Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to thank the Members who have spoken. Quite a number of Members have commented on the provisions with regard to penalties. It would appear that most of them are more hawkish than me in this regard. But I would like them and, in particular, Dr Wang Kai Yuen who, at one end of the spectrum, wants the penalties under the Vandalism Act, including mandatory caning, to be imposed, and that also, through the process of interpretation, the courts will listen to what I say here and then they will say, "Well, the punishment must be caning." Of course, that cannot be done. I would like them to note that when crafting penalties in the Bill, we have got to bear in mind that, firstly, a certain amount of jurisdiction and discretion must be given to our courts. Secondly, we must bear in mind the circumstances which will present themselves to the courts in various cases will differ vastly, eg, age of the accused, cited by Dr Ho Tat Kin, whether there are mitigating circumstances, the entire context in which the offence took place, the motives, the intentions, the damage caused, and so on and so forth. And because the circumstances can be so varied, it is not desirable to straitjacket the Bill with a narrow or very heavy penalty and leave very little room for the courts to exercise jurisdiction, particularly in an area where we are charting a new territory in Singapore. We have, in fact, very few computer crimes prosecuted so far, as Dr Toh has mentioned. I think it is safe to say that there may be more which will come over the years ahead. But we should not assume that the types of cases will be so clear-cut and so stereotype that we can have a fixed penalty of a narrow nature or of a very heavy nature which does not allow the courts to have some discretion. But, in any case, I wish to point out to them that if you look at the penalties, do not just focus on the $2,000 fine because it may be possible for an accused person to pay up the fine. But there is a discretion vested in the courts to also inflict the penalty of a jail sentence which, I think, for any accused person, is very important, or a combination of both fine and jail. And there is a two-tier approach which has been taken in several other countries, for example, Switzerland and Australia, depending on the damage. So the penalties are not that light if you look at them in the way I have suggested. Some have commented quite correctly that computer crimes can result in invisible, intangible damage which cannot be quantified. That is true. But in so far as crafting offences is concerned, the courts will have to require proof and evidence to be adduced. And what is more easy and practical a measure is to have damage, which of course must mean physical damage. This is not to say that the victim of a computer crime who has suffered other kinds of damage, eg, loss of earning, loss of income, and so on, has no other remedy. He will still have remedies in civil law to bring about suit for damages in terms of earnings lost, income gone, and so on. So while I note the general sentiment for tougher penalties, there are these points which I would like them to note. Dr Arthur Beng also asked if there should not be a self-regulatory body for information technology. Actually, that is quite outside the scope of this Bill and I would not like to speak on behalf of the other Ministers who are in charge of the computer industry as a whole, like the Minister for Trade and Industry. I am sure he will take note of the comments. I would like to point out that it is not a single discipline kind of industry and, unlike doctors and lawyers, I do not think one needs to have a licence or professional registered qualification in order to write a computer program or to engage in a computer software business. But, nevertheless, I am sure my colleagues in the other Ministries will take note of the comments that he has made. Dr Ho Tat Kin asked if the sale of passwords, for example, will be considered as a preparatory act. I think it very much depends on the nature of the case. In some cases, it could very well be that the Police can make a case out that, in that particular set of circumstances, the sale of the passwords is an essential prior step to the commission of an offence, in which case, I have no doubt that the Police will treat it so and bring about a prosecution. He asked about the capability of the Police to enforce this Act, bearing in mind the complexities of the problem and the need for expertise. Let me say that the legislation will actually be enforced by the Commercial Crime Division (CCD) of the CID Department, which is a rather specialised investigative body. The CCD has investigators who are computer-literate and several of them are graduates who have completed university courses in programming and have computer-based information or systems knowledge. Several of them have been trained locally and overseas and particularly for the purpose of conducting computer crime investigations. I take his point that computer technology is complex and fast changing. Therefore, I have encouraged the CCD to adopt an approach of working with external computer experts depending on the nature of the case. I want to assure him that the CCD will have adequate qualified manpower resources to conduct computer crime investigations in the foreseeable future. Some foreign police forces, for example, the Scotland Yard in England, have created specialist units in their organisation to enforce such legislation. I am not sure whether it is necessary for us to do that at this stage because the volume of cases may not justify the establishment of such an unit. For the time being, I think the approach of having this specialised unit in the CCD is sufficient. As for minors, there are no special provisions here. Obviously, this will be one of the factors to be taken into account by the court in the imposition of the sentence which, incidentally, is another answer why you need to have a range of penalties as set out in the Bill. But I do not think that it is the intention of this Parliament that minors and teenagers should get away scot-free. As was pointed out, they can cause considerable damage and inconvenience as has happened in other countries. So they are obviously within the ambit of these provisions. Dr Toh Keng Kiat has made some specific points about the detailed drafting of the provisions. I do not think I can give chapter and verse here as to why on a particular provision we departed from the exact wording of the United Kingdom legislation. But in answer to him, let me say that when drafting this Bill it went through several stages. First, the Commercial Crime Division worked on it, then the Attorney-General's Chambers, and before final casting it was carefully studied by an expert committee known as the Law Reforms Sub-Committee of the Academy of Law, headed by the Dean of the Law Faculty. They not only looked at the United Kingdom legislation but also other legislation. When they looked at the legislation, they also looked at critiques of the other legislation and whatever experiences have taken place in that overseas country in the enforcement and implementation of their law. So I may not be able to give a specific answer to his detailed query, but to say that careful consideration has been given. In other words, it has not been blind copying or adoption of the foreign provisions. We have to amalgamate and take what we consider were the best provisions. We will have to see, in the light of experience, how these provisions work. I am sure that as the years go by we may need to fine-tune or improve these provisions. We are really creating here a novel legislation. We have to learn from the experiences of other countries. We hope that what we have put to Parliament is adequate. But if it is not adequate, we shall not hesitate to refine and modify the legislation in the light of experience, as other countries have done.