Hansard, 1991-07-29

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 Heng Chiang Meng - from 3rd to 4th July and from 22nd to 24th July, 1991. Mr Lim Chee Onn - from 5th to 8th July, from 20th to 23rd July and from 30th July to 3rd August, 1991. Mr Ng Pock Too - on 6th July, from 11th to 14th July, from 23rd to 24th July and from 2nd to 4th August, 1991. Mr S. Chandra Das - from 6th to 7th July, from 22nd to 30th July and from 19th to 28th August, 1991. Mr Teo Chong Tee - on 8th July 1991. Encik Abdul Nasser bin Kamaruddin - from 8th to 13th July, 1991. Dr Ong Chit Chung - from 8th to 13th July, 1991. Mr Charles Chong - from 9th to 13th July, 1991. Mr Choo Wee Khiang - from 9th to 13th July and from 24th to 30th July, 1991. Mr Chew Heng Ching - from 10th to 12th July, 1991. Mr Ong Teng Cheong - from 14th to 15th July and from 26th to 29th July, 1991. BG Lee Hsien Loong - from 14th to 16th July, 1991. Dr Hong Hai - from 15th to 19th July and from 25th to 26th July, 1991. Mr Philip Tan Tee Yong - from 17th to 23rd July, 1991. Mr Wong Kan Seng - from 18th to 24th July, 1991. Dr John Chen Seow Phun - from 18th to 19th July, 1991. Encik Abbas Abu Amin - from 19th to 24th July, 1991. Mr Lew Syn Pau - from 19th to 21st July and from 24th to 28th July, 1991. Dr Augustine H.H. Tan - from 20th to 21st July and from 29th to 30th July, 1991. Dr Wong Kwei Cheong - from 22nd to 24th July, 1991. Mr Bernard Chen - from 23rd to 24th July, 1991. Encik Sidek bin Saniff - from 24th to 28th July, 1991. Mr Ng Kah Ting - from 24th to 30th July, 1991. BG George Yong-Boon Yeo - from 24th to 28th July and from 1st to 2nd August, 1991. Mr Tang Guan Seng - from 24th to 28th July, 1991. Mr Chng Hee Kok - from 24th to 28th July, 1991. Dr Hu Tsu Tau, Richard - from 26th to 29th July, 1991. Dr Lee Boon Yang - from 26th to 30th July, 1991. Mr Goh Chee Wee - from 26th to 29th July, 1991. Mr K. Shanmugam - on 29th July, 1991. Mr Peter Sung - from 30th July to 3rd August, 1991. Mr Tan Soo Khoon - from 30th July to 3rd August, 1991. Dr Yeo Ning Hong - from 2nd to 4th August, 1991. Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon - from 21st August to 2nd September, 1991. Dr Koh Lip Lin - from 26th to 31st August, 1991. TAN SOO KHOON Speaker Parliament of Singapore

The following Bills were assented to by the President of the Republic of Singapore on the dates stated: 9th July, 1991 Income Tax (Amendment) Bill. 24th July, 1991 (i) Architects Bill; (ii) Professional Engineers Bill; (iii) Land Surveyors Bill; (iv) National Arts Council Bill; (v) Parliamentary Elections (Amendment No. 2) Bill; and (vi) Financial Procedure (Amendment) Bill. TAN SOO KHOON Speaker Parliament of Singapore

The following Questions stood in the name of Mr Chiam See Tong - 1. To ask the Prime Minister whether the Constituency of Potong Pasir will be turned into a Group Representation Constituency (GRC) at the next general election and, if so, whether he will name the constituencies which will form the GRC.

2. To ask the Prime Minister whether the number of Group Representation Constituencies will be increased for the next general election and, if so, by how many.

Question 1, Sir.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as Questions 1 and 2 are related, may I have your permission to take them together?

Yes.

I have, on 25th March 1991, appointed an Electoral Boundaries Review Committee to review the boundaries of the present parliamentary electoral divisions and to recommend the required number of Group Representation Constituencies and Single Member Constituencies in accordance with the Parliamentary Elections Act. In view of Mr Chiam's Questions, I asked the Committee to expedite its review. The review has been completed and the Committee's Report will be in the hands of Members of Parliament before National Day. The Member for Potong Pasir (who originally asked the questions) will know the answers to his Questions then.

asked the Minister for Trade and Industry whether the Government has any data on some specific changes in the socio-economic profiles of our population over the last decade.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is generally accepted that the standard of living of Singaporeans has gone up over the last two decades. We can see it all around us - in the homes we live in, in the MRT we ride, and in the schools our children go to. But, from time to time, questions are raised as to whether life has improved for Singaporeans of all income levels. Have poorer Singaporeans benefitted proportionately from economic growth? Has the income distribution in Singapore become more extreme? Has the Government's policy of minimising subsidies and encouraging self-reliance hurt the poor? These questions concern the Government, because our aim is to help all Singaporeans to move up through their own efforts. The Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) did a study to answer them. We collated information from various sources - the Census of Population 1990, Household Expenditure Surveys which are conducted every five years, and we compared the Survey done in 1972/73 and the one done in 1987/88, 15 years apart, data from HDB, data from the CPF Board. Together, these give a more complete picture of how different groups have benefitted from Singapore's progress. The figures prove conclusively that all income groups and all racial groups in Singapore have done well. This is shown by the trends of household income, assets, housing, and also ownership of consumer durables. It is confirmed by social indicators like life expectancy and the infant mortality rate, which are internationally accepted indicators of human development. In fact, these are the indicators which the Soviet Union gave up publishing to avoid showing up how badly its people were doing under the Communist system. With your permission, Sir, I will ask the Clerk to distribute some charts which I will take you through. [Copies of charts (Cols. 295 - 312) distributed to hon.Members.] Copies of charts - Household Incomes, Cost of Living, Assets of HDB Households, Housing, Ownership of Consumer Durables, Some Social Indicators (Cols. 295 - 312) Let us look at Figure 1a - Household Incomes. In 1972-73, the average household income was $1,200. In 1987-88, the average household income was $2,200. These are all in constant 1987 dollars so that the numbers can be directly compared. It means an increase of nearly 80% over 15 years which equates to a change of 4.2% per annum, year after year. That is on average and per household. But, of course, the household size has not remained constant, because households have grown smaller, children get married, and move out, people have fewer kids. The household size in the same period has gone down from 6.2 in 1973 to 4.4 in 1988, a shrinkage of 30%. So on a per capita basis, per member of the household, we must add a correction for the household size which is another 2.3%. So, in fact, income has gone up not only 4.2% per year, but 6.5% every year. That is on average. But what is interesting is how the average breaks up? Have all income groups benefitted? Let us look at the breakdown by income group. The bottom 20% has improved by 3.7% per annum. The middle 60% has improved by 4.1% per annum and the top 20% has improved by 4.2% per annum. In other words, all groups have improved more or less the same - the upper income group a little bit more, the bottom income group slightly less, but this is counteracted by three factors: Firstly, progressive income tax. As people move up their tax brackets, they pay more taxes. Secondly, apart from income tax, the car taxes and vehicle taxes, which the Government levies and which are quite high, fall most significantly on the upper income group. Thirdly, I shall show you some figures later on in terms of the cost of living. The cost of living has gone up less for the lower income group than for the upper income group. So taken all in all, incomes have gone up across the board. Let me show you how the figures break down by ethnic groups, Figure 1b. Again, the pattern is that all ethnic groups have improved, the Malays by 4.9%, the most rapid increase of all - it means more than doubling of average incomes amongst Malay families - the Chinese 4.1%, the Indians 3.4% and other groups 1.5% per annum. In absolute terms, the Others have the highest average, Chinese and Indians are close together, followed by the Malays. The figures which I showed you are in real terms. In other words, we have allowed for changes in the cost of living. But there have been many suggestions that the cost of living has gone up more for the lower income group than for the higher income group and that inflation hits them hardest. So over the last five or six years MTI has kept track of separate cost of living indices for the lower income group, the middle income and the higher income groups. The data are in Figure 2. As you can see, the lower income group has, in fact, had a lower cost of living increase, 0.6% per year, middle income group 1.1%, higher income group, that means families with more than $3,000 a month household income, 2.6% per year. So, in fact, what the figures show are real improvements in household incomes. Now let me show you what the picture looks like in terms of assets. How much do people have in their names? Figure 3A. In 1980, an average HDB household had total assets of $36,000. This consisted of $11,000 in the CPF, $3,000 in POSB, $22,000 in a flat. That is the net value of the flat, what he has paid for, not counting the outstanding loan. By 1990, his total assets had gone up to $115,000 - CPF $49,000, POSB $13,000, flat $53,000. I think these figures under-estimate the true position, because people have cash, savings in commercial banks, jewellery. From time to time, I see the serving girls in the coffee shops wearing large gold bars around their necks. That has not been factored into the statistics. Figure 3b shows you a little bit more of the same. These are the detailed numbers. The assets should be compared to the income of the households. In other words, what does $115,000 mean in terms of his annual income? In 1980, the assets of a typical household were 3.2 times the annual income of the household. By 1990, the assets have gone up not only in absolute terms, but even compared to the annual income - to 3.9 times, nearly four times his annual income. So Singaporeans not only are able to earn a living, but they have put aside a substantial amount of savings in the POSB, in the CPF and in their house. Therefore, they have moved into bigger and better housing. Look at Figure 4. This was released with the census figures, but worth looking at again. In 1980, most Singaporeans lived in 3-room flats, 32%, and many Singaporeans lived in rental flats, 1- and 2-room, 22%, meaning nearly a quarter. By 1990, the percentage living in rental flats had gone down to 7% of the population. The percentage living in 3-room flats had gone up slightly, 36%, because the renters have moved into the 3-room flats, but many of the 3-roomers have moved into 4-, 5-room and bigger flats, whereas previously only 13% had bigger flats, 4-room and above. In 1990, 42% occupied flats 4-room and above, and today, nobody buys a 3-room flat. The HDB is unable to sell 3-room flats and has had to convert them into bigger flats in order to sell them. Now, other assets, consumer durables. Look at the next chart, Figure 5a. When I visited China in May, we visited some of the homes of factory workers in the Special Economic Zones. They told me that every worker in China aspires to three essentials in his home once he has got his house - his fridge, his TV set and his washing machine. Let us look at our fridges, TV sets and washing machines. This is again comparing 1973 with 1988. Fridges, from about half the population, we have gone to 98% of the population with fridges. TV sets, from about half the population, also to 98% with TV sets. And washing machines from 2%, in 1973 hardly anybody had washing machines, today three-quarters of the population have washing machines. We do not measure ourselves compared to workers in the Special Economic Zones, but I think when our numbers are so saturated, then you are no longer talking about a small group owning domestic luxuries. Since TV sets have maxed out, we decided to look at video cassette recorders to see how many people have those, because you might argue that TV sets are no longer a luxury, but surely VCRs are still not an essential. In 1973, VCRs had not been invented. But in 1988, 71% of households owned VCRs. Let us look at some other items of consumer durables, Figure 5b. You might call these luxury goods, but look at the numbers. In 1988, 11% of households owned personal computers - 1 in 10. That was three years ago. Today, I am told that nearly 20% of households own computers, compared to only one quarter of families in America with computers in their homes. 11% of families have pianos. Air-conditioners, used to be 3%, by 1988 19% of families had air-conditioners. This is for all households, but even for HDB, the numbers have been going up. I am told by HDB that between 1988, when these figures were published, and today, the number of HDB flats with air-conditioners has doubled - from 6% then to 12% this year. Now, let us look at another very hot item - cars and motor-cycles. There is great concern in Singapore that car prices are going out of reach and fewer and fewer people will be able to own motor-cars. In fact, more and more people are owning motor-cars. The Government's policy is to manage this increase, not to squeeze down and contract this number. In 1973, 17% of households had cars. In 1988, it was 30%. I do not have a figure more up to date than that, but I know it has gone up. So when people talk about high prices leading to unaffordable cars, yes, the prices are high, but no, they are not unaffordable, because the figures show that more families are owning them. And when you talk about 30% of households, we are not just talking about people in bungalows and private condominiums but also large numbers of people in HDB housing estates. Motor-cycles - the figures have also gone up from 11% to 14%. But if you look at the racial distribution of motor-cycle figures, you will find something interesting, ie, for the Chinese population, in fact, the percentage owning motor-cycles has gone down, because they have moved up and bought cars. For the Malays and Indians, the percentage owning motor-cycles is still going up. They have not moved so much into the car category yet, but I am sure, given time, this will take place. Finally, social indicators. I have collected four indicators, just as a sampling - life expectancy, infant mortality, doctors per 10,000 population and home ownership. Compare 1965 and 1990, you will see the distance we have come. Life expectancy for men is up from 67 years to 72 years; infant mortality, from 26 per 1,000 live-births, it is now 6.7, which is in fact the third lowest infant mortality rate in the world. The only people with a better record are Japan and Sweden. And doctors per 10,000 population, from 5 up to 13, in fact, increasing rapidly. Because every year we are producing 150 more doctors. Home ownership, it is the highest in the world, 84%. This improvement reflects investment in public health and sanitation. They are things that Singaporeans today take for granted, but which we should not lightly assume. They confirm the improvement of standard of living that we already see around us. All sections of the population have enjoyed the fruits of economic growth. Mr Speaker, Sir, we should not congratulate ourselves on our achieve- ments too frequently. But from time to time, it is useful for us to count our blessings. Singaporeans have come to expect high standards of performance and achievement as a matter of course. Provided we also remember the effort and commitment which these high standards demand, the record of the last two decades provide us a base from which we can make further progress.

Mr Speaker, Sir, can I ask two supplementary questions? Can I ask the Minister to what extent has inflation eroded real income in the last five years and whether inflation is under control? The second question is whether the middle income group is feeling a bigger squeeze as a result of reduction in terms of subsidy and a move towards market pricing in social services.

Mr Speaker, Sir, on inflation, I gave a chart just now (Figure 2) which showed that, in fact, overall the figures have been low and, secondly, they have been lower still for the low-income group than for the high income group. In the last five years, nominal incomes have gone up by 9-10% per year, inflation has never exceeded 3% per year. Real incomes are going up rapidly. As for the alleged squeeze of the middle income group, which was reported in the Sunday Times yesterday, you have to look at it from two angles. Firstly, in terms of the level of income. Are incomes going up in step for all income groups? I showed you Figure 1a which said yes. In fact, if you break down Figure 1a further into finer categories, every 10 percentile of the population, you will see that the picture is substantially unchanged. Everybody has gone up 4.1-4.2% per year. The second question is whether in terms of taxation and in terms of Government subsidies, which do not appear in the income figures, these have caused what you might call a "poverty trap", in other words, subsidies are generous with the low-income group but beyond a certain point, all of a sudden, people become no longer eligible for the privileges and therefore expenses become much more expensive. I do not think so. Firstly, we do not have privileges which are directly tied to family income. If you go to a hospital and you want to go into a C class ward, you can do it, whether you are a millionaire or whether you are a pauper. Perhaps it should not be so. But today it is. Secondly, in terms of buses, MRT, cars and taxis, again, the subsidies and the taxes apply equally for all income groups. We do not ask you what your income is when you ride the MRT and then charge you a little bit more if you can afford to pay. It is the same ticket, same price. Thirdly, HDB housing is a big subsidy to the population. The HDB income ceiling now covers about 95% of the population. Nearly everybody who wants to, can buy an HDB flat. Somebody who is at the 96th percentile and cannot afford to buy a HDB flat may feel discriminated against. But I would not consider him to be part of the squeezed middle-income group. He can look after himself. In any case, for the HDB, our strategy should be to have the smaller flats subsidised, and people buy them with restrictions on them, but to have the bigger and better flats non-subsidized and progressively more relaxed constraints, so that it approximates more the private market. This is fair. If you earn $6,000-$7,000, and want to buy a maisonette, why should you not? We are doing a business deal with you, no loss to the Government. We may even make a profit. But we can provide you a flat which is cheaper and better than the private sector can, and so if you want to buy it from the HDB, so be it. If that is our strategy and philosophy, then there should be no reason for any group to feel left out. A middle group may say, "I can't quite afford a car but I feel a little bit too uppity to ride an MRT." But we are living in a society where all facilities are open to all groups and it is best that we adjust our thinking rather than wonder whether policies must be shifted.

Sir, can I get a clarification from the Minister? Do the households indicated in the statistics include HUDC flats which are also nowadays situated in HDB estates?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the new figures include HUDC flats, but I am not sure whether the earlier figures do. But whether they are HUDC flats or not, the point is that all of them are living in public housing.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I seek a clarification on the definition of "incomes"? Are incomes net of tax or net of tax and CPF contributions?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think these are gross incomes as declared by the households. They are not based on any documents but we conduct household expenditure surveys and the households declare them as what they have earned.

asked the Minister for Trade and Industry whether arms sold or supplied by other countries to Iraq had been transferred at Singapore.

Mr Speaker, Sir, for the past five years, we have no records of arms sold or supplied by other countries to Iraq being transferred at Singapore.

Has the Minister read of an article in the Observer in late April about shipments being transhipped in Singapore?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not know what Observer article the Member is referring to, but we have no records of transfers taking place.

Sir, the date of the Observer article was 28th April and it states: 'Arms from China and North Korea are being shipped through Singapore where they are being reloaded.' Is that true or not true?

Mr Speaker, Sir, on a point of order. Standing Order No. 20(i) says: 'a question shall not be asked as to whether statements in the Press or of private individuals or bodies of persons are accurate;'.

I rule that the question is out of order, Dr Lee.

asked the Minister for National Development whether he will consider allowing dog-owners to continue exercising their dogs without the use of muzzles after 1st August 1991.

Mr Speaker, Sir, owners of large and potentially dangerous dogs will not be allowed to exercise their dogs without the use of muzzles in public places after 1st August 1991. Muzzling is a precautionary measure to safeguard the public against being seriously bitten by such dogs. All dogs can bite. That is obvious. However, some large and powerful breeds are more aggressive, having a greater propensity to attack. Their attacks can be vicious, causing severe injuries. Using a leash alone may not be adequate in restraining a large dog. Many Singaporeans are not familiar or comfortable with dogs. They are more likely to startle the dogs by running away or moving suddenly when approached by large dogs. If the dog is "provoked" to attack, in such a situation, the owner may not be able to exercise control, or hold on to the leash securely. In such cases, muzzling will minimise serious injuries to the victims. More than 80% of the pet dogs in Singapore are not affected by the muzzling rule. These include the toy breeds kept in HDB flats. The large dogs affected account for less than 20% of the dogs in Singapore. They are mostly kept by owners living in landed properties and will be able to exercise without muzzles within the owners' compounds.

asked the Minister for Education (a) why is Primary 1 pupil admission in selected SAP schools such as Pei Hwa cut significantly when Pre-Primary classes are being introduced in these schools starting 1992; and (b) whether parents will encounter difficulty in enrolling their children in primary schools of their choice come 1993/1994 when the babies born in 1988 reach school entry age.

Sir, I am answering on behalf of my Minister. The introduction of the Preparatory Year (PY) classes in 1992, in the new SAP schools such as Pei Hwa, necessitates the conversion of some classrooms to accommodate the PY classes. Due to the constraints of the size of the school building, the intake of Primary 1 pupils has to be reduced somewhat. Moreover, in the case of Pei Hwa, which will be a Day Primary School next year, running only one session, a reduction of Primary 1 intake is unavoidable. The Ministry of Education assures all parents that there will be enough school places for all children seeking admission into Primary 1 in 1993 and 1994.

asked the Minister for Education whether any schools or educational institutions were paid any monies to send students to attend the National Trades Union Congress rally on 1st May 1991.

I am answering on behalf of my Minister, Sir. No monies were paid to schools or educational institutions to send students to attend the National Trades Union Congress Rally on 1st May 1991. At the invitation of the NTUC, four vocational institutes and three secondary schools sent their students to attend the Rally. The NTUC reimbursed the students $3 each to cover their expenses for transportation and meals at each session.

Was not the $3 paid money?

This is reimbursement for their meals and transportation.

asked the Minister for the Environment (a) since the introduction of unleaded petrol in January 1991, what proportion of petrol sold in Singapore is unleaded; and (b) whether his Ministry is taking further steps to promote the use of the cleaner fuel.

Mr Speaker, Sir, unleaded petrol now makes up 45% of the petrol sale compared with 30% before the introduction of the tax measures. As 10% of the cars cannot run on unleaded petrol, roughly half of the motorists, who have a choice, are using unleaded petrol now. While we have made good progress in promoting unleaded petrol, I would like to encourage motorists who are still using leaded petrol to make the switch. It makes health as well as economic sense to do so. Some motorists are using leaded petrol because they believe that unleaded petrol can affect engine performance or even damage the engines. The experience of using unleaded petrol so far has proved that such a belief is unfounded. Sir, public education to promote unleaded petrol will continue. I am hopeful that more motorists will use unleaded petrol as they realise its advantages. Our car replacement policies should also help to lower consumption of leaded petrol. Currently, new cars that run on leaded petrol only cannot be brought into Singapore. This will reduce the number of cars that cannot run on unleaded petrol. By 1st July 1992, all new cars imported will have fuel tanks which can only receive the smaller diameter unleaded petrol dispensers at the petrol stations. This will further increase the use of unleaded petrol as older cars are replaced by new ones. Mr Speaker, Sir, if necessary, Government can widen the price differential in favour of the unleaded petrol, although we do not see any present need to do so.

Was the subject of unleaded petrol raised at the recent Malaysia/Singapore Joint Meeting on Environment held in Singapore last week?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Singapore delegation did raise the issue on the availability of unleaded petrol in Malaysia. In particular, we have requested our Malaysian counterpart to look into getting more petrol stations, especially those along the highway, to sell unleaded petrol. This will ensure that cars travelling in Malaysia can top up with unleaded petrol.

asked the Minister for the Environment, even though the existing sewage treatment works are sited at a distance from residential and commercial areas to minimise the odour nuisance, what long-term measures his Ministry will take to further reduce such nuisance.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore has a comprehensive system to collect, treat and dispose of sewage. To minimise odour nuisance, each of the six sewage treatment works has a 1 kilometre buffer zone within which residential and commercial development is not allowed. This practice, however, sterilises scarce land. My Ministry has formulated a long-term plan to reduce odour nuisance and to free up land for residential and commercial developments. All sewage treatment works will be progressively upgraded with a new compact and covered design. The upgrading will be done as and when existing treatment units are due for replacement. The buffer zone will then be reduced from 1 km to 200 metres. In the interim, the existing treatment units at Ulu Pandan, Bedok, Kranji and Seletar that are not due for replacement will be covered and odour control facilities provided to contain and treat foul air. Covering up at these first three works will be completed by 1996, and at Seletar by the year 2000 at a total cost of $166 million. In addition, a capital expenditure of $148 million will be required to incorporate odour containment measures for new treatment units with the compact and covered design. Consequently, a total of 1,276 hectares of land (roughly three times the size of Clementi New Town) will be released for residential and commercial developments. When the entire programme is completed, a total of 2,774 hectares of land will be freed up.

The Minister has mentioned four sewage treatment works where existing treatment units will be covered and odour control facilities provided. What about the other two?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Kim Chuan and Jurong Sewage Treatment Works are sited in industrial areas and we do not foresee any change in land use in the future. Therefore, priority has been given to the four sewage treatment works which I have mentioned in my answer.

asked the Minister for Law whether the Government will return to the original owners the residential properties in Tampines Woods Estate which it acquired in October 1970 for the expansion scheme of the Paya Lebar Airport, now that the scheme has apparently been shelved.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the answer is no. This acquisition was done more than 20 years ago. All the owners affected have been awarded compensation. Although the property in question may not be required for the expansion of Paya Lebar Airport, the area is still affected by other redevelopment projects.

What sort of redevelopment projects are those?

Sir, the Ministry of National Development informed me of a comprehensive re-planning of the northern/eastern sector. Because of that, Tampines Woods Estate and the adjoining area to the north are earmarked for industrial development.

Since the original plan of the acquisition has been scrapped, is it fair for the Government to keep the property and rent it out to private individuals for profit?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the original plan might have been revised. But I have just said that the site is still affected by other redevelopment plans. As far as the tenants are concerned, they were paid compensation which at that time was equivalent to prevailing market rates. These awards ranged from $30,000 to $50,000 each, which at that time were enough for them to purchase alternative accommodation. In fact, only two of the many tenants appealed and the rest accepted the compensation.

How come the redevelopment plans have taken nearly 20 years to materialise?

Mr Speaker, Sir, that is a different question which requires elaboration of the redevelopment plans. But the thrust of Dr Lee Siew-Choh's question is whether the land can be returned to the original owners. If we give it back to the original owners, then they will be subject to double acquisition because the land will have to be acquired again.

asked the Minister for Finance whether he will consider withdrawing or changing the $2 currency note as its similarity to the $10 note causes confusion.

Mr Speaker, Sir, when the $2 note was first issued in January 1991, there were some reports of members of the public mistaking it for a $10 note (I have made that mistake more than once myself). Some MPs have also commented on this problem. In view of the feedback, the Minister for Finance directed the Board of Commissioners of Currency, Singapore to examine the matter together with the Currency Note Advisory Committee. The Advisory Committee has recommended that the colour of the note be changed from red to purple when the note is reprinted next month. The new supplies should be ready for issue during the next Lunar New Year festive period. However, there are still some stocks of the old note left and these will be issued first. The public is getting used to the note and there have been fewer complaints in recent months.

asked the Minister for Finance if he will give the reasons for not proceeding to charge Mr Elyamani Khamis after having arrested him and released him on a bail of $30 million.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Commercial Affairs Department (CAD) was satisfied on the face of the complaint lodged by the solicitor for Christiania Bank, that the matter warranted a full scale investigation against Khamis for a possible offence under section 404(3) of the Companies Act, ie. obtaining credit by deceitful means. The CAD has to act swiftly by arresting Khamis and put him on high bail pending investigation to ensure that he would not leave Singapore. On 8th March 1991, the CAD called up Khamis for questioning. Khamis was accompanied by his two lawyers. The same evening, after CAD officers had recorded a statement from Khamis, they arrested him and released him on bail of $30 million. Bail of $30 million was considered necessary because the credit facilities obtained by Khamis amounted to almost $100 million. Khamis' solicitors agreed to post bail at $30 million and raised no objection to any of its terms and conditions. CAD carried out a thorough investigation of the allegations over a period of several months. The investigations were conducted both in Singapore and Norway and covered Khamis' dealings with three banks in Singapore. After evaluating the evidence obtained, CAD concluded that it was insufficient to support charges of fraud against Khamis within the Singapore jurisdiction. Whatever the acts of fraud alleged against Khamis in regard to the issue of letters of credit to the Singapore banks, these charges can only be established in Norway and are therefore outside the jurisdiction of the Singapore courts.

Sir, is it not true that, besides the $30 million bail, his international passport was also impounded?

Yes, Mr Speaker, Sir. Because the purpose of putting him on bail was the same as the purpose of removing his passport, to ensure that he stays in Singapore for the investigations.

Sir, I beg to differ. Putting a bail and impounding of passport are two different matters altogether. But, nevertheless, I would ask the Minister whether or not the Government has behaved in a high-handed manner, has been rather trigger-happy in this particular case, when there is no concrete evidence it has seen fit to arrest a person, especially a foreigner, impound his passport, put him on a hefty bail of $30 million, and was about to charge him on a very serious offence.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member should listen to my answer carefully. I have said that the Government was satisfied that the matter warranted a full scale investigation against Khamis for a possible offence under section 404(3) of the Companies Act, in other words, obtaining credit by deceitful means. After evaluating the evidence obtained, CAD concluded that it was insufficient to support charges of fraud against Khamis within the Singapore jurisdiction. This was an outcome which could only have been established after thorough investigation. Supposing we had not acted and Mr Khamis had left Singapore, and it subsequently transpired that there was something to be answered for within Singapore, I think the Opposition Member would now be asking me a different question.

Sir, I believe this matter arose because there were in fact complaints from abroad and not initiated in Singapore, and therefore I think it is incumbent on the Government to see whether there is enough evidence first before you can arrest a person. It would appear that the Government just ---

Mr Chiam, could you ask your supplementary question? You are making a speech.

I am coming to my question.

Ask the question, please.

Yes. I want to ask the Minister whether the Government should not first get enough evidence before it arrests a person, puts him on such a big bail and impounds his passport, which is a very serious thing. If you do not have enough evidence, you just arrest him first. I do not think it is right.

Mr Speaker, Sir, firstly, Mr Khamis' solicitors did not object to the bail. Secondly, the Government does not direct the CAD whether it should be lenient or generous. It is for them to exercise their professional judgement to decide on what is necessary, whether charges need to be pressed, and whether there are sufficient bases, firstly, to start an investigation and, secondly, having done the investigation, whether to continue with the charges.

asked the Minister for Health how comparable are the ward charges for Class B2 and Class C in the Singapore General Hospital to other restructured hospitals and whether there are plans to revise these charges.

Mr Speaker, Sir, currently the daily ward charge for Class B2 in the Singapore General Hospital (SGH) is $40 compared to $38 in the National University Hospital (NUH) and $28 in the Government hospitals. The daily ward charge in the other restructured hos- pitals, namely Toa Payoh Hospital and Kandang Kerbau Hospital, is also $28. The Class C ward charge in SGH is $22 per day, and in the other Government and restructured hospitals, it is $17 per day. Sir, manpower costs make up over 70% of the operating costs of a hospital. The hospitals must pay competitive salaries in order to attract new staff and to retain existing staff, otherwise the level of service will suffer. It is inevitable that as wages go up, fees must also increase. However, over 80% of Class C and 70% of Class B2 cost increases are absorbed by the Government, ie, patients pay less than 20% and 30% of the cost increases respectively. SGH had made some minor fee adjustments in January this year, and has no plans for a general fee revision at the present moment.

Sir, what is the average bill size of Class C patients in SGH as compared to the same class in the other restructured hospitals?

Sir, the average bill size per day for SGH is $59 and in the other restructured and Government hospitals, it is about $52 per day.

asked the Acting Minister for Communications why payphones are being removed from Housing and Development Board void decks.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore Telecom constantly reviews the deployment of public telephones in Housing and Development Board estates. If a public telephone is found to be poorly utilised, it is redeployed to a more convenient location. Conversely, in areas where payphones are well utilised, more public telephones are installed. In addition, desk-top coinaphones are installed when there is demand for coin-operated telephones. The total number of payphones, including desk-top coinaphones installed mainly in shops and hawker centres, has increased by 10% in the past four years. There are now some 26,000 payphones compared to 23,500 in 1987.

Is it not true that in the first place the payphones in HDB void decks are for the convenience and accessibility of residents, especially in times of urgency, and they are not just based on whether they are well utilised or not?

Sir, in general, that is correct. But in the case of telephones which are not well utilised, it is Singapore Telecom's policy to make sure that they are put in places where there is good usage for them. So in this particular case, in their constant review of payphones, they, as a matter of course, would move the public telephones to places where there are more people using them. It is not a matter of removing them completely.

Mr Speaker, I think it is also important to have a phone at a place where there is an urgent need for it, and not just on how well utilised it is, or how many calls are being made on that phone.

Sir, it is not possible to put a public telephone in every block. So it is incumbent on Singapore Telecom to find out which is the most convenient and well located position for each public telephone.

asked the Minister for National Development what are the reasons for only building 3 shoplets but no neighbourhood shops or a dry market in Serangoon North Neighbourhood 5, which consists of about 52 blocks and 4,077 residential units.

Sir, I am answering on behalf of my Minister. There is a neighbourhood centre at Serangoon North Estate. This neighbourhood centre has more than 120 shops and a supermarket and should be able to serve the residents of Serangoon North Neighbourhood 5.

Sir, does the Minister of State know that the neighbourhood centre is at least about 1/2 kilometre to 1 kilometre away and residents have to walk that distance across a major road without any form of help to get even the smallest item?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the neighbourhood centre is about 400 metres from Serangoon North Neighbourhood 5. Of course, we do not measure from one corner to the other corner. It is the average distance. In terms of convenience items, HDB has a shoplet at Block 523. This would be for convenience items which should help the residents in that neighbourhood.

Would the Minister of State tell the shopkeeper of Block 523 to open his shop for service because, although it has been tendered out since April of this year, it is still closed. The other shoplets seem to be still under construction. Would the Ministry also consider not only building these three shoplets but also some rows of shops for the residents there?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I understand the successful tenderer of the shoplet at Block 523 is now renovating the shoplet. I am sure it is in his interest to open for business as soon as he is ready to do so. To build more shops in addition to the 120 shops in the neighbourhood centre may result in a situation where there are too many shops and the shopkeepers complaining to the MP that they have no business.

Sir, I believe the Minister of State misunderstood my question. I said the Ministry should consider building some shops in Serangoon North Neighbourhood 5, and not in the neighbourhood centre.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the decision as to where exactly to locate the shops is a decision which we leave to the professionals in HDB. If we have too many shops in too many corners of the estate, it will, firstly, be difficult to manage and, secondly, as I said earlier, it may result in there being too many shops with too little business.

asked the Minister for National Development (a) when will the PWD-proposed pedestrian crossing across Ang Mo Kio Avenue 3, serving residents of Serangoon North Neighbourhood 5, be ready; and (b) whether there are plans to eventually replace the pedestrian crossing with an overhead bridge and, if so, when.

Sir, I am answering on behalf of my Minister. The Public Works Department (PWD) will build a temporary signalised pedestrian crossing across Ang Mo Kio Avenue 3. This will be done by early September 1991. In the longer term, PWD intends to build an overhead bridge. The construction of this overhead bridge will be done in conjunction with a flyover which the PWD will build across Yio Chu Kang Road at Ang Mo Kio Avenue 3. We expect the construction of the overhead bridge to start at the end of 1992 and to be completed in the middle of 1993.

asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether there are plans to establish a Neighbourhood Police Post in Serangoon North Neighbourhood 5.

I am answering on behalf of my Minister, Sir. There is no plan to establish a Neighbourhood Police Post (NPP) in Serangoon North Neighbourhood 5. Residents in what used to be the Jalan Kayu Constituency are served by two Neighbourhood Police Posts, one at Block 549 of Ang Mo Kio Avenue 10 and the other at Block 2 of Seletar Road.

Sir, does the Minister of State realise that these two Neighbourhood Police Posts are about 3-4 kilometres away? Surely, he does not think that this is the concept of a Neighbourhood Police Post.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Serangoon North Neighbourhood 5 is about five minutes walk from another NPP located at Block 108 of Serangoon North Avenue 1.

Sir, does this mean that the Ministry's idea is that the Neighbourhood Police Post in Block 108, which is in another constituency, can actually serve residents of my constituency, including block to block visits?

The answer is yes, Sir.

1.27 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Vehicle Quota System was implemented on 1st May 1990 after considerable debate and discussion, both inside and outside this House. It would be fair to say that the Quota System, despite its brief history, has become generally accepted as an effective and a reliable way to control the growth in our vehicle population. However, one feature of the Vehicle Quota System has attracted much attention, namely, the transferability of the Certificate of Entitlement (COE). Many Singaporeans believe that transferability has attracted speculators, who have been able to profit by re-selling COEs to genuine car-buyers at a markup, and therefore driving up COE prices. The argument goes that without these speculators, prices of COEs would be lower. There is a sense of indignation that some people should be able to profit from a Government policy, which has been introduced for public good. I can understand why some people are unhappy, especially those who have been unsuccessful in their bids. But I should also point out that the transferability feature was introduced precisely to cater for such unsuccessful bidders who are in urgent need of a vehicle. During the Gulf crisis, when quota premiums fell, there was no criticism of transferability at all. But, with the end of the Gulf War, quota premiums have again risen and so has public criticism. The Ministry of Communications does not believe that transferability increases the prices of COEs. COE prices are determined by market forces of supply and demand. As the supply of COEs is released at a steady rate, any changes in the prices of COEs essentially reflect changes in their demand. Speculators can influence prices only in the short term, not over the longer term. This was vividly illustrated by the behaviour of COE prices over the last year. During the Gulf crisis, when the economic outlook was uncertain, and when the demand for vehicles was low, prices of COEs fell sharply. With the end of the Gulf War early this year, and with the recovery of the share market and property prices going up, COE prices have also rebounded as demand for vehicles picked up. Of course, the fact that the ARF was lowered twice by 15 percentage points in November last year and another 10 percentage points this year has also got something to do with it because people have factored in these two reductions, that is, this 25 percentage points saving into the cost of COEs. Decision to hold a trial However, the public still believes that transferability contributes to high COE prices. In the Prime Minister's community visit to Ang Mo Kio on 2nd June 1991, he suggested that a trial be carried out to test whether the transferability of COEs has in fact pushed up COE prices. The GPC on Communications decided to collect feedback from all interested parties on how such a trial can be carried out. The public has responded enthusiastically, reflecting the keen interest in this subject. Opinions and suggestions have come through all available channels, through the telephone, the mail, the mass media, grassroots organisations and so on. To round this up, a dialogue session was held by the GPC on Communications together with the Feedback Unit on 13th July 1991 for grassroots leaders, car dealers, motorists and non-motorists alike. GPC's Report The Chairman of the GPC, Mr Eugene Yap, submitted his report to me on 20th July 1991. It is quite evident from the report that many people have taken the trouble to send in their views or to speak up at the dialogue session. Based on this feedback, the GPC on Communications has made its recommendations on how the trial should be carried out. Land Transport Policy Mr Speaker, Sir, before I respond specifically to these recommendations, I would like to spend a few minutes to put this issue of COEs and the Vehicle Quota System itself in the context of the Government's overall land transport policy. Our land transport policy objective, to put it very simply, is to keep traffic on our roads free-flowing so that people and goods can move about smoothly and efficiently. To achieve this, the Government has adopted a comprehensive, four-pronged approach, namely: (1) Systematic town planning to provide for offices, schools, factories, shops, and recreational facilities close to housing estates so that the need for travel is minimised; (2) To build a comprehensive network of roads and expressways on our limited land and also to maximise the capacity of these roads and expressways for carrying traffic; (3) To develop an efficient public transport system, and to maximise the usage of this public transport system; and (4) To manage the growth and usage of vehicles so that everyday, we can move around, for business or pleasure, in speed and comfort. This multi-pronged approach to the problems of urban transportation is not unique to Singapore. The problems themselves are faced by major cities the world over. And if you ask any transport expert, whether he is a highway engineer or an urban planner or transport economist, all of them will agree on what needs to be done. But what is unique is that Singapore has implemented these solutions comprehensively and consistently over the last 15-20 years. The result has been satisfying - smooth traffic, no hassles on our roads, our buses and trucks moving about at peak efficiency. This is a precious asset. I would say that it is as precious as our world-class port, our world-class airport and our world-class telecommunications infrastructure. It has helped our companies to maintain our international competitive edge. It has also enhanced our quality of life. It has been achieved at some cost to the Government's popularity and also at some sacrifice on the part of the public. But the price of the alternative - congestion and gridlock - is even higher. Economic Growth and Vehicle Growth We should continue to ensure that our traffic is free-flowing. At the same time, there is a growing aspiration among our people to own a car. You call it a status symbol, or you consider it as a means to greater mobility, to greater independence, or you consider it simply as a time-saving way to get around. The fact remains that the desire and the ability to own a car will only grow stronger over time and as we become more affluent. The Government recognises this aspiration, and has factored this aspiration into our land transport policy-making process. The experience of the past 15-20 years is revealing. The average monthly household income has almost doubled during this period. The Deputy Prime Minister gave some figures just now. In 1972 it was $1,200, and in 1987 it was $2,213 (both figures in 1987 $). This is a compounded annual growth rate of something like 4.2%. Coincidentally, during this period, the growth rate of the vehicle population was also 4.2%, despite the many vehicle restraint measures. ARF was introduced. ARF went up, road taxes went up, and the Area Licensing Scheme was introduced. Despite all these new schemes, ownership of cars continued to go up and kept pace with increase in household incomes. If you translate this growth in the number of cars into the number of households owning cars, the percentage of car-owning households in 1972 was 17%, rising to 30% in 1987. If you express these figures in another way, there were 6 cars per 100 persons in 1972 and 9 cars per 100 persons in 1987. I asked for some comparable figures. We have to compare cities to make sure that there is the same basis of comparison. Look at the city close to us, Hong Kong. In 1989, Hong Kong had 3 cars per 100 persons. So long as our economy keeps expanding, the number of cars on our roads will continue to go up, and the percentage of households owning cars will continue to rise. My Ministry estimates that, with the new road-building programmes and other enhancements that are being carried out to increase the carrying capacity of these roads, we should be able to sustain our current growth rate of vehicles of about 17,000 per annum, or roughly about 2.5%-3% per annum for the next 3-5 years. This means that within the next five years, another 40,000 to 50,000 households, or another 6-7% of households, will be able to own cars. The Deputy Prime Minister mentioned earlier in his reply to a question that the Government's task is to manage this increase in the number of households owning cars, not to reduce the number of car owners in Singapore. The challenge is how to manage this growth without creating congestion. Road Building and the Land Constraints To sustain this growth, we must maximise whatever limited land we have set aside for the provision of roads and expressways, so that we do not choke on our own success. Roads and expressways already use up something like 10% of the total land in Singapore, and this is almost as much as housing. Housing occupies 11%, roads about 10%. We need land for other essential needs - industries, reservoirs, parks, recreational land. Road-building cannot proceed indefinitely without encroaching on land that has been earmarked for these other purposes, and without eroding our quality of life. Having said that, I am sure many motorists will congratulate the PWD for doing a remarkable job in providing an efficient network of roads and expressways, within this tiny island we call home. There is still scope for improving the network. The PWD will soon be embarking on the following new road-building projects: (a) the new Kranji Expressway; (b) the extension of the Pan-Island Expressway to Tuas; (c) Phase III of the Tampines Expressway; (d) Phase II of the Seletar Expressway; and (e) the widening of the PIE, along the stretch between Kallang Bahru and the Bukit Timah Expressway. The PWD also plans to construct flyovers and interchanges to relieve traffic bottlenecks at some seven major junctions. Some of the major junctions which you may be familiar with include those at (a) Bukit Timah Road/Farrer Road/Adam Road junction; (b) Holland Road/Farrer Road junction, and (c) the Yio Chu Kang Road/Ang Mo Kio Avenue 3/Hougang Avenue 2 junction. Besides adding to our road network, the PWD has also been maximising the capacity of our existing roads using state-of-the-art technology. The GLIDE system which essentially improves travelling time by synchronising traffic lights has been successfully implemented in the CBD and will soon be extended to cover a wider area. The new road-building programme and other enhancements will increase the carrying capacity over the next five years by something like 15%. This is the basis for concluding that a vehicle growth rate of about 2.5% to 3% a year will not cause additional congestion over the next three to five years. In the longer term, the introduction of new usage-based traffic management measures such as the electronic road-pricing or ERP will give us more room to allow more Singaporeans to own cars. But I must caution that there is a limit to this. So long as economic growth is strong, demand for vehicles will outstrip the supply of available road space and our ability to increase the capacity of these roads. We will still need to manage the growth of our vehicle population via policies like the Vehicle Quota System. But growth there will be. The Vehicle Quota System On this note, Mr Speaker, Sir, I would now like to return to the Vehicle Quota System and the GPC's recommendation for a trial bidding system. (a) Structure of Trial The GPC has reported that there was no consensus on the structure of the trial. A wide range of options were suggested. Many felt that all the COEs in all the eight categories should be made non-transferable. So that is one option. Others felt that only half of the COEs in all categories should be non-transferable. So you slice all the eight categories in the middle. Another group suggested that only COEs in some categories should be made non-transferable and leave the rest alone. The GPC has recommended this third option, ie, that COEs in some, but not all, categories should be made non-transferable. As car buyers form the majority of those arguing for non-transferability, the GPC recommends that the four main car categories, in other words, Categories 1-4 should be made non-transferable, while the other four categories remain status quo. The GPC observes that distributors of commercial vehicles have made a good case for the COEs of buses and goods vehicles to remain transferable. This is to allow businessmen to react to business opportunities. If they want a vehicle urgently, they can find one even if they have not been successful in their tender. The GPC also makes the point that the flexibility of the Open category should not be compromised by making it non-transferable. As for Weekend Cars, being mostly purchased for leisure travel, the GPC feels that they also can remain status quo, in other words, remain transferable. Finally, the GPC notes that there is no need to make motorcycle COEs non-transferable. Based on feedback from motorcycle distributors that, as fewer Singaporeans are buying motorcycles, there is very little speculation in this category in the first place. My Ministry has considered the recommendations of the GPC. We are in general agreement with the thrust of the recommendations, in other words, make some of the categories non-transferable and keep the others transferable. Specifically, I agree that Categories 1-4 will be non-transferable. However, I will include the Weekend Car Category in this group as well, so that all the car categories will be made non-transferable for the trial. We should, as far as possible, treat Weekend Cars similarly with other cars. Although motorcycle distributors prefer the status quo, I anticipate that there will be calls for non-transferability from motorcycle buyers in the event that COE prices go up. Since motorcycles and cars are both means of private transport, they should be treated the same. I will therefore make motorcycle COEs non-transferable as well. (b) Trial Period The GPC has recommended that the trial period be for 12 months. They feel that this period of time is needed for the public to adjust to the new system and also to take into account short-term seasonal fluctuations. This is a valid point. This recommendation will be accepted. (c) Validity Period for Non-transferable COEs What about the validity period for non-transferable COEs? Many speakers at the dialogue session have asked for an extension of the validity period for non-transferable COEs, from the current three months to six months. The argument is that we should allow sufficient time for prospective buyers to choose their vehicle and to register the vehicle. Others have proposed the alternative of keeping the validity period unchanged at three months, but allow for a partial refund if it is unused. In view of the restrictions imposed by non-transferable COEs, I will extend the validity period of these non-transferable COEs from three months to six months, but without refund for unused COEs. Transferable COEs will remain valid for three months. (d) Role of Motor Distributors Another issue concerns the motor distributors. Should we allow them to bid up to the limit of 30 COEs which are currently transferable to their clients? The GPC has reported divided views on this. Some were of the opinion that motor distributors, in their effort to sell more vehicles, would resort to a bidding war to lay their hands on more COEs. Others felt that motor distributors should retain their allocation of COEs to cater to impulse buyers and unsuccessful bidders, in other words, as a service to their clients. Yet others expressed concern that major motor distributors would be given an unfair advantage if they were allocated transferable COEs when we have a non-transferable system. I am told that this issue found no consensus even among motor traders. On balance, I am persuaded by the arguments against allowing motor distributors to continue with transferable COEs. Except for COEs in the Open Category, during the trial each person who wants to buy a car should bid for his own COE. The 30 bids that are allocated to each motor distributor will be withdrawn. (e) Transfer of new cars The GPC also highlighted an interesting point made by some members of the public that, even when COEs are non-transferable, speculators can still try to beat the system by registering a new car and then re-selling it as a new car. So this has given rise to suggestions that we should now disallow the transfer of newly-registered cars so that we plug this new loophole. I do not intend to take up this suggestion. If we carry this to its logical conclusion, we would have to start preventing leasing companies and hire-car companies from leasing out new cars in order to get around the non-transferability of COEs or non-transferability of new cars. Summary and Starting Date of Trial Period Let me now summarise the decisions to be taken. The trial will begin with the September 1991 tender exercise, for COEs valid from October 1991. The trial will last 12 months and the following will apply during this period. Structure of Trial The COEs for the following categories of vehicles will be non-transferable, namely, Category 1 (small cars), Category 2 (medium cars), Category 3 (big cars), Category 4 (luxury cars), Category 6 (motorcycles) and Category 8 (weekend cars). The COEs of the other two categories, namely, Category 5 (goods vehicles and buses), and Category 7 (Open), will remain transferable. Validity Period The validity period for non-transferable COEs will be extended to six months, while transferable COEs will remain valid for three months. There will be no refund for unused COEs. Role of Motor Distributors For the period of the trial, the 30-bid allocation to motor distributors, which was meant for transfer to their clients, will be withdrawn. Conclusion Mr Speaker, Sir, the GPC, in its report, stated that in coming up with its recommendations, foremost in its list of considerations was that the trial should not only be a fair one, but should also be one in which conclusive results could be obtained. How will we measure the results of the trial? The trial is meant to test whether transferability has led to higher COE prices. Without transferability, so the argument goes, COE prices will fall. The public expects prices to fall. If they do fall, then I will be happy for the car buyers who will benefit, and the Ministry of Communications will make non-transferability of COEs a permanent feature of the Quota System. If they still go up, then I hope the public will accept that transferability is not to blame for high COE prices. Whatever the outcome, I believe that the trial package that I have outlined is the fairest under the circumstances, and it is one which takes into account a broad spectrum of views and concerns that have been raised by the public. The Quota System will continue, whether COEs are transferable or not. The Government believes that transferability provides for efficiency, and efficiency brings maximum benefits, maximum convenience to all, in the long run. The public believes otherwise. The Government is prepared to put it to the test. But whatever the outcome, we have already benefitted from active public participation in policy-making. If out of this exercise arises a better understanding of the problems that we face and a realisation that the solutions are not always simple or straightforward, then we will gain even more.

Mr Speaker, Sir, allow me to congratulate the Minister on the flexibility he has shown in this policy on the transferability of COEs. And in adopting the majority of the recommendations on COEs, I believe that the Minister's new policy will go a long way towards satisfying the demand of the motoring public. In fact, the Minister is more than generous.

Dr Wang, could you ask your question, please?

Yes, I will ask my question. I want to find out from the Minister why he is more than generous in granting what the GPC had asked for, by including two additional categories for non-transferable COEs. I can understand the rationale behind the Weekend Cars. Perhaps it is because of the lack of playing fields, the Minister is worried that most of the speculators would then crowd to participate in the bidding for the Weekend Car COEs. On the other hand, the question on motorcycles -

What is your question?

My question is: why is he so generous?

Do you have any further questions? Or are you making a speech, Dr Wang?

I am asking questions.

Could you ask your question, because I believe there are other Members who would like to ask questions?

Yes, Sir. Would the Minister elaborate on the reason why he has included motorcycle COEs into the non-transferable category? There was no evidence of speculation in that particular category. There is no user demand. In fact, the users requested, "Please don't change the system." So what are the reasons for including the motorcycle COE into the non-transferable category? It is likely that as a result of this -

Dr Wang, I must insist that you ask your question. Otherwise I will have to ask you to resume your seat.

All right. What would the Minister do if the users of motorcycles come back to the Minister and request for converting it back to the transferable category? Because it is likely that most of the users will be inconvenienced when the COE for motorcycles is converted to non-transferable COE. The second question I have is: what criteria will the Minister use at the end of the trial to determine whether the COE will be transferable or non-transferable? Under what conditions will he decide that certain COEs will continue to be transferable or non-transferable?

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask the Minister, firstly, whether he thinks that the suggestion to make successful COE bidders pay for their bidding prices instead of the lowest successful price is a good one, and whether he intends to consider the implementation of this suggestion to further improve the COE scheme? The second question is related to what Dr Wang has asked, ie, at the end of the trial period, how does he intend to carry out the comparison? Will he compare month by month, or will he take a certain formula to compute the price under both the new and the old system?

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me take Dr Wang Kai Yuen's questions first. He asked why motorcycle COE is made transferable. I think that was the gist of the question. The question as to why I am more generous does not come into the picture, because the GPC itself has done an excellent job in canvassing a wide range of opinions and has come out with a report which has captured, I should say, the bulk of the views that have been expressed. In fact, the argument could very well be made to include every category, all the eight categories, of vehicles in the trial, and make them non-transferable. It was, I should say, a very tempting alternative. But the arguments for keeping buses and trucks and the Open category transferable were convincing ones. And this is why we have kept them out of the trial and just stuck to the six categories. Why motorcycles? I think I did explain in my statement earlier. Reading the GPC report carefully, it was clear that the people who are making the point that motorcycles are not subject to speculation were mainly the motorcycle distributors. I think that is a correct interpretation of the report. I am anticipating that the motorcycle buyers themselves, when they see that their motorcycle COE prices are also going up, will start to lobby and ask why is it that they are not included in the trial. So I am anticipating a situation which is very likely to arise and I would rather put them in now. If, as the Member suggests, there are demands for them to be left out of the trial, this is something that we can consider after the 12-month trial is over. What are the criteria to be used? Again, this is another point that I have touched on in the statement. Maybe I could repeat the point that I made earlier. Let me just remind the House that this trial is intended to test the proposition that transferability causes prices to go up. My Ministry contends that prices go up and down as a result of market forces. During the Gulf War, prices went down because demand was low. Prices are now up because demand is high. It is as simple as that. So one of the ways that we will be monitoring the trial is to check or monitor the COE prices of each of the categories of vehicles before and during the trial. Dr John Chen has asked what specific criteria we will use. We can use several criteria. One would be to check the average prices before the trial and compare them with average prices, 12-month average prices, when the trial is going on. Another way is just to graph them and to plot a mean. These are areas which we can continue to discuss with the GPC. But if prices do go up during the trial, then I think we would be quite safe in saying that transferability is not the factor that has made COE prices to go up. One other point that Dr John Chen has mentioned is whether we should consider making COE bidders pay what they bid. At the moment the system that we are practising, the so-called Dutch auction system, is a system which has been practised successfully in other tendering exercises. I mentioned, for example, the tenders for textiles quotas and for CFCs. There is no clear-cut evidence that one is different from the other as far as total revenues are concerned at the end of the day, and it is not Government's intention to use a system which can collect more revenue. But let me just say that the pay-as-you-bid system that has been suggested does not mean that everybody is going to be very happy. The reason is very simple. In the pay-as-you-bid system, some will be paying higher and some will be paying lower, and it does not automatically follow that those who pay lower are the ones who are in more urgent need of a car or the ones who are in the lower income group. It really depends on how urgently and how great a desire they have to own a car. So I do not think at this moment it is superior to the current system. And for the purposes of the trial, I suggest that we stick to the same principles as we had before the trial to make sure that there is some reasonable measure of comparison.

Consequent on what the Minister has just said, the Government is very keen on market forces and they want conclusive results of the new system. Dr John Chen has already asked the question whether those people who make high bids be made to pay the amount of the bid so that they will not make high bids. I think that is a very reasonable request and I understand many people are asking how is it that this has been left out. We should not talk about urgent need. It is not about urgent need at all. It is about whether people will make a high bid or low bid.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as I indicated in my reply earlier, even if we were to move into the system of pay-as-you-bid, it does not necessarily follow that everybody who is a successful bidder will be happy because there will be a range of successful bids. The present practice is that everybody who is successful pays the same. I think there are merits in the current system and we should keep it unless it is conclusively proven that it is inferior to any other proposal.

Sir, would it not be more accurate to conduct the trial in two stages? Firstly, a 12-month cross-over from transferability to non-transferability, and then a 12-month period when you cross back. This is a basic principle in comparison. You have to cross over twice to minimise the effect of time.

Sir, I think it is an interesting proposal. The Ministry will study it. We still have some time, because we are in the first stage of this proposed two-step cross-over trial. We can take it in two bites.

Can I ask the Minister why he would like to extend this currency period before the first transfer to six months? It is now three months before you make your first transfer. So why does he want to extend this time to six months? First, there is a difference in comparison. Second, one of the fears expressed is that people will play the market, ie, speculation. If you extend the period to six months, the opportunity for this play of market will be more ready.

I am not so sure whether I understand the question correctly. But I did indicate that extension from three to six months is only for non-transferable COEs. So I do not see any more opportunity for the so-called speculators to play the market in the new system.

Currently, you can have a period of three months for your transfer of the COE. If you allow this period now to be six months before the period of the currency is "dead", so to speak, first, there is a problem of comparison in what Prof. Maurice Choo has just talked about evaluating two systems; and second, I am afraid this might generate more room for people to speculate.

Speculate in what?

They can easily hedge the Certificate of Entitlement into the vehicle.

No. The reason why we extended the period from three months to six months is really a practical one because if it remains transferable, the COE can be disposed of after three months. So if there is a real genuine difficulty in not registering the car, one could always sell it away. This is really part of the convenience of the transferability system. But if you take that away, then you are left with a certificate which cannot be transferred. If for whatever reason you are unable to register your vehicle, then it would be a worthless piece of paper after three months. I think in consideration of that and in view of the representations that have been made, we have decided there is no harm in extending it to six months, which is a reasonable period. But we have decided not to have any refunds. That was the other alternative.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the whole complaint about this COE is that it is too highly priced. If -

Dr Lee, could you ask your question? You are not permitted to make any speech.

Yes. This is the question that follows.

Could you ask your question, please?

If people are allowed to make high bids and only pay for the low bids, that would encourage people to make high bids. Would it not be more conclusive therefore, Sir, for the Minister to have all bidders pay the amount that they bid?

Sir, I think the wisdom was that it was transferability that created these high COE prices. I think there was little public speculation that it was any other factor. What the Government is trying to do with this trial is really to test this theory that it is the transferability aspect of the Vehicle Quota System that is causing prices to shoot up to unacceptable levels. If that is true, then I think it is incumbent on the Government to make sure that we change the system. But we have stated all along that it is due to market forces. It is not due to transferability. Let us test it out for 12 months.

Would it be convenient for the Government to test two theories at the same time?

Sir, we can consider that when Prof. Choo's proposal, if it is found workable, is implemented in the second tranche of the 12-month trial.

2.11 pm

"to establish an education endowment scheme and for matters connected therewith", presented by the Minister for Education (Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

"to amend the Legal Profession Act (Chapter 161 of the 1990 Revised Edition)", presented by the 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 establish and regulate the Government Securities Fund and to provide for the borrowing of moneys by the issue of Government securities in Singapore", recommendation of President signified; presented by the Minister for Trade and Industry (BG Lee Hsien Loong); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

"to amend the Trade Unions Act (Chapter 333 of the 1985 Revised Edition)", presented by the Minister for Labour (Mr Lee Yock Suan); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

"to amend the Central Provident Fund Act (Chapter 36 of the 1991 Revised Edition)", presented by Mr Lee Yock Suan; read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, on behalf of the Prime Minister, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, earlier this year, this House enacted the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Act which constitutional amendments provided for an Elected President with certain veto powers in three broad areas: first, appointment of key public service appointments; second, protection of accumulated reserves of the Government, key statutory boards and Government companies; third, in matters concerning detentions under the Internal Security Act, CPIB investigations and orders made under the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act. Prior to the enactment of this legislation, we had considerable debate. Members will remember that in July 1988 the first White Paper was published, setting out the principles of the concept of the Elected President. In August 1990, the second White Paper was published, setting out the main features of the proposed legislation. There was a full debate of the first White Paper. In October 1990, there was an extensive Second Reading debate, after which the Bill was sent to a Select Committee which made certain significant changes. After the Select Committee reported on the Bill, there was a Third Reading in January this year. In view of all these extensive debates, it is not my intention to repeat the rationale for the constitutional amendments or to go over the issues again which have been canvassed in this House. What this Bill is about The constitutional amendments state that the provisions relating to the actual conduct of the elections for the President are to be set out in a law made by this House. This Bill is therefore consequent to the new Article 17(2) of the Constitution, which reads: "The President shall be elected by the citizens of Singapore in accordance with any law made by the Legislature." The Bill, before the House today, is necessary in order to set out in detail the manner in which the Presidential elections are to be held. The provisions provide for the process of elections from nomination to balloting and to counting of votes. With a few exceptions, most of the provisions are based on the Parliamentary Elections Act. I would say more than 90% of the provisions are adapted from the Parliamentary Elections Act. That being the case, it is not my intention to deal with each and every clause of the Bill. Instead, I shall highlight the major features of the Bill, especially where the Bill differs from the principles or provisions in the Parliamentary Elections Act. Compulsory Voting Let me say, at the outset, as in the case of Parliamentary elections, voting in a Presidential election will be compulsory. An elector who fails to vote at a Presidential election will have his name expunged from the register of electors unless he has good reasons for not voting or if he pays the required fee of $5 to have his name re-instated. Voting Rights Also, every person who at the time of any Presidential elections is on a register of electors has a right to vote at these elections. Role of the Presidential Elections Committee. Let me now turn to the provisions which may be different from the provisions in the Parliamentary Elections Act. First, I draw your attention to the role of the Presidential Elections Committee and the role, as set out in the Bill, is consistent with Articles 18 and 19 as introduced by the constitutional amendments. The Committee's function is to certify that the Committee is satisfied that the prospective candidate is a person of integrity, good character and reputation; and, secondly, to certify that the Committee is of the opinion that the prospective candidate does have the ability and the experience in managing financial affairs as are necessary for the office of the President. (This will of course apply only to candidates who are not automatically qualified under the Constitution.) Such a certificate will be valid only for the purpose of the particular election in question. Political Affiliation of Candidates Next, let me turn to clause 9. Consistent with the constitutional amendments, the Bill provides that a candidate must at the time of nomination declare that he is not a member of any political party. The candidate will therefore not be allotted any symbol which denotes or implies any affiliation with a political party. The candidate will also not be able to wear on his person any badge indicating his affiliation with any political party. Election Expenses Let me turn to the question of election expenses. Members of the House will recall that during the Parliamentary debates on these constitutional amendments early this year the Prime Minister agreed that there should be a cap on the election expenses relating to the election of the Elected President. As a Presidential candidate will be campaigning for the votes of all Singaporeans who are eligible to vote, and not as in Parliamentary elections where only those voters within a particular constituency, the Prime Minister suggested that the cap should be less than that prescribed for Parliamentary elections which, prior to the amendment recently, was 50 cents per elector on a register or $6,000, whichever is greater. Clause 50 of the Bill prescribes such a cap on the amount of election expenses. The maximum amount prescribed is 30 cents per elector on all registers or $600,000, whichever is the greater. To enable flexibility, this amount could subsequently be amended by order in the Gazette. This cap of $600,000 or 30 cents per voter is reasonable when we take into account two factors. First, the Presidential candidate will have to reach out to all the electors throughout Singapore, not just one constituency, in other words, about 1.6 million or more voters. Secondly, if any political parties campaign on behalf of the candidate (which is permitted) their expenses would have to be declared as part of the candidate's expenses. Other provisions on offences, filing of returns, etc. are similar to the provisions in the Parliamentary Elections Act. Deposits on Nomination Next, I turn to the question of deposits on nomination. Just as there is a requirement for candidates for Parliamentary elections, so also every candidate for Presidential elections must also furnish deposits. To denote the serious nature of Presidential elections, the amount of deposit for a candidate for elections to the Presidency ought to be greater than that for Parliamentary elections. Accordingly, clause 10 provides that the deposit shall be three times the amount payable by a candidate in Parliamentary elections. Following the Parliamentary elections provisions, such deposit will be forfeited where the candidate fails to garner 1/8 of the total votes polled. No new register of electors I should add that as far as registers of electors are concerned, the current registers of electors maintained under the Parliamentary Elections Act shall be the basis for determining whether a person is entitled to vote at Presidential elections. This avoids maintaining separate registers of electors. The electoral boundaries marked out and the polling districts created under the Parliamentary Elections Act will also be used for the purpose of Presidential elections. This also will reduce the administrative costs of conducting any Presidential elections. Timing of Elections As for the timing of elections, like general elections to Parliament, Presidential elections must also be held within a stipulated time period. If the office of President falls vacant prior to the expiration of the term of office of the incumbent, and this could be due to death, resignation, removal and so on, then the poll must be held within six months of such vacation. This is something that is already provided for under Article 22L of the Constitution. If there is no premature vacation of office, and the incumbent's term of office expires in the normal way, then the poll must be held not more than three months before the end of the term of office of the incumbent President. Those are the major provisions which are different from the provisions in the Parliamentary Elections Act. Nomination If I may briefly go over the other provisions. As regards nomination, the writ of election will specify the nomination day which shall be not less than five days and not more than one month from the date of the writ. This is similar to the Parliamentary Elections Act. Nomination proceedings are also similar with the exception that the candidate must furnish a statutory declaration stating that he is not a member of any political party as well as the required certificate from the Presidential Elections Committee. Objections may be made to the nomination papers in the same way as objections to nominations in a general election or by-election. Polling Day As for polling day, it will be not less than nine days and not more than eight weeks after the date of the notice of contested elections. This is provided for in clause 16. It must also fall within the periods which I mentioned just now - six months or three months as the case may be - on the timing of the Presidential elections. The manner of voting is no different from that as provided for in the Parliamentary Elections Act. The results of the poll must be published in the Gazette. Death of a President-designate In situations where there is a death of a President-elect or President-designate, clause 34 provides that where a candidate has been declared elected but so happens that he dies before the commencement of his term of office, a new writ will be issued. This is especially necessary since a poll may be held two months before the successful candidate actually assumes office. Death of a candidate Now what happens in the case of death of a candidate before the elections? If a candidate dies before polling day, the poll will be countermanded and all proceedings will begin afresh except that no nomination need to be made again in respect of the remaining candidates who stood nominated at the time the poll was countermanded. This follows the Parliamentary Elections model. Invalidity of Elections As regards invalidity of elections, the Bill also sets out in clause 71 the grounds upon which the election of a candidate as President may be declared void. If an election is not declared void, the removal will be possible only by Parliament on the grounds and according to the procedures which are set out in the Constitution. Election Petitions As far as election petitions are concerned, the grounds on which the election of a candidate as President may be declared void have been set out in clause 71. There are also provisions on election petitions. The court procedure for the bringing of such petitions are to be set out in rules made by the Rules Committee under the Supreme Court of Judicature Act. Corrupt or Illegal Practices As regards corrupt or illegal practices, the Bill contains provisions similar to those in the Parliamentary Elections Act concerning illegal or corrupt practices in connection with the elections. Consequential amendments I might draw attention, Sir, to certain consequential amendments. The Bill also makes consequential amendments to the Parliamentary Elections Act, chief of which is an amendment to provide for the striking off from the register of electors any elector who has failed to vote in a Presidential election. The other is a minor amendment providing that any person who has been convicted of any corrupt practice in connection with any Presidential election will be disqualified from acting as an election agent in a general or by-election for seven years. Commencement As far as the commencement of this Bill is concerned, it will be brought into operation only after the constitutional amendments establishing the Elected President are brought into force. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support this Bill, and I would like to comment on some aspects of it. Since independence, election in Singapore has always been clean and fair. This is recognised by Singaporeans and they have come to expect this of a good Government. I believe one key reason for this is the Government's deliberate effort to keep money politics out by strict regulations and by placing a cap on the election expenditure. Similar to the Parliamentary Elections Act, the Presidential Elections Bill stipulates the maximum allowable election expenditure of $600,000, or 30 cents per elector on the registers, whichever is the greater. At the last parlia- mentary sitting, Mr Chiam See Tong has correctly referred to the dangers of money politics. However, he is mistaken by suggesting that the Government is encouraging it. Far from it. The Government has consistently placed a strict limit on election expenditure. Look at the present provision. Can 30 cents buy a vote? In fact, the provision of 30 cents per elector is computed on the cost of basic election expenses without trimmings. This is the maximum sum. If Presidential candidates can do with less, good for them. This may well be the case with well-known public figures that Singaporeans have trusted. It is very clear that money politics is not allowed and the offences are specifically spelt out in clauses 39, 41, 42 and 50. In this House Mr Chiam has claimed that he won the last election on a shoe-string budget. I think perhaps this is the best illustration of the absence of money politics in Singapore. Sir, clause 16(5) stipulates that the election campaign period should not be less than nine days or more than eight weeks. It seems to me that a long Presidential election period is both costly and wasteful to the nation. It would divert resources and attention from development as well as undermine economic confidence. Our past parliamentary elections involving many candidates have had a nine day duration. A Presidential election involving only a handful of candidates would do equally well with a short duration. This is also partly because the Presidential election candidates have already been certified by the Presidential Elections Committee. The short duration is really just meant for campaigning, the necessary preparation should have been carried out before and there are always ample signals for preparation time. The passing of this Bill itself is the signal. Sir, I would like to ask the Minister this question. Since the Presidential Elections Committee is there to certify the Presidential candidate, is it then necessary to provide for a deposit that is three times the amount payable by a candidate in a parliamentary election? Finally, would the Minister assure the House that all measures have been taken to prevent an accidental breakage of the seals of the ballot boxes by people handling them? For example, will wax seals instead of perforated paper seals be used, since the latter is more liable to accidental breakage?

Mr Speaker, Sir, first let me say once again that the Workers' Party is totally opposed to the concept of the Elected President. We believe that the Elected President is unnecessary, and that there are enough safeguards in the present parliamentary system, if only the PAP Government would let Parliament play its proper and rightful role in Government. We believe that the real aim of the Elected President proposal is not so much to watch over our financial reserves as to watch over political developments in Singapore, to keep opposition parties in check when the occasion demands, and to help maintain PAP rule over Singapore for as long as possible. Another short observation I would like to make is this. In a democracy, elections should be matters that are discussed with the people, through their representatives or leaders in political parties. This is being done in all democratic countries. In Singapore, however, this has never been the case. Since assuming office in 1959, the PAP has arrogated to itself absolute powers in all matters connected with elections. It has acted as though elections were the concern of only the PAP, the ruling party, as though other political parties did not exist. It has never seen fit, for example, to appoint an Elections Commission which is the norm in almost all civilised countries which practise parliamentary democracy. All this, of course, has made elections under the PAP, contrary to what Dr Koh has said, most unfair and undemocratic. The Bill before the House seeks to prescribe the procedure for the election of the President. The procedure proposed is not only discriminatory and undemocratic, but also a mockery and farce of the whole principle of a free vote. It is a total and complete violation of the basic right of the voter to elect a person of his choice. In the circumstances, it is no longer a true election. It is a charade. Behind the facade of democracy, with every person being compelled to vote, the whole procedure proposed is designed to legally rig the election of a former Prime Minister, PAP Minister or trusted loyal PAP supporter, to the high and powerful post of President of Singapore. It is no different, Sir, from elections that used to be held in communist countries, where only Communist Party candidates were allowed to offer themselves for election. The anti-communist PAP now adopts a method which has been abandoned by countries that were once Communist. What irony. Let me now deal with some of the provisions in the Bill. Clause 8 of the Bill stipulates that every person who desires to be elected to the office of President has to apply to the Presidential Elections Committee (PEC) for a certificate of eligibility. And the PEC must be satisfied that (1) that the person is a person of integrity, good character and reputation, and (2) that he is qualified under Article 19(2)(g)(iv) of the Constitution, and having not less than three years' experience in administering and managing financial affairs. These are conditions that will immediately cut off very large sections of the people, and limit those who are eligible as Presidential candidates to only a very small circle of supermen in the PAP club, representing perhaps less than 0.01% of our Singapore citizens. Excluded are the 99.99% or more of the people, the so-called common herd. Is that fair? Apart from that, the question then arises: how does the PEC decide whether "a person is a person of integrity, good character and reputation"? Is it by looking at the person and just talking to him? Or by testimonials from other people? Or by hearsay reports? And if he is interviewed by the PEC, will proceedings of the PEC be held in hush-hush secrecy, or will they be open to the public? How the PEC operates is not spelt out in the Bill. According to Article 18(c) of the Constitution, and as explained by the Prime Minister, the PEC, and I quote, "will work out its own rules and work out its own methods of evaluating candidates." [Hansard, Vol. 56, Col. 749, dated 3rd January 1991]. All this is highly unsatisfactory. The PEC is not a private organisation. The working procedure of the PEC should be clearly spelt out and its proceedings should be open to the public. In fact, in keeping with the new style of its professed open-society and open Government, PEC proceedings should be telecast "live", so that they may be seen to be fair and democratic. Such "live" TV Senate hearings are telecast in the US. This is something which we should emulate in Singapore. We must not forget that the assessment of whether or not a person is eligible to contest the election as a Presidential candidate depends on a PEC whose members are all nominees or appointees of the PAP Government. What is more, its decision is "final and shall not be subject to appeal or review in any court." Such being the case, can any person not associated with the PAP Government have confidence that he will be assessed fairly and impartially by the PEC? What if anyone should feel aggrieved and dissatisfied with the assessment of the PEC? What if, rightly or wrongly, a person should feel that the PEC has made a wrong decision, or a decision against him, out of malice? What if the PEC is, wittingly or unwittingly, prejudiced against a person because of his political philosophy or past association with certain political parties? In the circumstances, what redress can a person hope to have against the decision of the PEC except through an appeal or review in a court of law? Is he to be denied a right to a fair and just hearing in a court of law? Today, people all over the world demand that they have the right to vote whomsoever they wish. But the provision that the decision of the PEC should be "final and not be subject to appeal or review in any court" deals a coup de grace to this right of the voter. He is first discriminated against and denied the right to be elected. Now, he is also denied the right to elect whomsoever he wishes. What type of PAP, may I quote the Prime Minister, "Singapore style democracy" is that? Already many people feel hampered and cramped by Government controls and restraints. Now the people are to face yet more and more restrictions of their basic rights. I say to the PAP: Let us put an end to this pretence and humbug of electing a President. Let us call a spade a spade. The whole Bill is designed to allow only persons approved and supported by the PAP to be elected. Why play hide and seek, and have all the hocus-pocus and the sham of going through an election at all? Let me now touch briefly on a few other clauses in the Bill. Clause 50 allows expenses of the Presidential candidate to be $600,000 or 30 cents per elector, whichever is greater. These clauses make for big money politics, since the amount can at any time be amended and increased. Only rich individuals or rich organizations, like the fabulously rich PAP, will have the means to sponsor a Presidential candidate, and canvass and campaign on his behalf. Individuals who do not have the means will not stand a single chance against these sponsored candidates. The PAP has certainly seen to every detail in order to ensure that the next Elected President will be a PAP President. As is well-known, Sir, and as mentioned by the Minister, the Parliamentary Elections Act, which prescribes the most undemocratic and unfair procedure of election of Members of Parliament in Singapore, is one of the most important instruments by which the PAP has kept itself in power these last 32 years. Most of these undemocratic and unfair provisions have been incorporated into the Bill. Clause 7 allows the Prime Minister to give a notice of only "4 clear days" from publication of the writ in the Gazette to the day of nomination. Clause 16 allows an interval of only nine days from nomination day to polling day. It must be remembered that many countries, whether they be parliamentary democracies or military dictatorships, frequently announce election-day many weeks, and even months, in advance. That would allow political parties to prepare and work towards the target date of the election. It is, however, different in Singapore. Here the PAP has always sprung snap elections on the people. It wants to catch the Opposition by surprise. It hopes that the Opposition parties will not be able to make adequate and timely preparations for the elections. While the PAP has full use of TV, radio and the local press all the year round, Opposition parties will not be allowed to campaign until after nomination day. The PAP invariably allows the Opposition only nine, at most 10, days for electioneering. But today the PAP frequently boasts of political stability. We are entering a new technological age. And the PAP has always said that it likes competition from Opposition parties. Why then the indecent haste to hold elections in a short period of only nine days? Is it not time that all political parties be given adequate time for the electioneering as in other countries that practise parliamentary democracy? What is the PAP afraid of? Let us not forget, Sir, that those who really benefit with more time for elections are not the Opposition parties, but the voters themselves. Voters need more time to know about the political stand, policies and programmes of the different political parties, and also of the Presidential candidates. They need to vote on the basis of well-informed opinions, and with all the available facts of all political parties and candidates placed before them. That would not be possible if the PAP should spring surprise snap elections of nine days. Candidates and Opposition parties should be given fair and adequate TV air time, and the press should not be completely one-sided. So let the PAP extend the minimum time period from the issue of writ to polling day, and also let the people know at least a month or two in advance of the actual date of elections. And let Opposition parties be given much more air time on TV and more space in the press. Let there be TV debates between candidates, and between Government and Opposition party leaders. With all the facts placed before them, voters become better informed and so will vote more wisely. Let me now come to the question of ballot papers and the manner of voting. Clause 23(2) states that: 'Every ballot paper shall ---

Sir, the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) has, on record, said it does not agree with the concept of the Elected President. We had said so in the 1988 elections. Now we have the procedures for the election of the Elected President. The Presidential Elections Bill prescribes the procedures for the election of the President. It is modelled, as has been said, about 90% of it, on the Parliamentary Elections Act. The Parliamentary Elections Act is familiar to all of us who have gone through the elections. As far as the Opposition is concerned, we find that it is definitely not a flat playing field. It is tilted much to the advantage of the PAP. The procedures spelt out in the Parliamentary Elections Act are patently unfair. I would also differ with Dr Koh Lam Son who said that it is fair. I say that it is really unfair to the public at large and, in particular, to the first-timers in an election. Under the procedures set out in the Parliamentary Elections Act, the general elections can be started and completed in a very short space of time. It is about 16 days from start to finish - from day one when the writ for dissolving Parliament is announced until the polling day. The whole process is rushed through, we all know, like the speed of an express train. As has been mentioned by Dr Lee Siew-Choh, even before the public has grasped the significance and implications of the elections and of the issues involved, everything seems to have come and gone. It would appear that since we have this Bill before us, and the Government is going to make it exactly the same as the Parliamentary Elections Act, it really does not give the seriousness which it really deserves. The whole process of electing the President from day one when the writ is addressed to the Returning Officer until the polling day can also be completed in a quick 16 days. Under the Bill, the Prime Minister will issue a writ and this will be sent to the Returning Officer. The Returning Officer need only to give four clear days of notice before nomination. This is definitely too short a period of time. One lawyer friend has suggested that it should be at least 30 days. From my own experience, to be fair to the Government and the public, I think 14 clear days, at least, that is the minimum, should be given. Why is this necessary? Anyone who had taken part in the elections will know the reasons. There are very many important steps to be taken. Now we are required to take them in only four short days which definitely would not be enough. If any candidate who wants to take part in the Presidential election fails in one of the steps, it would be fatal to him. Firstly, what has he to do? He or his election agent will have to go and get a nomination form and he has to round up at least six people to sign his nomination form, one as a proposer, one as a seconder and four others. We all know that. All these names must appear in the current electoral register. If you have made a mistake by not entering his name properly, in accordance with the electoral register, the candidate could be disqualified. All these are very technical, especially for new candidates for the Presidential elections. They will need time to go through all these very difficult and technical matters. After having done that, the second step he has to do, which is peculiar to the Presidential elections, is to appear before the Presidential Elections Committee to obtain a certificate to certify that he is a qualified person to stand for the Presidential elections as spelt out in the Constitution. This is not an easy task. Dr Lee Siew-Choh has dealt with it at length. If within four days, you cannot prove yourself to be a suitable candidate, you have no chance to do it again because you have only four days. I think it should be slightly lengthened to give him at least some time to make an appeal, or to get it corrected, if necessary. Thirdly, the candidate will have to swear a statutory declaration to certify that his qualifications are all in order. Fourthly, he will have to get his deposit ready. The deposit, of course, will have to be either in cash or, an equivalent, in bank draft, or a certified cheque. I suppose for the Presidential candidate this would not be a problem. The last announced deposit was $4,000 for a Parliamentary candidate. If it is going to be three times, then the amount will be $12,000. If the time frame, as the Minister has announced, is to be the same as the Parliamentary Elections Act, then it should be amended. I would recommend that clause 7 of the Bill be amended to show that there are at least 14 clear days. As regards clause 15, the procedure therein cannot be similar to that of Parliamentary elections. If there is only one candidate in a Presidential election, he cannot be declared the winner and then appointed as the President. I would say that even if there is only one candidate in the election, a poll must be held in the case of Presidential elections. Why is this necessary? Because, in the first place, the whole idea of having an Elected President is to give the President some kind of an electoral mandate, some kind of moral right to act on those serious matters that are listed in the Constitution. So if you have got only one candidate and he is declared the winner, we are not sure whether the people of Singapore want to vote him. There is still an element of doubt. Even if there is only one candidate, the voting should still go on. When he gets 50% or more of the votes, he will be declared the President. If, in the elections, he gets less than 50% of the votes, then there must be another election, because he does not have the confidence of the people of Singapore. I think clause 15 should be amended. The other clause is clause 16(7) where a candidate dies before nomination day. If a nominated candidate dies before nomination day, according to this clause, the whole election is called off and you can have fresh nominations. But for those who have already been nominated, they will not have to file in a fresh set of papers. Again, I think this is not right. If there is more than one candidate, the election must go through. Because we are telling the people of Singapore that the election of the President is above party politics. He does not represent any political party. He is the best man to be the Elected President for the whole of Singapore. Under this clause, if a nominated candidate dies, fresh candidates will have to be nominated, and if that candidate is, in fact, a nominee of a group, whether it be a political party or a group interest, this group will be unhappy, and they will say, "Now our candidate is dead, we must nominate another candidate." In a way, this should not be the case because there is already a Committee to select the candidates and they are the best, most suitable, most honest and most qualified to stand as candidates. Having gone through the process, why should we reject that candidate who has already been nominated? He should be allowed to go through the election and not give a group, or a political party, another chance to select another candidate. So again clause 16(7) should be amended to show that if there is a death and there is more than one candidate, the elections should go on.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir, for allowing me to join in this debate. I would like to speak in support of the Bill. Sir, the Presidential Elections Bill follows quite closely on the Parliamentary Elections Act. However, because there are definite differences between the elections of the President and Members of Parliament, I wish to point out certain issues which the Minister may wish to address. Basically, there are three points. First, Sir, clause 9(4)(b) of the Bill requires that a candidate should make a statutory declaration that on nomination day, he or she is not a member of a political party. Would the Minister consider specifying a minimum time period during which he is required to cease to be a member of a political party? In this way, it lessens the perception of the public of any partisan connection of the election and of the candidate. The second point, Sir, concerns clause 32(8) of the Bill which specifies that the candidate with the greatest number of votes is given to be elected. Unlike Parliamentary elections which elect a party to govern, the Presidential elections basically centre on the candidate. Considerable power is held by the Elected President. We go to a great extent in specifying the qualifications of the Presidential candidate. I feel that it is only logical that we should also ensure that the choice of the people is absolutely clear cut. The present provision allows only a candidate with a simple majority to be declared the Elected President. This may not be reflective of the people's choice. For example, if there are three candidates standing for the election and the results of the highest-polled candidate is 35% of the votes while the others are 30% and 25%, respectively, with a 10% spoilt votes, under the present provisions, the candidate with 35% of the votes would be elected by a simple majority. Yet he has only 35% of the people's votes. Will the Minister consider requiring a second round election of the two highest-polled candidates to determine the winner? The third point I would like to point out is that, under the present provisions, clauses 16(5) and 23(2)(a) allow for symbols to be allotted to the candidates. In Parliamentary elections, the party symbol identifies very clearly the candidate. Many people will vote on the ballot papers, matching the candidate with the party symbol which they are already familiar with. For example, the PAP lightning or the Workers' Party hammer and so on. However, for the Presidential election, people may not be too familiar with matching the symbol with the candidate. So I am just suggesting that perhaps the Minister might consider alternatives such as having a picture of the candidate next to the name of the candidate on the ballot papers. Another alternative might be to print the names of the candidates in four languages so that non-English speaking Singaporeans, especially the older folks, can also vote correctly.

Order. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 3.40 pm. Sitting accordingly suspended at 3.17 pm until 3.40 pm. Sitting resumed at 3.40 pm

Debate resumed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, can I touch on the points which have been raised by the Members who have spoken during the Second Reading? First, can I take up some of the points by Dr Lee Siew-Choh? His first point, which is also shared by Mr Chiam, concerns what he considers to be a very short period between the notice of the issue of the writ and the date of the nomination, and also what he considers to be a very short period for obtaining a certificate from the Presidential Elections Committee. Dr Lee Siew-Choh suggests raising it to 30 days. I think Mr Chiam suggested amending clause 7 to increase the period to 14 days. The arguments were that the period stated in the notice is very short. There are a lot of things that a candidate will have to do, run around getting six or whatever number of supporters in addition to the proposer and seconder. But their fears are unfounded because we must bear in mind that in the Presidential elections, anyone who is likely to be interested would have a far clearer idea of when the election is going to take place than in the case of parliamentary elections. In the case of an incumbent President whose term expires in the normal way, shall we say we know the incumbent President's term is going to expire on 31st December of a particular year, because of these provisions, you know that the election must be held during a period of three months before the expiry of the term. Therefore, you know that during that year, three months before 31st December, elections are likely to be held. And if anyone is serious about it, he should start making preparations long before, not just when the writ is announced and scurry around trying to get six persons to support you. In the case of a vacancy arising in unusual circumstances, such as death or resignation, the Constitution provides that the poll for the Elected President must be held within six months. So in that unusual situation, everybody is put on notice that although it had not been anticipated that there was going to be an election year for the Elected President, because this unusual event has occurred, everyone is put on notice at least that much ahead that there is going to be a poll. In other words, far from the short four days or the short period which they complained about, ample notice is given and everyone is put on notice that there is going to be an election during that period. In fact, it is far more predictable than parliamentary elections. So whoever could be interested, or is interested, or may be interested, should start their preparations ahead of time. I do not know whether Mr Chiam's or Dr Lee Siew-Choh's complaint is based on the fact that they normally wait till the last minute. But I would advise that anyone who is interested or thinks he has a potential to be an Elected Presidential candidate should peruse the provisions of this Bill and he can tell that in two years time, from this period to that period, there will be an election. As far as the period for obtaining the certificate from the Presidential Elections Committee is concerned, the two days referred to, at least two clear days before nomination day, that is the absolute latest that a candidate can apply for the certificate. But of course it does not mean that the candidate should wait till the very last minute because he can, and I think he should, apply for the certificate the day when the writ is issued. So he does not have to wait till the last minute. Let me point out that these periods which are stated in clauses 7 and 8 are based exactly on the same periods as that for the Parliamentary Elections Act with regard to the certificates which are necessary for the Indian or Malay or other minority candidates standing in a GRC. In fact, for that certificate, one can say that even more work is involved because the Committees concerned have to certify that the particular candidate, Malay or Indian, is accepted as a member of the respective community. Also, I would like to point out that, if you look at Article 19, the very nature of the qualifications required by the Constitution is such that the candidates for Presidential elections are very likely to be well-known people or figures, and whether you agree with their policies or the stand which they represent. In fact, the scheme of the Constitution is that they must be well-known people on the Singapore scene, because of the stringent qualifications. And therefore these two periods referred to should not pose great problems. Then Dr Lee Siew-Choh raised questions concerning judicial review of the certificate issued by the PEC. But, first, this has been gone into during the debates on the Elected President and the Constitution already provides in Article 18 that there can be no judicial review of the certificate, and there are good reasons for this. Because the matters which Article 19 of the Constitution talks about, whether a person has held "similar or comparable position of seniority and responsibility in any other organisation or department of equivalent size or complexity in the public or private sector which, in the opinion of the Presidential Elections Committee, has given him such experience and ability in administering and managing financial affairs as to enable him to carry out effectively the functions and duties of the office of President", these are matters which the Constitution has entrusted to the judgment of a group of wise men, the Presidential Elections Committee. These are matters which are not strictly legal or justiciable matters by a court of law. Then he wants the American system of grilling candidates in the public, and whatever dirty linen to be brought up. I am not sure whether it is wise to import into our system these American-style committees grilling individuals in public. Candidates, as I have said, are likely, because of the stringent qualifications, to be established figures on the Singapore scene. If there is such public grilling, would there be candidates coming forth? Even for the Nominated MP, I recall from the Special Select Committee, that one candidate pleaded in the Special Select Committee that his name should not be disclosed, unless the Special Select Committee nominated him. Next, Dr Lee Siew-Choh raised the question of numbered ballots. It is interesting that he pointed out the Workers' Party has not raised this for several years, and there is good reason. When Mr Jeyaretnam was cross-examined in a defamation case in November 1978, he said on oath, when the question was put to him whether he accepted the assurance from the then Prime Minister that the Government could not break the law, and the only circumstance where the ballot box would be opened will be pursuant to an order of the court, "I accept that assurance." Dr Lee Siew-Choh is resurrecting an old issue. He wants to do away with the numbering of ballot papers. The question is, how would he then disprove allegation of malpractice in votes? How would he disprove an allegation, if an allegation is made, by some voters that after they had voted, their ballots had been taken out and switched with other ballot papers with votes for different candidates? This system that we have in the Parliamentary Elections Act, and which is reflected in the Presidential Elections Bill, is the best way of ensuring that any such allegation can be scrutinised and decisively decided if the matter is raised in a court of law. The number at the back of the ballot paper, as has been explained many times, is to guarantee that the ballot paper is genuine. The serial number of the voter being entered on the counterfoil is to establish and record that the ballot paper is a genuine one given to the voter. He says there is a great deal of fear. But he forgets to point out the safeguards which exist concerning the secrecy of voting. At the counting centres, all the ballot papers are mixed. He knows that. After the counting, all the ballot papers, which are mixed by now, together with the counterfoils are sealed in ballot boxes and stored in the Supreme Court vault, and they cannot be opened except with the permission of a court which will give such permission only for the purpose of an election petition. He knows that this is not a provision which was introduced in our law by this Government. It was introduced by the British, and we are not alone. The United Kingdom has exactly the same provisions in their law as of today's date. So too have Malaysia and other countries. Sir, in the ultimate analysis, what is at issue is not the provisions. You can introduce any number of provisions in the Parliamentary Elections Act. But what is really important is to make sure that you have an honest government and people of integrity in the civil service who work the system. It is because we have run the system honestly, and although from time to time Dr Lee Siew-Choh and others have raised this issue of numbered ballots, no one, not even the Opposition party, has alleged that the Government has been dishonest in running the election. Nor has any Opposition party accused the Government of rigging the election. If you reflect on it, because they know that if a serious allegation is made, under these provisions, the court can decisively determine the question whether or not there has been such fraud. I dare say that if we bow down to Dr Lee Siew-Choh's request and we do away with this provision which other countries like UK have, that will open the door for reckless allegations to be made because we cannot disprove these allegations.

Order. BG Lee.

Resolved, That the proceedings on the item under discussion and the remaining items on the Order Paper today be exempted at this day's sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 - [BG Lee Hsien Loong].

Debate resumed.

Then both Dr Lee Siew-Choh and Mr Chiam complained about the number of days, nine days, being too short. I would like to repeat my point about the period of Presidential elections being fairly ascertainable well in advance. Secondly, consider the fact that for all these years, nine days have been shown to be enough for numerous candidates contesting some 79, and later 80, 81, seats in parliamentary elections. For Presidential elections, not only the candidates are likely to be well known, but they are likely not to be too many of them, probably a handful. That is my guess. Thirdly, campaigning is likely to be different from parliamentary elections. You are campaigning to the whole electorate, the entire of Singapore. Whether there will be door to door campaigning, I do not know. I think it is more likely to be appeal through the press, the media, maybe taking advertisements in the papers, and this is something that candidates do not do in a parliamentary election because you are addressing only your constituents. But if your entire electorate is your target, you might want to take advertisement space in the newspapers to publicise your campaign stand. Because of the nature of the elections in the Presidential elections, which is likely to be different, because there are likely to be not as many candidates as in parliamentary elections, and because you are very likely to be able to tell when the elections are to be held, you should in fact be prepared long before. The campaigning of the candidate and the preparation for the candidate must start long before the writ is actually announced. Dr Lee Siew-Choh raised some other points about ballot boxes being numbered and so on. Perhaps I will take that up when he moves the amendments to the various clauses during the Committee stage. Mr Chiam raised certain points which had not been raised by Dr Lee Siew-Choh. I believe he felt that there must be a minimum percentage of votes for a Presidential candidate before he is declared elected. His argument was that this would reflect the mandate. And I think he also touched on the question of a single candidate. The point is whether we should depart from the first-past-the-post system. And a related point on this was made by, I think, Mr Chay Wai Chuen as to whether a minimum number of votes is required. First, on the question of a single candidate. If on an issue so important as the Presidential elections where people are put on notice that an election is going to take place during this period, during a six-month period or a three-month period of a particular year, no other candidate, except one, stands, the question is, what is the point of having a poll? What is the point of requiring a minimum electoral endorsement? And what would that be - 40%, 30%? Mr Chiam says 50%. Supposing in the case of a sole candidate, he does not get that 50%, or whatever percentage we fix today. Then what happens? We go through the whole process again? Then in the second round or repeat elections, he does not get the 50% again, what happens? Or to take Mr Chay's point, there is more than one candidate. If in the first round, candidate A gets, as he said, 45%, another candidate gets 45%, or 46%, or 44%, and 10% spoilt votes, you have another election. You have a different permutation - one candidate gets 43%, another person gets 47% - it may not reach the 50% mark. How often do you proceed? With the second round or third round? It is best to take the approach that instead of having all these complicated provisions, it is far better that we take the Presidential election as a serious election so that whoever is interested (and there should be people who are interested) should come out, indicate their intention to stand, declare their candidature and contest so that there will be a poll. Then Dr Lee Siew-Choh and I think also Dr Koh Lam Son, touched on the question of election expenses. As I have said in my main speech, we have to bear in mind that the candidate has not only to declare his own personal expenditure but also the expenditure of all those who may be campaigning on his behalf and this includes a political party, if any, because they cannot campaign without authority from the candidate. Mr Chiam expressed the view about a situation where there is a death of a candidate and there are two or more candidates. His view, as I understand it, is that if there are two or more candidates and one candidate dies, we should not follow the approach in the Parliamentary Elections Act of the poll being countermanded and fresh nominations be invited, except for those who have already been nominated, without having to re-nominate. His view was that if there is a death of a candidate, the remaining candidates should go straightaway to the poll. As I understood his argument, it was that it is unlike the situation under the Parliamentary Elections Act where a political party has fielded a candidate. Here they are standing in their individual capacity. Do not forget, however, that a candidate who dies might have stood for a particular viewpoint on how an Elected President should carry out his functions. He might have had a particular platform or position on how reserves should be managed. Therefore, I think it is right that if he dies, we should see whether any other candidate is desirous of standing for election, so that that particular viewpoint would not be denied to the electorate. Mr Chay Wai Chuen asked whether we should have a time period for a candidate to declare that he has renounced his links with a political party. The Constitution provides that on the day of the nomination, he must make a declara- tion saying that he is not a member of a political party. I think we should keep that as a legal requirement. It may be that some, as aspirants for the election, may consider it consistent with their philosophy to resign from the political party long before the election period. Some may hold the view that they do not see any inconsistencies, as some Members in this House have expressed that view, and therefore they may want to comply with the requirement only on the day of the nomination. I think we should leave it to them. The important point is that, as the Select Committee recommended, it must be manifestly seen to be so that candidates on nomination day must sever their former party links in the form of resigning their membership from a political party. Mr Chay has raised quite an interesting point about the symbols and whether a photograph can be placed on the ballot paper. Some candidates may consider the photograph to be an advantage, some may not. But I can see his point. In the Parliamentary elections, it will be very difficult to do because there are so many candidates. But in a Presidential election, where there are likely to be a few candidates and just one constituency of the entire nation, and bearing in mind they cannot use their established party symbols, I think I will give his point careful consideration. It can be put to the Elections Department and, if it is feasible, we will adopt it. But its adoption may not require an amendment to the legislation because the ballot paper is to be in a form that is prescribed and, if it is workable, we can so prescribe. But it is a good suggestion. Dr Koh Lam Son raised the question of seals. He felt that the seals which are used now are rather fragile and he asked whether we could adopt the wax seal. This is a question which can be put to the Elections Department. I do not have the answer to it. If it is indeed a problem, then the Elections Department can consider how it can be overcome.

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. Jayakumar]. Bill considered in Committee.

Clauses 1 to 6 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 7 -

Sir, I beg to move, In page 4, line 12, to leave out "4" and insert "30". Sir, I have also other amendments (Cols. 291 - 294) to clauses 8, 9, 16, 22, 23, 25, 31 and 36. All my amendments are related to the process of election of the President, though on different aspects. Perhaps it might be convenient to consider all of them here. I propose that my amendments be dealt with in two groups. The first group concerns times for certain acts to be done and are my amendments to clauses 7, 8, 9 and 16. The second group concerns ballot papers. amendments - PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS BILL (Cols. 291 - 294)

All right. That would be convenient. You may proceed, Dr Lee.

Sir, concerning clause 7, notice of the election, we must remember that the PAP Government likes to spring surprises on the Opposition and they are likely to be snap elections. All these years since 1963, the PAP has been springing snap elections on the Opposition. In this particular case, although the Minister has explained that one should be prepared long before, nevertheless, the time is still too short. As already touched on by Mr Chiam, from the time of writ to the time of nomination, there are lots of things which we have got to do. We have to rush and do them, all in only four days. It is going to be a mad rush, and it is going to be very difficult for anybody who is not supported by the PAP Government. Mistakes could be made. I want to stress that in other countries, the notification is given well in advance - three weeks, four weeks, one or two months. I believe that this is intended to allow those who oppose the Government's proposed candidates adequate time to prepare so that they may work towards the target date. They must know exactly when the election is to be, so that they can slowly prepare towards that particular target date. And if you did that, then all the people who contest against the Government candidates, or the Government nominees, will at least have a better chance of a fair and democratic election. We are not thinking of a completely level playing field, Sir. But do not forget, we are now in the 1990s and we have to play according to new rules, not the rules of 1963. The PAP has a lot of in-built advantages. I do not think it should fear competition from anybody. And if it allows a fair contest against the PAP candidates in a fair and democratic election, the person proposed by the PAP, if elected, will get a better name. There is also the possibility that a person who is not proposed by the PAP being rejected as a candidate. If the time is too short, then there may not be enough time to get a substitute. It is not that easy to have substitutes standing by to contest against the PAP candidates. Therefore, reasonable time should be given to anybody to contest elections against the PAP, or its proposed candidates. And, of course, Sir, I must also remind the PAP that all this is not just to please the Opposition. It is to make sure that there is a fair and democratic election, whether it is for the President, or for other Parliamentary candidates. 4.15 pm Concerning the issue of review in court in clause 8, I just want to emphasise that the PEC could make mistakes and that there could be bitter complaints of unfairness. Therefore, although it is not so laid down in the Constitution, candidates who have complaints should be allowed a chance to appeal to a court of law so that justice may be seen to be done. Concerning clause 16, Sir, I think everybody knows that the electioneering period of nine days is definitely too short. The PAP has a lot of time to make propaganda, and it has TV, radio and the press - all doing its propaganda work day in day out, all the year round. But other people will not have the same facilities. People who support Opposition candidates will find that they have hardly any time at all for this. The Minister says that they can always buy advertisements in the newspapers. That is very expensive. As I have said, such things can only be done by very rich political parties or by very rich persons, and that is not going to lead to a fair and democratic election if the PAP insists on those conditions. Of course, we realise that everybody should be prepared long beforehand. But is that realistic? Opposition people have to work. They are not full time politicians like the Ministers with fat salaries sitting there who can do whatever they like with their time. We have to earn our living. Under those circumstances, we are not as well placed as Government Ministers or those who are supported by the PAP Government. Moreover, we must remember that if the ruling party should support any prospective or aspiring candidate, it will have ample funds, is well prepared in every way and will not have to be concerned with the fear in the minds of many voters. We have to deal with all that. To be fair, the election time should therefore be extended. As I have said, Sir, the extension of election time is not just to benefit the Opposition party or candidate who contests against a PAP-proposed candidate, but the people, the voters themselves. They need the time to know more of what the PAP or its candidate has proposed. They need time to digest the programmes and policies which may be placed before them. That will take some time. It is not that easy as the Minister says. So all this is very important. Because if the people are not given the chance and the time to go through all this, then they will not be well informed, and not be able, under those circumstances, to elect on the basis of informed opinions. The minor amendment to clause 22, Sir, is to remind the authorities that those employed in the polling stations as presiding officers or police officers need not have to go through the bother and inconvenience of getting certificates from the Returning Officer in order to go to vote. If these people could be allotted work in the vicinity of their polling stations, then that clause may not be really necessary. This is a very minor amendment, but since I have put up an amendment I want to touch on it as well. I have also proposed two new sub-clauses to clause 8. We feel that the PEC's work is of the utmost importance. Examination of the aspiring candidate in public would fit in well with the Prime Minister's new style of an open government. It is important that the public can see how the PEC works, and how it is satisfied that the person is a person of integrity, good character and reputation. The Minister quotes an example of somebody not wanting his name to be divulged unless he was nominated. This is proof that the fear exists even among the very top of the better classes in Singapore. It shows that what we have been saying about ballot paper numbers and so on is not far-fetched. It is true. The fear is there all the time. We also feel that reasons for its decisions should be given by the PEC so that their reasons may serve as precedents to indicate to future aspiring candidates and the people what standards they may go by. If they do not reach up to those particular standards, as explained by the PEC, then they would not need to try to take part in the election. There is a very minor amendment to clause 9(6). It is only intended to ensure that the Returning Officer does not have the option or discretion of whether or not to supply the nomination form to a registered elector requiring the form. That is why I propose that the word "may" should be changed to "shall". It means that the Returning Officer does not have any option. It is mandatory for him to supply that form. These form the first part of the amendments. Question proposed.

May I just have my say, Sir. It is very short. Sir, I would support the amendment to clause 7 in regard to the extension of time to more than four days. I think the reasons given by the Minister are not very convincing. Even if the whole population of Singapore knows exactly when the Presidential election is to be held, I think the time should be still more than four days. The issue is not whether people know or do not know when the elections would be held. But I think the issue is whether or not reasonable time is given. For all events, they must always be given a reasonable time. Even if you are invited to somebody's dinner, they will give you a reasonable time. They do not just give you one hour's notice and say, "come along". There is no such thing. Even to pay up your licence fee, they will give you a reasonable time, a month, to pay up. Even a notice to quit, they will give you a reasonable time to pack up things and go. Everything that we know of, there must be a reasonable time. If you want to sack an employee, you cannot sack him all of a sudden, unless of course you pay him money in lieu. Why? Because you have not given him reasonable time. Take a poll here, and if you are reasonable people, you will see that we will get a majority vote that four days are definitely not reasonable for the election of the President of Singapore. I am convinced of that. I know I am right and all of you know that I am right but you still would not say so. I am not asking for an unreasonable time. I am saying "14 days", which is very reasonable. If this is a reasonable House, you will certainly make this reasonable amendment. The other small matter that I would like to mention is the election time of nine days. This again is definitely not reasonable in the case of a Presidential election. There is the inherent unfairness. In a parliamentary election, the party has the machinery and could still carry out work in between the elections. But for a single person who has got no party affiliations, it will definitely be a disadvantage to him. Besides, if he is a man, such as a banker or a judge, who has got no political career to give him that publicity, his exposure will not be as good as that of a political figure, say, a Minister. You can see the inherent injustice there. Whereas a Minister or a politician will get the constant exposure of the media. But for some other person who qualifies, say, a judge, a businessman or a banker, he does not get the same sort of exposure. So if you are going to limit him to only nine days, and not a slightly longer period, he would not even get to start off the ground. Nine days may only be the beginning. Before he can even make himself known, polling day is already at hand. Therefore, I say that for this particular election, where very few people are involved, and it is possible that they may not have such great exposure, I think it is very reasonable to amend it to three weeks.

Sir, Dr Lee Siew-Choh in his main speech had in fact already in a way spoken or argued on points which are reflected in his notice of amendments and to which I have in fact also replied. So instead of giving a detailed reply, may I summarise what I had already said, this time in respect of each of the amendments. His amendments to clauses 7 and 8 are related also to his amendments to clause 16(5) in so far as the period of four days is concerned, in clause 7, the period of 2 clear days in clause 8, and the period of a minimum of nine days and not more than eight weeks in clause 16(5) relate to his criticisms as to the shortness of the period of notice or, as the case may be, of the period of minimum campaign period. To recapitulate, I pointed out that these provisions are identical to the Parliamentary elections where for many more candidates in many more constituencies, it has worked satisfactorily. Secondly, here the candidate is appealing to an entire electorate, there are likely to be fewer candidates and the nature of the campaigning is likely to be different. Again, I pointed out that it is far more predictable than Parliamentary elections as to when the period of election is going to be. For example, if the constitutional amendments are brought into force during the term of office of the present President, Mr Wee Kim Wee, he would exercise the functions as spelt out in the constitutional provisions. And the Constitution provides that his term of office will expire on a particular date. We know that it expires on 31st August 1993. If it expires in the normal course of events, if he does not resign, then the election must be held three months prior to that. So anyone who is interested in the elections can work out when the elections will be during the period of the three months. As for the PEC certificate, I have explained that this period has worked well with respect to the certificate issued for the GRC candidates, which is a more difficult task than in the case of qualifications under Article 19. I have explained that the Constitution, for good reasons, excludes judicial review of the matters to which the PEC certifies, because those matters are, strictly speaking, not legal matters and are not justiciable. As to the amendment to clause 9(6), whether "may" gives the discretion to refuse, I am advised by the Attorney-General's Chambers that "may" here, by interpretation, is that it has an obligation. So "may" here must be read to mean "shall". So there is no need to amend it in taking the normal legal usage of these terms. I believe we have gone only as far as clause 16.

Dr Lee, you may proceed.

May I say a few words on what the Minister has just said. He has forgotten to mention what I have tried to emphasise, namely, that anybody who wishes to contest elections must have a target date to work towards. They must know the date exactly so that they can take time to prepare towards that particular date. If the Government should announce elections only a short while before the actual election date, that does not give other people sufficient time. I agree with what Mr Chiam has said, namely, that the time and the notice given should be reasonable. I am prepared to accept 14 days if the Government should accept the 14 days. But knowing what the Government is, I have proposed 30 days to see what the response is. So, Sir, the time is definitely too short. What we want is a fair democratic election, and the Minister has not addressed that issue. Neither has he addressed the issue about the voters needing more time to study and know exactly what the position is all about so that they can vote according to the best information that they have. And the only way to place all the information before voters is to allow more time for the notice as well as for the election itself.

Dr Lee, would you like to proceed with the other group of amendments?

I refer now to clause 23(2) concerning ballot papers. I think it is clear that this number on the ballot paper has created a lot of fears in the hearts and minds of many voters. We in the Opposition have realised that, and we were also afraid of even mentioning this number on the ballot paper because it might have the effect of making voters fear more. So for the last few elections, Sir, we have not touched on the issue at all. But now that we have this Bill before the House, I think it is appropriate that we should discuss it. This is an issue which is not new. This is an issue which we raised long, long ago in 1963. But this is the first time I have a chance to speak in this House concerning the number on the ballot paper. The Government has given no good reason to have that number on the ballot paper. And of course the real reason why the Government insists on having that number is to use it to frighten and intimidate voters, to create fears in the minds of the voters. Surely if the Government wants a free and fair election (I see our Foreign Minister nodding his head, that is what he has asked for in Cambodia), would it also allow that in Singapore? The Minister has not countered what the 1966 Constitutional Commission has said. He has not countered what other people have also complained about. In fact, if I remember rightly, Sir, the Straits Times, the New Nation, and many other papers had also attacked the number on the ballot paper. They all had asked why the Government did not want to help remove the fear in the minds of the people. The issue is in fact not just the number itself. The number causes fear. The issue is fear. Do we want to have fears in the minds of voters? Why do we not allow voters a chance to vote freely according to their wishes and without fear? So I stress again and again that this number should be taken off the ballot paper. Clause 25(3), which explains how the voting is being done, creates more fears in the minds of the voters. And this should be stopped, because when the polling station officers shout and call out the names of the voters in the polling stations, and when the voters see their electoral numbers being marked on the counterfoil, it gives the impression, rightly or wrongly, that the Government would know how they have voted. So why do we not get rid of this fear? Give voters a chance to know that the Government would not know how they have voted. I have never said that the Government tries to find out how people have voted. We know that it has not done so. But the point, I stress again, is not whether the Government tries to find out or not find out. The question is, do we want to remove this fear in the minds of the people? And I believe that we must try and remove this fear. The Minister was talking about fraud. I do not know, Sir. It is not that easy to commit fraud. You look at the Bill. There are three steps laid down in clause 25(3). The first step is: "... the ballot paper shall be stamped on the back or perforated with the official mark or initialled by the presiding officer ... (I mentioned this in my speech during the Second Reading)." This procedure should ensure that only the genuine ballot papers are used. No outsider should have possession of the official stamp. Neither should he have the official perforator. And none of them can hope to be able to initial like the presiding officer. Therefore, these steps already tell us that the ballot papers that are given to the voters are genuine ballot papers. There is no fraud possible under those circumstances. The second stage of that sub-clause says, and I quote: "... the number, name and description of the voter, as stated in the copy of the register of electors, shall be called out... ." This confirms that the voter is a genuine voter whose name is already listed in the electoral register, otherwise he would not have been there to get his ballot paper to vote. So what need is there to have the number? Sub-clause (3) says: "... and the number of the elector shall be marked on the counterfoil [these are the dangerous words], and a mark shall be placed in the register against the number of the elector to denote that he has received a ballot paper but without showing the particular ballot paper which he has received." The first two steps that I have mentioned, Sir, already confirm that only a genuine ballot paper is given to a voter. If only a genuine ballot paper is given to a voter, there is no need to fear of fraud. A bogus voter would not be able to go along to claim for a ballot paper. Moreover, a ballot paper that is not stamped or perforated or initialled by the presiding officer will not be accepted as a genuine ballot paper. So the numbering on the ballot paper is unnecessary and superfluous. But if the electoral number is marked on the counterfoil which also has a number, then it would be possible to identify the voter and know how he has voted, which makes nonsense of the secrecy of the vote. And though we may try to assure the voters that Government will not attempt to find out how they have voted (we have done that, Sir, explaining the Government's position that it will not try to find out), the fact remains that the non-secrecy of the vote has created fears in the minds of the voters. There are safeguards. But, as I have said, they do not explain the importance of the issue, namely, of the fear. And I believe that the Government, having created the fear in the minds of the people, should have the duty and responsibility to remove that fear. Can anybody stuff a lot of papers into the ballot box? Yes, certainly. But I believe if such things were done, then it would not have been done by the Opposition. They do not have the facilities. Only the Government has. The Government could, if it wanted to. This has happened in many countries. And although such things have happened in other countries, we have at no time said that the Government has done a dirty job like that, at least for the last 10 years, I would say. Before that, it is another story. Sir, just for the sake of argument, even if a few fraudulent ballot papers should be put into the ballot boxes, they would be very small in number and can be easily detected because they would not have the stamp, the perforation and the initial made by the presiding officer. So what need is there to fear of fraud so long as the Government itself plays clean? The main thing is that, as the Minister himself has stressed, there is a clean government. Yes, let there be a clean government. But what happens if a future government is not that clean? We have got to provide for and prevent what might happen. There are also other ways of preventing fraud, Sir. If the Government is really serious about preventing fraud, like preventing voters from voting twice, then the Government could provide for some form of voters' attendance list where the voter goes along, votes and marks his attendance. He gives the I/C number and it is checked against a register, and that register could always be used to check whether a genuine voter has gone along to vote. Or the Government could make the voter go along with the postcard which the Government sends to every voter. The voter's postcard would be kept by the presiding officer and, if necessary, if there should be complaints, it could be used to check whether the person who has voted was a genuine or not a genuine voter. I have also, Sir, suggested two new sub-sections (4) and (5) to clause 31. Sub-section (4) is necessary because there have been instances, in the past, of ballot boxes not having been collected from the polling stations. This actually happened in the 1980 elections when a ballot box was left in a polling station in Telok Blangah. It was left there for about twenty minutes while the other ballot boxes had been transported to the counting centre. This amendment is intended to prevent a further repetition of such mishaps. We also feel that the polling agents should be allowed to accompany the boxes from the polling stations to the counting centre. This will prevent any possible suspicion that some of the ballot boxes might have been tampered with while they are being transported from the polling station to the counting centre. If the Government should accept this amendment, it would not lose anything by it. The third amendment which, I feel, is a very important one, is to clause 36(3). In order to ensure that the election is clean, as I have said in my main speech, the number of ballot papers counted on the counting table must tally with the number of ballot papers cast by the voters. It must tally exactly. If 100 people have voted, then 100 ballot papers must be counted on the counting table. If there is a discrepancy, then something must be wrong. In the 1963 elections, candidates could inquire from the polling stations' presiding officers the number of votes that had been cast by a certain time. But since 1972, (and there was something very fishy about 1972 but I would not go into that today) the polling stations' presiding officers had been instructed not to divulge the number of votes cast to the candidate who asked for it. I see no reason why the number of votes cast should not be divulged by the presiding officers to the candidates. As I have said, this is to allow the candidate to find out exactly how many votes had been cast and check that number against the number of ballot papers on the counting table. The Government does not lose anything with this amendment as it has been saying that it is a clean Government. Good. I support a clean Government. Make it cleaner still. Make sure that everything is completely above board. If I were to tell you of our experience of 1972, that would take a little while. So I will skip that. I would also suggest that before the presiding officers in the counting centre start to count the votes, the number of votes cast should be publicly announced and the candidates informed, so that they will be in a better position to check the number of votes cast against the votes counted on the table.

Sir, let me deal with the second group of amendments. Again, I do not propose to repeat at length what I have said in my main reply. First, his amendments to clauses 23 and 25 relate to his objections to the numbering. He said that his Party has not raised this over the last several elections. But the Opposition now has to raise it because they fear this. By "Opposition" what does he mean? He cannot speak for the entire Opposition because Mr Chiam has, on record in 1979, as saying [Straits Times, 3rd February 1979]: 'The number on the ballot paper and the secrecy of the votes was not an issue for contention. This issue has been settled. The purpose of the serial number was to prevent cheating and other malpractices during balloting.' So Dr Lee Siew-Choh can only speak for the Workers' Party. And he said that the Government has created this fear. The Government has not created this fear. It is he who is creating this fear by raising it after a moratorium imposed by them for whatever reasons, and raising it now for totally unjustified reasons. I have explained that this is a provision which the Government did not introduce. It was introduced by the British. There is very good reason for this because, with this provision, anyone who alleges that his vote has been tampered with, this matter can be decided not by the Government, by opening of the ballot boxes, but by a court of law. And the ballot papers, after the counting, are sealed in the ballot boxes. Ballot boxes are sealed and then stored in the Supreme Court vault and can be opened only on permission of the Supreme Court in an election petition. He has said in this House that he is not saying that the PAP Government has ever done such a thing as opening up the boxes. He wants to take care of a future situation, a future government. But, as I have said, if we do not have this provision, and somebody alleges that his vote has been taken out and replaced by another vote, you cannot decisively have the court rule on this matter. In fact, if we do not have this provision, you can have more such allegations and greater fears. Then I pointed out that the United Kingdom has exactly the same provisions and the reference to this is the Representation of the People Act 1983, and I quote: 'Ballot paper shall be delivered to a voter who applies for one and immediately before delivery, the ballot paper shall be stamped with official mark, the number and name of the elector shall be called out, the number of the elector shall be marked on the counterfoil, ...' So this is a very good precedent. And as I have said, the Secretary-General of his Party has gone on record to say that he accepts the assurance that the Government could not break the law and the only circumstances which the ballot box would be opened would be pursuant to an order of the Court. This is in the Straits Times of 15th November 1978. So much for the ballot papers. Ballot boxes. He wants an amendment to clause 31. And what he wants is that the ballot boxes shall be numbered and the number of ballot boxes allocated to each polling station is to be announced beforehand. Those in charge of transporting the boxes shall be given in advance the number of ballot boxes and so on. One polling agent of the candidate from each polling station may accompany the ballot boxes to the counting centre. I do not know what he means by "accompanying the ballot boxes to the counting centre". I take it that he means "accompanying in the same vehicle". There is nothing in the Bill to prohibit a candidate or an agent from accompanying the ballot boxes in another vehicle, but he wants him to be in the same vehicle. This is an absurd proposition. Supposing the polling station is for a GRC of four candidates and there are four political parties campaigning there. In other words, 16 polling agents must be crammed into the bus with the election officers and the Police escort and if the election polling agents are highly strung up, you can expect the kind of tension and maybe fisticuffs because some candidates and some election helpers (not those of the PAP) have been known to be rowdy and ill-behaved. The point is that the existing law already provides a safeguard. Clause 31(2) says: 'The ballot box or boxes unopened shall be secured by the presiding officer and sealed with his seal and with the seals of such of the candidates or their agents as attend and desire to affix their seals, in such manner that the box or boxes cannot be opened and nothing can be inserted therein without breaking the seals.' Therefore, there is a safeguard. The candidates and their agents know the number of ballot boxes issued from the polling station and they can check whether the boxes which arrive at the counting centre are sealed, or whether the seals are intact. Then he wants an amendment to clause 36. At the moment, clause 36 says that every officer, etc, at a polling station shall maintain secrecy, shall not communicate, before the poll is closed, to any person any information as to the name or number of electors and so on. But the total number of voters who have voted at any polling station at any time before the poll is closed may, in the discretion of the presiding officer, be divulged to the candidates, in other words, the number of people who have voted. What Dr Lee Siew-Choh wants is, instead of the discretion being vested in the presiding officer, he wants it to be mandatory so that each time the candidate or the agent approaches the presiding officer, the presiding officer must give the information. This cannot be workable because you must allow the presiding officer, who may have very busy periods at various times of the polling day, to decide when he can accede to his request. If we take the amendment by Dr Lee Siew-Choh, it means that it is mandatory. Every time the candidate, or his agent, approaches the presiding officer at intervals of, say, 10 minutes, 15 minutes, or 20 minutes, he has to stop work and attend to his request. This is not reasonable. In any case, let us not forget that the candidate will have his polling agents at the polling station. And we know that, in practice, what happens is that each candidate has his polling agents to keep track because when a number of the elector is called up, he will delete it from his copy of the electoral register. What actually happens in practice is that the candidate will check with his polling agents, or the election agent will check with his polling agents, to know how many voters have voted. To make it mandatory, I think, is to place an intolerable burden on those who are charged with carrying out the business of conducting the elections.

Sir, the Minister has not touched on some of the issues which I have raised and his excuse is that he does not propose to repeat them. He has not repeated anything. The issues which I want him to answer, he has not answered. He brings in the excuse that Mr Chiam and Mr Jeyaretnam have both accepted the number on the ballot paper. Sir, this issue is not a new issue. This issue was brought up long before Mr Jeyaretnam, or Mr Chiam, came on to the political scene. We brought it up long, long ago. Later on, we discovered to our dismay that because we brought it up, we actually did make people more frightened. And because of that, we tried to reassure the people saying that the vote was secret and that everything was all right. Nevertheless, the Minister has not answered the complaint of the 1966 Constitutional Commission. Neither has he answered what Mr Barker said in this House, nor what Mr Lee Kuan Yew admitted in court, namely, that the vote is not secret. I do not raise this issue of fear only now. This is the only chance I have to speak of this issue in Parliament. All along we had been making the complaint outside Parliament, and you know what the press is. The press publishes only what the Government says, not what the Opposition says. Do we have a fair press? No. Right from the very first days in 1963. Sir, whether you agree or not, it is not we who raise the fears. The fear is an objective fact. Subjectively, we might wish to say that it does not exist. But it is an objective fact which exists. We do not raise the question of the number on the ballot paper. The voters themselves come along to us. Even a psychologist in the army quoted, as an example, of what had happened to some national servicemen. They were fearful, not just kiasu. They were scared that if they did not vote for the PAP, they would be penalized and that something unpleasant might happen to them. These fears are things which you cannot just whiff away. This amendment is not a wish-list that we want to put in. It is something which every reasonable man wants to see in Singapore, namely, that the number should not be in the ballot paper. The Minister quotes the example of UK and other countries. Well, there are so many things which they are doing in UK. Why does Government not practise them? Follow the same practices. I challenge the Minister to say yes. Would he dare? He smiles. He would not dare. Because the PAP selectively implement only provisions which help to give all the best advantages to the PAP Government today. The ballot paper number would be used in an underhand way, with a whispering campaign. Their RCs or whatever would go along and tell the people, "Careful, there is a number on the back of the ballot paper." So many people are scared. We do not raise the issue. We do not want to raise it. We would want to hush it up. But these are objective facts, Sir, which cannot be wished away. As a responsible Government, I think it is only right that the Government should get rid of this number so that nobody need have fears. Then voters can really vote freely. Whether fairly or not is another matter, but at least freely, meaning that they do not have to worry about what might happen to them and things like that. I quoted those excerpts of the three stages of voting. The Minister has not answered them. Has he? He has not. Because he knows that what I say is true. Many prominent lawyers have said that this voting procedure renders fraud impossible. Why can we not accept that? Prof. Tommy Koh is a very respectable person who, everybody acknowledges, seeks the truth. He has said that that number is intimidatory and should be removed from the ballot paper. He has also pointed out that if the perforation or marks should be made, or the initials made on the ballot paper by the presiding officer, then there would be no possibility of fraud. I have also suggested a few other possibilities by which the Government could prevent fraud. But he has not touched on them, he has not answered them. He just said, "I do not propose to repeat". What has he repeated? Nothing. He has not said anything in reply. He has not answered. How could he repeat? On the point about going on the same vehicle, he has given the scenario of so many polling officers and polling agents being in the same bus, but the bus is big enough. If they are there, it would not do the Government any harm. What is there to fear? At least, it will be reassuring, and nobody can say that the Government has tampered with those ballot boxes. He mentioned a little while ago that the ballot boxes are sealed, you sign on the seals and the boxes are supposed to be opened in front of the candidates. But I can assure you, Sir, that such things may never be done. In some places, they were done, but not in all places. Sir, there was one occasion, before I arrived, when all the ballot boxes were already on the table. How could you check? It is impossible to check. Yet he is telling me all the stories to indicate that you could check. Those are not real safeguards, Sir. And they are not really workable. I believe that what I have suggested are all very reasonable amendments, none of which the Government cannot accept, that is, if the Government should really allow free and fair elections in Singapore.

Sir, it is a bit tedious. I pointed out that if we do not have this provision we cannot decisively deal with the allegation where a voter says that the ballot paper that he put in was taken out and substituted with another ballot paper. The other steps that he mentioned will not enable that allegation to be successfully dealt with by a court of law. He says that it is an empirical fact that there is fear. Well, he says he does not fear, others have come to him with a fear. If that is so, why does he not take the opportunity now to reassure the voters? I am sure SBC will telecast his assurance, just like his Secretary-General sometime ago in one election also went around assuring the people that the vote is secret. If there is a fear, how is it that some 36% of the electorate voted against the PAP? How is it that Mr Jeyaretnam had been elected? Then he says, apropos the counting of votes, that he had arrived at the counting station and the ballot boxes had been opened up, as if a major breach of the Parliamentary Elections Act had taken place. If he is alleging that a violation of the election rules had taken place, that is a very serious allegation and he should have made it then and there, or shortly thereafter, and brought in an election petition. But I am sure his election agent must have been present. Because if the election agent was not present, he was not present, and the boxes had been opened up, I am sure he would have made a big protest about it because that would have been a violation of the rules. So, therefore, Mr Speaker, Sir, much as I am tempted to prolong this reply, the point is that these procedures in the Parliamentary Elections Act have been there and they contain enough safeguards. He has said in his main speech that the Secretary-General of his Party is contemplating a boycott of the elections. He was not clear whether it is the Presidential elections or the general elections. But since most of his speech today has been an attack on the Parliamentary Elections Act, perhaps we should take it that the boycott that has been planned for is both for the general elections and the Presidential elections.

One final word, Sir. I can assure the Minister that many violations had been committed in past elections. Do you believe that if we make a protest, it will be published in the newspapers? On one occasion, Sir, I called a press conference and pointed out the discrepancy of the number of votes cast against the number of votes counted on the table. The newspapermen took everything down. But the next morning in the press, "All the votes tallied very nicely". We have a press which is completely controlled by Government. So it is not that easy. Moreover, when things like this happens, do they give us the publicity and allow us to speak on TV so that the people will know about it?

Sir, it is not a question of the press giving him publicity. The question is, has there been an election irregularity and a violation of the Parliamentary Elections Act? That is the question. Is Dr Lee Siew-Choh alleging that there has been a breach of the Parliamentary Elections Act? If that is so, even if no newspaper gave him publicity, he has the legal redress before a court of law. So the question is: is he alleging that there has been a breach of the Parliamentary Elections Act? If he is not, then he should say so categorically. Is he alleging that the Parliamentary Elections Act has been violated?

Sir, of course, this is going back to old history. He is asking whether such a thing has happened? I say it has. That was in 1972. But it is no use my going back on what had happened then. In fact, I did consult a lawyer and was thinking of taking up an election petition. But, unfortunately, so many other things happened. Going to court for an election petition means money. We are all poor as church mice. We could not afford it. So we just let it pass. That is how it was. As regards the other thing about the election boycott, I only mentioned that at the last minute. That is what the Secretary-General asked me to say. That does not mean that I agree with every word. Nevertheless, it has nothing to do with me in saying this.

It is interesting to note that he, in not so many words, dissociates himself from the Secretary-General of his political party. I think it is very serious to say that in 1972 there were violations of the Parliamentary Elections Act, but the only reason he did not pursue it was that legal expenses were involved. Elections irregularity is a serious matter. I am sure that if he believes that there were irregularities, he would have brought them before a court of law. Finally, Sir, I should also point out that he quoted Mr Lee Kuan Yew as saying in the court action in 1978 that the votes were not secret. I do not think Mr Lee Kuan Yew ever said that because he, in fact, in response to a request by Mr Jeyaretnam, gave an assurance that the vote was secret and Mr Jeyaretnam then publicised it in assuring the people that the vote was secret. In fact, as I said, when the question was put to Mr Jeyaretnam whether he accepted the assurance of the Prime Minister, Mr Jeyaretnam said that he did.

Sir, I believe the Prime Minister admitted that under cross-examination in court.

Sir, I just want to join in the debate. When I heard the Member who opposed me at Eunos GRC in the 1988 elections say that when he arrived the ballot boxes were already opened and the papers were already poured out for counting, I remember very distinctly that the Member was there throughout, right from the very beginning. Not only was he there, but the members of his team were there. Francis Seow and Mr Babu were there, and his election agents were there. They were hovering around the boxes and looking at everything and scrutinising. When the boxes were poured out they were right there watching. The whole thing was completely above board. He was very relaxed. He expected to win. When he saw the votes coming out in his favour he was very happy. But, in fact, in the end he lost. So I do not know what the Member is alleging. Complete fiction.

Sir, I have made no allegation about Eunos at all. He has made a mistake. I have already said it was 1972.

The Question proposed by Dr Lee Siew-Choh is, "That the figure "4" proposed to be left out, be left out." Amendment negatived. Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 8 to 10 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 11 -

In page 7, line 3, the word "nominations" should read as "nomination". Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 12 to 85 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. The Schedule ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Economic Expansion Incentives (Relief from Income Tax) (Amendment) Bill 1991 gives legislative effect to income tax changes announced in the 1990 Budget Statement. In addition, four other tax changes, which aim to update and improve upon the Economic Expansion Incentives Act, are also proposed. First, the extension of tax relief period of a post-pioneer company. The existing 5-year post-pioneer incentive was introduced to encourage pioneer companies to expand and upgrade their activities after the pioneer tax relief period. It allows post-pioneer companies to be taxed at a concessionary tax rate of not less than 10% for up to five years. In the 1990 Budget Statement, the Government announced its intention to allow the Minister to extend the tax relief period of post-pioneer companies for such further periods as he may determine, subject to a total tax relief period not exceeding 10 years. The proposed amendment will enhance Singapore's competitiveness as an investment region, and further encourage companies to upgrade their operations and sink their roots in Singapore beyond the pioneer status years. Clause 3 amends section 19C of the Economic Expansion Incentives Act by inserting a new subsection (2) to give effect to the proposed amendment. I shall now move on to the other four proposed changes to the Economic Expansion Incentives Act. The existing provisions of the Act require all qualifying companies to claim capital allowances during the tax relief period and maintain proper apportionment of income and expenditure between their tax relief period and the period after that. However, this requirement is not made explicit for the post-pioneer incentive. Clauses 4 and 5 of the amendment Bill will insert two new sections (sections 19G and 19H) to ensure that the post-pioneer incentive provisions are consistent with the other incentives in the Economic Expansion Incentives Act, with respect to claiming of capital allowances and apportionment of income and expenditure. The next amendment in the Bill concerns the automatic right given to pioneer companies with fixed investments of $1 billion or more, to carry forward their capital expenditure allowances until after the pioneer status years. This means that such companies can effectively lengthen their pioneer status tax relief period beyond that which is actually awarded. In the original 1959 Act, all pioneer companies were given this right. This was a special concession made to encourage much needed investments and capital and technological inflow to the country. In 1970, this concession was removed, except for companies with fixed investments of $1 billion or more or companies which are more than 50% owned by Singaporeans and have incurred, or intend to incur, fixed capital investment greater than $150 million. The objective was to encourage capital intensive investment projects with long gestation periods, which will upgrade Singapore's industrial base. Such large capital investments were then rare and were well sought after. In the 1990s, the economic situation has changed. Large investments by foreign multinationals are no longer uncommon. The above concession is no longer needed. It is therefore proposed to remove it. The concession given to pioneer companies which are more than 50% owned by Singaporeans and invest at least $150 million will be retained to encourage local companies to expand and upgrade their activities. The concession to allow flow-through of capital expenditure will be made subject to the Minister's approval and such other conditions that he sees fit to impose. This tightens up the existing provisions. Clause 2 amends section 10(3) by substituting it with new subsections to give effect to these changes. The two final amendments streamline the present system of administration for approval of changes to the shareholding of export or expanding enterprises. Presently, the Minister must approve the respective shareholdings of an export or expanding enterprise at the same time that the expansion certificate or export certificate is issued in order for flow-through of the tax exempt dividends to be allowed. Should the shareholders of the companies meanwhile be changed, the Minister does not have the authority to approve flow-through of tax exempt dividends to the new shareholders. Clauses 5 and 6 remove this requirement and allow the Minister to approve the shareholding at any time during or after the tax relief period. Mr Speaker, Sir, the proposed changes to the Economic Expansion Incentives Act reflect the Government's commitment to monitor the effectiveness of our tax incentives and to update them when economic conditions change. 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. - [BG Lee Hsien Loong]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The main aim of this Bill is to amend the Public Utilities Act (Chapter 261) to introduce new safety precautions for gas installation work and to reduce the incidence of damage to gas and water pipelines. Currently, all gas service work is carried out by PUB's Gas Department or by contractors supervised by the Department. To allow the private sector to do some of this work, and supplement and complement the Gas Department's services, PUB has decided to introduce a scheme to license gas service workers. This will bring gas in line with the practice for electricity and water. PUB also regulates electricity and water supply installation procedures and practices. Private sector electrical contractors and plumbers can carry out the installation, provided they are licensed by PUB to ensure that high standards of work are maintained. A new Part VA is therefore added to the Public Utilities Act to ensure that contractors take general precautionary measures when carrying out gas installation work. Part VA also deals with safety procedures and practices, maintenance of standards of work for contractors to ensure public safety, and safety of gas pipes affected by construction. It will require gas service workers to be fully trained and qualified for their job. It also stipulates the requirements and the circumstances under which a person will be allowed to perform gas service work. PUB will make the necessary regulations on these matters which will include the licensing of gas service workers and the control of standards and safety requirements for gas installations, appliances and accessories using PUB gas. To curb the damage of water and gas pipes by contractors, a new section 96A makes it compulsory for contractors to determine the location of water and gas pipes before carrying out earth works. At present, there is no requirement for contractors to determine the presence of such pipes before they start work. In 1990, there were 289 cases of damage to water pipes by errant contractors, and 102 cases of damage to gas pipes. The cost of such damage is considerable, especially if we take into consideration the consequent disruption to supply. For electricity cables, a similar amendment was introduced in 1988. This made it compulsory for contractors intending to dig holes near electricity cables to employ a licensed cable detection worker to find the electricity cables in the work site. This requirement has drastically reduced the number of cases of cable damage by contractors - by 80% between the last quarter of 1988 and the first quarter of 1991. Based on this experience, the proposed amendment should considerably reduce the damage to water and gas pipes. Section 76(2) provides for the conviction of any person who damages any PUB electricity cable. However, under the existing provisions, it is very difficult to prosecute successfully a contractor for damaging a PUB electricity cable when his subcontractor or his agent or employee damages the cable, because of the legal requirement to impute knowledge of damage to the contractor. The new section 76(2A) will close this loophole and ensure that contractors bear the responsibility for any damage caused to PUB electricity cables. The remaining amendments cover administrative matters. A new section 85A will allow PUB to impose a late payment charge on the minority of customers who do not pay their bills in spite of reminders being sent to them. A minority of PUB customers (about 11%) are persistent late-payers. The opportunity is also taken to streamline PUB's operations and bring them in line with other statutory boards and to allow greater flexibility in the administration of the Board's affairs. Sections 14(6) and 14(7) are amended to grant PUB greater autonomy in deciding on terms and conditions of service of PUB employees, salaries, appointment, promotion and disciplinary control. This is similar to the powers granted to other statutory boards and is in line with the Government's policy of giving greater flexibility in personnel matters to statutory boards. Section 33 is amended to allow the Board greater flexibility and scope to invest its surplus funds. This is consistent with the financial operations of other MTI statutory boards. The present provision restricts PUB's financial operations as it can only invest in securities authorised for investment of trust funds. Section 73(1) is amended to make it compulsory for the Board to obtain the Minister's approval for the sale of land. This amendment is in line with the Government's policy to ensure conformity in the use of land in the public sector. Section 87 is amended to widen the existing presumption against the customer in cases of tampering of electricity meters. PUB's experience investigating cases of tampering has shown that the culprits make holes in the meter cover in order to insert a wire or some other artificial means to stop the meter from registering. To prevent fraud through this device, section 87 is amended to include holes made in the meter cover. It is intended that the amendments come into operation with immediate effect. Sir, I beg to move, Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have some observations on some clauses in the Bill. Sir, I see this Bill as another step forward towards privatising the PUB. By this, I am referring to clauses 2 and 3 of the Bill. Allowing the Board to form companies for the purpose of carrying out its functions and to decide on the remuneration and terms and conditions of employment for its employees are just two clear indications that the Government is preparing for the privatisation of the PUB. Sir, I welcome this idea so long as the end result of any privatisation exercise must be a more efficient use of our limited manpower, capital and land resources, so as to produce energy resources in the most cost effective manner. Ultimately, this exercise must benefit the general public and this could be in one or two forms. The public could benefit by becoming shareholders in the privatised company, or they could benefit, as consumers, by paying lower utility charges arising from whatever savings as a result of privatisation. Sir, notwithstanding this argument, the question in the minds of some members of the public is: will the PUB be out to maximise profits after privatisation? If so, they fear that the utility charges may increase instead of decrease, and they are, therefore, not in favour of privatisation. I have the following questions for the Minister: (a) When will the PUB be privatised? (b) In what form will the PUB be privatised, that is, will the public be invited to subscribe for shares? (c) Will the private sector be allowed to set up similar services to compete with the PUB, after the PUB has been privatised? (d) Will the Minister give the assurance that whatever cost savings that may arise from privatisation will be passed on to the consumers? Sir, I have one more observation and this pertains to clause 11. The Bill empowers the PUB to charge a penalty for late payment. While I think the intention for introducing this late payment charge is fair and is aimed at recalcitrant late payers, we must allow for consumers who are genuinely facing financial hardships. I would like to suggest that the PUB consider setting up an Appeal Committee, within the Board, to look into hardship cases, so that consumers who are facing financial difficulties are not unnecessarily burdened by these late payment charges.

Mr Speaker, Sir, clause 2 of the Bill amends section 14(6) and (7) so that approval of the Minister is no longer necessary for the Board to make rules relating to the appointment of employees, the remuneration of such employees and the terms and conditions of their appointment. My question is whether this applies to bonuses as well, and whether the Board can now decide on the year-end bonuses without the approval of the Minister.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Board has always had autonomy in deciding how much it needs to pay its employees to match the market rate, although it normally consults the Minister. This also extends to bonuses. I do not foresee that there will be any unilateral declaration of independence on the part ofany MTI statutory board in the immediate future. I come to Mr Chew Heng Ching's two points. First, on privatisation. He has asked a series of questions. I would say, just briefly, that PUB is still studying how best to privatise it. It is not the first statutory board which will do so - we have said that will be Telecom. Even that will take some time and PUB will only follow after we have had experience with Telecom. Because we are not in a hurry and we want to make sure, as Mr Chew says, that the public will benefit, firstly, as shareholders and, secondly, also as consumers. PUB has not completed its study yet. They have management consultants advising them. When they are ready, we will give a full explanation. If Mr Chew would care to file a question in a few months' time, I will give him a fuller answer. We are not privatising in order to increase utility charges. We have always maintained utility charges as low as possible, consistent with recovering cost and operating economically. This must continue after we have privatised. The hope, of course, is that by privatising, we will make PUB operate even more efficiently than they are now doing. Probably, there are some savings which are possible. If you ask PUB, because they have done a good job, they will tell you that it is not likely that these savings will be huge because, if there were, that would be an indictment of what the PUB is doing. The PUB has, in fact, been doing a very efficient job. If you compare our utility rates with other countries in the region even oil producing countries, they are very reasonable. Private sector participation in providing services. In the case of gas, I think that is possible because already PUB is competing with liquefied petroleum gas (LPG). And PUB thinks that it is unfair competition, unfair against them, because the LPG suppliers do not have to manufacture their product. It is just surplus waste from the oil refineries which is being bottled and then sold to consumers for slightly less than what PUB is charging for town gas. But that will continue. PUB has no monopoly of gas. For electricity, there is a certain economy of scale because there is one national grid and you cannot easily allow somebody else's power station to tap into the grid and supply electricity. The system is too small. If that single private power station misbehaves, the whole system may be brought down. So the scope for hiving off the electricity part is more limited. What is most important is that where a natural monopoly like that is established and privatised, there should be a proper regulatory control. If there is no control and the monopoly maximises profits, and creams off the consumers, this will lead to outrage and be totally unjustifiable. So one of the major issues PUB must study and come up with a satisfactory solution before it can become privatised is what is the form of this regulatory control. It must be fair both to the shareholders as well as to the public. Now the Government is a shareholder, the regulatory control is MTI. If PUB wants to make a drastic change to the rate structure, raise tariffs, or reduce tariffs, MTI has a final say, and the Government, as a shareholder, bears the consequences. But if there are private shareholders, then the Government cannot fairly say, "you hold down prices regardless," just because it is politically convenient to do so. We may cause the private shareholders to lose money on their investments. So there has to be a fair, objective, long-term, open basis for revising prices from time to time, and for deciding what is the fair rate of return, taking into consideration cost, fuel, improvements in productivity and cost of living. It is not a new problem. Electricity and utilities the world over, and especially the United States and Britain, are regulated more or less successfully. We have to find a model which will work for us. Finally, Mr Chew's separate point on the penalty for late payment. Here, I would point out that while PUB will consider all hardship cases sympathetically, it has a responsibility to the shareholders and, in fact, to the other consumers who pay up on time. It is not able to waive either the charges or the late payment charges for people who do not pay on time. To do that is to encourage everybody else also to pay up late and take advantage. However, it will consider cases sympathetically and make arrangements for customers with genuine difficulties to pay their PUB bills by instalments. I believe this is the same arrangement which many Town Councils are introducing.

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; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed." - [BG Lee Hsien Loong]. Adjourned accordingly at Eighteen minutes to Six o'clock pm to a date to be fixed. amendments - PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS BILL (Cols. 291 - 294) Copies of charts - Household Incomes, Cost of Living, Assets of HDB Households, Housing, Ownership of Consumer Durables, Some Social Indicators (Cols. 295 - 312) Appendix I

The following Bills were assented to by the President of the Republic of Singapore on the date stated: 6th August 1991 (i) Public Utilities (Amendment) Bill; (ii) Presidential Elections Bill; and (iii) Economic Expansion Incentives (Relief from Income Tax) (Amendment) Bill TAN SOO KHOON Speaker Parliament of Singapore