the Temasek Society, for senior officers of the SAF, we treat senior reservists on par with active serving officers. I am not sure that the solution here is further allowances or grants from the Government because the reservists you are talking about are already senior civilians, receiving substantial remuneration from their civilian jobs. What they need is not additional cash incentive to serve the SAF but the social support and encouragement which will allow them to spend many hours, many evenings, weekends and long periods away from their job, knowing that others appreciate this as doing their duty and not shirking their responsibility in civilian life. The Government can do this to some extent, but a lot more, of course, must be done by the civilian employers. The Member for Kaki Bukit asked whether we could minimize inconvenience to reservists when they come back for in-camp training. Yes, we try to do that. We try to make sure that every minute of a reservist's time in in-camp training is well spent. In fact, I think we have gone to the point that many reservists will tell you, although perhaps not in public, that they wish there was a bit more spare time and free time when they are on in-camp training, because they are rushed from point to point without a pause, from the moment they report to the moment they are de-kitted and sent marching back out of the camp. So we do make sure that when a person is back with us, we use him to the fullest. To us time is money and time is training time and operational readiness. The Member for Chong Boon asked us to impress upon reservists that SAF reservist training is not a holiday camp. I am not sure what is the best way to do this. Perhaps the best way would be if any employers are under that misapprehension, for me to extend an open invita- tion to them to come and participate in some of the reservist training, particularly on the basic combat training course (BCTC) which is conducted in SAFTI. It is only two days. We can run it over a weekend, if necessary. And if you have been through the experience, you will know that this is not a holiday. And I think all the reservists do know that it is not a holiday. Word has got around that before you come in for BCTC, better get fit. There is no time to start getting fit once you have reported, drawn your rifle and are at the starting line for this training course. I come to the Member for Potong Pasir. He mentioned minimizing disruption in jobs. I have already replied to this. Perhaps I should say in addition that it is important also for the reservists to minimize disruption in the reservist unit training which he is bound to do. In other words, it is not just a matter of convenience to the single reservist whether or not he comes back at a time which fits him but also a matter of whether, by being absent, a reservist actually hinders the training and the entire series of activities which his team, his platoon or his battalion needs to go through. If the reservist is a battalion commander and absents himself, it is not just in-camp training which is disrupted. All 800 or 900 soldiers in his battalion will have their training affected and their entire in-camp period wasted if the battalion commander is not there to take them through their paces. Therefore, we need to balance the two. The Member produced a picturesque story about the Swiss farmer by choice who preferred the quiet of a farm, - presumably not MacDonald's farm - who was called up only when the cows did not need to be milked. I have no doubt that this was true. But let me respond with another Swiss story. This was a banker, risen high in his civilian career, similarly successful as a reservist, who was in Singapore negotiating a loan. And midway through the negotiations, he said, "Excuse me, can we break off the business? I have to go back to Switzerland to do my in-camp training." He went back to Switzerland, completed his in-camp training, flew back to Singapore and settled the loan. I would suggest that Singaporeans should follow the banker rather than the farmer. There are very few chicken farms in Singapore! Let me come to the question of the self-employed blue collar worker, eg, a welder or an independent contractor who, alas, did not keep records of his earnings, neither has he paid CPF, and therefore is unable to earn his make-up pay. The question is whether should he make a statutory declaration that he earns $700 per month, Mindef will pay him the make-up pay corresponding to this sum. I would go one better than that. We do not need a statutory declaration, because a statutory declaration may get you into trouble with the Comptroller of Income Tax. If a person is earning $700 per month and has declared that income, we will accept his income tax returns as conclusive proof that he has earned the money, and we will pay him the make-up pay. Of course, if he did not pay the income tax but is about to make a statutory declaration that he did earn the money, then I am sure Mr Hsu Tse-Kwang would like to have a word with him. Perhaps the Member can let me know his name, rank and identity card number right now. I suspect, however, that he is fictitious, because the Member also mentioned that he earns only $90 per month as a reservist. As far as I know, not a single reservist in Singapore earns $90 per month. We revised national service allowances, I think, three years ago, before the last General Elections when the Member was elected.

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. - [BG Lee Hsien Loong]. Bill considered in Committee.

Clause 1 -

The citation year will be changed to "1987". Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 2 and 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 2.52 pm

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, I intend to be brief because this Bill only seeks to make a few minor and formal amendments to five Acts and to repeal three other Acts in accordance with the recommendations of the Law Revision Commissioners who were appointed to prepare and publish a Revised Edition of our Acts. The object of the amendments contained in the First Schedule to the Bill is to remove and update obsolete provisions of the statute laws, but without changing their original intent or purpose. The Bill will enable the amendments to be incorporated in the new revised edition of our Acts which is expected to be published during the course of this year. The amendments are generally of a formal nature and are self-explanatory. As stated in the Explanatory Note, this Bill is not intended to affect any existing rights or duties or the operation of any other subsisting laws. The three Acts specified in the Second Schedule to the Bill have served their purpose and ceased to have any useful operation. The Bill therefore seeks to repeal and remove these obsolete laws from the Statute Book. Sir, I beg to move.

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. - [Prof. S. Jayakumar]. Bill considered in Committee.

Clause 1 -

The citation year will be changed to "1987". An alteration will also be made in page 1, line 4, to leave out "(No. 2)". Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 2 and 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill. First and Second Schedules ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Third Reading read. 2.56 pm

Notice has been given by the Minister for Law of amendments in respect of clauses 7, 32, 33, 70, 74, 104, 105, 137, 138, 142, 185, 211, 219 and 235 as set out in the Order Paper Supplement. The Bill accordingly stands recommitted to a Committee of the whole House in respect of those clauses. Bill considered in Committee.

Clause 7 -

Sir, I beg to move, In page 18, line 16, to leave out from "which" to the end of line 17, and insert "was carried out without the consent of the owner of the copyright;". Sir, this amendment is also related to the amendments to clauses 32, 33, 104, 105 and 142. These clauses prohibit the importation into Singapore of certain types of articles for the purposes of trade. The clauses as they are presently drafted prohibit the importation for the purposes of trade of foreign articles if they are actually made in breach of the copyright laws of the country of manufacture. However, if they are made in a country where there is no adequate protection given to intellectual property, they may be technically legitimate reproductions in the country of manufacture and therefore may be freely imported into Singapore. Imports from countries which offer little or no copyright protection will undermine the interests of copyright owners in Singapore. Whilst we, Parliament, cannot stop the manufacture of these articles outside Singapore, we are in a position to stop them from coming into Singapore. The amendments also seek to extend the prohibition to the importation of copies under statutory licensing schemes in the country of manufacture which are not meant for export. Amendment agreed to. Clause 7, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 32 -

Sir, I beg to move, In page 38, line 27, to leave out from "article" to the end of line 29, and insert "was carried out without the consent of the owner of the copyright.". Sir, the explanation which I just gave for the amendment to clause 7 applies here as well. Amendment agreed to. Clause 32, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 33 -

Sir, I beg to move, In page 39, line 1, to leave out from "article" to the end of line 2, and insert "was carried out without the consent of the owner of the copyright.". The same explanation given for the previous two amendments apply here. Amendment agreed to. Clause 33, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 70 -

Sir, I beg to move, In page 67, lines 17, 20 and 22, to leave out "object", and insert in each case "useful article". Sir, clause 70 is amended to make it clear that the exception to artistic copyright in this provision applies in respect of the making of functional objects. Clause 70 is intended to restrict the copyright protection accorded to drawings of functional objects by limiting the protection in terms of the three dimensional reproduction right to 15 years. Amendment agreed to.

Sir, I beg to move, In page 67, line 19, to leave out "object", and insert "article". The explanation I just gave for the first amendment applies. Amendment agreed to.

Sir, I beg to move, In page 68, after line 4 to insert: "(4) In this section, "useful article" means an article having an intrinsic utilitarian function that is not merely to portray the appearance of the article or to convey information. (5) For the purposes of this section, an article that is normally part of a useful article is considered a useful article.". Sir, the previous two explanations are equally relevant here. Amendment agreed to. Clause 70, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 74 -

Sir, I beg to move, In page 71, after line 3 to insert - "(6) The regulations made for the purposes of this section may make provision for determining the circumstances in which a design is, for the purposes of this section, to be deemed to be applied industrially.". Sir, the new subclause (6) to clause 74 seeks to provide for the making of regulations to define the term "industrially applied" used in that clause. Such an express power is necessary, and clause 74 (b) is similar to section 10(5) of the United Kingdom Copyright Act, 1956. Amendment agreed to. Clause 74, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 104 -

Sir, I beg to move, In page 80, line 32, to leave out from "article" to the end of line 34, and insert "was carried out without the consent of the owner of the copyright.". Sir, the reasons which I gave for the amendment to clause 7 applies for this amendment as well. Amendment agreed to. Clause 104, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 105 -

Sir, I beg to move, In page 81, line 4, to leave out from "article" to the end of line 6, and insert "was carried out without the consent of the owner of the copyright.". Sir, here too the explanation I gave for the amendment to clause 7 applies. Amendment agreed to. Clause 105, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 137 -

Sir, I beg to move, In page 97, line 13, to leave out "part", and insert "Part". This is a drafting amendment. Amendment agreed to. Clause 137, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 138 -

Sir, I beg to move, In page 97, lines 37 and 38, to leave out "such work or other subject-matter", and insert "any such infringing copy". This is also a drafting amendment. Amendment agreed to. Clause 138, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 142 -

Sir, I beg to move, In page 99, line 7, to leave out "constituted an infringement", and insert "was carried out without the consent of the owner". The explanations which I gave for the amendment to clause 7 applies here also. Amendment agreed to.

Sir, I beg to move, In page 99, line 9, to leave out "in the country in which the copy was made". The same reason applies in this amendment as well. Amendment agreed to.

Sir, I beg to move, In page 99, after line 26, to insert - "(5) Subject to the regulations made under this Act, the Board may permit copies of a work, a cinematograph film or a sound recording that are liable to be seized and forfeited under this section to be delivered to the importer upon security being given to the satisfaction of the Board that the copies will be forthwith exported from Singapore." Sir, clause 142 is amended to give an extra power to the Trade Development Board to restrict the importation of infringing copies of works, films and sound recordings. In addition to the right to seize and forfeit the infringing copies, the Trade Development Board may order the re-export of the infringing copies from Singapore upon security being given to the Board. Such copies are therefore prevented from entry into the domestic market. Amendment agreed to.

Consequential amendments will be made: (1) To renumber subclauses (5), (6) and (7) as subclauses (6), (7) and (8), respectively. (2) In page 100, line 7, to leave out "(6)", and insert "(7)". These will be done. Clause 142, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 185 -

Sir, I beg to move, In page 130, line 30, to leave out from "original" to the end of line 26 in page 131, and insert - "work, or a sound recording or a cinematograph film is made by or under the direction or control of an international organisation to which this Act applies in such circumstances that copyright would not subsist in the work, sound recording or cinematograph film apart from this subsection -

Sir, I beg to move, In page 131, lines 27 and 28 and 31, to leave out "that Part", and insert in each case "those Parts". It is a drafting amendment. Amendment agreed to.

A consequential amendment will be made: To renumber subclause (5) as subclause (6). This will be done. Clause 185, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 211 -

Sir, I beg to move, In page 148, lines 27 and 28 and 34, to leave out "any part of the British dominions", and insert in each case "a country". Sir, the amendments to clauses 211 and 219 are of a drafting nature. The amendments will substitute the use of the term "British dominion" in those clauses with a more neutral term "country". Amendment agreed to. Clause 211, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 219 -

Sir, I beg to move, In page 153, lines 17 and 24, to leave out "any part of the British dominions", and insert in each case "a country". The explanation is the same as I gave for clause 211. Amendment agreed to. Clause 219, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 235 -

Sir, I beg to move, In page 156, line 25, to leave out "(5)", and insert "(3)". The reason for this amendment is the same as that I gave for the amendment to clause 185. Amendment agreed to.

Sir, I beg to move, In page 156, lines 26 and 27, to leave out ", first published, or to an edition published,". The same reasons apply. Amendment agreed to.

Sir, I beg to move, In page 156, line 28, at end, to add - "(2) Section 185(4) shall not apply in relation to sound recordings or cinematograph films first published before the commencement of this Act. (3) Section 185(5) shall not apply in relation to an edition published before the commencement of this Act.". The same reasons as I have mentioned for the two previous amendments apply. Amendment agreed to.

A consequential amendment will be made: In page 156, line 25, after "235.", to insert "-

Third Reading, what day?

Now, Sir. I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Third time." Sir, the Select Committee on this Bill received 34 written representations. They came from both copyright owners as well as consumers of copyright materials. Hon. Members can see from the Report of the Select Committee that the representations covered many aspects of copyright law. The representations received by the Select Committee show that the Bill was generally welcomed by copyright owners. However, they wanted certain amendments to extend and make more effective the protection available to them. Consumers, on the other hand, expressed fears that the new proposed copyright law might stifle research or deny adequate access to information. The Select Committee's approach was to bring about a balanced copyright environment. That is to say, to provide adequate protection to creative works and, at the same time, give due recognition to the consumer interest in the availability of creative works. In particular, the interest of our educationists and students was not to be ignored. The Select Committee also took into account the fast-changing technology and the need for a copyright regime which is responsive to technological change. In this regard, it took into account that outdated legislation will impede economic growth, particularly since our economy is increasingly service-oriented, with an increasingly important role for the creation, transmission and processing of information. Modern copyright legislation would also serve to attract investments, particularly in the field of computer software and information technology. The Bill, as amended by the Select Committee, is in accord with our objective of promoting Singapore as a regional research and development centre. I do not propose to go into all the provisions of the Bill because Members would have read the report of the Select Committee and also because we have had a fairly exhaustive debate during the Second Reading when the main principles were canvassed. I therefore intend to focus only on certain significant amendments of the Select Committee. Burden of proof First, I will take the question of burden of proof. Under the original provisions of the Bill, it was necessary for the prosecution or the plaintiff in criminal copyright proceedings or in secondary civil proceedings for copyright infringement, to establish that the accused or defendant knew that he was dealing with infringing copies. Establishing "guilty knowledge" can be an extremely major and costly obstacle for the prosecution or the plaintiff. The Select Committee recommends therefore that the requirement for "guilty knowledge" in criminal copyright offences or civil secondary infringements be made less stringent. Under the amended Bill, the burden of proof remains with the prosecution or the plaintiff, as the case may be, but the prosecution or the plaintiff need to show that the accused or the defendant ought to reasonably have known that he was dealing in infringing copies. Civil and criminal remedies Turning to civil and criminal remedies, amendments to the Bill are also made in relation to the civil and criminal remedies for copyright infringement. The Select Committee amended the Bill to abolish conversion damages and in substitution, gave the plaintiff a right to delivery-up of infringing copies and contrivances used for the manufacture of copies or equitable damages in lieu of delivery-up. The Select Committee also amended the Bill to give our courts the power to take into account, when awarding costs in civil suits, any unreasonable challenges made by defendants to the presumptions as to the subsistence and ownership of copyright. On the other hand, a clause has been inserted (at the suggestion of the Law Society) to provide a remedy against groundless threats of legal proceedings. Possession for purpose of trade As I have emphasized before, possession per se of infringing copies is not an offence. As regards criminal sanctions, the Bill has, however, been amended to include two new offences. The first is an offence of being in possession of infringing copies of any category of works and other subject-matter for the purposes of trade having cause to know or knowing it to be such. A person who is in possession of five or more infringing copies is presumed to be in possession for the purposes of trade. But this is a presumption which is rebuttable. Let me add, however, that possession of infringing copies of sound recordings for purposes of trade is already an offence under Singapore's existing copyright laws and that this provision is not altogether alien to our legal system. The amendment also has precedent in other countries. The second new offence is that of unauthorized public performances of films, other than by a radio or television receiver, for private profit. Consumer interests Let me turn to consumer interests, Sir. The Select Committee has not overlooked consumer interests. Some of the amendments to the Bill take into account the interests of users of copyright materials. Since copyright law gives the author or creator a monopoly over the use of his work, it is essential if learning is not to be stifled that certain exemptions must be created. In particular, the Select Committee has made refinements to the "fair dealing" provisions for works in this Bill. Several new "fair dealing" provisions have been introduced in relation to the new categories of copyright-protected subject matter, namely, sound recordings, films, published edition, broadcasts and cable programmes. I also wish to draw your attention to clause 114 which makes it clear that home-taping of TV and Radio programmes does not amount to an infringement. Clauses 109, 110 and 111 are similar to the "fair dealing" provisions which are applicable to works. The new types of copyright-protected subject matter are commonplace features of everyday life and are used widely by the average citizen in the same manner as books and periodicals. It is only reasonable therefore to extend the concept of "fair dealing" in relation to works, to also cover legitimate uses of new categories of copyright- protected subject matter. Other amendments were also made by the Select Committee after taking into account the increasingly widespread use of audio-visual materials in libraries, archives and educational institutions. Clauses 112, 113 and 115 create exceptions to meet the needs of researchers, students and educationists. The copyright in artistic works which are not registrable under designs law has also been restricted where such works have been applied to the manufacture of functional objects. In such cases, the period of copyright protec- tion is limited to a maximum of 15 years from the date of first industrial application. Parallel imports Let me turn to the question of parallel imports. Sir, several representations to the Select Committee dealt with the question of parallel imports. Parallel imports, in the context of copyright legislation, refer to the import into one country of goods lawfully made or sold in another country by or with the consent of the copyright owner to such manufacture; in other words, legitimate reproductions. Some representors urged the Select Committee to ban parallel imports whereas others equally vigorously argued that parallel imports should be permitted. After hearing both sides, the Select Committee decided that the Bill should be amended to make it clear that parallel imports are not prohibited. Incidentally, Sir, the amendments which we have just adopted do not change this position. The Bill, as amended by the Select Committee, will prohibit only the importation of copies which are made in countries without copyright legislation without the consent of the copyright owner, copies made without the consent of the copyright owner under a statutory licence. The consent that we are talking about, Sir, is consent by the copyright owner to the manufacture in the other country, not to the importation by Singapore. If dealings in parallel imports are prohibited, consumers may be denied the opportunity to purchase a lower-priced but legitimate edition of a work merely because the edition originates from some other country. The Select Committee was particularly impressed by evidence presented to it of large price differentials of authorized editions of copyright materials, in particular books, originating from different countries. Further, any restriction on parallel imports will serve to benefit the exclusive licensee more than the copyright owner. In any case, the copyright owner would already have been paid royalties by the overseas manufacturer of the parallel import. A prohibition on parallel imports may create a monopoly for the exclusive licensee. This in turn will encourage price-fixing arrangements and other restrictive trade practices which cannot be in our public interest. The approach taken by other countries in relation to parallel imports has been far from uniform which is understandable as this is attributable to the varying economic situations of different countries. Finally, the Select Committee also received numerous representations calling upon the Government to enter into copyright relations with certain countries or to join in some international copyright convention. The Government recognizes that the ramifications of copyright are world wide since intellectual creative activity and the arts are not confined to national boundaries. The Bill, as amended by the Select Committee, will enable the Government to establish copyright relations with other countries and will provide a standard of copyright protection that is compatible with that of the Universal Copyright Convention. Singapore will consider acceding to the UCC in the future. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to make some comments on the Copyright Bill as introduced by the Minister. Sir, firstly, I would like to congratulate the Minister and his officials for the breakneck speed at which this legislation has come before this House. A tremendous amount of work was done in the Select Committee as it can be seen from the 34 written representations received from the various organizations and interested groups. Sir, it must be pointed out that there has been considerable pressure from developed countries, particularly the United States of America, for the enactment of this piece of legislation. Whilst we have done everything possible to comply with the demands of the developed countries, I think it is necessary for the developed countries to recognize the swift action taken by the Singapore Government. I only hope, Sir, that the speed at which the Singapore Government and its officials reacted to the US request will not be reciprocated by the US Congress passing through 300 or 400 trade restrictive Bills at the same breakneck speed. Sir, the US and other developed countries hopefully will reciprocate the action taken by the Singapore Government with more liberal trade policies towards Singapore. Many countries have paid lip service to the question of copyright and protection of intellectual properties. Some countries, I am told, have acceded to all the requests and pressures by the US by enacting the necessary pieces of legislation. But, Sir, we know, in practice, this will be totally disregarded. Unfortunately, Sir, the case in Singapore is slightly different. I am sure the Government will strictly enforce the legislation once it is passed in this House. Sir, it is our hope that we will not be punished further for adopting these restrictions by more restrictive trading practices and conditions in our developed markets. Let us hope that our trust is not misplaced. Sir, the second point I would like to make is to refer to the question of parallel imports. During the Second Reading of this Bill in this House I urged the Minister to seriously look at the question of parallel imports. It is very gratifying to hear the Minister when moving this Bill in this House a few minutes ago that he has given serious consideration to this request, and I am sure the necessary changes introduced will benefit consumers as a whole. This will definitely discourage price-fixing and will be in the general interest of all Singaporeans. Finally, Sir, I would like to look at some positive aspects as a result of the enactment of this Bill. Some manufacturers and businessmen will necessarily go out of business with the coming into operation of this Bill. I think Government agencies like the Economic Development Board, the Trade Development Board can do much to help some of these businesses. Government should identify such companies and assist them to enter into licensing or franchise agreements with holders of the original rights so that these works and items can be manufactured or produced in Singapore legally for consumption not only in the Singapore market but also for consumption in the regional market. Whilst this will definitely keep some of our businesses alive, it does also help to reduce prices. If these works can be produced in Singapore as a result of franchise or licensing arrangements, it will be beneficial not only to consumers in Singapore but also our regional market. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would urge the Government agencies responsible to explore this area with some urgency. Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill in principle, therefore I chose not to speak on its Second Reading. But that does not mean that I have nothing to say. I would like to take this opportunity to offer some comments on the clauses and amendments and new provisions, particularly on those connected with computer software and also on what the Minister has just said. To me the history of human civilization is a process of copying and re-copying. Perhaps after a gloomy session this morning, no one now has any heart to listen to stories. But I would still like to try to tell one. Once upon a time, in time immemorial, someone had invented a wheel. Then after thousands of years another one copied the idea and put a piece of plank on top of two wheels and a cart was born for people to push things or pull things. Then after thousands of years someone copied that idea again, and this time he put a horse in front of the cart and they had a horse carriage. So this went on until the last century when James Watt replaced the horse with a steam engine and we have the first train. And a German named Carl Friedrich Benz replaced the horse with a combustion engine and we have the first motorcar. So if copying was not allowed, there would be no human civilization and progress as we know them today. And if copying was strictly prohibited in the past, then today we would be climbing trees instead of climbing escalators. Now we are in a predicament. We want to catch up with the West in the field of science and technology. We want to find out how things are done and how to produce them cheaply, more cheaply. Yet at the same time the British and the Americans have sold us the idea that these advancements in the scientific world, the computer, its software, etc, etc, etc, are what they call "intellectual property" and we are not supposed to touch them or use them unless we have paid them the royalties. Well, as a government which upholds high moral and integrity in the business world, what are we going to do with the relentless pressures and lopsided arguments from the MNCs? Not to yield we will be branded as thieves and pirates and they will threaten to do this or that. But to do so we might tie ourselves in cocoons and we cannot do this or that. What will happen to the parents and young students who have spent thousands of dollars on computer hardware? They will find that they cannot afford to buy software for experiment on their computers anymore. Many small companies which have bought micro-comptuers and copied programs to run their business will also find themselves in deep trouble. Suppose there is some problem with a computer, a bug has been found or the computer hangs - to use some of the jargons in computeries - would the company be able to call the computer company and ask for servicing? Or would the computer company dare to go to service it? There is also another tricky problem which the new provision for local area net work known as LAN will not solve. You see, technically, a digital watch, a calculator or a micro-computer are products of the same concept. They all depend on micro-chips for their functions. In the case of a digital watch, the command language or the software or the operating system, whichever way you want to call it, is worked into a chip and the price for the watch includes the chip, so that after you have bought the watch and put in the battery, it will start functioning and telling you the time. The same goes with a calculator. But in the case of a micro-computer, it is different. The clever MNCs make sure that anyone who buys it is forever tied on to their apron. The Member for Bukit Timah will probably bear me out that the micro-computer, far from popular belief, is a dumb machine when you first buy it. It will not work nor respond to your commands unless you put in a software called DOS (Disk Operating System) and load it. And for that you have to pay extra. With it you can run word processing program such as Wordstar or Display Writer or Spreadsheet programme such as Lotus 1, 2, 3, Symphony, Framework, whatever you can think of, etc, etc. Without it, the computer is a piece of junk. It is worse than a manual typewriter. You cannot make it work. So using the analogy of the digital watch or the calculator, the producer should be able to work the DOS into a chip and incorporate the chip into the computer. Well, they could have done it but they chose not to. The purpose, of course, is to make more money out of us and to make us forever dependent on them. And if we start modifying or copying we would be infringing on their rights. What is even worse is that this programme like any other programme, always comes with a condition or warning printed on the manual to say that although you have bought the program, it is not your property and you are only licensed to use it to run on one machine and one machine only. So if you have, say, 10 machines in your office, in practice you could use the same diskette to load all the 10 machines or copy the programme into 10 diskettes to run the machines separately. But in law if you do that you will be infringing on their rights. At least that is what their condition of sales says. Now the tricky problem is this. Many companies or banks, as the Member for Jalan Kayu will bear me out, install micro-computers to run not in a land environment but as a stand alone - you know what I mean by "stand alone"? This is another jargon. In other words, they run the machines not as slave machines linked to a master machine but as independent machines. So normally, at least before this Bill appears, the organization would buy, say, 10 machines and one copyrighted programme, say, Lotus I, II, III, and have it copied into 10 sets of diskettes and run them in the machine separately. But with this law coming into force, would they still be able to do the same? Frankly, I do not know the answer and I do not want to know. The world is not a simple place to live in and we have to be on guard all the time. It is very well to say that we must be straight and forth and honest and try to be gentlemen. But if we are gentlemen and the others are not gentlemen, we will end up being poorer men. The Americans are our friends in the free world. But are they our friends in the business world? The Americans say they are our friends and, if so, why do they grudge us for selling a few thousands more pieces of our garment products in their vast market? They say they want to help us. If so, then why when it suited their purposes, did they see nothing wrong in imposing a sudden ban on our export of tropical fish to make us bow to what they want in the Wildlife Protection Convention? They say other people are thieves and pirates, and yet they are now being sued by the French for stealing from a French institution the technique of isolation of the Aids virus. How did it happen? I do not know because I am not interested in it. As I said before, if copying were made a crime in days gone by, there would be no progress in human history. The Japanese were the biggest copycat in Asia. Before the war they copied and produced everything the West produced, and sold them cheaply. And after the war, they brought in motorcars, cameras, hi-fi systems from the West, dismantled them, found out how they were made, improved on their components, and they are now producing better and cheaper ones. This is what they call "reverse engineering". If we cannot have this, how can we progress? If our young ones are denied cheap source of software and hardware, how can they learn; how can they experiment; how can they discover; and how can they invent? Someone may want to point to the story about the race between the rabbit - the Rabbit Year is coming - about the race between the rabbit and the tortoise and say that if we are honest and steady, we will catch up one day. But the trouble is that the Rabbit we now face is a smart and cunning one. Before the race has even started, he wants the tortoise to tie up its two legs. So how are we going to take off? What is worse is that the rabbit can turn out to be a rude and crude one. The other day I was very angry when I read in the Straits Times about the dispute, the quarrel between the residents of Pine Grove and the Singapore American Community Action Council over the playing of American football in a field near there. The Director of the Council, instead of apologizing for inconveniences caused to the residents, was reported to have said that this was their way of life and if others did not like it, it was too bad. He even said that this was the choice of the residents and so they had to live with it. Of course, we have to live with our choice. But we do not necessarily have to live with the Americans! It may be true that they can do whatever they like in America. Who says that they can do whatever they like in Singapore? Who says that they can put up loudspeakers and floodlights and make noise until 10 or 11 o'clock at night? Have they got a Police permit to do so? Well, I may have gone astray but all these questions are not really directed at the Minister and his Ministry. Because I know that his Ministry is only a coordinator of various requests from the Ministries who, in turn, are under pressure that they must do this or do that, otherwise look out and so on. Thank you. 3.47 pm

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, when I spoke during the Second Reading of this Bill on the 5th May 1986, I expressed the concern that the Select Committee should not overlook the interests of the bona fide individual who may have a legitimate need for making a copy of a book or videotape for his own private or personal use as opposed to commercial purposes. I am glad that the Select Committee has been fair in its approach to provide for protection of consumer interests and, in particular, the interests of educationists, students and researchers. However, Sir, in this context, I would like to seek several clarifications. May I first refer to clause 136(7)? Here it is stated: '... any person who has in his possession 5 or more infringing copies of any work or other subject-matter shall, unless the contrary is proved, be presumed -

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Government in going ahead to amend this Copyright Bill has taken a very brave step. In fact, I would say that this is a watershed legislation which has, I would say, turned our daily living upside down. All these people who are involved in audio visual, photocopying, and whose shops we see all over the country will be affected, and I can see the concern of the Member for Queenstown. We know that Singapore is under pressure from the Americans, especially business people in America, to have our laws amended. They feel that once Singapore has amended the laws, because they say we are the cultural, social and economic leader of this part of the world, perhaps they could get other countries to do likewise. Singapore has complied. I hope the Americans will take note of the big sacrifice that Singapore has made and accordingly reciprocate the favour we have done them. This Bill also has strong repercussions in Singapore. This will make us aware that in fact creative works are expensive and intellectual properties are something which we have to pay. Up to now, I think our students are brought up in an atmosphere where they think all these can just be plucked from the tree, so to say. Now they know that all these creative works are costly things. This I am sure will create a different kind of attitude in our students. The Member for Queenstown has mentioned about copying. He mentioned about the Japanese buying motorcars, cameras, what have you, and stripped them and tried to copy and make similar products. And since then they have improved and they even make better and cheaper motorcars. This reverse engineering by the way has to be highlighted. It is not illegal. Reverse engineering is a bona fide business activity which can be done. And in view of this copyright law that is just about to be passed in Singapore, I would urge the Singapore Government to have institutions to carry out this activity known as reverse engineering. In fact, we must make it part of our economic activity. Because, as you have seen in South Korea, they have done it and they are very successful. I believe Taiwan has also embarked on this. In the case of Hong Kong, of course, they have China. They can depend on China's hinterland and their trade. But in Singapore, how are we going to survive with this copyright law? I hope the Government would not only have such institutions to have what is known as reverse engineering but also to have a more liberal society and perhaps make an environment where creative works can be more easily carried out.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, first of all, let me join my colleagues in commending the Select Committee under the leadership of the Minister in doing an excellent job on this Copyright Bill. In going through this Bill, I notice that there are a number of significant amendments and I would like to go through a few of them. For instance, in the definition of "educational institution", I note the significant amendment broadening the definition of "educational institution" thereby putting it in very clear terms what are educational institutions and what are not. This is very good work by the Committee. I also notice that there are amendments regarding performance of works in hotels and public places. For instance, showing of in-house movies in hotels are required to pay royalties. That is in the spirit of the copyright law. There is also amendment limiting the liabilities of the owners of hotels as regards the performance of work by performers on the premises. Also, there are amendments on performance of work in religious gatherings. All this, I believe, would make the implementation and the performance of work much easier and will make this Bill a much better piece of legislation. I notice that there is also another amendment on groundless threat which would provide a remedy to help aggrieved parties who are under unnecessary threat of action brought by copyright owners. There are also two amendments on computers. One amendment is clause 39 (3) which addresses the issue I first brought up in the Second Reading on local area network. Although the Minister in the Committee had said that this clause made it clear that reproduction of software on the land is not an infringement, but the layman's reading of this clause and the way I understand it is such that whether that is so or not would be subject to interpretations. Perhaps the Minister can elaborate. There is another amendment on the computer storage of copyright work which says that the adaptation of work in a material form or through the reproduction of any work or an adaptation of a work in material form should include references to the storage of that work or adaptation in a computer. Rightly so, this amendment would address the progressing technologies in the sense that nowadays there are devices on the market that would convert printed form of work and other related form of work into computer readable and storable forms. Since I am on the topic of computers, perhaps let me address the comment by the Member for Queenstown. The Member has stated that the computer is a dumb piece of machine and without software it is of no good. It is no better than a typewriter. He is absolutely right. But he has perhaps missed out the most important point in a computer, in the sense that although it is very dumb it is also very flexible. Its flexibility is derived from the software that is part of this Bill's address. Let me give him an analogy. A computer is just like an automobile. One can buy an automobile but without a driver, or without learning to drive it, it is not going to get you anywhere. So just like buying a car, if you want to go from one place to another --- Mr Jek Yeun Thong rose ---

Are you giving way, Dr Wang?

May I finish my speech first, and then the Member can interject me. Mr Jek Yeun Thong resumed his seat.

It is just like a car. In order to get to your destination, you either learn to drive a car which is not an easy thing, especially in Singapore where it takes a lot of work to get your driving licence, or you pay to hire a driver. So both things demand a lot of work and practice. Similarly, in the use of computers, you can buy a computer. Now, you either write the software yourself, in other words, learn how to do it and write it yourself, or pay to get a piece of software. So I think the case of a copyright work in computer software stands on very firm ground and perhaps the Member should come to recognize that. Coming back to the Bill, with the amendment that I have noticed, I would say that the Bill has been improved. It is now a piece of balanced work and with the item addressing technologies, let me borrow a term from technology, it is a state of the art piece of legislation incorporating current thinking on copyright law in both Australia and New Zealand. While it is a good piece of Bill in terms of provision, its impact will lie in its implementation. I would say that this piece of legislation, will affect the lives of every Singaporean when it is fully implemented. Perhaps I would request the Minister to do a thorough educational work on the Singaporean through a campaign of some sort because the full implementation of this Bill would put many small businesses out of business. Perhaps the Minister should be compassionate in its implementation and, where it is possible, provide a grace period to aid the transition of current businesses in the area, which will be affected, into new businesses.

Can I ask the Member a question? How does he square this analogy of a digital clock with a micro-computer? A digital clock, as I know it and as you know it too, Mr Deputy Speaker, comes with the software already worked into the chip, whereas the micro-computer has not got anything inside. You have to buy the software to get it running.

Can I have a chance to answer that? The Member addresses two components in digital technology that span the spectrum of different intelligence. A digital clock is a very dumb device. It does not even have a micro processor chip in it. It is not correct to say that a digital clock has a micro-processor. It does not. It is just a series of counters and display units with a crystal clock running in it.

What about small calculators? Would it be the same?

Of course, calculators would be at the middle of the spectrum ranging from digital clock all the way to micro-computers. While it is more simple, like the watch, the hardware is actually pre-programmed and it is not flexible. One cannot change it. Even if you buy a clock, I doubt you own the right to that particular software implanted and incorporated into the hardware of that clock. Whereas in computers, again it is a similar situation. It is dumb but it is flexible, as I have said earlier. Thank you.

Thank you.

Sir, I think we have had enough of computer jargon. Shall we come back to something more layman? I just want to make two comments on the Bill. The Select Committee has done a great job. The amended Bill has struck a balance between the competing needs of copyright owners and consumers. I mentioned in the debate during the Second Reading of the Bill that the Minister should consider granting a grace period of six months to a year for businessmen to adjust. I spoke on that in the context of our economic reces- sion half a year ago because in a recessionary period it is very difficult for businessmen to raise funds to invest in new or alternative activities. However, economic conditions have improved in the course of the last six months, and it appears that our economy is on its way to a gradual but yet uneven recovery. In the course of the last six months to a year, I believe large scale operators of pirated copyright material have also adjusted themselves. They have disposed of their stocks of pirated copyright materials. Many have changed trade. Some, quite logically, have become agents or distributors for legitimate copyright products. However, I still like to urge the Minister to consider granting a grace period whereby the small-time businessmen, especially the small-time shop operators in Housing Board estates, could be excused from prosecution, if possible, during this grace period. Many of these people are still ignorant of the details of the new copyright law and many of them are still loaded with stocks of pirated copyright material which are not easy to dispose of. What is more, I think the Bill as amended by the Select Committee has now made it easier for copyright owners to take legal action. Many of these small-time operators in Housing Board estates are not in a position to be able to pay hefty fines when prosecuted. The second point which I have raised in the Second Reading concerns profiteering and inflation. My concern then was that profiteering by copyright owners may be possible because these people might take undue advantage of the new law. I am glad that the Select Committee has now amended the Bill to allow for parallel importations of legitimate reproductions of copyright material. But we should not rest on our laurels. While this will provide competition and keep prices down, there is nothing to prevent copyright owners and parallel importers from ganging up to profiteer. I therefore suggest that the Government Anti-Profiteering and Inflation Committee together with CASE monitor closely developments in this area. Finally, I think the new law is a very complex one. It took the Government some five years to draft it and the Select Committee some six months to review it. The implementation of the new law is indeed a great leap forward for the country. But copyright laws are never uniform. They vary from country to country. The Law Ministry should pay particular attention to its implementation and amend the law as and when appropriate.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I wish to thank Members who spoke. I would say all the speakers in their comments have not raised any contentious issues and have indicated that they are in favour generally with the Bill as amended by the Select Committee. So my response need not be too lengthy. I will just make a few points. First of all, I should say something about the reason or reasons for the Bill. In the Second Reading speech that I made in May, I was candid enough to mention that the Bill would also remove a significant source of friction with our major trading partners, especially the United States. But it would be wrong if Members of the House felt that the only justification for this Bill is to take care of this concern with our major trading partners. As with all legislation, so too the copyright legislation must find its justification in our national interest. So the question is, does the new Copyright Bill serve our national interest? I would like to emphasize that it does, because with the passage of this Bill conditions are created which are advantageous for the development of our publishing industry, for the growth of our computer software industry, and for the development of Singapore as an information centre. With the passage of this Bill, one can expect investors would have greater incentives to come to Singapore than would have been the case if they felt that our copyright legislation would jeopardize their interests. And, of course, the other point which I have mentioned is the removal of the source of friction with our major trading partners. That is the context in which we must view the Copyright Bill - that it aids and serves our national interest in the long run on many fronts. If I may then turn to some of the specific points and requests for clarification. The Member for Chong Boon has made a constructive point about assistance or information and advice being given to some of the businesses who may be particularly adversely affected by the coming into operation of this law. My Ministry will take note of his point and liaise with the other departments to see what can be done to minimize the hardships and to give the necessary advice. The Member for Queenstown in his own inimitable way has found the Copyright Bill to be a useful platform to talk about a wide variety of things which have got nothing to do with copyright; from Aids virus to gold fish, to clocks whether they are digital or grandfather clocks. Well, he has to make his point. But in case anybody feels that the Copyright Bill has got anything to do with digital clocks or Aids virus, let me assure him that it has got nothing to do with any of these. When he raised the general question as to whether the copyright legislation is going to hinder the bright Singaporeans from engaging in reverse engineering - "reverse engineering" not in its derogatory sense - I would say that the answer given by the Member for Potong Pasir is correct, that this has got nothing to do with that and it does not impede and will not hinder such development in Singapore because a different branch of law, particularly the patent law, governs the subject matter which he is referring to. He also asked what happens to the businesses which have invested thousands of dollars. I think the point made by the Member for Chong Boon is probably a correct approach to be taken in those cases. The Member for Fengshan expressed concern with the presumption which is rebuttable in clause 136(7). He particularly was concerned with instances where 40 students in a lecture or smaller tutorial groups or choral groups or religious groups had more than five copies which are infringing copies. The answer to that is that the example that he gave about 10 students or 40 students, choral groups, would, from what he said, be clearly examples where they would have no problem in rebutting the presumption because they did not have it for sale. And if they were harassed or badgered, then I would suggest that they utilize the new section 200 which talks about groundless threats of legal proceedings. He asked me to consider the prosecution policy. Of course, it will not be possible for me to indicate for all cases what the prosecution policy will be. But for all other offences, I am sure the authorities involved in investigation and putting up the papers will take into account the circumstances of each case, which means taking into account the circumstances of the offender, the offence, whether it is the first time, whether he had previous records, the volume involved and the extenuating circumstances, if any. All the circumstances will be taken into account and this will vary from case to case. The Member for Bukit Timah, as well as the Member for Kaki Bukit, asked whether a specific grace period can be given. The answer to that really is that a grace period of not six months, but of more than two years, has in fact been given because the fact that this Bill was going to be enacted, its basic thrust, the essential provisions and objectives were publicized more than two years ago and the Second Reading was taken in the early part of 1986. The Select Committee took nearly six months to arrive at its conclusion. So in a sense all concerned with the trade and business have been put on notice and we can say that they are familiar with the provisions and, as I said, the various factors which I outlined will be taken into account as far as the prosecution is concerned. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I believe I have touched on the main points raised by hon. Members.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 4.20 pm

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Property Tax (Amendment) Bill, 1986, gives legislative effect to two property tax changes announced in the 1986 Budget Statement. The two changes involve the property tax assessment on hotel rooms, restaurants and function rooms to be based on gross receipts and the waiver of property tax for lands under development. Opportunity is also taken to include two other amendments, introduced under clauses 6 and 7, to improve property tax administration and procedures. Hotel owners had requested for property tax assessments to reflect more clearly and quickly the gross receipts and occupancy rate of each hotel. Hotel assessments have hitherto been determined after periodic study of the hotel industry-wide indices. The annual value of each hotel is then assessed adjusting for differences in location, class and attractiveness. The criticism is that the time taken to gather data, study and compile the averages and then adjust for the individual differences of each hotel takes too long. It is proposed to assess the annual value of a hotel at a percentage of the annual gross receipts. The annual value and therefore the tax payable will then be responding very quickly to the business pulse of each hotel. The gross receipt instead of the net receipt is chosen because property tax is a tax on property and not a tax on net profits. Even if a hotel is making a loss it still has to pay property tax to contribute towards the public services and public goods it consumes. The amendment in clause 2 thus serves principally to empower the Chief Assessor to assess the annual value of specified categories of properties with reference to gross receipts under this new proviso (g) to the "annual value" definition in section 2. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have also announced in the 1986 Budget Statement that from 1st July 1986, vacant lands under private development shall be exempt from property tax. Under current law, exemptions may be given to houses of worship, public schools, charitable institutions and certain social institutions. Tax may also be remitted on grounds of poverty, equity or justice. The amendment introduced in clause 3 will allow the Minister for Finance to make orders granting tax exemptions, remission or concessions for certain categories of properties such as vacant lands under private development. Property tax exemptions or remissions will then be used as fiscal tools to assist any sector of the economy. Clause 3 will also be used to grant concessions for owners who carry out large scale renovations to their properties. It is hoped that such major activities will assist the construction industry. Clause 4 introduces a new section 6A which will empower the Minister for Finance by order to require the annual value of properties specified in the order to be valued on the basis of gross receipts. To boost the tourist industry, approved tourist projects will be assessed by this method. The Minister may also order how the annual value is to be computed. This clause is connected to clause 2 above. The amendment in clause 5 is to empower the Chief Assessor to raise or lower the annual value when the gross receipts rise or fall. This will also enable the Chief Assessor to deem a change in the gross receipts of the business as evidence that the existing annual value is no longer accurate. This clause is a consequence of clause 2. I now move to the two other amendments aimed at the improvement of property tax administration and procedures. The amendment to section 20 will enlarge the composition of the Valuation Review Board from six to nine members and a Chairman. Since 1960, the Board has six members and a Chairman. With the great increase in the number of properties assessed since 1960, it is necessary to enlarge the Board to nine members and a Chairman so that appeals may be heard more expeditiously. The amendment to section 46 extends the prohibition on unauthorized allotment or fixing of house numbers. This is because the existing law does not cover individual units in a shopping complex or condominium. Sir, I beg to move.

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. - [Dr Richard Hu Tsu Tau]. Bill considered in Committee.

Clause 1 -

The citation year will be changed to "1987". Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 2 to 7 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order. Moment of interruption.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That Parliament do now adjourn. Question proposed.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, resettlement is changing the face of Chua Chu Kang. All farmers in Chua Chu Kang are to be moved out and in their place a new breed of farmers called, I suppose, agrotechnologists, are to move in. Farms in Chua Chu Kang are to be redesignated technological parks. In the process, a great deal of unhappiness is created and a great deal of problems, and the livelihood of a large number of farmers is affected. Singapore has limited land area. This fact is accepted. We must make the most efficient use of land. This too is not disputed. But what are the criteria for the efficient use of land? Does it necessarily mean that larger farms are more efficient than smaller ones? Even if we do accept this definition that large farms are more efficient than small farms, do we have to turn everybody out of their existing farms and then let out the farms by tender instead of getting existing farmers to combine themselves and form into larger units? Furthermore, existing farmers do not get any special consideration. If, for example, they can meet the criteria set by the Primary Production Department to manage an agrotechnological park and can equal the tender price, they still have to compete with non-farmers on a non-preferential basis. Indeed, it is perceived by the existing farmers that preference is given to outside entrepreneurs rather than the original farmers. This is causing a great deal of unhappiness amongst the farmers in Chua Chu Kang. Added to this general unhappiness are other instances of unhappiness caused by the resettlement process. A farm is resettled. The farmer is under notice to quit. He is an orchid farmer. He has tens of thousands of pots of orchids. He is told that he can tender for an alternative site to continue his orchid farming. However, the result of the tender would not be known for another two months. In the meantime, he is asked to quit. Where is he going to move all his orchids - tens of thousands of pots of them? He cannot sell them all fast enough and even if he could, what is he going to do if he were successful in tendering for another site? The Resettlement Department, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, comes under the portfolio of the Minister for National Development. So does the Primary Production Department. Yet there does not seem to be any coordination on the policy of these two departments. Something should be done. The policy of not allowing a single person to buy a Housing Board flat has been raised in this House many times. There is now a new twist to this policy. A farmer in my constituency owns two farm houses. Both of the houses are acquired by the Government because the land is being resettled. He is prepared to cooperate with the Government. He is a bachelor and has been happily minding his own farm; until now, that is. He does not mind being resettled and giving up his two houses. But he has to have a roof over his head. He applied for the allocation of a flat under the Resettlement Scheme but was told that he was not entitled to one because he is a bachelor and, therefore, has got no family nucleus. He promptly produced his niece who was prepared to stay with him to form a family nucleus. He was told, however, by the Resettlement Department that that was not good enough. An uncle and a niece do not in the eyes of the Resettlement Department form a family nucleus. The poor fellow is frustrated, puzzled, angry and outraged. He just cannot understand why the Government cannot allocate him a flat. He owns two houses, both of which the Government takes away. He only wants a flat in exchange and the Government is denying him that. He sees his neighbours,some of whom do not even own a house of their own, being allocated HDB flats. Yet he cannot get one. He cannot understand why he should be discriminated against. I am sure you understand, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the poor fellow's frustration and feelings. I think this is a case where the Ministry sticks too rigidly to the rules, and I submit this is a case in which the Ministry can afford to be flexible. After all, how many cases there are in Singapore where a bachelor owns two houses, both of which are acquired by the Government for development? The Government is under a moral obligation, as I see it, to allocate him a flat even if, under the existing rules, the Government is under no legal obligation to do so. Another case of unhappiness is where two families are farming on land covered by only one TOL (Temporary Occupation Licence). It appears to be Government policy not to compensate, at farmer's rate, farm structures and other improvements where two farms are covered by only one TOL. There are many instances where two families farm one holding of land with one family having a farm licence and the other family not. Although the other family can satisfy the criteria of being a farmer set by the Primary Production Department and can prove that at the material time he was a farmer farming that particular plot of land yet he is denied compensation at farmer's rate. This is unfair to the farmer and is causing a great deal of unhappiness. Sir, recently a large number of my constituents living in the Kranji and the Woodlands areas are affected by resettlement. Although the resettlement in this case is not done by the Government, I feel that the Government is under a moral obligation to see to the rehousing of these people. I hope the Minister will look into the matters I have raised here and do something to help my constituents. Thank you.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to take the points made by the Member for Chua Chua Kang one at a time. His first point was the complaint from farmers who were resettled - that they are not given some preference over non-farmers when it comes to tendering for farmlands. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I think one fact that we must recognize is that many of these farmers on TOL lands are able to subsist because they pay rentals on the land which are well below market rates. But if a number of such small farmers get together and tender for a larger farming unit and their tender is equal to a tender from somebody else who is not a farmer, then it would appear that some preference should be given to these ex-farmers. But we know that in real life it is very seldom the case that two tenders are equal. But if there are such cases and a decision has to be made as to who should be awarded the tender, then certainly the past record of the tenderer, in terms of what he was doing, should be a consideration. I shall ask the Department concerned to give this consideration. The second point that the Member raised has to do with what he perceives as a lack of coordination between the Resettlement Department and the Primary Production Department. He quoted the example of an orchid farmer who has been asked to quit and who has tendered for another piece of land and is awaiting the tender results but the tender results will come much later after the date by which he is expected to quit his site. Sir, I must emphasise that the need for a site is determined by the particular department that wants the site. If we concede, whether it be a farmer or a shopkeeper, that his resiting or his quitting a particular site should be subject to his success in tendering for another site, then there will be no way of really clearing most of these resettlement cases. For example, I have been told of one farmer in Chua Chu Kang who was asked to quit his land by June 1985 (that is about 1(r) years ago). He has been on the site with one extension after another until the final extension has been given up to 15th January this year, and he has tendered for a site and is awaiting the result of the tender. And he says he should be allowed to stay on the site until the tender results are known. Suppose he is not successful in his tender, then what happens? He tenders for another site and he would ask that he be permitted to remain on that site until the tender results of his second tender are known. I think the determining factor is not whether that particular farmer or shopkeeper is able to get another site but why is the first site needed. And if the need is such that the farmer has to be cleared, then he has to be cleared. In this particular case that the Member has quoted, I do not know whether the farmer was given sufficient notice and how many extensions have been given. From my experience, even in my own constituency and from other letters that I received, I know that most of these cases involve many many extensions. And when finally the authority concerned is not prepared to give any more extension, then the farmer or the shopkeeper concerned presents the whole thing as a very unfair case where he has been asked to quit, without being given sufficient notice. Very often investigations would reveal that, in fact, many extensions have been given. So I must emphasise that while there is coordination, we cannot coordinate to a point where we appear to give a farmer or any other person the impression that his quitting the site would be determined by whether he is successful for another tender because, the moment that concession is made, then it will be almost impossible to clear site. The third point that he raised has to do with single persons wanting to buy Housing Board flats. This is a serious point and the Housing and Development Board has always held, quite rightly, to the rule that single persons will not be allocated rental or purchase flats unless they can combine with somebody else. Sir, I think we know that this problem of housing for single persons is going to become an increasing problem in Singapore in the years to come. If we concede that a single person can have a Housing Board flat, then I think we will never be able to build enough flats for Singapore to accommodate everybody who wants a flat. The present policy is to require that a single person combines with another person to rent a flat. And if he is a senior citizen, who is defined as a person over 50 years for males and over 40 years for females, then he can buy a flat with another single person who is not below the age of 21, but the flat must be in the joint names of the two persons. In other words, a senior citizen cannot merely buy in his name and have somebody else staying with him. Two persons who are siblings and whose parents have died can also get together to buy a flat in their joint names if they come under what is known as the Orphan Classification. In other words, if the parents are dead, two siblings, two brothers, or brother and sister, or two sisters, if they want to buy a flat, can buy a flat together in their joint names. In the example of the resettlement case that was quoted by the Member for Chua Chu Kang, perhaps we can consider some flexibility in applying the age criterion if the person is not over 50 years but is being cleared from his house and he is able to combine with somebody else to buy a house. We can consider such an application. I shall ask HDB to look into this. But I think we must not deviate from this requirement that a single person must combine with one other person in order to buy a flat or to rent a flat. The last point raised by the Member has to do with farmers on temporary occupation licence land. I am informed, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, that farmers holding farm licences in their own names are granted ex-gratia compensation at farmer's rate, even if there are a number of such farmers in one holding. In other words, in one TOL if there are two or three families, each one holding a farm licence, then each one will be considered for compensation. The problem arises when we have farmers without a farm licence. What kind of compensation should be given to them? Because of various representations made from MPs, a concession was made that one farmer holding one TOL without a farming licence will still be able to get this ex-gratia compensation provided he satisfies the criteria laid down by the Primary Production Department. The first criterion is that the level of farming activity exceeds the minimum level set up by the Primary Production Department. The second condition is a certification from his MP that he has been engaged in farming activities since 22nd March 1979. As I said, this is a concession to those who have no farm licence. Otherwise they would have been regarded as non-farming squatters and compensated at lower rates. I must emphasise that this ex-gratia compensation is over and above the assessed com- pensation where they assess the farm, the number of trees, plants and all kinds of other improvements to a TOL. That is assessed and compensation is paid for that. This is ex-gratia payment made for each farmer. So this is already a concession. To the person who has no farming licence, we say that for one lot one person with such farming activity without a licence will be considered for ex-gratia payment. Now we are being asked: what if there are more than one, two or three families, all farmers? I think we have to draw the line somewhere. I know it is not acceptable, it may cause difficulties; but we have to draw the line somewhere and I am afraid that, under the existing policy, only one farmer without a farm licence on a TOL will qualify for ex-gratia compensation. Thank you, Sir.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That Parliament do now adjourn. Adjourned accordingly at Fourteen minutes to Five o'clock pm.

asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is the rationale for the differences in payment of removal allowance between those tenants who opt for home ownership flats and rental flats under the Housing and Development Board's relocation scheme of tenants in rental blocks; and (b) whether the HDB will consider a flat removal allowance of $1,000 to tenants affected under the relocation scheme.

With the recent revision in policy, all tenants affected by the HDB's relocation programme are given a removal allowance of $500/-. Affected tenants who have opted to purchase a Home Ownership flat are given an additional $500/- making a total of $1,000/-. This is an incentive to the tenants who purchase a home ownership flat in line with the government's objective of encouraging home ownership. (b) The HDB therefore has no intention at this juncture to increase the removal allowance for tenants moving to another rental flat under the present relocation exercise.

asked the Minister for National Development whether there will be sufficient rental flats available for those tenants affected by the Housing and Development Board's relocation scheme and who are unable to opt for home ownership scheme.

The HDB's relocation exercise spans over a period of 15 years. Existing tenants will be encouraged to purchase Home Ownership flats and various incentive schemes have been implemented to assist them to own a flat. Those who cannot afford to buy a home ownership flat will be rehoused in vacant rental flats in blocks to be retained for rental. When vacancies in such blocks are taken up, the HDB will rehouse tenants who cannot purchase a flat in vacant flats in blocks earmarked for relocation in the later phase. There are sufficient home ownership flats and vacant rental flats to rehouse the tenants affected by the HDB's relocation exercise.