Hansard, 1989-03-03

PERMISSION TO MEMBERS TO BE ABSENT 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 Bernard Chen (Pasir Panjang GRC) - from 25th February to 1st March, 1989. Dr Tay Eng Soon (Eunos GRC), Senior Minister of State, Ministry of Education - from 28th February to 1st March 1989. Dr Wang Kai Yuen (Bukit Timah) - from 2nd to 24th March, 1989. Mr Eugene Yap Giau Cheng (Mountbatten), Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Trade and Industry and the Minister for the Environment - from 3rd to 10th March, 1989. Encik Sidek bin Saniff (Jalan Besar GRC), Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education - from 5th to 9th March, 1989. Mr Choo Wee Khiang (Marine Parade GRC) - from 5th to 11th March, 1989. Encik Abbas Abu Amin (Pasir Panjang GRC) - from 6th to 7th March, 1989. Mr Heng Chiang Meng (Cheng San GRC) - from 11th to 15th March, 1989. Mr Charles Chong (Sembawang GRC) - from 13th March to 30th April, 1989. TAN SOO KHOON Speaker Parliament of Singapore

ASSENTS TO BILLS PASSED The following Bills were assented to by the President of the Republic of Singapore on the date stated: 21st February, 1989 (i) Endangered Species (Import and Export) Bill; (ii) Probation of Offenders (Amendment) Bill; (iii) Destitute Persons Bill; (iv) Statutes (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill; and (v) Immigration (Amendment) Bill. TAN SOO KHOON Speaker Parliament of Singapore

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS - SIMEI ROAD/SIMEI STREET 1 - (Road divider and traffic light) asked the Minister for National Development whether the Public Works Department will construct a road divider along Simei Road and install a traffic light at the junction of Simei Road and Simei Street 1.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS - SIMEI ROAD/SIMEI STREET 1 - (Road divider and traffic light) Mr Speaker, Sir, the Public Works Department will build the road divider and signalize the junction of Simei Road/Simei Street 1 by July 1989.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS - SIMEI ROAD/SIMEI STREET 1 - (Road divider and traffic light) Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask the Senior Minister of State whether in building the road divider and installing the signalized traffic lights provision can be made for a U-turn at the junction of the traffic light.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS - SIMEI ROAD/SIMEI STREET 1 - (Road divider and traffic light) I will ask the Public Works Department to look into this request.

CHANGI CONSTITUENCY - (Primary and secondary schools) asked the Minister for Education how many more primary and secondary schools will be built in Changi Constituency.

CHANGI CONSTITUENCY - (Primary and secondary schools) Mr Speaker, Sir, the Ministry of Education has no plans to build new schools in Changi Constituency as the existing number of schools is adequate to cater for the demand.

CRIME - (Situation Report) asked the Minister for Home Affairs if he will give a full account of the latest crime situation in Singapore.

CRIME - (Situation Report) Mr Speaker, Sir, compared to 1987, seizable offences for 1988 increased by 5,490 cases or 10.9%. Not all categories of crime showed an increase. Robberies decreased slightly from 1,681 cases in 1987 to 1,674 cases in 1988, a slight drop of 0.4%. Number of rape cases also decreased from 99 in 1987 to 96 in 1988. Murder showed an increase of four cases from 50 to 54. Property-related offences of housebreaking increased by 985 cases or 32.7% in 1988. However, the rate of housebreaking remained low at 35 per 10,000 dwelling units. Motor-vehicle theft increased by 184 cases or 3.9% over 1987 figures. Despite this increase, 68% of all the motor-vehicles reported stolen were recovered in the same year. The rest of the increase in seizable offences is due to theft, assault, mischief and outraging of modesty. Singapore's crime rate of 207.4 per 100,000 population for serious offences of robbery, housebreaking, murder, rape and vehicle theft compares favourably with those of other countries. For example, Hong Kong has an overall crime rate of 356.3 per 100,000 population. Police will continue to fight crime by upgrading their investigation and intelligence systems, and promoting crime prevention measures and public education programmes in the community. The increase of property offences of housebreaking and motor-vehicle theft reported last year highlights the importance of the need for the public to take crime prevention measures seriously and to cooperate with the Police to fight crime. In this context, it is heartening to note that in 1988, 765 persons who committed serious offences were arrested through assistance rendered by the public.

CRIME - (Situation Report) Sir, may I ask the Senior Minister of State how many of these offenders are foreigners, in terms of percentage?

CRIME - (Situation Report) I do not have the figures of offenders who are foreigners arrested last year. Yes, there were foreigners who were arrested in Singapore for committing certain crimes but the figures are not with me at the moment.

CPF MINIMUM SUM SCHEME - (Particulars) asked the Minister for Labour (a) how many Central Provident Fund members have set aside the minimum sum on reaching the age of 55 years since the inception of the Minimum Sum Scheme in January 1987; and (b) what action will he take to safeguard the value of the minimum sum of $30,000 from erosion by inflation.

CPF MINIMUM SUM SCHEME - (Particulars) Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minimum Sum Scheme was implemented on 1st January 1987. As at 31st January 1989, a total of 8,427 CPF members have set aside the minimum sum in cash when they applied to withdraw their CPF savings upon reaching 55 years of age. Of these, 344 have deposited their minimum sums with approved banks, 557 have bought annuities and the rest have left their mini- mum sums with the CPF Board. Another 8,700 members have pledged their minimum sums in the form of properties. Members may recall that when I announced the Minimum Sum Scheme in 1986, I informed the House that the minimum sum of $30,000 would be reviewed periodically to ensure that its real value is retained. Over the past two years, the Consumer Price Index has risen by about 3%. To maintain the real value of the minimum sum of $30,000 at 1986 prices, it has to be increased by 3% to $30,900. The increase will take effect from 1st April 1989. CPF members who reach 55 years of age on or after that date will, therefore, be required to set aside $30,900 instead of $30,000. Those who own properties can pledge their properties in lieu of setting aside the minimum sum. The amount that members can withdraw monthly from the minimum sum from the age of 60 will correspondingly be raised from $230 to $237 per month, an increase also of 3%. This higher withdrawal amount will come into effect from 1st April 1994 when the cohort of CPF members who reach age 55 on 1st April 1989 reach age 60 and withdraw their first monthly instalment. Those who join the Scheme before 1st April 1989 will draw down their minimum sums at the rate of $230 per month when they reach 60 until 1st April 1994, when the instalment will similarly be increased to $237 per month. These withdrawal rates will apply to the minimum sums left with the CPF Board or deposited with approved banks. For those who have used their minimum sums to purchase approved annuities, the monthly instalments will be according to the terms of their annuity plans. For a married couple who are both CPF members, the minimum sum will likewise be raised from $45,000 to $46,400 and the monthly withdrawal amount from $345 to $355 per month. The new minimum sum of $30,900 from 1st April 1989 will also apply to the Approved Investments Scheme. CPF members must therefore have at least that sum in their CPF accounts or in the form of properties before they can invest part of the CPF balance in trustee shares or gold. Henceforth, the minimum sum will be similarly adjusted every one to two years to preserve its real value. It is expected that such adjustments will be small. The public will be informed through the mass media.

BILLS INTRODUCED - SUPPLY BILL "to provide for the issue from the Consolidated Fund of the sums necessary to meet the estimated expenditure for the financial year 1st April, 1989 to 31st March, 1990", recommendation of President signified; presented by the Minister for Finance (Dr Richard Hu Tsu Tau); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

SUPPLEMENTARY SUPPLY BILL "for making supplementary provision to meet additional expenditure for the financial year 1st April, 1988 to 31st March, 1989", recommendation of President signified; presented by Dr Richard Hu Tsu Tau; read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

STATUTORY CORPORATIONS (CONTRIBUTIONS TO - CONSOLIDATED FUND) BILL "to provide for the payment into the Consolidated Fund of moneys from the funds of certain statutory corporations", recommendation of President signified; presented by Dr Richard Hu Tsu Tau; read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

FIRST SUPPLEMENTARY MAIN ESTIMATES AND - FIRST SUPPLEMENTARY DEVELOPMENT ESTIMATES - FOR FY 1988/89 - (Business Motion) Resolved, That notwithstanding the Standing Orders, the First Supplementary Main Estimates of Expenditure for the Financial Year 1st April, 1988 to 31st March, 1989 (Paper Cmd. 6 of 1989) and the First Supplementary Development Estimates of Expenditure for the Financial Year 1st April, 1988 to 31st March, 1989 (Paper Cmd. 7 of 1989) be taken today. - [Dr Richard Hu Tsu Tau].

and - FIRST SUPPLEMENTARY DEVELOPMENT ESTIMATES OF EXPENDITURE - (Paper Cmd. 7 of 1989) - FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1ST APRIL, 1988 TO 31ST MARCH, 1989 Order read for consideration in Committee of Supply [Allotted Day].

and - FIRST SUPPLEMENTARY DEVELOPMENT ESTIMATES OF EXPENDITURE - (Paper Cmd. 7 of 1989) - FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1ST APRIL, 1988 TO 31ST MARCH, 1989 First Supplementary Main Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 1st April, 1988 to 31st March 1989, contained in Paper Cmd. 6 of 1989. No notice of amendment has been received. Question, "That the sums stated for the heads of expenditure shown in the schedule on page 6 of the Paper stand part of the Estimates," put and agreed to. Question, "That the sum of $173,677,540 shall be supplied to the Government under the heads of expenditure for the public services shown in the First Supplementary Main Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 1st April, 1988 to 31st March, 1989, contained in Paper Cmd. 6 of 1989", put and agreed to. Resolution to be reported.

and - FIRST SUPPLEMENTARY DEVELOPMENT ESTIMATES OF EXPENDITURE - (Paper Cmd. 7 of 1989) - FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1ST APRIL, 1988 TO 31ST MARCH, 1989 First Supplementary Development Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 1st April, 1988 to 31st March, 1989, contained in Paper Cmd. 7 of 1989. No notice of amendment has been received. Question, "That the sums stated for the heads of expenditure shown in the schedule on page 2 of the Paper stand part of the Estimates," put and agreed to. Question, "That the sum of $287,135,500 shall be supplied to the Government under the heads of expenditure for the public services shown in the First Supplementary Development Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 1st April, 1988 to 31st March, 1989, contained in Paper Cmd. 7 of 1989," put and agreed to. Resolution to be reported. Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House.

and - FIRST SUPPLEMENTARY DEVELOPMENT ESTIMATES OF EXPENDITURE - (Paper Cmd. 7 of 1989) - FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1ST APRIL, 1988 TO 31ST MARCH, 1989 Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply have come to certain resolutions. Resolutions reported - "That the sum of $173,677,540 shall be supplied to the Government under the heads of expenditure for the public services shown in the First Supplementary Main Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 1st April, 1988 to 31st March, 1989, contained in Paper Cmd. 6 of 1989." "That the sum of $287,135,500 shall be supplied to the Government under the heads of expenditure for the public services shown in the First Supplementary Development Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 1st April, 1988 to 31st March, 1989, contained in Paper Cmd. 7 of 1989."

and - FIRST SUPPLEMENTARY DEVELOPMENT ESTIMATES OF EXPENDITURE - (Paper Cmd. 7 of 1989) - FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1ST APRIL, 1988 TO 31ST MARCH, 1989 Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That Parliament doth agree with the Committee on the said resolutions."

and - FIRST SUPPLEMENTARY DEVELOPMENT ESTIMATES OF EXPENDITURE - (Paper Cmd. 7 of 1989) - FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1ST APRIL, 1988 TO 31ST MARCH, 1989 Question put, and agreed to. Resolutions accordingly agreed to.

CORRUPTION (CONFISCATION OF BENEFITS) BILL Order for Second Reading read.

CORRUPTION (CONFISCATION OF BENEFITS) BILL Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, this Bill was introduced last year as part of the Government's continued fight against corruption. It was referred to a Select Committee which recommended a few amendments after hearing representations. The Bill, however, lapsed as a result of the dissolution of Parliament for the 1988 general elections. The present Bill before the House is a re-introduction of that Bill as amended by the Select Committee. During the Second Reading of the Bill last year, Members will recall that we had a full debate during which I explained the rationale and outlined the provisions of the Bill. I shall therefore not go over the same ground as the provisions of the 1988 Bill, with a few exceptions, have not been amended by the Select Committee. I will only deal with a few of the changes recommended by the Select Committee and which are incorporated in the Bill which we have today. Sir, the Bill empowers the courts to confiscate the disproportionate and unexplained assets of persons who are convicted, or deemed to be convicted, of corruption offences and to restrain the disposal of these assets before the conclusion of proceedings against such persons. However, the Bill will not extend to persons convicted, or deemed to be convicted, of a corruption offence before the Bill becomes law and comes into force. The Select Committee had therefore amended clause 3 of the Bill to make this clear. Another amendment is clause 5 of the Bill. It incorporates an amendment made by the Select Committee to ensure that any assets of the defendant forfeited, or previously forfeited, under section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act will not be included in the court's computation of the value of benefits of corruption when making a confiscation order. In other words, the quantum will not include whatever was forfeited under section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Another substantive amendment is new clause 23 which was made by the Select Committee. It concerns confiscation proceedings against deceased absconders. Confiscation proceedings against deceased absconder will be instituted or continued against his estate or personal representatives or his beneficiaries but the confiscation order will not be made against them personally; it will be made against the estate. Subsections (3), (4) and (5) of clause 23 have also been inserted to avoid any possible injustice which could result from the application of the presumptions in clauses 4 and 5 of the Bill. Clause 4, subsection (4) deems a person to have benefited from corruption if he holds, or has held, any assets disproportionate to his known sources of income and which cannot be satisfactorily accounted for. Under clause 5, these disproportionate and unexplained assets constitute the benefits of corruption. But as there may be situations where the personal representatives or next-of-kin are unable to rebut the presumptions in clause 4, subsections (4) and 5, the scope of a confiscation order is now restricted to only those disproportionate and unexplained assets acquired by a deceased defendant within six years before his death. Thisperiod of six years ties in with the statutory period of limitation for commercial transactions. As in practice, banks and other financial institutions retain records for at least this length of time, the personal representatives and next-of-kin should be able to obtain the necessary proof to rebut the presumptions. Clause 24 of the Bill, also recommended by the Select Committee, empowers the court to dispense with service of documents on absconders who cannot be found. In conclusion, Sir, let me reiterate what I said in this House last year, that this Bill will provide us with a new and more effective weapon to combat corruption. Furthermore, the principles in the Bill are not entirely new. As hon. Members will see from the comparative table annexed to the Bill, the provisions, with a few exceptions, are modelled on the provisions of the United Kingdom Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 with appropriate modifications and adaptations for our purpose. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

CORRUPTION (CONFISCATION OF BENEFITS) BILL Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the Corruption (Confiscation of Benefits) Bill. Sir, this Bill was debated in the last Parliament. The Bill was further examined and reviewed by the Select Committee. There were only three submissions made to the Select Committee. I see that there are no major changes to the original Bill, except where it was necessary to clarify and amplify the spirit and intention of the Bill. Sir, credit must go to our Government for the pains taken to ensure that Singapore remains corrupt-free. Efforts like this on the part of the Government should be openly and expressly applauded by Singaporeans. Many may say that this is expected of the Government. But is it true in reality, in actual practice? We all read of the sad experiences of many countries. How many governments are as willing and prepared like ours to nip the problem in the bud? It requires tremendous conviction and courage to self-regulate, to keep our system clean and effective. That is why Singapore remains today a fair and just society. Our government officials should take pride that they are able to look others in the eye and act independently and unwaveringly for making decisions that best serve the interest of Singapore and Singaporeans. Besides the Government, all Singaporeans should make very clear their stand against corruption. Singaporeans should unequivocally demonstrate their desire for a strong, clean and effective government, that we want honest and morally upright leaders and officials in government. The ability of our people to differentiate between good and bad, right and wrong, the deserving and the undeserving is critical. It is only when the Government and the people work in concert that we are able to rid corruption and dishonesty from happening in Singapore. Sir, we hope that our economy can continue to grow and that we are able to enjoy more surpluses year after year.

CORRUPTION (CONFISCATION OF BENEFITS) BILL Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to give my full support also to the Government for the introduction of this Bill. Though rather late in the day, nevertheless it is better late than never. The press frequently gives publicity to cases of corrupt practices by those holding high office who are already drawing high salaries, very handsome salaries, and by those in high society who are already fabulously rich, like bankers and tycoons. These are the people, Sir, who are insatiable in their craving for money. For them, it would appear that the more they have, the more they want. From this, it can be seen also, Sir, that high salaries and high incomes do not necessarily make a person honest. The difficulty connected with corruption of course, Sir, is detection. As is well-known, corrupt practices are often not discovered or, if they are discovered, they may be discovered only after a long long time. Nevertheless, the provisions in the Bill should serve as a fairly strong disincentive to the would be corrupt or to those who are tempted to enrich themselves or further enrich themselves through corrupt practices to think again. Such a Bill might have been effective enough, Sir, I think to keep people like Phey Yew Kok and Teh Cheang Wan to the straight and narrow path. I, Sir, have not had the benefit of reading the Select Committee Report because I never knew about it and I never knew about the previous arguments in this House. I am a bit puzzled, Sir, by clause 3 and the explanatory statement given at the and of the Bill. Clause 3(1) says "convicted by a court before the commencement of this Act", at line 10. In other words, this Bill will apply to all the people, except those who were convicted in a court before the commencement of this Act. That is how I understand it, Sir. But the explanatory statement says that the Bill will apply, except for those who are "deemed to have been convicted before the commencement of the proposed law". Maybe there is a difference; maybe there is not. But to my mind, when a person is deemed to be convicted, it does not necessarily mean that he has been convicted in court. Of course the Minister could explain, because I like to know whether such a clause would apply to people like Phey Yew Kok. Sir, clause 23 says that only assets acquired within six years before death may be confiscated. As I have already indicated, Sir, corrupt practices might have been going on for more than six years without being suspected or discoverd. Today, the Income Tax Department investigates people going back to 12 years. So why cannot the same apply to cases of corrupt practices? As much of the ill-gotten gains should be returned to the State or to the people, I suggest that the figure "6" should be changed to "12" years.

CORRUPTION (CONFISCATION OF BENEFITS) BILL Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the Bill. I have only one point to raise with the Minister. This relates to the subject of properties which are pledged to financial institutions. We are an international financial centre. A great number of properties are pledged to financial or banking institutions for raising funds. If a property pledged with the banks should be confiscated under this particular Act, I think the bank or the lending institution will be placed at a disadvantage. I do not think the Bill has adequately addressed this point. I think it will be very difficult for a lending institution to find out from the person who is taking a loan whether the property he is pledging to the bank is the subject of a possible corruption case. I do not know whether the Minister will like to look into this.

CORRUPTION (CONFISCATION OF BENEFITS) BILL Thank you, Sir, for allowing me to join in the debate. Sir, I rise in support of this Bill. Corruption as a way of life must never be allowed or ever to take root in Singapore. We have seen for ourselves how many third world countries, though endowed with abundant natural resources, their people remain poor and economic development could not get off the ground, all because of corruption which is rife in those countries. Sadly, Sir, the culture of corruption seems more prevalent in Asian countries than in the West. We can learn something from the West in their high standard of honesty, in particular the English-speaking countries. Some hon Members : No

CORRUPTION (CONFISCATION OF BENEFITS) BILL In our schools, I think we should teach our children to attain absolute honesty as a value. Ultimately, it is the education that will wipe out corruption from our society if it is possible. Sir, I see that the Government means business. This piece of legislation really has got teeth. It even ensures that no corrupt person can benefit from his corruption even after death. It just only makes me wonder whether those people who are intent on being corrupt will or will not put their money elsewhere before they are caught. I just wonder why this law is introduced only after the death of the former Minister for National Development in December 1986, and not earlier. Sir, the Non-Constituency Member, I think, he was afraid that the late Mr Teh Cheang Wan will get away with his benefits. But I do not think so. As I said, this piece of legislation has got teeth. And under Part IV, the definition of "absconded persons" is very wide. Clause 21 (1) says: 'For the purposes of this Act, a person shall be taken to be convicted of a corruption offence if the person absconds in connection with the corruption offence and any reference in Part II to the defendant shall include reference to such a person.' Sir, it is a novel piece of legislation as far as I can see. There is definition of what an absconded person means. Clause 21 (2) says: '... a person shall be taken to abscond in connection with a corruption offence if whether before or after the commencement of this Act -

CORRUPTION (CONFISCATION OF BENEFITS) BILL Sir, I thank the hon. Members for their support of the Bill and I will deal with some of the points which have been raised. First, Dr Lee Siew-Choh sought clarification on clause 3 and the explanatory statement. He could not understand the reference "deemed to have been convicted". In order to explain that, I must first explain that there are provisions in the Bill to deal with confiscation of unexplained and disproportionate assets of persons who have absconded or persons who have died after investigations have commenced. And the provisions which Mr Chiam referred to lay down certain conditions which, if fulfilled, would lead to a presumption as set out in clause 21, "a person shall be taken to be convicted" in those circumstances. That is how you have a reference in the explanatory statement to "deemed to have been convicted". Let me explain clause 3. Members will recall that last year in the House as well as in the press and also in the representations made to the Select Committee, considerable concern was expressed over what was felt to be retrospective application of provisions. This has been taken into account to some extent by the Select Committee in clause 3. The effect of clause 3 is that the provisions of this Bill will apply to corruption offences which take place before or after the commencement of this Act. In other words, investigations could have started, the offence could have been committed before the coming into operation of the Act, provided the person has not been convicted before the coming into operation of the Act. If the person has been convicted and because of the presumption provision of "deemed to have been convicted", then that retrospectivity does not reach a person who has been convicted before the coming into operation of this Act. But if the person has not been convicted, if investigations started before the coming into operation of the Act, and the conviction has not taken place yet, then it will apply. That is how the Select Committee has dealt with this situation.

CORRUPTION (CONFISCATION OF BENEFITS) BILL Sir, can the Minister say whether this applies to Phey Yew Kok?

CORRUPTION (CONFISCATION OF BENEFITS) BILL The question as to whether this applies to Phey Yew Kok is obviously a legal question which the CPIB will have to take up with the Attorney-General's Chambers after this Act comes into force. But if I may say so here, Mr Chiam was wrong in thinking that the 6-year cut-off period applies to Mr Phey Yew Kok because my reading of that clause 23 is a specific reference to persons who have died. In other words, the effect of death on proceedings is a provision which applies to persons who have died.

CORRUPTION (CONFISCATION OF BENEFITS) BILL Sir, may I just clarify? Is there not also in law the presumption of death if after seven years, nothing is known of a person from people who should know of his whereabouts?